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-Hour 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 Standard 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 Not 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-Hour 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 Measures (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’s1

 detailed analysis of the air 

quality modeling and control measures in support of its actions to approve, under the Clean Air 

Act and EPA regulations, the San Joaquin Valley 1-hour ozone standard plan. 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 Control District (SVAPCD) adopted the “Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan” on October 8, 2004 and amended 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 82) 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 Resources 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 attainment 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 ozone and particulate matter in 

California and includes defined statewide control measures to be reflected in future SIPs and 

provisions specific to air quality plans for the San Joaquin Valley. On October 23, 2003, ARB 

adopted the “2003 State and Federal 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 with the revisions to that 

Strategy set forth in Attachment A. On January 9, 2004, ARB submitted the strategy to EPA. 

Letter from Catherine Witherspoon, 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 Progress 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 consideration certain commitments related to the South 

Coast Air Basin in the "Final 2003 State and Federal Strategy 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 James 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 2 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

 In this TSD, we refer to the two documents comprising the "Final State and Federal 

Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan" as the "2003 State Strategy”

 On August 21, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted “Clarifications Regarding the 2004 Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration 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) measures 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-hour 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 transport, 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 quality 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 standard and PM2.5 standards attainment plans. 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 all, 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 0.65 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 -8.56 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. Percentage may not sum to 100% because of rounding. 

B. The Transition to the 8-Hour Ozone Standard 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 standard 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 rejected retaining a 1-hour ozone standard: 

                                                            6

 The negative number here indicates that emissions increased in the source categories 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 sound 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 6 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

                                                                                                                                                                                               

 

For the reasons discussed above..., the Administrator 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 appropriate to provide adequate and more uniform protection of 

public health from both short-term (1 to 3 hours) 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 (April 30, 2004). Among other matters, the Phase 1 

rule revoked the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV area (as well as in most other areas of the 

country), effective June 15, 2005. See 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 identifying 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-backsliding 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 place. Although attainment of the 1-hour 

[ozone standard] would no longer be a goal, the provisions of section 51.905 

would retain the ROP obligations that would have been required under the 1-hour 

[ozone standard]. Furthermore, the provisions of section 51.905 also would retain 

an area’s obligation to either expeditiously complete the 1-hour attainment 

demonstration or obtain emissions reductions 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, “EPA Announces it Will Reconsider National Smog Standards,” 

September 16, 2009. 

8 The Phase 1 rule also identified several CAA requirements, 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 Columbia 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 Management 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 issues 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 these 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 largely 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 acting on here was developed to address the 

now-revoked 1-hour ozone standard, and 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 towards their attainment. We note that SJVAPCD 

and the State have developed and submitted plans to address the now-applicable 1997 8-hour 

ozone as well as the 1997 PM2.5 standards9

 and that these plans are based on the State’s latest 

on-road mobile source emissions model, EMFAC2007. 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 standards and and a revision to the 8-ozone standard 

expected next year. 10

II. Air Quality Modeling 

A. Introduction

This section provides a discussion of the modeling analysis provided in the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, October 

8, 2004. It discusses the adequacy of the analysis, and how the analysis meets EPA’s modeling 

requirements and performance goals. The ozone air 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 expeditiously 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 the 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 nonattainment 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 result 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 attainment 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 conducive to ozone formation in the San Joaquin 

Valley are selected. Second, a modeling platform, including photochemical model, domain, 

number of vertical layers, grid resolution, initial and boundary conditions, 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 simulated, 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 Demonstration. 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 availability and quality, 

model performance, availability of regional modeling analysis, pervasiveness, frequency with 

which observed meteorological conditions coincide 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 nitrogen, 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 Attainment 

Demonstrations, 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 available 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 the 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 episodes 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 was initially modeled by one the participating 

CCOS agencies or their contractors. Of the three CCOS episodes, the July 31- August 2, 2000 

episode was considered to be the most representative of the transport and formation of ozone in 

the San Joaquin Valley. The September 17-21 episode 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 CCOS 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 July 30-August 2, 2000 was determined to be a better candidate for 

the modeling exercise 

EPA believes that the extended episode from 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 intensive data collection period. 

2. Photochemical Modeling 

 CARB used the Comprehensive Air Quality 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 that 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 California/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 the 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 downwind boundary be sufficiently far from the 

CMSA/MSA that is the principal focus of the modeling study to ensure that emissions 

from the CMSA/MSA occurring 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 source areas and the adequacy of techniques 

used to characterize incoming precursor concentrations. Large upwind emission source 

areas should be included in the modeling domain to the extent practicable. Also, if large 

uncertainty is anticipated for the domain 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 the 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 photochemical modeling exercise in the plan is 

4 kilometers (km) by 4km. 

 EPA recommends that the size of the horizontal 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 densities in urban areas, particularly those resulting from large 

point sources and major terrain or water 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 Valley modeling exercise consists 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 three 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 structure 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 for 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 measurements 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 provide 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 provided information to develop initial and 

boundary conditions for ozone, NO, NO2 and speciated hydrocarbons. 

The top boundary concentrations developed for the domain were based on the clean 

profile defined by EPA guidance, with the exception 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 base 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, described above, meets the objectives of the EPA 

enhanced ozone monitoring system. 

8. Base year Model Performance Evaluation 

 Model performance was evaluated for nine 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 mathematical formulations be applied as 

measures for model performance evaluation: 

Unpaired highest prediction accuracy – The measure quantifies the difference between 

the highest observed value and highest predicted 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 available monitoring and modeled data re most 

likely to represent similar spatial scales. 

Gross error of all pairs above 60 ppb- In conjunction 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 error can be interpreted as precision. 

 EPA guidance recommends that the statistical 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 criteria is shown for Fresno and Bakersfield, 

below, for the CAMx/CB4 and CAMx/SAPRC99f. 

 Model performance with CAMx /CB4 is shown for Fresno in Table 3: Fresno Model 

Performance, below, and Bakersfield in Table 4: Bakersfield Model 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, and Bakersfield in Table 6: Bakersfield Model 

Performance – CAMx /SAPRC99f. EPA performance 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 the 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 performance criteria for the one hour 

ozone standard, and is acceptable. 

9. Base Case Sensitivity to Natural Sources 

 Several simulations were conducted to determine 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 scenarios 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 these changes is shown for the modeling results in 

Bakersfield in Table 7: Sensitivity of ozone values 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 simulation are up to 7% less in the Bakersfield area, 

compared to ozone levels in the base case, indicating 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 ozone formation in the San Joaquin 

Valley were selected. The modeling platform, including photochemical model, domain, number 

of vertical layers, and initial 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 analysis 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 Areas that Rely on Weight-of-Evidence for 

Attainment Demonstrations, Mid-Course Review Guidance (March 28, 2002); 

Guidance for Improving Weight-of-Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission 

Reduction Not Modeled (November 1999). 

“Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed 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 divided 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 prior to September, 2002 (i.e., prior 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 cite). Finally, control strategy measures are the 

new rules, rule revisions, and commitments that provide the additional 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 rules in Table 8. We have also provided 

information on each rule’s most recent adoption/revision 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 interim rules or, if not the revision, the last revision of the rule 

adopted prior to October 2004. 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 19 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4103 Open Burning 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 5/17/2007 74 FR 57907 (11/10/09) x x 4104 Reduction of Animal Matter 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) x 4106 Prescribed Burning 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 6/21/2001 67 FR 8894 (2/27/02) x 4301 Fuel Burning Equipment 5/21/1992 5/21/1992 5/21/1992 64 FR 26876 (5/18/1999) x 4302 Incinerator Burning 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) x 4303 Orchard Heaters 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 64 FR 45170 (8/19/1999) x 4304 

Equipment Turning Procedures for Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

10/19/1995 10/19/1995 10/19/1995 66 FR 57666 (11/16/01) x 

4305 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 2 

8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) x 

4306 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - Phase 3 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 9/18/2003 10/16/2008 

69 FR 28061 

(5/18/04) 

NPR: 74 FR 

41104 (9/14/09) 

x 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 20 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4307 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 2.0 MM BTU/hr to 5.0 MMBTU/hr 

10/16/2008 10/16/2008 

4/20/2006 

10/16/2008 

(proposal) 

72 FR 29887 

(5/30/07) 

NPR: 74 FR 

41104 (9/14/09) 

x 

4308 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - 0.75 MM BTU/hr to 2.0 MMBTU/hr 

10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) x 

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators and Ovens 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) x 4311 Flares 6/15/2006 6/15/2006 

6/20/2002 

6/15/2006 

(proposal) 

68 FR 8835 

(2/26/03) 

NPR: 72 FR 

65283 

(11/20/07) 

x 

4313 Lime Kilns 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 3/27/2003 68 FR 52510 (9/4/2003) x 4320 

Advanced Emission Reduction Option for Boilers 

10/16/2008 N/A N/A N/A 

4351 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters - RACT 

8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) x 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 21 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4352 

Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters 

5/18/2006 5/18/2006 5/18/2006 (proposed) NPR: 74 FR 65042 (12/9/2009) x 

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces 10/16/2008 8/17/2006 8/17/2006 72 FR 41894 (8/01/07) 4401 

Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells 

12/14/2006 12/14/2006 12/14/2006 NFR signed (12/11/09) x x 

4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) x 4403 

Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) 

4404 Heavy Oil Test Station -- Kern 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) x 4405 

Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions from Existing Steam Generators (Central and Western Kern County) 

1992 not submitted not submitted N/A 

4407 In-situ Combustion Well Vents 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 5/19/1994 60 FR 12121 (3/6/95) x 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 22 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4408 Glycol Dehydration Systems 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 12/19/2002 68 FR 51187 (8/26/03) x 4409 

Components at Light Crude Oil or Gases at Light Crude Oil and Gas Production 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) x 

4451 

Valves, Pressure Relief Valves, Flanges, Threaded Connections and Process Drains at Petroleum Refineries and Chemical Plants 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) 

4452 

Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum Refiners 

4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14653 (3/23/06) expired 4/20/06 reduc

incorporated into Rule 

4453 

Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) x 

4454 Refinery Process Turnaround 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 48 (1/02/08) x 4455 Components at Refineries 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 4/20/2005 71 FR 14652 (3/23/06) x 4501 Alternate Compliance for BARCT 1999 1999 N/A no action 4550 Conservation Management Practices 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 8/19/2004 71 FR 7683 (2/14/06) 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 23 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4565 

Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations 

3/15/2007 3/15/2007 N/A x 

4570 Confined Animal Facilities 6/15/2006 6/15/2006 6/15/2006 (proposed) NFR signed: 12/11/09 x 4601 Architectural Coatings 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 10/31/2001 69 FR 34 (1/02/04) x 4602 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations 

9/21/2006 12/20/2001 12/20/2001 67 FR 42999 (6/26/02) expired 12/31/08 - replac

Rule 4612 

4603 

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products 

10/16/2008 

(2007) 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 NFR signed: 12/3/09 x x 

4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/07 NFR signed: 12/3/09 x x 4605 

Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 NFR signed: 12/11/09 x x 

4606 Wood Products Coating Operations 10/16/2008 (2007) 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) x x 4607 Graphic Arts 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 10/16/2008 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) x x 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 24 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4610 Glass Coating Operations 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 4/17/2003 69 FR 60962 (10/14/04) x 4612 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations -- Phase 2 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 NFR signed: 12/3/09 x 

4621 

Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers 

12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 33397 (7/13/09) x x 

4622 Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicles 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 33397 (7/13/09) x 4623 Storage of Organic Liquids 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 5/19/2005 70 FR 53937 (9/13/05) x 4624 Transfer of Organic Liquids 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) x 4625 Wastewater Separators 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 49 (1/2/08) x 4641 

Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt Paving and Maintenance Operations 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 49 (1/2/08) x 

4642 Solid Waste Disposal Site 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 4/16/1998 66 FR 38939 (7/26/01) x 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 25 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4651 Soil Decontamination Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) x x 4652 Coatings and Ink Manufacturing 1992 not submitted N/A N/A 4653 Adhesives 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 52894 (10/15/09) x x 4661 Organic Solvents 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 5/16/2002 68 FR 54167 (9/16/03) x 4662 

Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) x x 

4663 

Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 37948 (7/30/09) x x 

4672 

Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaning Operations 

12/17/1992 12/17/1992 12/17/1992 73 FR 48 (1/2/08) x 

4681 Rubber Tire Manufacturing 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 12/16/1993 63 FR 43881 (8/17/98) x 4682 

Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing 

9/20/2007 9/20/2007 6/16/1994 60 FR 31086 (6/13/95) x x 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 26 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

4684 Polyester Resin Operations 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/07 NFR signed 12/11/09 x x 

4691 

(461.02) 

Vegetable Oil Processing Operations 4/11/1991 4/11/1991 4/11/1991 59 FR 2535 (1/18/94) x 

4692 Commercial Charbroiling 3/21/2002 3/21/2002 3/21/2002 68 FR 33005 (6/03/03) x 4693 Bakery Ovens 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 69 FR 22441 (4/26/04) x 4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 N/A no action x 4695 Brandy and Wine Aging 2009 N/A N/A N/A 4701 I/C Engines - Phase 1 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 8/21/2003 69 FR 28061 (5/18/04) 4702 I/C Engines - Phase 2 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 1/18/2007 73 FR 1819 (1/10/08) 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 9/20/2007 74 FR 53888 (10/21/09) x 4902 Residential Water Heaters 6/17/1993 6/17/1993 6/17/1993 69 FR 7370 (2/17/04) x 4905 

Natural Gas-fired, fantype, residential central furnaces 

10/20/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005 72 FR 29886 (5/30/07) 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 27 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Table 8 

Status and Allocation of San Joaquin Valle

y Rules 

December 11, 2009

Rule No. Rule 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Adopted/ 

Revised 

Date of Most 

Recent Rule 

Submitted 

Date of 

Most Recent 

Rule 

Approved 

Federal Register 

Cite 

Pre2002 

Baseline 

2002-

2004 

Interim 

1-Hr 

VOC 

 3170 

 Federally-Mandate Ozone Nonattainment Fees 

5/16/02 5/16/02 5/16/02 NFR signed 121/1/09 

9310 School Bus 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 9/21/2006 NFR signed 12/11/09 9510 Indirect Source Review 12/15/2005 12/15/2005 N/A N/A 
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 adopted 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 still 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). The 2004 Plan does not rely on reductions from the 

DPR rule. The list also does not include the State’s inspection and 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 products 
Technical 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 and Clean Fuels. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1904, 1956.8, 1960.1, 1960.1.5, 1960.5 

and 2111, 2112, 2125, and 2139, 2061. 

09/28/90 On-road 

Identification of Trichloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/11/90 Not applicable 

Phase I - Consumer Products. T 17, CCR, 94507-

94517 10/11/90 Consumer products 

Controls for Abrasive Blasting. T 17, CCR, 92000, 

92200, 92400, 98500, 98510, 92520, 92530 11/08/90 Not applicable 

Heavy Duty Diesel Smoke Emission Testing. T 13, 

CCR, 2180-2187 11/08/90 On-road 

Revision to Designation Criteria. T 17, CCR, 

60200-60204, 60208 11/08/90 Not applicable 

Identification of Vinyl Chloride as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 11/13/90 Not applicable 

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

seq. 

12/13/90 Not applicable 
Technical 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 Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60075.1, 60075.47 05/09/91 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, & 

26, CCR, 90700 - 90705 06/13/91 Not applicable 

Agricultural Burning Guidelines. T 17, 80130, 

80150, 80250, 80260, 80290 07/11/91 Not applicable 

Identification of Metallic & Inorganic Nickel 

Compounds as a Toxic Air Contaminant. T 17, & 

26, 93000 

08/08/91 Not applicable 

Onboard Diagnostics for Light-Duty Trucks and 

Light & Medium-Duty Motor Vehicles. T 13, CCR, 

1977, 1968.1 

09/12/91 On-road 

Identification of Perchloroethylene as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, & 26, CCR, 93000 10/10/91 Not applicable 

State Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO2. T 17, 

CCR, 70100, 70200, 70201 10/10/91 Not applicable 

Onboard Diagnostic, Phase II. T 13, CCR, 1968.1, 

1977 11/12/91 On-road 

Area Designations. T 17, CCR, 60200, 60209 11/14/91 Not applicable 

Low Emission Vehicles amendments revising 

reactivity adjustment factor (RAF) provisions and 

adopting a RAF for M85 transitional low emission 

vehicles. T 13, CCR, 1960.1 

11/14/91 On-road 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, 

CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Fuels 

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 Fuels 

Specifications for Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuel. 

T 13, & 26, CCR, 2290, 2291, 2292.1, 2292.2, 

2292.3, 2292.5, 2292.6, 2292.7, 1960.1(k), 

1956.8(b), 1956.8(d) 

12/12/91 Fuels 
Technical 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-road 
Technical 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 applicable 
Technical 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 Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels 

(M100). T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 Fuels 

Aerosol Coating Products and Alternative Control 

Plan. T 17, CCR, 94520-94528, 94540-94543, 

94547... 

03/23/95 Consumer products 

Permit Fee Regulations for Non-vehicular Sources. 

T 17, CCR, 90800.6, 90803 04/27/95 Not applicable 

Employee-Based Trip Reductions Emission 

Formula. T 13, CCR, 2330, 2331, 2332 06/29/95 Not applicable 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94010-94015, 94150-94160, 94000-94004, 94007. 06/29/95 Vapor Recovery 

Heavy Duty Vehicle Exhaust Emission Standards. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporate test procedures. 06/29/95 On-road 

Onboard Refueling Vapor Recovery Standards. T 

13, CCR, 1976, 1978 and incorporate test 

procedures 

06/29/95 On-road 

Test Method for Oxygen in Gasoline. T 13, CCR, 

2251.5(c), 2258(c), 2263(b) 06/29/95 Fuels 

Retrofit Emission Standards. T 13, CCR, 1956.9, 

2030, 2031, and incorporate test procedures 07/27/95 On-road 
Technical 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-road 
Technical 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 products 
Technical 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-road 
Technical 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 - LVP-VOC Definitions And 

Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 

94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the 

amendment of ARB Method 310 

11/19/98 Consumer products 

Consumer Products, Aerosol Coatings & 

Antiperspirants and Deodorants. T 17, CCR, 

94501, 94508, 94521, 94522, and 94524 

11/19/98 Consumer products 

1997 & Later Model Off-Highway Recreational 

Vehicles and Engines. T 13, CCR, 2410-2414, 

2415 

12/10/98 Off-road 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 2001 

Marine Engines. T 13, CCR, 2440 et seq 12/10/98 Off-road 

Exhaust Standards for (On-Road) Motorcycles. T 

13, CCR, 1958 12/10/98 On-road 

Revisions to Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Off-road 

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2600-2610 12/10/98 On-road 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline (Increasing the Oxygen 

Content). T 13, CCR, sections 2262.5(b) and 

2265(a)(2) 

12/11/98 Fuels 

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum Gas Used as a 

Motor Vehicle Fuel. T 13, CCR, 2292.6 12/11/98 Fuels 

Cleaner Burning Gasoline, Oxygen Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump 

Labeling for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273 

06/24/99 Fuels 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17, CCR, 

94011, 94153, 94155, and incorporated test 

procedures, CP-201, TP- 201.4, and TP-201.6 

06/24/99 Vapor Recovery 

Clean Fuels Regulation Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

sections 2300-2317, and 2303.5, 2311.5 07/22/99 On-road 

Portable Container Spillage Control Measure. T 13, 

CCR, 2470-2478 09/23/99 Off-road 

Administrative Hearing Procedures. T 17, CCR, 

60040 and 60075.1-60075.45 10/22/99 Not applicable 

California Consumer Products Regulation MidTerm Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 

94513 

10/28/99 Consumer products 

Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/18/99 Not applicable 
Technical 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, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 

170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 

80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 

80320, 80330 

03/23/00 Not applicable 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

(Emergency Filing CP-201, section 18). T 17, 

CCR, 94011 

03/23/00 Vapor Recovery 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems (In 

Station Diagnostics and Onboard Refueling Vapor 

Recovery). T 17, CCR, 94011 

03/23/00 Vapor Recovery 

Air Toxic Control Measure for Chlorinated Toxic 

Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance 

and Repair Facilities. T 17, CCR, 93111 

04/27/00 Other 

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control 

Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Consumer products 

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 

94700, 94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Consumer products 

Air Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos Containing 

Serpentine. T 17, CCR, 93106 07/20/00 Not applicable 

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

95002, 95005, and subchapter 9 09/28/00 Not applicable 

Rice Straw Conditional Burn Permit Program. T 

17, CCR, 80101, 80156-80158 09/28/00 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 90705 tables 1, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c, and 4 10/26/00 Not applicable 

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Consumer products 

Area Designations for the State Ambient Air 

Quality Standard for Ozone. T 17, CCR, 60201 11/16/00 Not applicable 
Technical 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 Engines "Not-to-Exceed (NTE)" 

Test Procedures. T 13 CCR, 1956.8, 2065 12/07/00 On-road 

Light-and Medium Duty Low Emission Vehicle 

Alignment with Federal Standards. Exhaust 

Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Gas Engines. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.8 &1961 

12/07/00 On-road 

Zero Emission Vehicle Regulation Update. T 13, 

CCR, 1900, 1960.1(k), 1961, 1962 & incorporated 

Test Procedure 

01/25/01 On-road 

Ozone Transport Assessment. T 17, CCR, 70500 & 

70600 04/26/01 Not applicable 

Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure and 

Standardization of Electric Vehicle Charging 

Equipment. T 13, CCR, 1900(b), 1962(b) 1962.1 

06/28/01 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos from 

Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface 

Mining. T 17, CCR, 93105 

07/26/01 Not applicable 

Marine Inboard Engines. T 13, CCR, 2111, 2112, 

2139, 2140, 2147, 2440-2442, 2443.1-2443.3, 2444, 

2445.1, 2445.2, 2446, 2444.2 and incorporation of 

documents by reference 

07/26/01 Off-road 

Air Toxic Control Measures for Auto and Mobile 

Equip Refinishing Coatings containing Hexavalent 

Chromium and Cadmium Compounds. T 17, CCR, 

93112 

09/20/01 Not applicable 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Fee Regulation. T 17, 

CCR, 90700-90705 10/25/01 Not applicable 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Methods 

and Compliance Procedures. T 17, CCR, 94010, 

94011, 94153, 94155, 94163, 94164, 94165 & 

incorporated procedures 

10/25/01 Vapor Recovery 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards for 2007 and 

Later. T 13, CCR, 1956.8 and incorporated test 

procedures 

10/25/01 On-road 

Distributed Generation Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 Other 
Technical 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 Service Information Rule. 

T 13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 Other 

Voluntary Accelerated Light Duty Vehicle 

Retirement Regulations. T 13, CCR, 2601-2605, 

2606 & appendices C & D, and 2607-2610 

02/21/02 On-road 

On-Board Diagnostic II Review Amendments. T 

13, CCR, 1968.1, 1968.2, 1968.5 04/25/02 On-road 

Diesel Retrofit Verification Procedure, Warranty 

and In-Use Compliance Requirements. T 13, CCR, 

2700-2710 

05/16/02 On-road 

Review of California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Particulate Matter and Sulfates. T 17, 

CCR, 70100,70200, and 70100.1 

06/20/02 Not applicable 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments. T 13, CCR, 2261, 

2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 2266.5, 2269, 

2271, 2272, 2265, and 2296 

07/25/02 Fuels 

Revision to Transit Bus Regulations Amendments. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.4,1956.8, and 

2112, & documents incorporated by reference 

10/24/02 On-road 

Administrative Civil Penalties Program. T 17, 

CCR, 60065.1 - 60065.45 and 60075.1 - 60075.45 12/12/02 Not applicable 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate from School Bus Idling. T13, CCR, 

2480 

12/12/02 On-road 

CaRFG Phase 3 Amendments (specifications for De 

Minimus Levels of Oxygenates and MTBE Phase 

Out Issues). T 13, CCR, 2261, 2262.6, 2263, 

2266.5, 2272, 2273, 2260, 2273.5 

12/12/02 Fuels 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems Test Procedures. 

T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94163, 94164, and 

94165 and procedures incorporated by reference, 

and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 

12/12/02 Vapor Recovery 
Technical 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-road 
Technical 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 Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program (PERP) Regulations . T 13, 

CCR Amendments to 2450-2465, and repeal of 

2466 

02/26/04 Off-road 

Heavy Duty Diesel Engine-Chip Reflash. T 13, 

CCR, 2011, 2180.1, 2181, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2192, 

and 2194 

03/27/04 On-road 

Engine Manufacturer Diagnostic System 

Requirements for 2007 and Subsequent Model 

Heavy Duty Engines. T 13, CCR, 1971 

05/20/04 On-road 

Consumer Products & Methods 310/ATCM for 

Para-Dicholorobenzene. T 17, CCR, 94501, 

94506, 94507, 94508, 94509, 94510, 94512, 94513, 

94515, and 94526, and ARB Method 310, which is 

incorporated by reference 

06/24/04 Consumer products 

Urban Bus Engines/Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. 

T 13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, 1956.3, and 1956.4, 06/24/04 On-road 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Diesel 

Particulate from Diesel Fueled Commercial Vehicle 

Idling. T 13, CCR, 2485 

07/22/04 On-road 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 Vapor Recovery 

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, 

CCR, 94011 

07/22/04 Vapor Recovery 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated 

document 

08/24/04 Vapor Recovery 

Greenhouse Gas. T 13, CCR, 1961.1, 1900, 1961 

and Incorporated Test Procedures 09/23/04 On-road 

California Reformulated Gasoline, Phase 3. T 13, 

CCR, 2260, 2262, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.9, 

2263, 2265 (and the incorporated “California 

Procedures”), and 2266.5 

11/18/04 Fuels 

Diesel Fuel Standards for Harborcraft & 

Locomotives. T 13, CCR, 2299, 2281, 2282, and 

2284, and T 17, CCR, 93117 

11/18/04 Fuels 
Technical 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 System Requirements for 

2010 and Subsequent Model-Year Heavy-Duty 

Engines (HD OBD). T 13, CCR, 1971.1 

07/21/05 On-road 

Reid Vapor Pressure Limit. Emergency Rule. T 

13, CCR, 2262 and 2262.4 08/08/05 Fuels 

2007-2009 Model-Year Heavy Duty Urban Bus 

Engines and the Fleet Rule for Transit Agencies. T 

13, CCR, 1956.1, 1956.2, and 1956.8 

09/15/05 On-road 

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 2 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR 2467.2, 2467.3, 2467.4, 2467.5, 2467.6, 

2467.7; repeal of 2467.8, and adoption of new 

2467.8 and 2467.9. 

09/15/05 Off road 

Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) [Part 1 of 2]. T 13, 

CCR, 2467 and 2467.1 09/15/05 Off road 

Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from 

New and In-Use Trucks, Beginning in 2008. T 13, 

CCR section1956.8 and the incorporated document 

10/20/05 On-road 
Technical 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 Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, 

CCR, 93118 

12/08/05 Off-road 

Diesel Particulate Matter Control Measure for OnRoad Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Vehicles Owned 

or Operated by Public Agencies and Utilities. T 13, 

CCR, 2022 and 2022.1 

12/08/05 On-road 

Mobile Cargo Handling Equipment at Ports and 

Intermodal Rail Yards. T 13, CCR, 2479 12/08/05 Off-road 

AB1009 Heavy-Duty Vehicle Smoke Inspection 

Program. T 13, CCR, 2180, 2180.1, 2181, 2182, 

2183, 2184, 2185, 2186, 2187, and 2188, 2189 

01/26/06 On-road 

Identification of Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air 

Contaminant. T 17, CCR, 93000 01/26/06 Not applicable 

Diesel Verification Procedure, Warranty & In-Use. 

T 13, CCR, 2702, 2703, 2704, 2706, 2707, and 

2709. 

03/23/06 On-road 

Technical Amendments to Evaporative Exhaust and 

Evaporative Emissions Test Procedures. T 13, 

CCR, 1961,1976 and 1978. 

05/25/06 On-road 

Fork Lifts and Other Industrial Equipment. (Large 

Off-Road Spark Ignition Engines > 1 liter) T 13, 

CCR 2430, 2433, 2434. Adopt 2775, 2775.1, 

2775.2, 2780, 2781, 2783, 2784, 2785, 2786, 2787, 

2788, and 2789. 

05/26/06 Off-road 

California Motor Vehicle Service Information Rule. 

T 13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 On-road 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 

94011 and incorporated certification 

06/22/06 Vapor Recovery 

Portable Equipment Registration Program. T 13, 

CCR, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2454, 2455, 2456, 

2457, 2458, 2459, 2460, 2461, 2462, 2463, 2464, 

and 2465 

06/22/06 Off-road 

Off-Highway Recreational Vehicles and Engines. T 

13, CCR, 2411-2413, 2415 & documents 

incorporated by reference 

07/20/06 Off-road 
Technical 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 Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94201, 94201.1, 94203, 94204, & 

94207-942142 

10/19/06 Other 

Zero Emission Bus Regulation. T13, CCR, 2023.1, 

2023.3, & 2023.4 10/19/06 On-road 

Air Toxics "Hot Spots" 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 incorporated therein 

03/22/07 On-road 
Technical 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 12/06/07 
Technical 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 the 

Passenger 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, 95304, 95305, 95306, 95307, 

95308, 95309, 95310, 95311, and 95312. 

12/11/08 On-road 

Truck / Bus Regulation 2008 12/11/08 On-road 
Technical 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 adopted by ARB since late 1989 do not affect 

ozone-precursor emissions in the San Joaquin Valley. These types of measures include fee rules, 

identification of toxic air contaminants, area boundary designations, and controls for pollutants 

other than 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 measure 
Technical 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 Trichloroethylene 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 Procedures. 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 

measure 
Technical 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 

measure 
Technical 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 applicable 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 

measure 
Technical 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, 80150, 80155, 80160, 80T 

170, 80180, 80200, 80210, 80230, 80240, 80250, 

80260, 80270, 80280, 80290, 80300, 80310, 80311, 

80320, 80330 

03/23/00 Not an 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 measure 
Technical 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 measure 
Technical 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 these 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. 

Expired 
Technical 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 Gasoline, Phase II. T 13, 

CCR, 2250, 2255.1, 2252, 2260 - 2272, 2295 11/21/91 Approved 60 FR 43379 (8/21/95) 

Wintertime Gasoline Program. T 13, CCR, 2258, 

2298, 2251.5, 2296 11/21/91 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 Requirement for 

Wintertime In Lake Tahoe Area/Gas Pump Labeling 

for MTBE. T 13, CCR, 2262.5, and 2273 

06/24/99 Not applicable to the SJV 

area/Obsolete 
Technical 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 

reductions 
Technical 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 Alternative Motor Vehicle Fuels 

(M100). T 13 CCR, 2292.1 12/08/94 No identifiable emission reductions 

 

Specifications for Liquid Petroleum 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 content of consumer products for 20 years and 

continues to tighten standards 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 - LVP-VOC Definitions And 

Test Methods. T 17, CCR, 94506, 94506.5, 

94508(a)(78), 94515 and 94526, and the 

amendment of ARB Method 310 

11/19/98 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule for test 

method 310 and 11/17/06 rule for rest.

California Consumer Products Regulation MidTerm Measures II. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, and 

94513 

10/28/99 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Consumer Products Aerosol Adhesives Control 

Measure. T 17, CCR, 94508, 94509, 94512, 94513 05/25/00 Superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Aerosol (Paint) Coatings Products. T 17, CCR, 

94700, 94701, 94521-94524, 94526 06/22/00 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule 

Antiperspirant and Deodorant Regulations. T 17, 

CCR, 94502, 94504 10/26/00 Superseded by 6/24/04 rule 

Revised Tables of Maximum Incremental Reactivity 

Values. T 1, CCR, 94700. 12/03/03 Approved 9/13/05 70 FR 53920; superseded by 11/17/06 rule 
Technical 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, 94509, 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 Safety Code Sections 41954), ARB is required to 

adopt procedures and performance standards for controlling gasoline emissions from gasoline 

marketing operations, including transfer and storage operations. State law also authorizes ARB, 

in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor recovery systems, identify defective equipment, and 

develop test methods. The installation and operation 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 

06/24/99 
Technical 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 incorporated by reference, 

and 94166, 94167, and incorporation by reference. 

12/12/02 

Unihose Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T17, 

CCR, 94011 07/22/04 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems at Dispensing 

Facilities. Emergency Filing. T 17, CCR, 94011 07/22/04 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006(b) & incorporated 

document 

08/24/04 

Enhanced Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems 

Extension. T 17, CCR, 94011 and certification 

procedure 

11/18/04 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery Systems. T 17 CCR 

94011 and incorporated certification 06/22/06 

Vapor Recovery Aboveground Storage Tanks 

(AST). T 17, CCR, 94010, 94011, 94016 and 

94168 and incorporated documents 

06/21/07 

Gasoline Vapor Recovery System Equipment 

Defects List. T 17, CCR, 94006 N/A 
Technical 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 provisions 
Technical 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 Standards 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 Engines "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 Electric 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 Service Information Rule. T 

13&17, CCR, 1969 & 60060.1 - 60060.7 12/13/01 

Compliance provision. Very 

similar to EPA regulations at 40 

CFR 86.1808.01 
Technical 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, 6/29/0912

Airborne 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 Commercial 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-Fueled 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 retrofit 

technology, 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 Service Information Rule. T 

13, CCR, 1969 and incorporated documents 06/22/06 

Compliance provision. Very 

similar to EPA regulations at 40 

CFR 86.1808.01 

On-Board Diagnostic II. T 13, CCR, 1968.2, 1968.5, 

2035, 2037 and 2038 09/28/06 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 incorporated 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 retrofit 

technology, 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, 95304, 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 Vehicles 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 requested 
Technical 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 Statewide Portable Equipment 

Registration Program. T 13, CCR, 2450-2463 12/10/98 Waiver requested 12/5/2008. 

Modifications to the Statewide 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. 40 
Technical 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 Ocean-Going Vessels within 

California Waters and 24 Nautical Miles of the 

California Baseline. T 13, CCR, 2299.1 and T 17, 

CCR, 93118 

12/08/05 No 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 Guidelines and Regulations. 

T 17, CCR, 94200-94214 11/15/01 

Minimal impact, few units 

certified. See ISOR for 9/28/06 

rule amendment 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Outdoor 

Residential Waste Burning. T 17, CCR, 93113 02/21/02 

Regulated by Rules 4103 & 

4106. Rule 4103 (revised 

5/19/05), 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 Guidelines 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 SIP
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 74 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM) including reasonably 

available control technology (RACT). 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 interpreting the RACM requirement in the 

General Preamble at 13560 and a memorandum entitled “Guidance on the Reasonably Available 

Control Measure Requirement and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone 

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

1999 (Seitz memo). In summary, EPA guidance provides that states, 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 Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) documents 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 source 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 requirements under the Phase 1 rule. ' 51.905(a)(1)(i) and ' 

51.900(f)(1), (3) and (12). 

 To determine which measures would be feasible for the SJV, the District looked at 

measures implemented in other areas (including the South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco 

Bay Area, and the Houston-Galveston area), documents produced by ARB, as well as measures 

suggested by the public at local workshops. The District 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 remaining measures were evaluated using baseline 

inventories, available control technologies, and potential emission reductions as well as whether 

the measure could be implemented on a schedule that would contribute to attainment of the 1-

hour ozone standard by the 2010 deadline. 2004 SIP, section 4.2.1. 

 Based on this evaluation, the District developed an expeditious rule adoption schedule 

listing 21 measures involving adoption of eight new rules and revisions to over 20 existing rules. 

2004 SIP, Table 4-1. Since submittal of the SIP in 2004, the District has completed action on 

these rules and submitted them to EPA for approval. 2008 Clarifications, Table 1 and Table 2 

below. 

In addition to the District’s efforts, the eight 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 government 
Technical 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 justifications for any 

measures that they did not adopt. See 2004 SIP, Appendix C. 

 The 2004 SIP relies on the 2003 State Strategy to address mobile and area source 

categories not under the District’s jurisdiction. 2004 SIP, section 4.7. Table I-1 in the 2003 

State Strategy shows the impressive list of both mobile and area source 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 proposed new State measures, most of which 

have already been adopted.13 This list of new State measures 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 discussing the RACT obligation and specific 

source categories where further analysis and potential future controls may be required in order to 

ensure that RACT levels of control 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 stringent degree of control to sources with relatively 

low levels of emissions. 

The State has since formally withdrawn the 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 implementation plan (FIP) clocks under CAA sections 179(a) 

and 110(c). 74 FR 3442. 

On June 17, 2009, California submitted a revised 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 assure that the rules cover sources in the SJV 

down to the extreme area major source threshold of 10 tpy. See letter from 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 analyses. 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 the 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 District’s and California’s adopted rules and 

commitments to adopt and implement controls provide 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 District 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 section 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 sufficient reasonably available control measure to 

compensate for the increment of additional reductions generated by baseline measures between 

2009 and 2010, plus any increment of reductions generated 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 reductions, we looked to the baseline emission 

inventory in the 2004 SIP for 2008 and 2010 (2004 SIP, Table 3-1), calculated the difference 

between these two years and divided this number by two to determine the annual rate of 

inventory change between 2008 and 2010. This calculation gives us the low end of the range of 

emission reductions needed to advance attainment 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 standards 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 summarize 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 3.3 
Technical 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 that the SJV 1-hour plan has addressed RACM 

for all non-RACT emission categories, we now look to see if application of RACT to major 

sources and other source categories that require RACT would provide the additional reductions 

needed to advance attainment. 

In order to advance attainment, substantial reductions are needed from both VOC and

NOx sources. Hence, if sufficient reductions from 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 reductions 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 stringent 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 additional reductions from further strengthening 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 tightening 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 (Rule 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 level 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 additional VOC reductions that may be achieved from 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 78 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

the District rules assuming the current rules do not meet RACT. We can, however, conclude that 

there are not reasonably available control measures, including RACT, that can advance 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard 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 

NPR 

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 RACT 
Technical 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: 2.83 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 82 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

VI. Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Actions 

List of Comment Letters Received

 We received six comment letters in response 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, Legal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment, August 31, 2009, “Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Extreme Area Plan for 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 Rodriguez, South Shafter Project Committee; Jesus 

Jaime, President, Shafter Chapter 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; Lisa Kayser-Grant, Moms Clean Air Network; 

Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del 

Ambiente Sano; and Sarah Sharpe, Environmental Health Director, Fresno Metro Ministries. 

2. [CRPE or the Center] Johannes Epke, Legal Intern, Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment, August 31, 2009, “Comments on Revisions to the California State Implementation 

Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (Docket 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, Legal Director, Center for Race, Poverty & 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 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 for a Change in Tooleville; Maria Covarruvias, 

Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano; and Sarah 

Sharpe, Environmental Health Director, Fresno Metro Ministries. 

3. [CRPE or the Center] Johannes Epke, Legal Intern, Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment, August 31, 2009, “Comments on EPA Proposed Approval of California RFG and 

Diesel Fuel Regulations (Docket 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, Poverty & 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 of 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 83 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 for a 

Change in Tooleville; and Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes 

Organizados al Servicio del Ambiente Sano. 

4. [Earthjustice]. Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, 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 Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, Fresno Metro 

Ministries, and the Coalition for Clean Air. 

5. [SJVAPCD]. Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, August 27, 

2009, “Comments on Docket Numbers EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0492, EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0693, 

and EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0475” 

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

7. [CRPE or the Center] Brent Newell, Legal Director, Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment, November 2, 2009, Comments on Approval and Promulgation of Implementation 

Plans: 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Contingency Measures for the 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 Rodriguez, South Shafter Project 

Committee; Jesus Jaime, President, Shafter Chapter 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; Lisa Kayser-Grant, Moms Clean Air Network and 

Maria Covarruvias, Secretary Treasurer, Comité Residentes Organizados al Servicio del 

Ambiente Sano. 

8. [Earthjustice] Paul Cort, Staff Attorney, and 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 sources of the relevant pollutant 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 emission inventories. We evaluated the 

emission inventories in the 2004 SIP to determine if they are consistent with EPA guidance 

(General Preamble at 1350215) and adequate to support 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 well as the 2008 and 2010 projected inventories used in the ROP and 

attainment demonstrations, were prepared in a manner consistent with EPA guidance. 

Accordingly, we proposed to find that these inventories provide an appropriate basis for the ROP 

and attainment demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. See 74 FR at 33940. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that ARB submitted to EPA new emissions inventories for 

ozone precursors in the San Joaquin Valley as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan16 for the 8-hour 

ozone standard and that these updated inventories 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 diesel trucks (HHDDT) throughout 

the State. Finally, it argues that these improvements 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 the 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 SIPs and conformity determinations on April 1, 

2003 (62 FR 15720). At the time the 2004 SIP was being developed (2003-2004) and when it 

was subsequently adopted by SJVAPCD and submitted by ARB to EPA, EMFAC2002 was the 

most current mobile source model available for inventory purposes. 74 FR at 33940. 

 It has been EPA’s consistent policy that States must use the most current mobile source 

model available at the time it is developing its SIP. See General Preamble at 13503 (requiring 

the use of MOBILE4.117 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 use 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 Modeling Division, Office of Mobile Sources, “Release of MOBILE5a 

Emission Factor Model,” March 29, 1993 (allowing the use of MOBILE5 in updated base year 

inventories but requiring the 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 the 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 Margo Oge, Office of Transportation and Air 

Quality, “Policy Guidance on the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP Development and Transportation 

Conformity,” January 18, 2002 (Seitz Memo). 

The Seitz Memo specifically addresses the issue 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 172(c)(3) and 40 CFR 51.112(a)(1), EPA stated in 

the Seitz Memo that, “while [i]n general, EPA 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)].... EPA does not believe that the 

State’s use of MOBILE5 should be an obstacle to EPA approval for reasonable 

further progress, attainment, or maintenance SIPs that have been or will soon be 

submitted based on MOBILE5, assuming that such SIPs are otherwise approvable 

and significant SIP work has already occurred (e.g., attainment modeling for an 

attainment SIP has already been completed with MOBILE5). It would be 

unreasonable to require the States to revise 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 policy 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 and 19120 (April 17, 2003), approval of the 

Washington, D.C. area’s severe area 1-hour attainment demonstration. 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 arbitrary nor capricious.” 

 EPA follows a comparable policy when it comes to other changes to the inventory. See 

General Preamble at 13508: 

Emission Factor Adjustments. Emission factors, as well as inventory calculation 

methodologies are continually being improved. If emission factors or 

methodologies change significantly, EPA may advise the State to correct the base 

year emissions inventory to reflect such changes. If significant changes occur in 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 86 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

emission factors or methodologies between [November 15, 1990] and November 

15, 1993 (due date for the 15 percent demonstration), EPA may require States to 

make corrections to the base year emission 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 standard). See 2007 Ozone Plan at p. B-1. EPA will 

review the inventory in this plan 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 California, quoting our January 18, 2008 notice approving 

the use of the EMFAC2007. 

Response: ARB did not release EMFAC2007 for use until 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 because 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 District appropriately relied 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 valid when they were submitted in 2004 because this 

is not the legal test. It asserts that neither the Clean Air Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act 

allows EPA to ignore data before the Agency that 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 consider all of the information before it. Finally, the commenter 

claims that in this case the District 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 this 1-hour ozone strategy based on inventories 

that are no longer current or accurate. 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 87 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Response: We disagree with Earthjustice 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 information 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 inventories 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 development of the 2007 Ozone Plan; however, they do not render the 2004 

SIP insufficient or unapprovable. 

Because the commenter’s reference to the Administrative Procedures Act is without any 

specificity, we cannot respond to this portion of its comment. 

Comment: Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot claim, as an excuse for failing to address 

these revised inventories, that emission inventories change and create a moving target, making it 

unfair to require plans to change with new information. It then asserts that emissions inventories 

do not change constantly and that the emissions 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 planning efforts for the 8-hour ozone standard that the 

District and State updated the inventories and models in 2007. Finally, 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, however, 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 inventory 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 Act requirements. Many emission categories 

within the inventories were updated to reflect current data and emission factors. While 

changes and improvements to the SJVAB’s inventories 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 frozen so that potential future emission control 

measures can be evaluated for their effectiveness in attaining the federal 1-hour ozone 

standard). Many emissions inventory improvement projects are in process or are 

planned, and the results of these and other studies 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” (Appendix 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 factor updates, and other information become 

available. When emissions data change dramatically, 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 inventory on a regular basis to ensure that the 

inventory is accurate and current. Major point 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 estimates on a periodic basis. Ten source 

categories are being examined in 2006 to reevaluate growth trends. The District also 

revises emissions estimates based on the effects of District prohibitory rules on an 

emissions source category. Approximately sixty-eight District prohibitory rules will be 

examined in 2006 to evaluate emissions controls 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 regularly by EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart A. Section 51.30 requires States to annually update and submit the inventory for their 

major stationary sources and triennially update and submit the entire inventory. However, as the 

District noted, in order to submit a plan on time, inventories must be frozen at some point in the 

plan’s development, even if further inventory improvements are on the horizon. As discussed 

above, EPA addresses this reality 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 District and the State did use the most current 

information then available to them to develop the 2004 SIP as required by the CAA and EPA 

policy. Any delay in EPA’s approval does not change 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, ARB 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 approvability of 2004 1-hour ozone plan would be at 

best theoretical and at worst speculative.19 Rather EPA is stating that the State and District 

appropriately relied on the then-existing information 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 plans. Following Earthjustice’s logic would 

effectively result in the 1-hour ozone plan being completely revised to become the 8-hour ozone 

plan. This is because an evaluation of the effect of emissions inventory changes on the plan 

could not be limited to just those changes resulting from the move 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 taken into account before we could determine whether 

the plan is or is not approvable. In other words, an entire new plan would need to be developed. 

The District and State have already prepared a new plan that addresses the applicable 8-hour 

ozone standard and that is based on EMFAC2007 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 record 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 demonstrate a “radical” change in the predicted relationship 

between NOx and VOC reductions and the resulting ozone concentrations 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 through reductions in NOx reductions and that VOC 

reductions do not help and concludes with given this new understanding 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 concentrations. This information demonstrates that we 

cannot simply presume that higher NOx emissions levels adversely 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 would be different. 

Response: As stated previously, the 2007 Ozone Plan is not the subject of this rulemaking. 

Assuming a change in the predicted relationship between NOx and 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 diagrams 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 Bakersfield in 2010. This diagram has 

isopleths in 5 ppb increments from 95 ppb to 130 ppb (the 1-hour ozone standard is at 124 ppb). 

The second diagram comes from the 2007 Ozone Plan and shows the carrying capacity for the 8-

hour ozone standard at Arvin in 2020. This diagram 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 commenter 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 delay approval and that this cannot be the basis for approving a 

plan that Earthjustice asserts does not meet the requirements of the Act and will not work. 

Stating that the objective of the Clean Air Act is to protect public health by ensuring that 

polluted areas have a strategy that will attain the national ambient air quality standards, the 

commenter argues that this purpose is not served by approving a plan that does not lead to 

attainment of the standards and doing so would 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 get this plan fixed now, rather 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 existing 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 conclude 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 applicable attainment date. 

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA has not quantified 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 demonstration, rate of progress 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 effect 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 individual 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 contingency measures. We, therefore, do not need to 

separately account for their 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 implementing 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 inventories 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 rules that were relied on for emissions reductions 

in the 2004 SIP’s base year and baseline inventories. We determined that all these rules were 

creditable under the CAA and our policies. See Sections III and IV of this TSD. For the reasons 

given in the proposal at 33938-33939 and discussed in our responses 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 measures actually occurring, we assume that 

sources comply with applicable emission limitations and the agencies responsible for ensuring 

compliance with them are exercising appropriate oversight, absent information to the contrary. 

The commenter provides no information indicating either of these is not happening. 

B. Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) and Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT)

Introduction 

 CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area plans to “provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably available control measures [RACM] (including such reductions 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 92 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

                                                           

in emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available control technology [RACT]) and shall provide for attainment 

of the national primary ambient air quality standards.” Under our 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule, RACM is not listed separately 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 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 measures necessary for expeditious attainment.21 Under 

EPA’s interpretation, if an otherwise feasible measure, alone or in combination with other 

measures, cannot expedite attainment then it is not considered to be reasonably available. Thus, 

to show that it had implemented RACM, a state needs to show that it considered a wide range of 

potential measures and found none that were feasible for the area and that would, alone or in 

combination with other feasible measures, advance 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 advancing attainment is, at a minimum, one year from the predicted 

attainment date in the attainment plan.22 This approach to RACM has been applied in numerous 

rulemakings. See, for example, 56 FR 5458 (February 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 ozone attainment demonstration; 67 FR 30574, 

30583 (May 7, 2002), approval of Atlanta’s 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration; and 66 FR 

57160 (November 14, 2001), approval of the Houston/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 (5th 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 adopt RACT for major VOC sources and for all 

VOC source categories for which EPA has issued Control Techniques 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, “Guidance 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 the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum 

hourly average concentrations 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 stationary source that emits or has the potential to 

emit 10 tons of VOC or NOx per year. CAA section 182(e). The RACT requirement in section 

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 as they apply for the 1-hour standard were retained as 

“applicable requirements” under the Phase 1 rule. §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 subsequently made a finding of failure to submit the 

RACT demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard and initiated 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 noted 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 which we had not already approved a RACT rule, 

we proposed to find that there are no additional reasonably available 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 required by CAA section 172(c)(1). 

 We estimated that it would take an additional 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 Strategy, and 8-hour ozone 

RACT plan, either individually or collectively, could 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 implement 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 several comments on our RACM finding objecting in 

general to our methodology, our criteria, and our interpretation of the RACM 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 least 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 demonstrating that all of the required 

controls, such as RACT, will be implemented. Finally, Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot 

treat RACM and RACT as discrete requirements that can be acted on separately because the 

statute clearly states that RACM includes RACT. It also comments that EPA cannot determine 

that all reasonable measures are in place in the Valley without first evaluating RACT for all SJV 

area sources.

Response: We did not defer action under CAA section 110(k) on the RACT demonstration in the 

2004 SIP because, as a result of the State’s withdrawal of this component of the plan, there was 

no such demonstration on which the Agency could 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 expeditious attainment, it does not require that there 

first be an approved subpart 2 RACT demonstration. For this action, we evaluated the potential 

effect of applying RACT to those source categories 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 measures 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 measures 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 provides 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. Because 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 reassess 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 meet RACM given that the 

original demonstration was done five years previously. 

Response: Based on our review of the 2004 1-hour plan, we concluded that it demonstrates 

attainment as expeditiously as practicable. As stated above, for this action, we evaluated the 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 95 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

potential effect of applying RACT to those source categories in the SJV area for which we had 

not already approved a RACT rule. Our evaluation is located in section V of this TSD. 

 Furthermore, in this situation, even if we were to use current information 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 measure 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 whether implementation of additional measures 

would advance attainment from 2010 to 2009 is arbitrary 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 analysis and approve the plan as meeting the 

RACM requirement and EPA should instead require 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 attainment test” to justify the missing RACT 

analysis. As stated previously, we took the appropriate statutory course of action for dealing 

with the withdrawn RACT demonstration: a finding 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 process included evaluating the 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 expeditious 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 emissions reduction credit to 

California’s mobile source control 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 clause in CAA section 193 is inappropriate for 

several reasons. 

 First, the commenters assert that CAA section 193 only saves those “formal rules, 

notices, or guidance documents” that are not inconsistent with the CAA. They argue that both 

the CAA and EPA’s long-standing policies and regulations require SIPs to contain the state and 

local emission limitations and control measures that are necessary for attainment and RFP and to 
Technical 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 requirement. Earthjustice also argues that only SIP 

approval provides for the CAA’s enforcement oversight (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 saves only regulations, standards, rules notices, orders and 

guidance “promulgated or issued” by the Administrator 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 through any affirmative statements and the only 

statements of relevant statutory interpretations are contrary to our position on California’s 

waived measures. 

 Third, Earthjustice argues that there is no automatic presumption that Congress is aware 

of an agency’s interpretations and we have not provided any evidence that Congress was aware 

of our interpretation regarding the SIP treatment of California’s mobile source control measures. 

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 rules and fuel standards, to be submitted and 

approved into SIPs before their emission reductions can be credited. 

Response: We continue to believe that credit for emissions reductions from implementation of 

California mobile source rules that are subject to CAA section 209 waivers (“waiver measures”) 

is appropriate notwithstanding the fact that such rules are not approved as part of the California 

SIP. In our July 14, 2009 proposed rule, we explained 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 California motor vehicle control program and because 

amendments to the CAA (in 1977) expanded the flexibility granted to California in order “to 

afford California the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health 

of its citizens and the public welfare,” (H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Congr., 1st Sess. 301-2 (1977). 

In allowing California to take credit for the waiver measures notwithstanding the fact that the 

underlying rules are not part of the California SIP, EPA treated the waiver measures similarly to 

the Federal motor vehicle control requirements, which EPA has always allowed States to credit 

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

 EPA’s historical practice has been to give SIP credit for waiver measures by allowing 

California to include motor vehicle emissions estimates made by using California’s EMFAC 

motor vehicle emissions factor model as part of the baseline emissions inventory. EMFAC was 

also used to prepare baseline inventory projections into the future, and thus the plans typically 

showed a decrease in motor vehicle emissions due to the gradual replacement of more polluting 

vehicles with vehicles manufactured to meet newer, more stringent California vehicle standards. 
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 considerations. See the 1982 Bay Area Air Quality Plan, and the related 

EPA rulemakings approving the plan (see 48 FR 5074 (February 3, 1983) for the proposed rule 

and 48 FR 57130 (December 28, 1983) for the final rule) as an example of how the waiver 

measures have been treated historically by EPA in California SIP actions.24

In our proposed rule, we indicated that we believe that section 193 of the CAA, the 

general savings clause added by Congress in 1990, effectively ratified our long-standing practice 

of granting credit for the California waiver rules because Congress did not insert any language 

into the statute rendering EPA’s treatment of California’s motor vehicle standards inconsistent 

with the Act. Rather, Congress extended the California waiver provisions to most types of 

nonroad vehicle and engines, once again, reflecting Congressional intent to provide California 

with the broadest possible discretion in selecting the best means to protect the health of its 

citizens and the public welfare. Requiring the waiver measures to undergo SIP review in 

addition to the statutory waiver process is not consistent with providing California with the 

broadest possible discretion as to on-road and nonroad vehicle and engine standards, but rather, 

would add to the regulatory burden California faces in establishing and modifying such 

standards, and thus would not be consistent with Congressional intent. In short, we believe that 

Congress intended California’s mobile source rules to undergo only one EPA review process 

(i.e., the waiver process), not two. 

EPA’s waiver review and approval process is analogous to the SIP approval process. 

First, CARB adopts its emissions standards following notice and comment procedures at the state 

level, and then submits the rules to EPA as part of its waiver request. When EPA receives new 

waiver requests from CARB, EPA publishes a notice of opportunity for public hearing and 

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

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

argument that one hurdle (the waiver process) is all Congress intended for California standards, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

program. The 1979 SIP revision included several appendices, including appendix 4-E, which refers to “ARB 

vehicle emission controls included in title 13, California Administrative Code, chapter 3 ...,” including the types of 

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

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

respect to the CAC, the 1979 SIP revision states: “The following appendices are portions of the California 

Administrative Code. Persons interested in these appendices should refer directly to the code.” Thus, the State was 

clearly signaling its intention to rely on the California motor vehicle control program but not to submit the 

underlying rules to EPA as part of the SIP. In 1980, we finalized our approval as proposed. See 45 FR 63843 

(September 28, 1980). 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 98 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

not two (waiver process plus SIP approval process). Moreover, just as SIP revisions are not 

effective until approved by EPA, changes to CARB’s rules (for which a waiver has been granted) 

are not effective until EPA grants a new waiver, unless the changes are “within the scope” of a 

prior waiver and no new waiver is needed. 

Moreover, to maintain a waiver, CARB’s rules can be relaxed only to a level of aggregate 

equivalence to the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) [see section 209(b)(1)]. In 

this respect, the FMVCP acts as a partial backstop to California’s on-road waiver measures (i.e., 

absent a waiver, the FMVCP would apply in California). Likewise, Federal nonroad vehicle and 

engine standards act as a backstop where there is a corresponding California nonroad waiver 

measure. The constraints of the waiver process thus serve to limit the extent to which CARB can 

relax the waiver measures for which there are corresponding EPA standards, and thereby serve 

an anti-backsliding function similar in substance to those established for SIP revisions in CAA 

sections 110(l) and 193. Meanwhile, the growing convergence between California and EPA 

mobile source standards diminishes the difference in the emissions reductions reasonably 

attributed to the two programs and strengthens the role of the Federal program in serving as an 

effective backstop to the State program. In other words, with the harmonization of EPA mobile 

source standards with the corresponding State standards, the Federal program is becoming 

essentially a full backstop to 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 EPA review and approval 

as a SIP revision are not a practical concern for this particular plan given that the plan’s horizon 

is very short term (next couple of years), and the on-road and nonroad vehicles that in part will 

determine whether the area attains the standard are already in operation or in dealer showrooms. 

There is no practical means for the State to relax the standards of vehicles 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/engine emissions standards as EPA, and CARB’s 

enforcement program is equally as rigorous as the corresponding EPA program. The history and 

rigor of CARB’s enforcement program lends assurance to California SIP revisions that rely on 

the emissions reductions from CARB’s rules in the same manner as EPA’s mobile source 

enforcement program lends assurance to other State’s SIPs in their reliance on emissions 

reductions from the FMVCP. 

In summary, we disagree that our interpretation of CAA section 193 is fundamentally 

flawed. EPA has historically given SIP credit for waiver measures in our approval of attainment 

demonstrations and other planning requirements such as reasonable further progress and 

contingency measures submitted by California. We continue to believe that section 193 ratifies 

our long-standing practice of allowing credit for California’s waiver measures notwithstanding 

the fact they are not approved into the SIP, and correctly reflects Congressional intent to provide 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 99 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

California with the broadest possible discretion in the development 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 inspection 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 consumer 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 November 4, 2009 (74 FR 57054). We have also 

recently approved California’s most current reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel regulations and 

inspection and maintenance program regulations. See “Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; California,” Final 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 regulation and commitment adopted by the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulations and withdrew the November 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 emissions 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. The 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 the 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 “unenforceable” commitments now constitute 100 percent 

                                                            25 In this regard, we disagree that we are treating the waiver measures inconsistently with other California 

control measures, such as consumer products and fuels rules, for the simple reason that, unlike the waiver measures, 

there is no history of past practice or legislative history supporting treatment of other California measures, such as 

consumer products rules and fuels rules, in any manner differently than is required as a general rule under CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A), i.e., state and local measures that are relied upon for SIP purposes must be approved into the 

SIP. 
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 (5th Cir. 2003). 

Response: We did not propose to approve commitments 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 5th Circuit in BCCA, represented 6 percent of the reductions 

needed for attainment in the area. We note that the court in BCCA did not conclude that any 

amount greater than 6 percent of the reductions needed would be unreasonable. We believe that 

the 6.3 percent reduction of NOx and the 11.6 percent 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 describes 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 words, 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 commitments to reduce emissions in the SJV 

area by 15 tpd VOC and 20 tpd NOx by 2010 do not satisfy EPA’s second factor for the approval 

of enforceable commitments, that the State is capable of meeting its commitment. It first notes 

that the Goldstene letter27 shows that rules adopted through 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, based on its review of the measures listed by EPA 

in its proposed approval as potential sources of VOC emission reductions (e.g., the pesticide 

emission limits adopted by the California Department 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 rules in the SJV area by 2010. This summary is 

preliminary and is not intended to be a final statement 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 analysis, it cannot be used to determine whether the 

State has not or will not meet its commitments. 

 The commenter assumes that the only path 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 fraction of the rules and 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 effectiveness of its entire control program in reducing 

emissions in the SJV area. Given that the State 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 the reductions can also be achieved by the beginning 

of the 2010 ozone season. 

Comment: Earthjustice argues that ARB’s commitments 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 and appropriate period of 

time. It asserts that the State has less than a year to adopt and make effective controls to achieve 

13.3 tpd VOC by 2010 and it is not reasonable to assume 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 only 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 (9th 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 (9th Cir. 2008), stating that in El Comite

the court explained that because an inventory in a SIP is not a “standard or limitation” as defined 

by the CAA, it was not an independently enforceable 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 specific 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 for 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 tonnage” commitments that 

could be interpreted as goals unenforceable by citizens under Ninth Circuit 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 brought against any person who is alleged “to be in 

violation of ... an emission standard or limitation....” “Emission standard or limitation” is 

defined in subsection (f) of section 304.28 As observed in Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. 

James Busey et al., 79 F.3d 1250, 1258 (1st Cir. 1996): 

Courts interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction have largely focused on whether the particular 

standard or requirement plaintiffs sought to enforce was sufficiently specific. Thus, 

interpreting citizen suit jurisdiction as limited to claims "for violations of specific 

provisions of the act or specific provisions of an applicable implementation plan," the 

Second Circuit held that suits can be brought to enforce specific measures, strategies, or 

commitments designed to ensure compliance with the NAAQS, but not to enforce the 

NAAQS directly. See, e.g., Wilder, 854 F.2d at 613-14. Courts have repeatedly applied 

this test as the linchpin of citizen suit jurisdiction. See, e.g., Coalition Against Columbus 

Ctr. v. City of New York, 967 F.2d 764, 769-71 (2d Cir. 1992); Cate v. Transcontinental 

Gas Pipe Line Corp., 904 F. Supp. 526, 530-32 (W.D. Va. 1995); Citizens for a Better 

Env't v. Deukmejian, 731 F. Supp. 1448, 1454-59 (N.D. Cal.), modified, 746 F. Supp. 976 

(1990). 

Thus courts have found that the citizen suit provision cannot be used to enforce the aspirational 

goal of attaining the NAAQS, but can be used to enforce specific strategies to achieve that goal. 

We describe ARB’s commitments in the 2004 SIP 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. While the State identifies possible control 

measures that it might adopt to achieve these 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 one or more of the control measures in 

Table 4-3, by adopting one or more alternative 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 contribution includes...a previously approved commitment for 10 tpd 

new NOx emissions as part of the Valley 2003 particulate matter SIP, and new commitments for 

additional reductions of 15 tpd VOC and 10 tpd NOx from new defined State measures in the 

Valley in 2010”); and 2003 State Strategy at I-16, Table I-10 (“Total 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 objectives, identified by the Bayview court and cited by the commenter. 

ARB’s commitments here are to adopt and implement measures that will achieve specific 

reductions of NOx and VOC emissions. . As such, as will be seen below, they are specific 

strategies designed to achieve 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 the 1982 Bay Area 1-hour ozone SIP, known as TCM 

2, which states in pertinent part: 

Support post-1983 improvements identified in transit operator’s 5-year plans, after 

consultation with the operators adopt ridership increase target for 1983-1987. 

EMISSION REDUCTION ESTIMATES: These emission reduction estimates are 

predicated on a 15% ridership increase. The actual target would be determined after 

consultation with the transit operators. 

Following a table listing these estimates, TCM 2 provided that “[r]idership increases would come 

from productivity improvements....” 

Ultimately the 15% 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 services, specifically through productivity improvements in transit 
Technical 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 stark contrast to the 

ridership target that was deemed unenforceable in Bayview. The language in ARB’s 

commitments, as stated multiple times in multiple documents, is specific and unequivocal; the 

intent of the commitments is clear; and the strategy 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 will achieve and specifies that this will be done 

through the adoption and implementation of measures 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 commenter’s view that ARB’s commitments are neither express nor 

specific. In fact, these cases 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 constitute an enforceable strategy because 

the provision fails to specify exactly what TCMs must be adopted. The court rejected this 

argument, finding that “[w]e discern no principled basis, consistent with the Clean Air Act, for 

disregarding this unequivocal commitment simply because the particulars of the contingency 

measures are not provided. Thus we hold that that the basic commitment to adopt and 

implement additional measures, should the identified conditions occur, constitutes a specific 

strategy, fully enforceable in a citizens action, although the exact contours of those measures are 

not spelled out.” Id. at 1457.29 In concluding that the transportation and stationary source 

contingency provisions were enforceable, the court stated: “Thus, while this Court is not 

empowered to enforce the Plan's overall objectives [footnote omitted; attainment of the 

NAAQS]--or NAAQS--directly, it can and indeed, must, enforce specific strategies committed to 

in the Plan.” Id. at 1454. 

 Earthjustice’s reliance on CBE II is misplaced. It also involves 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 court 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, the 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 ordering that NAAQS be achieved without anchoring that order on 

any specified strategy. Plainly, the fact that a specified strategy might be successful and 

lead to attainment does not render that strategy unenforceable. 

(Emphasis in original). CBE II at 980. 

 ARB’s commitments here are analogous to the 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, the commitment to a specific tonnage reduction 

is comparable to a commitment to achieve RFP. Similarly, a commitment to achieve a specific 

amount of emission 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 terms of what is required, e.g., a specified amount 

of emission reductions or the achievement of a specified amount of progress (i.e., RFP). ARB’s 

commitments are thus clearly a specific enforceable strategy rather than 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 California 1-hour ozone SIP known as the Pesticide 

Element. The Pesticide Element relied on an inventory of pesticide VOC emissions to provide 

the basis to determine whether additional regulatory measures would be needed to meet the SIP’s 

pesticides emissions target. To this end, the Pesticide Element provided that “ARB will develop 

a baseline inventory of estimated 1990 pesticidal VOC emissions based on 1991 pesticide use 

data....” El Comite Para El Bienestar de Earlimart v. Helliker, 416 F. Supp. 2d 912, 925 (E.D. 

Cal. 2006). ARB subsequently employed a different 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 calculation of the baseline inventory constitutes 

an “emission standard or limitation.” The district court disagreed: 

By its own terms, the baseline identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount 

of emissions attributed to those sources. As defendants argue, once the sources of air 

pollution are identified, control strategies can then be formulated to control emissions 

entering the air from those sources. From all the above, I must conclude that the baseline 

is not an emission "standard" or "limitation" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 7604 

(f)(1)-(4). 

Id. at 928. In its opinion, the court distinguished Bayview and CBE I, pointing out that in those 

cases “the measures at issue were designed to reduce emissions.” Id. 

 On appeal, the plaintiffs shifted their argument to claim that the baseline inventory and 

the calculation methodology were necessary elements of the overall enforceable commitment to 

reduce emissions in nonattainment areas. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court’s 
Technical 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 inventory into an enforceable 

emission standard or limitation by bootstrapping it to the commitment to decide to adopt 

regulations, if necessary.” Id. at 1073. 

 While Earthjustice cites the Ninth Circuit’s El Comite opinion, its utility 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 qualifies as an independently enforceable aspect of 

the SIP. Rather, it is the district court’s opinion, in distinguishing the commitments in CBE and 

Bayview, that provides insight into the situation at issue in our action. As the court recognized, a 

baseline inventory or the methodology used to calculate it, is not a measure to reduce emissions. 

It instead “identifies emission sources and then quantifies the amount of emissions attributed to 

those sources.” In contrast, as stated previously, in the 2004 SIP and 2003 State Strategy, ARB 

commits to adopt and implement measures sufficient to achieve specified emission reductions by 

a date certain. As described above, a number of courts have found commitments substantially 

similar to ARB’s here to be enforceable under CAA section 304(a). 

Finally, EPA is not responding to Earthjustice’s comment regarding Ventura because the 

comment is without sufficient specificity for us to know to what the comment refers. 

Nevertheless, we note that nothing precludes the State 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-and-hearing processes for 

SIP adoption and would again have an opportunity to raise concerns during EPA’s review 

process. However, unless and until such time as the State submits and 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. Earthjustice claims that these commitments are so 

vague that they cannot possibly be enforced against the State; because there is no requirement 

that the State take any specific actions, its commitments cannot 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 comments, EPA believes that ARB’s 

commitments to adopt and implement control measures to achieve the 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 identified 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 necessary 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 the State to reduce emissions as enforceable 

commitments even though the State has never specified exactly what it commits to do. 

Earthjustice states that courts have rejected similar attempts to circumvent the statute’s 

limitations on conditional approvals. To support this contention, Earthjustice cites Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 356 F.3d 295, 298 (D.C. Cir. 2004) as overturning EPA’s conditional approval of SIPs 

based in part on the fact that the commitments 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 lacking 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 requiring the state to commit to adopt specific enforceable 

measures. Sierra Club at 302. The court found that EPA’s construction turned 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 reductions. Petitioners claimed that EPA lacked 

authority under the CAA to approve a SIP containing an enforceable commitment to adopt 

unspecified control measures in the future. The court disagreed and found 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 defined 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). The 
Technical 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 interpretation allowing limited use of an 

enforceable commitment in the Houston 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 commitment to adopt additional control measures on a 

fixed schedule was an ‘appropriate’ means, technique, or schedule 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 contemplated by section 110(k)(4). See also Environmental 

Defense v. EPA, 369 F.3d 193, 209-210 (2nd Cir. 2004). As a result, contrary to Earthjustice’s 

contention, section 110(k)(4) is not a bar to EPA’s approval of ARB’s enforceable commitments 

and that approval under section 110(k)(3) is permissible as an appropriate means, technique or 

schedule or timetable for compliance under sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 172(c)(6). 

Comment: CRPE contends that the State’s aggregate tonnage commitment is unenforceable as a 

practical matter. CRPE then states that enforcement 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 citizens 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 correct, 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 commitments 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 commitments 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 strategy 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, citing 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 “the State” and require it to adopt and implement measures to 

achieve specific reductions in NOx and VOC emissions by the beginning of the 2010 ozone 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 109 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

season. By adopting both the 2004 Plan and 2003 State 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 approval of the 1994 California 

Ozone SIP at 62 FR 1150, 1158 (January 8, 1997): 

 The California Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) commented 

that, as EPA recognized in the proposed approval, some of California’s specific 

strategies may require adjustment as actual 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 the 1994 California ozone SIP dealt with the 

State’s ability to revise 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 that revision only if the revision 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 requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress, or any other applicable 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 are approved into the SIP by this action. 

Comment: Earthjustice claims that the 2004 Plan simply 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 mention the quantitative 

commitments (State Strategy at ES-12, 1-7 through 1-9, 1-23 through 1-26). Earthjustice 

concludes that this estimate was clearly wrong, as the State 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 the 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 necessary for the State to quantify the measures in 

Table 4-3 

 To the extent that Earthjustice in this comment 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 reasons 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 because it underestimates total NOx emissions in 

the Valley and thus the tons of reductions required to satisfy ROP are also underestimated. 

Earthjustice argues that EPA must reevaluate whether the 2004 SIP satisfies the ROP 

requirement based on the revised inventories. 

Response: As discussed above, EPA’s long-established 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 averaging over 3-year periods only. It also argues 

that the State’s demonstration relies on carrying 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 averaged 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 that the District has continued to make 

the required reasonable further progress in reducing VOC emissions. 

Response: The post-1996 ROP requirement in CAA section 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 discussion at 13516 on how to calculate a 

post-1996 ROP target. To respond to these comments, several points need to be understood 

about the ROP demonstration requirement: 

 1. A state demonstrates that it meets the required ROP by showing that total emissions in 

its area will be at or below a target level of emissions for a specified year.30 This target level of 

emissions, referred to as the ROP milestone, is calculated for each of the area’s milestone dates 

(e.g., 1996, 1999, 2002, etc.) according to CAA requirements 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.). States often convert this target level of 

                                                            30 From the General Preamble at 13508: “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 having 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 the milestone years between 1990 and an area’s 

attainment date and the y-axis is milestone target level, the ROP milestones would produce a 

slightly concave downward line. This line establishes the maximum level of allowable emissions 

for the area to meet the ROP requirement. The CAA’s “averaged over three years” requirement 

means that the total emissions level in the area can rise above the line during that 3-year period 

between milestones dates provided it is below the line by the milestone date. An example of an 

ROP graph can be found at 66 FR 42480, 42843 (August 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 approval 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 Chicago; 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 target, it is clear that so long as a state can 

demonstrate that total emissions levels in its area 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 demonstrated ROP is not in compliance with the Act is 

unfounded. 

 

2. The commenter is incorrect that the CAA forbids carrying forward of excess 

emissions reductions.32 In fact, section 182(c)(2)(C) specifically 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 section 182(c)(2): “The reductions 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 subsection (b)(1)]). (Emphasis added). While this 

sentence refers explicitly only to carrying forward excess reductions into the 1997-1999 period, 

we do not believe that Congress intended to prohibit carrying forward of excess emissions 

reductions into other ROP periods. Congress was interested in both expediting emissions 

reductions and reducing the costs of air pollution controls. The first would be served by 

rewarding States for early implementation by allowing the carryover of credit 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 current 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 creditable emissions reductions that had already occurred. See Ass'n of 

Irritated Residents v. EPA, 423 F.3d 989, 996 (In the context of allowing credit for past emission 

reductions under CAA section 189(d) for PM-10 plans: “[b]y allowing 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 section 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 attainment demonstration. SJV 

has an approved 15 percent ROP demonstration 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 requirements and the commenter’s contention 

that the District has not met its required VOC ROP requirement is baseless. 

Comment: CRPE asserts that we erroneously claimed 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 terms of section 182(b)(1). 

Response: We did not claim that the ROP demonstration was not dependent 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 "the 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 proposal], all baseline measures are either 

federal, SIP-approved, proposed for approval, or otherwise creditable in ROP 

demonstrations. 

“Otherwise creditable” includes waiver measures. See 74 FR at 33938. 

Comment: CRPE argues that the CAA requires that states only take credit for reductions from 

SIP-approved measures in ROP demonstrations, citing CAA section 182(b)(1)(D). CRPE also 

argues that EPA’s longstanding interpretation of the ROP provision also limits credit to SIPapproved measures, citing our proposed approval of the ROP demonstration in the 1999 

amendment to the 1997 1-hour ozone 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 reductions from SIP-approved rules: 

Except as provided under subparagraph (D), emissions 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 reductions from federal measures. See, for example, 

61 FR 11735 (March 22, 1996), approval of Wisconsin’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 Federal 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 demonstration relied explicitly on reductions from 

SIP-approved District rules and SIP-approved commitments from the District and State; 

therefore, we limited our description 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 Coast plan relied explicitly only on reductions 

from SIP-approved rules and commitments, it relied implicitly on ARB’s adopted and 

implemented mobile source program, reductions from which are incorporated into the South 

Coast plan’s baseline inventory, to generate the 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 regulations and from waiver measures. 

Response: EPA believes that reductions from SIP-approved regulations, federal rules, and 

waiver measures are equally creditable in ROP; therefore, there is no need 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 demonstration 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 support of its position, the commenter cites EPA’s PM2.5 

implementation rule at 40 CFR § 51.1000; the preamble to the PM2.5 implementation rule at 72 

FR 20586, 20600 (April 25, 2007); and EPA’s “Response to Comments Document, 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 regulations 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 descriptions of attainment 

determinations. The determination of attainment required 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 attainment required by CAA section 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 determination is based on monitored 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 below 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 full ozone season prior to the statutory attainment date. 40 CFR 

51.900(g). More simply, ozone attainment demonstrations show that the air quality will be at or 

below the level of the standard no later than the beginning of the ozone season immediately prior 

to the attainment date. EPA has never interpreted the Act to require that the demonstration show 

that air quality levels will be at or below the level of the standard for each of the three ozone 

seasons prior to the attainment date. 

We believe this position is consistent with the ozone attainment provisions in subpart 2 of 

title 1, part D of the CAA. The program Congress 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, moderate 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 percent reduction in emissions in the 3 years leading up to an area’s attainment 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 115 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

                                                           

date).34 EPA does not believe that Congress intended these mandatory reductions to be in excess 

of what is needed to attain. 

This position is also consistent with the attainment date extension provisions in CAA 

section 181(a)(5). Under this section, 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 implementation 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 are again met the following year, the area may 

receive an additional one-year extension. If the 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 this 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 were enacted, requires States to model the ozone season before 

the attainment date and not the third ozone season 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 strategies in attaining the NAAQS for ozone 

throughout the modeling domain. This demonstration 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 control 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 modeling 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 Philadelphia 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 demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone standard 

promulgated in 1997 when we promulgated regulations 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 State 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 guidance will generally have the State provide 

(1) technical analyses to locate and identify sources of emissions that are causing 

violations of the 8-hour [ozone standard] within nonattainment areas, (2) adopted 

measures...appropriate for attainment, with 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 demonstrations) in “Guidance for Determining the 

‘Attainment Year’ for Transportation Conformity 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 relevant standards by the area’s maximum 

attainment date. For purposes of the 8-hour ozone standard 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), the most recent three years 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 modeling 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 preceding the area’s attainment date (40 CFR 

§51.908). We anticipate that the implementation rule for the PM2.5 standard will 
Technical 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 already 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 standard. It comments that the modeling in the 2004 SIP’s prediction of 

attainment by 2010 confirms the “garbage in, garbage 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 2010 is “clearly fiction.” It asserts 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 there 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 still 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 result 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 reductions that are needed to attain. It then asserts 

that EPA’s approach of allowing areas to credit emissions reductions from measures that are 

already in place that are not needed for attainment is arbitrary and illegal because, if the area 

does fail to attain, the reductions from these measures 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 effect without further action by the State 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 the emissions reductions needed to demonstrate attainment. 

We refer to these additional reductions 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 attainment 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 realized in 2010 that could be triggered to further improve air 

quality. This is not correct. 

The measures relied on for attainment contingency 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 reductions beyond the reductions from these 

measures in 2010, that will be realized in the SJV area in 2011, that the State uses to meet the 

contingency measures requirement. 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 the 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 unimplemented, 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 (5th Cir. 2004), the court upheld EPA’s approval of 

contingency measures that relied on reductions that occurred one year prior 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 court 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 neatly 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 thereafter, 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 implemented measures to meet the 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 (December 18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (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 emissions 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 rule 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 response to our July 14, 2009 proposal on the 2004 

1-hour plan. See 74 FR at 33944. In that proposal, 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 contingency 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 supplementary 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 inventories 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 engines 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 rule 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 has noted with the inventory (that it is not 

based on the latest California mobile source model, 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 reductions estimates from certain mobile source 

measures are also inaccurate. 

Response: As we have discussed above in the 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 inventory, the emissions reductions needed to meet 
Technical 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 calculated according to EPA’s guidance. 

Comment: With regard to EPA’s October 2, 2009 supplementary proposal to approve the 

contingency measures, Earthjustice agrees that it is appropriate to consider the new information 

provided in the ARB comment letter but objects to EPA’s attempt to pick and choose what 

current information it will consider in approving the elements of the 1-hour ozone plan. 

Response: Contrary to Earthjustice’s contention, EPA is not selectively making use of current 

inventory data in considering ARB’s additional information. ARB did not submit any 

information based on emissions inventories developed subsequent its plan submittal. Instead, it 

extracted and summarized data that had already been 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 modeling 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 unlike 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 SIP 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 reductions 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 planning requirements of the Act be included in the 

implementation plan, citing the language in CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) and that it is 

not sufficient to simply identify measures because they could be revised or revoked without EPA 

approval under section 110(l), or would be unenforceable under the CAA if the State were to 

decide not to implement them. 

Response: In this particular case, all measures credited 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 may be used to meet the CAA’s contingency 

measures requirement. In our response to comments on the treatment of waiver measures above, 

we address at length our view that such measures can be relied on to meet the CAA’s planning 

requirements without being approved by EPA into the SIP. We also address in that section the 

commenter’s concerns regarding enforceability and antibacksliding. 

 We note further that since the State has been implementing these emission standards 

since 2002, the likelihood that the State will, at this late date, suddenly decide to stop 

implementing them is negligible. Moreover, engines complying with these standards are already 

being sold and therefore the technology required to meet them has been demonstrated, making it 

even less likely that the State would stop implementing them. However, in the unlikely event that 

the State should relax or revoke a measure that is relied on for contingency, EPA has 

mechanisms other than section 110(l) to assure adequate contingency 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 fulfill its emissions reductions commitment, the 

State has adopted other control 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 that the State and District have submitted the 2007 

8-hour ozone plan that includes additional post-2010 emissions reductions. 

 

Comment: Earthjustice claims that our proposal on the appropriate treatment of emissions 

reductions from waiver measures makes no mention 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 plain language of sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

and that EPA has not shown that it has allowed the use of measures that are not in the SIP for 

contingency measures. Finally, the commenter states that EPA cannot claim that Congress in the 

1990 Amendments ratified the practice of allowing 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 SIP purposes for which these reductions would be 

used. Our discussion presumed that waiver measures could be credited for any SIP purpose for 

which similar federal measures can be used: “EPA 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 contingency measures prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments, 

there is no reason to believe that Congress would make a distinction 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), approval of Indiana’s 15 percent ROP plan for the ChicagoGary-Lake County 1-hour ozone nonattainment area; 62 FR 66279 (December 18, 1997), 

approval of Illinois’ 15 percent ROP plans for the Chicago-Gary-Lake County 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area and East St. Louis 1-hour ozone nonattainment 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 (November 13, 2001), approval of Indiana’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 related contingency measures for the Chicago-GaryLake County 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

 We have also discussed the potential use of federal measures as contingency measures. 

See, for example, 66 FR 586, 600 and 615-616 (January 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 measures as contingency measures for 8-hour ozone 

plans. See 68 FR 32802, 32837 (June 2, 2003), proposed 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 turnover. 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 from waiver measures can be 

used to meet the CAA’s contingency measure requirement even though they are not in the SIP. 

The measures relied on for attainment contingency measure emission reductions are the 

State and federal on- and off-road new engines standards and not fleet turnover. Fleet turnover is 

the process of new, cleaner engines 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 fleet turnover in our proposals was to highlight that alreadyadopted on- and off-road new engines standards 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 increase 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 capricious and a violation of the CAA for EPA to 

approve 2008 and 2010 ROP contingency measure demonstrations or to provide credit to the 

attainment year contingency demonstration when EPA has made no finding that such fleet 

turnover reductions have actually occurred. 

Response: To show that the plan included contingency measures for the 2008 and 2010 ROP 

demonstrations, the state showed that baseline mobile, stationary 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 are exercising appropriate oversight. We also 

assume that engines are being replaced on the schedule 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 reductions that will result from the anticipated fleet turnover in 2011. 

We have determined that the mobile source measures relied on for these contingency measures 

are adopted and are being implemented and will continue to generate emissions reductions in 

2011. We cannot, however, determine whether the 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 disapprove the attainment contingency measures 

in the 2004 1-hour ozone plan because the CAA does not specify that a minimum reduction of 3 

percent is required for contingency measures and ARB has informed the District that it would be 

submitting additional information demonstrating that 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 these measures in this final action. 

Comment: ARB submitted additional information from the modeling inventories in the 2004 SIP 

that shows on- and off-road mobile source measures adopted prior to September 2002 provide 

emissions reductions in 2011of 4.2 percent 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 additional information provided by ARB and to 

withdraw our July 14, 2009 proposed 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), asserting that the plain language, legislative 

history, and the structure of the 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 Environment & 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, that 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 statutory language plainly requires that 

growth in emissions be offset, we interpret this provision to require TCMs only when there is 

growth in emissions due to growth in VMT or vehicle trips and not when there is simply growth 

in VMT or vehicle trips without a consequential 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 statutory duty to adopt and 

submit TCMs to offset emissions growth has not been 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 well 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 indicating 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. Under 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. The 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 VMT 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 drastic 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 cities 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 ignore the beneficial impacts of all vehicle 

tailpipe and alternative fuel controls. 

 Although the original authors 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, believed at the time it voted to pass the 

CAAA that the words of this provision would impose such severe restrictions. 

There is no further legislative history on this 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 statutory 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, taking into consideration the purposes and 

intent of the statutory scheme as a whole. In the context of the intricate planning 

requirements Congress established in title I to bring areas towards attainment of 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 125 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

the ozone standard, and in light of the absence 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 the 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 interpretation in our previous approvals of other SIPs 

implementing the provision. See, for example, 60 FR 48896 (September 21, 1995) approval of 

Illinois’ vehicle miles traveled plan for the Chicago area; 62 FR 23410 (April 30, 1997) and 62 

FR 35100 (June 30, 1997), proposed and final approval of New Jersey’s 15 percent ROP plan 

and other provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 

FR 23849 (May 10, 2001), approval of the New York’s attainment demonstration and related 

provisions for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut ozone nonattainment area; 66 FR 57247 

(November 14, 2001), approval of the VMT offset plan for the Houston-Galveston ozone 

nonattainment area; 70 FR 25688 (May 13, 2005), approval of the Washington, D.C. area’s 1-

hour attainment demonstration and related provisions; and 70 FR 34358 (June 14, 2005), 

approval of Atlanta’s VMT plan. 

 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, Poverty & the Environment, November 17, 2009, 

“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); 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-R09-2008-0677).” 

 CRPE has also petitioned the 9th 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, 9th 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, 9th 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 TCMs 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 any growth in emissions due to VMT growth and 

not the offset of any growth in VMT in the absence of consequential growth of motor vehicle 

emissions. Consistent with our guidance in the General Preamble, the 2004 1-hour plan 
Technical 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. See 2008 Clarifications, p. 9. Therefore, 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 based on the latest EMFAC model. It also argues that while it is 

possible that the new EMFAC2007 model will show a steady decline 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 our responses to comments on the emission 

inventory, we do not believe California is required to update the 2004 1-hour ozone plan with 

EMFAC2007. The CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) requirement only applies to offsetting growth in 

VOC emissions and does not require offsetting growth 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 between the current 

requirement to use EMFAC2007 in transportation conformity determinations and the use of 

EMFAC2002 in the demonstration of compliance with section 182(d)(1) in the 2004 1-hour 

ozone plan. Currently transportation conformity 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 determinations in the Valley. 

 The 2004 SIP addresses the now revoked 1-hour ozone standard. As a result of our 1-

hour ozone standard revocation, transportation conformity determinations are no longer required 

for that standard. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004). Under our transportation 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) plans 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 conformity 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 reason 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 asserts 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 permits for solid-fuel boilers that operate in the 

SJV, asserting that permits do not require catalytic control technology or comparably effective 

methods to reduce NOx emissions.

Response: Section 182(e)(3) of the Act requires that SIPs for extreme ozone nonattainment areas 

contain provisions requiring that each new, modified, and existing electric utility and industrial 

and commercial boiler that emits more than 25 tpy of NOx either: (1) burn as its primary fuel a 

clean fuel (natural gas, methanol, 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 believe 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 Process Heaters - 0.075 MMBtu/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 approved in the SIP, boilers subject to these 

rules are too small to be subject to CAA section 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 versions of the rules credited in the 2004 SIP. 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/Institutional (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 Boilers, 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 was 2003. Inventory data available from the ARB’s emissions 

inventory database (http://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 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heater 

(amended May 18, 2006) applies to commercial and industrial boilers (in addition to other types 

of emission units) at facilities that potentially 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 Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) 

control systems. As discussed below, we believe SNCR is “comparably effective” to SCR for 

the affected sources, and thus fulfills CAA section 182(e)(3) requirements for these affected 

sources. SNCR also appears to achieve NOx emissions reductions comparable to combustion of 

clean fuels at these types of boilers.43

 According to information in EPA’s RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

(http://cfpub.epa.gov/rblc/htm/bl02.cfm), recent Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permits contain emission limits for coal-fired boilers ranging from 0.067 lbs/million Btu 

(MMBtu) (for large coal-fired boilers with SCR and low-NOx burner technology) to 0.1 

lbs/MMBtu (for medium-sized coal-fired boilers with SNCR). These limits reflect Best 

Available Control Technology (BACT) determinations under the PSD program. See 

RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. According to the 1994 ACT for industrial/commercial/ 

institutional boilers (Table 2-6), wood-fired watertube boilers 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 emission ranges indicates that although emission rates can vary 

according to fuel type and boiler size, generally SNCR controls are comparably effective to SCR 

for boilers firing wood (biomass), municipal solid waste, and many other types of solid fuels. As 

a general matter, SNCR is also comparably effective to SCR control for circulating fluidized bed 

coal-fired boilers of less than 50 MW electric generation capacity. For coal-fired boilers, we 

 

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 direct final action, we withdrew it on 

July 30, 2007 (72 FR 41450). On December 9, 2009 we reproposed to approve 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 fluidized bed boilers of less than 50 MW electric 

generation capacity because all existing coal-fired boilers in the SJV are of this type and below 

this size. See SJVAPCD, “District Permitted Solid 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 (Table 2-2 in the 1994 ACT for ICI boilers). 

SNCR control systems consistently achieve up to 80 percent NOx emissions reductions and are 

compatible with almost all solid fuel-fired boiler operations, while other controls may in some 

cases be sensitive to catalyst poisoning and other technical constraints. 

 As to boilers that emit above 25 tpy of NOx, we note that, as a practical matter, only 

existing boilers in the SJV are likely to be constrained by the NOx emission limits in Rule 4352, 

as all new boilers that potentially emit above 25 tpy and all major modifications at existing 

boilers will also be subject to the more stringent control technology requirements of the 

Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) or PSD permit programs. The requirements of Rule 

4352 are generally applicable to this source category and do not supplant any more stringent 

control requirements that apply on a case-by-case basis under the NSR or PSD permit programs. 

 Additionally, according to a list of permitted facilities 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 argued 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 element to demonstrate attainment 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 emissions reduction commitment for the San Joaquin 

Valley. See 74 FR at 33947. We did not propose to approve any of the individual measures in 

the Strategy because these measures, including the pesticide element, had previously been 

approved in our rulemaking on the 2004 South 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 the pesticide element in the 2003 State Strategy is 

simply a continuation of the existing pesticide 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, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, pages 16-17 and 45-47. 

2. Emissions Reduction Credit for SJVAPCD 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 ozone plan and the proposed action on Rule 4570. 

In both letters, it commented on the appropriate emissions 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 “Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District” Final Rule (Rule 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 limited 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 demonstration 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 documentation and/or rule revisions to assure that the rule is RACT 

in order to avoid the imposition of sanctions under CAA section 179 and the promulgation of a 

FIP under CAA section 110(c). EPA uses this approach 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 the 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 National Research Council (NRC) Guidelines) for 

dairy, beef feedlot, and other cattle facilities is arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of 

discretion because these reductions are already reflected in the baseline emissions factor used to 
Technical 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 then claims that if the 

10 percent emissions reduction credit for option A.1. was eliminated, then emissions reductions 

from Rule 4570 would drop from 7,563 tons per year (21 tons per day) to 5,632 tons per year 

(15.5 tons per day). The Center included a number 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 facilities. See 2008 Clarifications at 7 and 74 FR at 

33937 (Table 2). In determining the emissions 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 conducting public workshops 

and providing a public review and comment period on both the draft rule and its estimate of the 

Rule’s potential emissions reductions. See Final Draft Staff Report for Rule 4570, p. 50. 45 

During this public process, the Center submitted comments 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 animals’ diets would result in VOC 

emissions reductions and that the 10 percent reduction it was using was at the low end of the 

range of effectiveness seen in this research. It also noted that the information available in the 

studies used to establish the baseline emission factor were not conclusive on whether the animals 

in those studies were fed according to the NRC guidelines and thus the baseline did not 

necessarily include reductions associated with a NRC diet. See Final Draft Staff Report for Rule 

4570, Appendix A, p. 12. 

 The District based its estimated emissions reductions for Rule 4570 on a careful 

consideration of the information then available and 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 specific 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. 4th 535, 553-554. 

Comment: CRPE argues that Rule 4570 codifies existing practices 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 measures are currently being implemented and that the 

District defends its rule as an anti-backsliding measure that will ensure that current voluntary 

practices are not abandoned. CRPE then asserts that the approach that the District has taken 

violates the statutory requirement 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 rules must reduce emissions. EPA finds nothing in the CAA that 

requires that rules approved into the SIP by EPA result in direct and quantifiable emission 

reductions. We frequently approve rules and rule revisions that merely clarify existing 

requirements and are not expected to reduce emissions 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 response to our 2005 proposal to approve SJVAPCD 

Rule 4550, Conservation Management Practices (CMP) for agricultural sources of PM-10. The 

commenter claimed that the emission reductions estimated to be achieved by the rule were 

inaccurate and inflated because the estimate double-counted emission reductions already being 

achieved from practices already in common use by growers. In our response to this argument we 

stated that “it was understood that some agricultural sites may have been employing practices not 

required by regulation at that time, and that these existing practices may not have been accounted 

for in the emission inventory. Rule 4550 makes these practices mandatory and federally 

enforceable, allowing the District to take credit for the emission reductions....” 71 FR 7683 

(February 14, 2006) 

Comment: CRPE claims that the District 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 “fictitious” reductions based on 

commonly-used industry practices would be arbitrary and capricious because the majority of 

controls have no factual support whatsoever.

Response: The District used the best 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 every facility or used consistently by every facility 

in that industry. We note that the Center also raised this specific 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. 4th 535, 553-554. 

3. Emissions Reduction Credit for ARB’s Reformulated Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Rule 

Comment: CRPE comments that EPA should not allow emissions reduction credit from ARB’s 

reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel rule in the 2004 SIP for the reasons explained in its 

comment letter on EPA’s proposed 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 the ARB’s fuel rules were not 

enforceable for various reasons. EPA has reviewed 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 comments 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 measures, 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 description of enforcement methods 

including, but not limited to, procedures for monitoring compliance with each of the selected 

control measures and procedures for handling violations. These requirements apply to the 

control measures that are in the SIP. For the reasons discussed previously, we do not believe that 

California’s mobile source measures that receive 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 enforcement programs including its procedures for 

handling violations, are described 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 requirements 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 implementing 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S as required 

since being bumped up to extreme on April 16, 2004. 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 NSR program for demonstrating attainment 

and provides a sufficient growth allowance to assure new sources subject to the NSR program 

will not interfere with the attainment and RFP demonstrations. 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 EPA should act on the 2003 Final State Strategy 
Technical Support Document – December 11, 2009 

San Joaquin Valley 1-Hour Ozone Plan Page 134 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

                                                           

as it was originally submitted by ARB. It argues that ARB’s February 13, 2008 letter from 

Executive Officer James Goldstene withdrawing portions of the Strategy is not legal. 

Response: Our proposal on the 2003 Final State Strategy 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 elements 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 withdrawn 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 James 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 Strategy as it relates to the South Coast. 74 

FR 10176, 10177 (March 10, 2009). 

Comment: In its November 17, 2008 letter, Earthjustice comments that EPA cannot approve the 

motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEB) in the 2004 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 standard 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 found 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, Acting Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Air and Radiation to Regional Administrators, “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 “opportunity to be proactive in developing a plan 

that addresses the impending failure [of the SJV 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 additional measures that will be required upon a 

failure to attain such as the CAA section 185 fee requirement. It asserts that the current 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 inventory for the attainment year. 

Earthjustice also states that EPA should initiate sanction clocks. 

Response: CAA section 179(a) provides that sanction clocks are started under these four 

circumstances: 1) EPA has made a finding of failure 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 promulgate 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 element of the SJV 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration or has found that the State has failed to submit or submitted an incomplete 1-hour 

ozone attainment demonstration. Therefore, no sanctions or FIP 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 Manufacturing Operations, and others and for 

our partial disapproval of Rule 3170 – Federally Mandate Ozone Nonattainment Fee. See 

“Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District” Final Rule (Rule 4570), 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 December 11, 2009; and “Revisions to the California 

State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 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 germane. 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 address, either directly or indirectly, the potential 

consequences of the SJV nonattainment area’s failure 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 potential consequences of the SJV 
Technical 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.