2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L 

 

Comments and Responses 
2007 Ozone Plan 

This page intentionally blank.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-1

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

This Appendix contains comments received during the Districtís public workshops and 

during the public comment periods following those workshops. This appendix also 

contains the Districtís responses to those comments. Comments and responses for the 

Districtís series of Town Hall meetings held from July 26-28, 2006 are in Appendix G. 

Comments received from EPA are in section L.3. 

The Districtís first workshop on the Draft 2007 Ozone Plan was held on October 17, 

2006, and the public comment period for this first draft closed on November 7, 2006. 

Verbal comments are reported in the order in which they were received in section L.6, 

and written comments are summarized in section L.7 and organized by topic. 

The Districtís final workshop on the Draft 2007 Ozone Plan was held on February 8, 

2007, and the public comment period for the final draft closed on February 26, 2007. 

The Draft for this workshop was released on January 29, 2007. Verbal comments are 

reported in the order in which they were received during the workshop in section L.4, 

and written comments are summarized in section L.5 and organized by topic. 

Section L.2 provides written comments received during the final 30-day public comment 

period, which was held from March 8, 2007 through April 6, 2007. Section L.1 provides 

comments and responses between the District and ISSRC regarding the Districtís 2007 

Ozone Plan and ISSRCís ìAlt SIP.î Please see Appendices N, O, and P for more 

information on the Alt SIP. 

L.1 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM ISSRC 

Questions for SJV Group from March 21 meeting 

1. Comment: Could we have the information to access the version 1.06 CCOS data or 

else could you provide me with the correct contact at ARB to access this 

information?

Response: District provided emissions inventory information to ISSRC on 3/22/07. 

2. Comment: Could we have a readable version of the 2012 isopleths for the cities that 

you have modeled for version 1.04. (I am assuming from our conversation yesterday 

the isopleths are very similar for 1.06 and ARB has not modeled 1.06 for 2012). 

Response: A District response was sent 4/3//07 to clarify that emissions inventory 

version 1.04 was used to generate carrying capacity diagrams for 2012, 2018, and 

2023. Carrying capacity diagrams for 2020 incorporated emissions inventory 

version 1.06. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-2

3. Comment: Could we have the population by tier class and emissions from 

agricultural pumps that are expected to be in place starting in 2012 with existing 

NSR and incentive funding (not new proposed funding). 

Response: The agricultural pump engine population by tier and year is shown in the 

table on page 7-29 of the ozone plan. This table already takes NSR and existing 

incentive funding into account.

4. Comment: Could we have the inventory of reciprocating internal combustion 

engines, including population by tier class or control efficiency and fuel type, and 

size of the reciprocating internal combustion engines that is expected to be in place 

starting in 2012 on with existing NSR and inventive funding. 

Response: Information from District Rule 4702 was provided directly to ISSRC. 

5. Comment: Could we have the breakdown of CAF emissions by size of facility, 

including uncontrolled emissions for facility and other (silage, leachate, etc) 

separately and percent control assumed by 2013 in current rules. 

Response: The District response was sent to ISSRC 4/3/07. The District provided 

ARBís Large Confined Animal Facility Definition Report (May 6, 2005). 

6. Comment: Please provide up to date emissions from oil processing and storage. 

Response: The information was provided in the emissions inventory sent to ISSRC 

on 3/22/07. 

7. Comment: Please clarify the aging emissions: the 1.9 tpd reduction from aging that 

will be occurring due to current NSR rules in 2013, are those included in the 

Appendix B of the January 29th inventory and in Appendix I (I-64)? Also, are they 

included in the CCOS modeling inventory? Can we have the uncontrolled emissions 

estimate? 

Response: Since these emission reductions are attributed to NSR (not a prohibitory 

rule), the brandy aging emission inventory will change when the controls are 

installed. The uncontrolled emission estimate is in the ARB on-line emission 

inventory: Stationary Sources ñ Industrial Processes ñ Food and Agriculture ñ Wine 

Aging.

8. Comment: We would like the baseline uncontrolled inventory in 2012/2013 for 

Composting and Biosolids. Also, it would be useful to have the fraction of emissions 

that are being or will be controlled through the existing mechanisms by 2013, the 

percent control efficiency used, and if any the remaining emissions from uncontrolled 

operations, and briefly the reason why (facility too small). 

Response: See attached Appendix B of the recent rule adoption. One of the 

existing large compost facilities (>100,000 wet tons per year throughput) will be 

converted to a waste-to-energy operation by late 2012 and the composting 

emissions from this facility will go to zero. Also, this inventory does not include two 

new composting facilities that will begin operations before 2009. These facilities are 

subject BACT through the District NSR Rule. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-3

9. Comment: Please provide the uncontrolled emissions by size category of 

composting green waste facilities. 

Response: The District provided a spreadsheet to ISSRC on 4/5/07. 

Follow-up 9(a). Comment: According to a recalculation, there would be 51 tpd 

on an annual basis and 67 tpd on a summer season basis for 2005. However, 

Appendix I and Appendix B reflect around 51 tpd for the summer season. Could 

you clarify this discrepancy? 

Response: We understand ISSRCís analysis. We note that the emission 

estimates for green waste composting shown in the Plan are not yet included in 

the official ARB emission inventory. When we compile the estimates for inclusion 

in the ARB Emission Inventory, we will account for ISSRCís analysis as well as 

expected new information on emission factors. 

Follow-up 9(b). Comment: There is an estimated growth of around 10 t/d from 

2005 to 2014 for this category (baseline inventory). Does the same percentage 

controls as in the spreadsheet (i.e. 1/2 have 20% controls) apply to the growth? 

Is this growth in the largest size range? 

Response: For the emission forecasts for green waste composting, the same 

overall rate of control applies to the entire source category for any given year. 

Similarly, the growth rate is applied to the entire category, not just the largest 

facilities. 

10. Comment: Please confirm our understanding of prescribed burning: The emissions 

inventory in App B has emissions from this category because they are summer day 

average, but the CCOS modeling inventory does not. 

Response: Prescribed burning emissions are not in future year modeling runs. 

11. Comment: Weíre interested in the uncontrolled emissions in 2012 from glass 

furnaces. Please confirm the emissions in Appendix B and Appendix I (I-22) for 

glass furnaces in the January plan includes NSR reduction of 1.2 tpd. Please 

confirm that in the January plan, no new reductions were taken from recommended 

measures (see table 6-1) and in the March plan, 1.6 tpd were taken in 2012 (again, 

table 6-1). 

Response: There are no "uncontrolled emissions" for the Glass Melting Furnaces 

source category: all furnaces are well controlled. The emission inventory reflects the 

current level of control under R4354 limits. The District NSR rule is responsible for 

1.2 tpd in emission reductions that have not yet been realized. A total of 1.6 tpd is 

expected for the control measure proposed in the 8-hour ozone plan in addition to 

the previously-mentioned 1.2 tpd from NSR. 

12. Comment: We have gone back and looked at the carrying capacity isopleths again 

using what we understand as the appropriate inventory data. Our understanding is 

that the 1.06 version of the inventory minus the recent adjustments (the adjusted 

baseline inventory) was used for the modeling, except maybe a minor exclusion from 

prescribed burning. This is the new plan data for 2020 that we used (page F-16 of 

the new plan). We also have the understanding that the 2020 modeling and the 2012 

using the same inventory should have practically the same results. Therefore, we 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-4

used this data regardless of the calendar year we are looking at. However, we 

wanted to see the higher inventory values so we used the 2012 isopleths using 1.04 

inventory. We weren't sure of the corrections to the baseline adjusted inventory so 

they were not included to make things a conservative estimate. If there are no errors 

in this graph (we would appreciate you letting us know if the inventory numbers are 

indeed correct, and also the yellow numbers inside the graph since they are hard to 

read from the plan), we do not seem to come to the same conclusion as you have 

indicated the carrying capacity of NOx should be 160 tpd. We still see about 172 tpd 

as the carrying capacity with no VOC control, and around 190 tpd with significant 

VOC control. 

Response: The spreadsheet provided by ISSRC had a few errors that needed to 

be addressed, but in general is very similar to the analysis we have conducted at the 

District. Modeling for 2020 and 2012 should have similar curves when the 

inventories used are the same version. Figure 3-8 in the District SIP also 

merges data from the two carrying capacity runs similar to that done in ISSRC's 

spreadsheet. Unfortunately, the 2020 and 2012 carrying capacity modeling runs did 

use different inventories. The differences is these inventories, however, are 

believed to be minor enough to only create relatively small changes in the curves. 

 

The largest problem with the ISSRC spreadsheet is due to using the wrong baseline 

totals for calculations. For this type of analysis, the modeling baseline emission 

inventory should be used and not simply the baseline emission inventory. In the 

case of the 2020 modeling, the baseline modeling emission inventory included a few 

inventory omissions and adjustments as well an ARB control measure. Because of 

these adjustments the 2020 baseline modeling emission inventory was actually 302 

tpd of NOx and 308 tpd of VOC. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 of the District SIP use these 

values as reference points for the reductions. 

 

When the proper baseline modeling inventory is used, the spreadsheet shows 

attainment with less than 161 tpd NOx for 308 tpd of VOC and less than 181 tpd of 

NOx for 123 tpd of VOC. These numbers are very close to our estimates and reflect 

the fact that for Valley-wide attainment, an additional 180 tpd of VOC reduction only 

increases the NOx carrying capacity target by 20 tpd. The District provided ISSRC 

with a spreadsheet with the corrections mentioned above. 

L.2 COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE FINAL 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT 

PERIOD 

Comment period held from March 8, 2007 through April 6, 2007 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Cari Anderson Consulting/SJV COGs (COG) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-5

Earthjustice (EJ)1

, on behalf of: 

Sierra Club, Latino Issues Forum, Medical Advoates for Healthy Air, 

Environmental Defense, the Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation, Fresno 

Metro Ministry 

Pilkington North America (PNA) 

Saint-Gobain Containers, Inc (SGC) 

Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) 

Classification 

1. Comment: With the federal ozone implementation rule currently vacated by the 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the need to seek an ìextremeî nonattainment 

classification for ozone is unclear. (PNA) 

Response: The court decision vacated the Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard – Phase 1 (69 FR 23951-24000). 

Nonattainment designations were not part of Phase 1, but a separate rule: Air 

Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (69 FR 23858-23951), effective June 15, 2004. Section 

172(b) of the Clean Air Act requires plans to be submitted within three years of 

the date of the nonattainment designation. EPA has requested rehearing on the 

Phase 1 decision and has urged air districts to move forward on attainment plans 

and observe the June 15, 2007 deadline. 

2. Comment: We have concerns with the District seeking an extreme classification. 

We oppose a strategy that seeks future emission reductions regardless of the 

availability of proven emission control technologies and/or cost-effectiveness. 

(PNA) 

Response: Extreme is the only legal option for the District. Please refer to the 

Executive Summary, starting on page ES-12, as well as Chapter 11, Section 

11.2. 

Control Measures 

3. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-7): The candidate control measure for container 

glass furnaces has been amended since the January 29, 2007 draft of the plan. 

Several comments were received that expressed concerns about the feasibility, 

cost, and implementation timing of the listed control options. (SGC) (PNA) 

Response: The listed control options include those received during previous 

comment periods and do not necessarily reflect the future rule requirements. 

During the rule development process, staff will consider feasibility, cost, and 

implementation schedules. 

 

1

 Earthjustice comments were based on the January 29, 2007 draft of the plan. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-6

4. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-7): The District should consider adopting a 

standard that allows for averaging of emissions on a facility-wide basis. Since 

the number of affected facilities is so small, the District should consider 

negotiating individual emission reduction goals with each manufacturer to obtain 

greater emission reductions. (SGC) 

Response: Staff does consider individual facility conditions, but pursuant to the 

Governing Boardsí Rule Development Procedure, any rule must be developed in 

a public setting, not through private negotiations, and must apply equally to 

similar operators to avoid any unfair competitive advantage. 

5. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-7): It is not clear whether the District has 

already calculated the reductions from implementation of the existing rule 

requirements for container glass furnaces (Rule 4354), which will become 

effective in 2008. (SGC) 

Response: All rules that were adopted before May 2005, including Rule 4354, 

have been incorporated into the emissions inventory in Tables B-3 and B-4. 

6. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-7): Since glass melting furnacesí existing 

reductions meet the goal previously set for our industry in the initial proposal, the 

District should not seek further reductions from the existing glass furnaces 

through rule amendment. The Districtís implementation authority is or should be 

restricted to requiring RACT/RACM at local sources, not BACT. (PNA) 

Response: State law requires the District to implement all feasible control 

measures. Federal RACT/RACM levels are the minimum controls required by 

federal law for nonattainment areas. Nonattainment areas must often develop 

more stringent regulations to demonstrate compliance with the ambient air quality 

standards. 

7. Comment: Appendix I (S-SOL-6): The requirement to use certain adhesives 

and/or primers in a production process is sometimes mandated to comply with 

government safety requirements, in addition to customer specifications. The 

process for substituting materials with lower VOC contents may not be possible. 

The District should allow flexibility to use materials linked to other regulatory 

requirements even if the VOC concentration is above the targeted limit. (PNA) 

Response: Issues with product safety can be addressed during rule 

development.

8. Comment: Appendix I (S-SOL-6): Increasing the control efficiency of VOC 

control devices for solvents by 10% would require retrofitting and, in some cases, 

might prove unworkable. Retrofitting is expensive in relation to the modest 

overall reductions in VOC emissions. (PNA) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-7

Response: The listed control options include those received during previous 

comment periods and do not necessarily reflect the future rule requirements. 

During the rule development process, staff will consider feasibility and cost. 

9. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-1): In addition to the financial investments 

already being required to meeting existing Rule 4306, the District is proposing to 

require operators to make yet another substantial investment in SCR or SNCR, 

which is projected to achieve minimal emissions reductions. The District should 

only consider control measures that demonstrate reasonable cost effectiveness. 

(SoCalGas) 

Response: The listed control options include those received during previous 

comment periods and do not necessarily reflect the future rule requirements. 

During the rule development process, staff will consider cost effectiveness. 

10. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-2): The District should form a working group 

made up of industrial and commercial operators, utilities, and equipment 

manufactures to assess technologies and to identify reasonable timelines and 

emission limits that could be successfully applied to this equipment segment. 

Many smaller business and schools use boilers in this size range and could be 

significantly impacted by product/technology costs. (SoCalGas) 

Response: We invite participation and input from all stakeholders during rule 

development, but working groups can sometimes be exclusionary. The indicated 

control measure is listed as an incentives measure that will probably focus on 

assisting the schools in replacing their older boilers with newer gas or electric 

boilers. 

11. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-10): Application of low NOx burners to central 

residential furnaces may increase costs substantially. The District should meet 

with furnace manufactures, furnace distributors, installing contractors, local utility 

companies, consumer groups, and other key stakeholders to develop realistic 

objectives and timelines for this control measure. (SoCalGas) 

Response: We invite participation and input from all stakeholders during rule 

development, but working groups can sometimes be exclusionary. The listed 

control options include those received during previous comment periods and do 

not necessarily reflect the future rule requirements. During the rule development 

process, staff will consider feasibility, cost, and implementation schedules. 

Other Comments on the March 15, 2007 Draft 

12. Comment: In Tables 11-1 and 11-2, the baseline adjustments should be divided 

into District and ARB adjustments as they are in Table 10-1. (COG) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-8

Response: The District made this revision as suggested. 

13. Comment: Please clarify the source of the 2005 and 2012 baseline 

adjustments. They do not appear to match Tables B-1 and B-2. (COG) 

Response: The ARB values for 2005 were based on linear extrapolation of 

2002 and 2008 data, and the ARB values for 2012 were based on linear 

extrapolation of 2011 and 2014 data. A clarifying footnote has been added to 

Tables 11-1 and 11-2. 

14. Comment: Please indicate the source of the incentive reductions in Tables 11-1 

and 11-2. (COG) 

Response: A new Table 7-2 showing the incentives reductions has been added 

with text explaining how incentive reductions are calculated. 

15. Comment: Please clarify how the source category percentages in section 11.5.3 

were calculated. (COG) 

Response: These percentages were based on Tables B-3 and B-4 values 

without baseline adjustments or reductions from the proposed strategy. 

16. Comment: The COGís previous comment regarding Blueprint (#68 from the 

February 8 workshop and draft) was incorrectly summarized. Please correct. 

(COG) 

Response: The comment has been corrected to indicate that Blueprint may be 

complete in time for inclusion in future District plans. 

Comments on the January 29, 2007 Draft 

Reclassification and attainment date 

17. Comment: The District should not delay attainment, which would subject Valley 

residents to dangerous air pollution and economic losses of $3 billion each year. 

The toll that ground level ozone pollution is taking on the Valleyís public health 

and its economy demands resolute and immediate action. The District takes 

excessive advantage of flexibilities in the CAA and avoids opportunities to adopt 

necessary and innovative rules and strategies. An extreme nonattainment 

designation, while making it easier for the District and ARB to get an approvable 

plan, essentially serves as a deferral of agency responsibility, during which time 

the people of the Valley will continue to breathe dangerous levels of ozone 

pollution. (EJ) 

Response: The District is projecting that attainment will be achieved as 

expeditiously as possible. As this plan is implemented, over 50% of the SJ 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-9

Valley will be in attainment by 2015, with over 90% reaching attainment in 2020. 

All of the Districtís control measures to reduce emissions under its authority will 

be adopted before 2013, so no deferral or delay of District authority exists. While 

the study by Hall et al. does estimate economic benefits of over $3 billion/year for 

attaining the federal 8-hr ozone and PM2.5 standards, over 99% of this total is 

due to the benefits from attaining the PM2.5 standards. According to Hall et al., 

attaining the federal ozone standards in the SJ Valley would produce economic 

benefits of about $33 million/year. 

Public Involvement 

18. Comment: Given the expansiveness of the draft plan and the many missing or 

vague elements, the District should offer more time for public review and 

comment. (EJ) 

Response: The District held an additional 30-day public comment period after 

this comment was received. Including Town Hall meetings, workshops, and this 

noticed 30-day public comment period, the District has held over 15 weeks of 

public comment over the course of the development of this plan. While there 

have been different versions of the document to review, new drafts have built 

upon previous drafts. There will be further opportunities for public comment as 

the control measures are developed into regulations. Also, District staff has been 

and will continue to be available to answer questions from the public regarding 

the plan and its elements. 

19. Comment: The draft plan is long and complicated with very little useful 

explanation or interpretation to help the public truly understand the document. It 

would be helpful if the District included cites of legal authority for the many legal 

standards and interpretations it puts forth in this draft plan. (EJ) 

Response: The District has worked to make the plan as user-friendly as 

possible. The District has included legal citations when available and 

appropriate. If the commenter has questions regarding certain portions of the 

plan that lack sufficient legal citation, and if more specific comments can be 

made, the District will provide further documentation. 

20. Comment: The responses to the public comments received on the drafts were 

inadequate. For many of Earthjusticeís control measure comments, the District 

simply added each suggestion to a list of possible options to be considered at 

some future rule development stage as opposed to strengthening the 

commitments. There are a number of further reductions that can be found by 

further tightening the Districtís stationary source rules and by implementing 

operational use restrictions. (EJ) 

Response: Control measure suggestions were added to the options list to 

ensure they are recorded. Suggestions will receive a more detailed, public 

review during the rule development process. The District cannot claim 

reductions credit for all suggestions since some may prove infeasible or 

contradictory to those received from other commenters. The final emission 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-10

reductions are recalculated when a rule is adopted, and those emission 

reductions will be included in future plan updates. 

Clean Air Act Requirements 

21. Comment: As Earthjustice previously commented, the Districtís RACT analysis 

is inadequate. The District must prepare a complete analysis of sources down to 

ten tons per year showing how the required controls compare to approved RACT 

controls in other areas and should evaluate how RACT for each source has 

changed since the 2003 All Feasible Measures Report. (EJ) 

Response: Should the Governing Board authorize the APCO to request a 

reclassification, the District will be directed to revise the RACT SIP analysis by a 

specific date. Because the Valley was previously classified as Extreme under 

the one-hour ozone standard, the District has already revised our rules to reflect 

a 10-ton-per-year RACT level. Revising the analysis will be primarily an 

administrative action to satisfy Federal requirements and would not result in 

additional reductions. 

22. Comment: FMVCP has not been subtracted from RFP in the draft plan as 

required. (EJ) 

Response: The District listed the FMVCP as zero under the direction of ARB. 

The District has forwarded this comment to ARB for clarification in their plan. 

23. Comment: RFP appears to depend on state measures on to which ARB has not 

yet committed. (EJ) 

Response: RFP has been revised, and state measures are no longer included. 

24. Comment: Especially since the Valley has two major transportation routes 

(Highway 99 and Interstate 5), the District should work with the state to develop a 

concerted traffic control plan to address periods of high traffic congestion. (EJ) 

Response: The presence of major transportation routes does not by itself justify 

the need to develop a traffic control plan. Section 182(e)(4) of the federal Clean 

Air Act says that state implementation plans for extreme areas may contain 

provisions that establish traffic control measures during heavy traffic hours to 

reduce the use of high polluting vehicles or heavy-duty vehicles, notwithstanding 

any other provision of law. While such measures are of interest in large urban 

areas that experience widespread and prolonged traffic congestion during 

morning and afternoon commute hours, they would be of limited value in the 

Valley due to the much shorter duration and spotty locations of traffic congestion 

during commute hours. 

25. Comment: RACM for transportation sources must also be included in the draft 

plan for public review. (EJ) 

Response: RACM for transportation sources was included in Appendix C of the 

version of the plan dated March 15, 2007 (posted March 8, 2007). The comment 

period for this version of the plan concluded on April 6, 2007. In May, another 30 

day public comment period will occur with ARBís adoption of the Districtís Plan 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-11

into the State Implementation Plan providing, once again, another opportunity for 

public comments on RACM included in Appendix C. 

26. Comment: The Districtís assessment of contingency measure requirements 

(page 11-10 of the 1/29/07 draft) is misleading. If an area ultimately fails to attain 

the standard, the ìexcess reductionsî (excess of RFP) being used for 

contingency are meaningless, since the control strategy achieving those 

reductions has evidently failed. The reductions projected to be in excess of RFP 

requirements should give the District confidence that the contingency measures 

will not be needed but must not act as an excuse for failing to adopt contingency 

measures. (EJ) 

Response: As noted in the Plan, the Districtís emission control strategy leaves 

no stone unturned in terms of finding and implementing emissions reductions for 

sources under its authority to control. As a result of this aggressive strategy, 

emission reductions that improve air quality are put into place as expeditiously as 

practicable to protect public health. The District believes that in the time leading 

up to the 2024 attainment date for extreme areas, public health would not be 

protected by identifying emissions reductions but delaying their implementation 

until after 2024. The result of this strategy is that the District has identified 

emissions reductions above and beyond those needed to meet the six RFP 

milestones for extreme areas. As noted in Chapter 11, new technologies not yet 

available are being monitored for their role in providing the necessary reductions 

to demonstrate attainment in the future; many of these same types of 

technologies may also be available for future contingency measures should they 

be needed for the attainment year. 

Permitting and NSR 

27. Comment: The District says that it adopted a revision to the NSR rule under the 

1-hour extreme ozone plan setting the major source threshold at 10 tons per 

year, as required by the CAA. The District usually argues that rules adopted by 

the Board are implemented at the local level immediately and do not depend on 

EPA approval except for SIP credit. However, the District also says that because 

EPA never acted on the Districtís 1-hour ozone plan, the NSR rule revisions 

never went into effect. Because of the December 22 ruling on South Coast 

AQMD v. EPA, the District must maintain the extreme 1-hour major source 

thresholds. Section 182(e)(1) requires an extreme nonattainment area to 

establish offset ratios of at least 1.5 to 1 unless the plan requires all existing 

major sources in the area to use BACT. The District has not even successfully 

demonstrated RACT. (EJ) 

Response: Because of the uncertainty in the future of the one-hour ozone 

standard at the time the District Board adopted the ìextremeî version of our NSR 

rule, the rule included language that made the rule effective at the time of EPA 

approval. Subsequent to the District Boardís adoption of our rule, but prior to 

EPA approving the rule, the one-hour ozone standard was revoked by EPA and 

replaced by the eight-hour standard, rendering the submittal mute. Therefore, 

the rule never took effect and was never implemented. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-12

On the subject of the December 22 District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals 

ruling, we believe that taking any action on the basis of the original ruling would 

be premature. On March 22, 2007, EPA filed a petition for a rehearing by the full 

court, requesting clarification on a number of fronts. The District is following the 

issue carefully and will implement any requirements that are mandated by the 

eventual outcome of the case. 

Black box 

28. Comment: In the General Preamble for the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 

EPA requires areas relying on long-term measures for attainment to draft a plan 

containing ìbackstopî measures that go into effect automatically and are 

sufficient to achieve all the reductions identified with each long-term measure for 

each year through the attainment year. However, the District does not have such 

backstops in place. (EJ) 

Response: See response to Comment No. 10. The District has identified 

emission reductions above and beyond those needed to meet all federal 

requirements through 2023, and thus does have rule-based ìbackstopî 

reductions for all RFP requirements for an extreme area. Section 182(e)(5) of 

the federal Clean Air Act requires states to submit enforceable commitments to 

develop and adopt contingency measures that cover the magnitude of reductions 

expected from long-term measures. The federal Clean Air Act also requires 

states to submit these contingency measures to EPA no later than three years 

before proposed implementation of the long-term measures, so they are not 

required to be submitted at the time of this SIP transmittal. 

29. Comment: The District must do everything it can to ensure that if the Valley is 

reclassified as extreme, reliance on ìblack boxî emissions reductions are 

minimized and Section 182(e)(5) of the CAA is not exploited. The plan must 

contain schedules outlining the steps leading to final development and adoption 

of black box measures (according to EPAís partial disapproval of South Coastís 

1997 ozone plan). Black box measures must be defined as specifically as 

possible; the long-term measures identified in Chapter 11 provide no specific 

commitment. (EJ) 

Response: See response to Number 10. The Districtís strategy is to attain the 

standards as expeditiously as practicable. The District plans to develop and 

adopt all control measures under its authority by 2013, the attainment date for 

the Valleyís initial classification of serious nonattainment. The District has 

identified and discussed Black Box measures in as much detail as is possible 

with currently available information. As more information becomes available on a 

given technology associated with long-term measures, the District will evaluate 

the information and consider it for implementation. 

30. Comment: Future study measures, which the plan does not well define, should 

commit to more than a completion date for the feasibility studies. While the draft 

plan includes brief descriptions of various advanced technologies that the District 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-13

wishes to explore in the future, the plan fails to mention (1) whether there are 

readily-available resources to fund research and development of new 

technologies; (2) a projection of how much funding can be allocated to advanced 

technologies; (3) the source of such funding; or (4) that the District is definitively 

committed to the funding and implementation of measures. (EJ) 

Response: The feasibility studies listed in the plan will be undertaken by District 

staff, according to the schedule in Chapter 6, and may serve as the basis for a 

future rule development projects, if warranted and approved by the Governing 

Board. At this time, sufficient information about these categories is unavailable, 

so the District cannot realistically claim emission reductions. The studies will fill 

in the information gaps and point to future opportunities. The District does not 

have the resources to embark on a meaningful, independent research program to 

generate new technologic breakthroughs and must rely on the private sector and 

market forces to advance control technology. 

 

31. Comment: The draft plan must still contain a commitment to develop and submit 

contingency measures that could be implemented if black box measures are not 

developed or fail to achieve the promised reductions. (EJ) 

Response: See response to Number 12. Chapter 11 notes that the District will 

identify contingency reductions for the long-term measures on a schedule 

consistent with federal Clean Air Act requirements. 

Incentives 

32. Comment: The Districtís proposal for incentive spending does not meet 

requirements for making the incentive plan SIP creditable. The incentive plan is 

not currently backed by real funding, and its contents do not assure that it will 

generate and guarantee reductions that are surplus, quantifiable, real, 

enforceable, and permanent. Chapter 7 is more of a rough draft. Given the 

concerns, it would be prudent for the District to commission a consultant with 

appropriate expertise to develop a spending plan. (EJ) 

Response: Since the plan is an extreme plan, the District is not legally required 

to show existing funding for all measures. Furthermore, the District is not 

currently claiming SIP reductions for the incentive options where existing funding 

is not available. Measures not backed by existing funding are included to 

illustrate that the District is looking at all feasible measures and seeking funding 

to implement these measures. The incentive section of the plan will be used in 

the District's fund-raising process. When the funding is obtained, the District will 

develop a proposal to ensure that SIP creditable reductions are achieved, as 

appropriate. In developing this, the staff will base the program on existing 

incentive programs (e.g. Heavy-Duty Emission Reduction Program), which 

generates real, surplus, quantifiable, and enforceable reductions for the life of the 

projects. As noted in Chapter 7 of the Ozone Plan, "to ensure SIP creditability, 

disbursement of the funds would be based on protocols agreed to between ARB, 

EPA, and the District." 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-14

33. Comment: The incentive plan is not transparent. The District should produce 

cost-effectiveness tables for each of the scenarios considered so that 

comparisons can be easily made. In one case, the District does not recommend 

the most ìcost-effectiveî approach. (EJ) 

Response: In several of the control measures, the cost-effectiveness was 

shown. In all of the measures, the total costs and total reductions were shown, 

thus readers can calculate the cost-effectiveness. In determining the 

recommended scenario, staff considered cost-effectiveness, likely program 

participation, and feasibility. After this analysis, staff chose the most costeffective feasible scenario. In the Combustion Ignited Agricultural Engine control 

measure, it may appear that the most cost-effective measure was not used. 

However, after considering the cost of line extensions (which were not included 

in the total cost estimates due to the variability of these costs), the most costeffective scenario was chosen. 

34. Comment: The Districtís incentive plan should consider cost-effective retrofits 

as a viable option. There are good retrofit options for some engines, and more 

retrofit options should be commercially available in the next year or two. In the 

case of construction equipment, the Districtís suggestion to entirely replace large, 

expensive equipment rather than retrofit illuminates the Districtís lack of up-todate information about retrofit potential and cost-effectiveness. (EJ) 

Response: Currently, there are only two retrofit options for off-road vehicles that 

reduce NOx. These are only available for 1991 to 1995 Cummins 5.9 L off-road 

engines and specific 1996 to 2002 engines. There is testing being conducted to 

certify additional engines; however, this is a long and involved process that is 

conducted on an engine by engine basis. Staff does not believe it is appropriate 

to assume that these will be available in the next two years for a significant 

number of engine models. Furthermore, even if they are available and applicable 

to the vehicle's engine, in many cases, retrofits are not feasible due to limited 

space in the engine compartment. Additionally, based on District experience, 

there is minimal interest in retrofits because they tend to increase the vehicle 

owner's fuel and maintenance costs. Lastly, in some cases due to the engine 

placement and remaining life of the vehicles, it is more cost-effective to replace 

the vehicle than to install a retrofit, particularly when the cost of labor to install the 

devices is considered. 

35. Comment: The Districtís incentive plan should distinguish between those who 

can afford to invest (and who will be investing) their own funds in pollution 

reductions and those who cannot to help ensure that emissions gained through 

incentives will be surplus. The plan does not reveal the basis for the cost-share 

the District assigns to projects described in the proposed plan. (EJ) 

Response: The cost-share estimates were based on best available data and the 

District's experience in their rule development and grant programs. The District 

welcomes additional documentation demonstrating that specific sources can 

afford more or less of a cost-share. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-15

AERO 

36. Comment: AERO should be eliminated from the plan. The District must not 

allow sources to buy their way out of enforceable emissions reductions. (EJ) 

Response: The Advanced Emission Reduction Options concept will produce e 

nforceable emission reductions, and is critical to obtaining additional emission 

reductions from already tightly controlled sources. The concept will be applied 

judiciously with safeguards to ensure equivalent emission reductions are 

achieved while also protecting public health and ensuring environmental justice. 

The public will have opportunities to comment on the specific application of 

AERO as individual rules are developed. 

General 

37. Comment: Section 110(a)(2)(E) of the CAA requires plans to provide 

assurances that the District ìwill have adequate personnel, funding, and 

authorityÖ to carry out such implementation plan.î The District has made no 

ìadequate resourcesî demonstration in the draft plan. (EJ) 

Response: The District has an annual operating budget in excess of $30 million, 

with over 290 staff positions located in three locations throughout the Valley. 

Current District resources are adequate for carrying out the rulemaking 

provisions of this plan, and are also adequate for carrying out some of the 

incentive measures. As noted in Chapter 7 and the resolution accompanying the 

plan, should major increases in incentive funding occur, the District would 

allocate additional resources for program implementation (see also the Fiscal 

Impact section of the Governing Board item accompanying this plan). 

Historically, the District has sought and received increased resources for major 

new program assignments (e.g., Californiaís removal of the exemption of 

agricultural sources from some air pollution laws). The Districtís authority stems 

from Part 3 of the California Health and Safety Code (CH&SC 4000--40162). 

38. Comment: The District should remove all references to attainment of the old 

PM2.5 standard. The Valley never attained the PM2.5 standard, and just days 

after issuing a public statement declaring PM2.5 attainment, the Valley 

experienced a terrible PM2.5 episode and violated the standard multiple times. 

(EJ) 

Response: The federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard is based not on the number of 

days with PM2.5 levels above the level of the standard (65 μg/m3

, based on the 

1997 version of the standard), but instead is based on the 3-year average, 98th

percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 levels. The 1997-version of the PM2.5 standards 

are those to be addressed by the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, although EPA revised the 

standard in 2006. The Valley attained the 1997-version of the 24-hour PM2.5 

standard (but not the annual PM2.5 standard) in 2004 and 2005. Preliminary 

data for 2006 indicates that the Valley is no longer within the level of the 24-hr 

PM2.5 standard, so references to PM2.5 attainment have been removed from the 

plan. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-16

L.3 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM EPA ON JANUARY 29, 2007 DRAFT 

1. Comment: Modeling documentation, conformity budgets, RACM, and Weight-of 

Evidence analysis should be included. Otherwise, the District is not meeting 

federal requirements. 

Response: Please see Appendix F for modeling documentation and weight-ofevidence, and see Chapter 9 and Appendix C for conformity budgets and RACM. 

The District meets federal requirements with the information in these 

Appendices. 

2. Comment: Please show that the following CAA requirements have been met: 

RACT at 10 TPY, NSR, clean fuel for boilers, transportation, and VMT/trip offset. 

Response: Chapter 2 has been revised accordingly. 

3. Comment: The final draft should include modeling documentation, protocols, 

weight of evidence, background concentration, and Volume 1 (cited in Appendix 

F) 

Response: Please see Appendix F of the Districtís plan for the information 

requested. The next version of the Air Resources Board’s State Strategy for 

California’s 2007 State Implementation Plan may include further information on 

this topic; ARB released a draft version of the State Strategy on January 31, 

2007. The release of the next version is expected to occur in the coming 

months. ARB will adopt this State Strategy in conjunction with their approval of 

the District-adopted 2007 Ozone Plan. 

4. Comment: EPA has several comments pertaining to District incentives: 

discussion of future incentive programs, backstop measures, periodic reviews, 

on-road/off-road aggregation, and federal enforceability. 

Response: Chapter 7 has been revised and Appendix Q has been added to 

reflect these changes. At this point, the District is not taking SIP credit for these 

programs. Chapter 7 is an action plan in progress, and it includes the best 

estimates of possible emissions reductions that can be achieved from potential, 

future funding. 

5. Comment: Please submit documentation describing the methodology for setting 

FMVCP to zero. 

Response: The District has requested that ARB work with EPA to resolve this 

issue. 

6. Comment: Please include a summary of VOC emission reductions in Chapter 

11, and please correct Table 11-1 for consistency with Appendix B. 

Response: Table 11-1 has been corrected, and Table 11-2 has been added to 

show VOC reductions. 

7. Comment: Conformity budgets and motor vehicle emission budgets must be 

included in the final plan. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-17

Response: Please see Appendix C and Chapter 9 for this information. 

8. Comment: Please show how emissions reductions that contribute to RFP were 

derived. 

Response: Chapter 10 has been revised to show that RFP is achieved with 

emissions reductions from rules and programs that have already been adopted. 

9. Comment: We suggest providing more specific information for long-term 

measures. 

Response: Table 6-2 shows the District commitments for feasibility studies. 

The District expects that these studies will generate rule adoption schedules and 

possible emissions reductions. Study reports will be released by the dates listed 

in Table 6-2, and these reports may recommend a future amendment to the 

regulatory implementation schedule to include those additional measures 

identified as fruitful. 

10. Comment: Attainment designations are made by geographic area, not by 

monitoring site. 

Response: The text in Chapter 3 has been revised to indicate that although 

some sites will be within the standard before others, all sites in the Valley must 

be within the standard for the Valley to be redesignated into attainment. 

11. Comment: Please describe the process for reviewing controls and selecting 

stringent controls with aggressive implementation schedules. How does the rule 

development schedule meet the ìexpeditious as practicableî requirement? Why 

do some rules in the rule schedule have no corresponding emission reductions? 

Response: The process for evaluating control measures is complex, and it 

depends on several variables. A cost effectiveness ranking has been added to 

Appendix E. Other information on control measure evaluation can be found in 

Section 6.2.1 and Appendices H and I. The District is working to ensure that 

rules are adopted as expeditiously as practicable by adopting all new measures 

currently identified by 2012. Rules that do not result in reductions in the 

emissions inventory are being pursued to create a backstop to ensure that the 

emissions inventory doesnít increase. In some cases, the emissions inventory 

for particular sources are not well understood or do not exist yet. IND-14 is a 

commitment from the 1-hr ozone plan that the District is required to develop as a 

requirement from the 1-hour ozone anti-back sliding requirements. 

12. Comment: How are emissions reductions from incentives being credited towards 

RFP or attainment? 

Response: Emissions reductions from incentives are not included in RFP or the 

attainment demonstration. Please see the updated Tables 10-1, 10-2, and 11-1. 

13. Comment: Please elaborate on the following incentive program issues: 

emissions reductions calculation methodology, the conclusion that funding from 

certain sources are secured, incentive program protocols, ensuring scrapped 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-18

vehicles donít return to service in the District, ensuring that mobile reductions 

occur within the District, and how future incentive programs are identified, 

evaluated, and selected.

Response: Chapter 7 has been revised accordingly. 

14. Comment: Please confirm that no emission reduction credit will be taken for the 

measures in Chapter 8 (Innovative Strategies and Programs), other than 

employer trip reduction. Please refrain from using the term ìalternative 

compliance.î

Response: There are no references to ìalternative complianceî in the current 

version of the plan. No emissions reductions beyond employer trip reduction are 

being quantified for credit in Chapter 8. Chapter 8 is clear on this issue. 

15. Comment: Page 9-2 should be revised since there are no conformity budgets in 

this plan. The RACM analysis is also missing.

Response: The conformity budgets and RACM have been included in Chapter 9 

and Appendix C. 

16. Comment: Please recalculate RFP without reflash, and reconcile reductions 

from known incentives.

Response: Reflash was incorporated as directed by ARB (please see table B2). Incentive reductions were removed from the RFP demonstration. 

17. Comment: Please include a ROG summary table in Chapter 11. Chapter 11 

refers to the RFP chapter as Chapter 9, although it should be Chapter 10. Be as 

specific as possible in describing 182(e)(5) measures. Please note that 

contingency measures must be adopted no later than 3 years before the year 

preceding the attainment year.

Response: A ROG/VOC summary table has been added as Table 11-2. The 

RFP chapter reference has been corrected. Measures being considered for 

182(e)(5) are as specific as possible at this time (please see response to EPA 

comment number 9). Since they are not used in the RFP calculation, all the 

measures in Table 6-1 can serve as contingency, and all of these will be adopted 

well before 2019. 

L.4 VERBAL COMMENTS, FEBRUARY 8, 2007 PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE DRAFT 

2007 OZONE PLAN 

Approximately 96 people in attendance (32 Fresno, 53 Bakersfield, and 11 Modesto) 

39. Comment: The District needs better communication with ARB for regulations to 

ensure that VOC reductions do not result in an increase in NOx reductions. 

United Pallet Services, for example, will likely increase their NOx emissions as 

they comply with VOC rules. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-19

Response: The District continues to make every effort to collaborate with other 

regulatory agencies, such as ARB, regarding overall control strategies to prevent 

and resolve any potentially conflicting situations. The District is working with the 

stakeholder to resolve this issue. 

40. Comment: An audited Smog Check program would present a good opportunity 

to improve automobile performance. 

Response: Comment noted. 

41. Comment: Was the modeling work completed for this plan the first 8-hour ozone 

effort? Are the isopleths emphasizing NOx control new?

Response: The modeling completed for this plan, the result of several years of 

work, is the first effort to model 8-hour ozone in the San Joaquin Valley. The 

isopleths emphasizing NOx control are a recent product of this effort. 

42. Comment: Stricter standards on chemicals are important to public health, but 

authority is shared with the counties. It would be good for the District to increase 

communication with the countiesí Environmental Health Directors and Ag 

Commissioners. 

Response: The District works closely with key stakeholders throughout the 

Valley. We inform County Health Officers of key air quality issues through email 

and work to educate stakeholders through presentations before City Councils, 

Boards of Supervisors and other community groups and organizations. 

43. Comment: Short sea shipping (with ships built in San Diego) is being 

successfully implemented in Alaska. The District should get involved so that it 

can be done here.

Response: It is a further study measure. 

44. Comment: The City of Arvin is investigating ways to improve land use, and they 

would like to work with the District and ARB. There should be incentives 

available to cities looking at smart growth. Consider community pollution credits 

so money can be used where resources are limited. 

Response: The District will work with the City of Arvin to assist in developing 

methods for improving land use strategies. 

45. Comment: Nobody wants to do to Extreme. However, it is understandable that 

Extreme is the only administrative option. 

Response: Comment noted. 

46. Comment: It is important that studies such as CRPAQS and CCOS are 

supported.

Response: The District concurs and has been an active partner in these 

studies. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-20

47. Comment: The District should meet with Developers to encourage the use of 

solar panels.

Response: The District's ISR rule credits all types of construction and building 

techniques that reduce the impact of new developments in terms of pollutant 

emissions. For example, providing outdoor electrical outlets that are used in 

conjunction with electric lawn and garden equipment are considered as mitigation 

techniques. Solar panels reduce the demand on the electric grid, which results in 

fewer emissions from power plants. This is well known to developers and has 

been increasingly integrated in new housing construction. The use of solar 

panels is also being promoted by a state program to install 1 million of these 

units in California (Million Solar Roof Project).

48. Comment: The health impacts to young children are too great to allow for the 

District to step-up to Extreme. Clean air is a moral issue. We canít move slowly. 

The health impacts during lung development are permanent. More than 1⁄2 

million Valley residents have asthma, and even people without asthma are 

affected.

Response: Public health is a primary consideration for the District. As this plan 

is implemented, the ambient ozone concentrations will decrease dramatically 

over time in all areas of the Valley. All Valley residents will experience cleaner 

air quickly and continually. The District is only considering a step-up to extreme 

because it is the only legal option under the clean air act. The technologies for 

achieving reductions necessary for any other attainment status do not exist at 

this time. 

49. Comment: Why do dairies continue to be approved?

Response: Land use decisions, including the approval of new dairies, are under 

the authority of cities and counties. Any dairy in the San Joaquin Valley will be 

subject to District regulations. 

50. Comment: If residents have to do Smog Checks for their vehicles, regulations 

on businesses should have to be enforced too.

Response: The Districtís Compliance Department is dedicated to the 

enforcement of District regulations. 

51. Comment: The District should consider the Alternative Plan. Some 

commenters noted that the Alternative SIP has a lot of problems.

Response: District staff has conducted a thorough analysis of the Alternative 

SIP and its proposed control measures for potential emissions reductions and 

potential inclusion in the Districtís 2007 Ozone Plan. Please see Appendix P for 

the complete analysis. 

52. Comment: The District should have done more to show where and how 

incentive funds would be spent. Retrofits have been rejected, but the District has 

not shown why. The District should consider seeking outside help to refine its 

incentive strategy.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-21

Response: The District already funds on-road heavy duty vehicle retrofits and 

has funded almost $3,000,000 in the last year alone. The District is considering 

contracting with a consultant to assist in a retrofit incentive strategy.

53. Comment: The District should consider outside air purifiers.

Response: Comment noted. 

54. Comment: The AQI needs to be adjusted to better protect and inform people.

Response: EPA generally defines 100 AQI at the level of the NAAQS. Anytime 

EPA changes a NAAQS, the AQI is modified to reflect the new NAAQS. 

Congress required EPA to establish a uniform, nation wide program that reports 

air quality. EPA does not allow states or agencies to modify the numerical value 

(See CCA 319, 40 CFR Part 58.50, and 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix G). The 

general purpose of the AQI is that an individual can go to anywhere in the 

country and know what the AQI means.

55. Comment: The District should still reduce VOCs.

Response: The District is still pursuing VOC reductions to help bring some 

portions of the San Joaquin Valley earlier than would otherwise be possible. 

56. Comment: We need more regulations on cars.

Response: Comment noted. ARB has regulatory authority over mobile sources 

and propose additional measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources. 

Please see Chapter 9, Table 9-1 for the additional measures proposed by ARB. 

The District is also proposing a control measure in this Plan that will indirectly 

impact mobile sources by addressing the vehicle miles traveled through an 

Employer Trip Reduction measure. For additional information on that measure 

please see Chapter 8, Section 8.2.3 of the Plan. 

57. Comment We need more inspectors. 

Response: The District has steadily increased inspector staffing levels since the 

inception of the District in 1992. At the start of the District, there was 11 field 

staff. Today, there are 66 Senior Inspectors, Inspectors I, Inspectors II, and Air 

Quality Field Assistants who conduct field investigations for the District. As there 

has been a need for additional inspectors, the District has been responsive to 

requests. Continued improvements in technology and work efficiencies will allow 

us to meet the demand of expected work increases for the upcoming fiscal year 

with existing staff. 

58. Comment Builders should have to inform people on the dangers of living here 

with proper product labeling.

Response: Comment noted. 

59. Comment ISR and the school bus rule can be strengthened.

Response: Chapter 8, Section 8.2.7 discusses the Districtís ISR commitment to 

explore all possibilities of gaining additional emission reductions pending any 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-22

limitations from current litigation. The school bus rule was recently adopted, 

September 2006, and is an aggressive regulation addressing both NOx and toxic 

PM from diesel school buses. The effects of Rule 9310 will be seen in the next 

few years. In 2006 alone, the District has replaced 101 pre-1977 diesel school 

buses and has retrofitted and additional 123 diesel school buses with diesel 

particulate matter controls. The rule requires the replacement of the oldest 

buses first and requires school bus operators to purchase the cleanest engine 

standard at the time of purchase. The rule requires that all school buses be 

cleaner by 2016.

60. Comment: Regulatory costs and economic feasibility are of paramount concern. 

Farmers and growers want to make good choices with economics in mind.

Response: Comment noted. Any proposed rulemaking undergoes cost 

effectiveness and socioeconomic analyses so that policy makers can make 

informed decisions regarding potential economic impacts to the valleyís 

economy.

61. Comment: There are numerous funding obstacles that need to be overcome. 

The District collects ISR money, but it canít be spent because of lawsuits. ARB 

says certain equipment canít be retrofitted. The federal government is not doing 

enough ñ the DERA (Diesel Emissions Reductions Act) not funded. All these 

funds could be used to achieve reductions now. Ag has shown successful use of 

incentives. 

Response: Comment noted. 

62. Comment: Is Table 6-1 prioritized?

Response: It is a rulemaking schedule, ordered by adoption date. The amount 

of reductions, technological availability, and the date of the most recent 

rulemaking effort were all considered as this list was prioritized. 

63. Comment: Why have rules with zero reductions been included?

Response: Some of these are commitments from the 1-hour ozone plan, some 

may have small emissions reductions, and others may prevent increasing 

emissions later. 

64. Comment: The District needs better outreach. Meetings should be in the 

evenings. The Executive Summary should be translated into Spanish.

Response: The District produces outreach materials and advertising campaigns 

in multiple languages and encourages public participation by all Valley residents. 

The District provides easy to understand summaries of documents of interest and 

will provide translation of those documents when possible upon request. The 

District is providing a Spanish version of the Executive Directorís Letter to the 

Community that accompanies this plan and summarizes the key elements. 

65. Comment: Why are businesses and agriculture offered incentives but incentives 

are not offered for citizens to buy newer less polluting automobiles?
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-23

Response: The District is proposing to provide extensive funding to allow 

citizens to purchase newer less polluting automobiles; please see Chapter 7 of 

this Plan. 

66. Comment: ARB need to be encouraged to allow Moyer funds to cover full 

replacement of equipment.

Response: Comment noted. 

67. Comment: We provided lots of comments during the development of this plan, 

but have not received acceptable responses.

Response: The District includes a summary of all comments received in 

Appendix L, which also includes the Districtís responses to those comments. 

68. Comment: The District needs to be more aggressive in their plan, specifically by 

removing exemptions, regulating idling on locomotives, and improving land use in 

cities and counties.

Response: The District completed a through analysis of existing District rules to 

assess additional opportunities for emission reductions, which also included an 

assessment of exemptions; this analysis can be found in Appendix H and I. 

Chapters 7 and 8 of the Districtís Plan discuss several innovative strategies and 

programs to achieve reductions from sources that are not traditionally under the 

Districtís direct authority such as mobile sources and land use or local agency 

planning. Please see those chapters for the programs and strategies proposed 

and suggested. 

69. Comment: The school bus rule is not being implemented quickly enough, there 

are still many old school buses on the road

Response: The school bus rule was just recently adopted, September 2006, 

and is an aggressive regulation addressing both NOx and toxic PM from school 

buses requiring the replacement of the oldest buses first and requiring the 

cleanest engine at the time of purchase. Buses are being replaced as quickly as 

possible. Please see the response to Comment #21 for additional information on 

progress made during 2006 in replacing and retrofitting school buses.

70. Comment: More operational restriction need to be implemented on sources like 

lawn equipment and recreational vehicles.

Response: Comment noted. ARB has regulatory authority over mobile sources 

and can propose additional measures for on-road and off-road mobile sources. 

Please see Chapter 9, Table 9-1 for the additional measures proposed by ARB. 

Operational restrictions may be a consideration for the Expanded Spare-The-Air 

Efforts discussed in Chapter 8, Section 8.2.2 of the plan.

71. Comment: The health care cost of extreme designation exceeds the business 

costs. Extreme is morally and fiscally irresponsible.

Response: In considering public comments received thus far, reviewing plans 

and control measures from other air districts, and completing an exhaustive 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-24

analysis of all sources of smog-forming emissions in the San Joaquin Valley, the 

District has left no stone unturned in developing this plan. As a result, the 2007 

Ozone Plan presents a far-reaching strategy that will significantly reduce smogforming emissions and ensure that all Valley residents can experience air that 

meets the federal standards for 8-hour ozone as soon as possible. 

Under this plan, over 50 percent of the Valleyís population will see attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard in 2015, with over 90 percent reaching attainment in 

2020. The remaining 10 percent is expected to come into attainment after 2020 

and before 2023. All Valley residents, however, will benefit from measurable 

improvements in air quality quickly with steady progress towards cleaner air over 

time. 

The Hall Study reports that the economic benefits of meeting the federal 

standards for both PM2.5 and ozone in the valley could save the Valley more 

than $3 billion in health care and related costs annually (2005 dollars). In Table 

V-1 of the Hallís study, the total cost of health impacts from ozone is estimated at 

$32.64 million annually, and Table V-2 shows the total cost of health impacts 

from PM2.5 to be approximately $3.2 billion annually (Hall 2006). The deadline 

to attain the PM2.5 standard is 2015, so the total health cost of air pollution will 

decrease dramatically by 2015 to no more than $32.62 million annually. 

72. Comment: The public needs to see CEQA documentation as soon as possible.

Response: The Districtís Initial Study and Proposed negative declaration was 

made available on February 21, 2007. It is available on this Districtís website at 

http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/public_workshops_idx.htm. The public 

comment period on the CEQA document will end on March 28, 2007. 

73. Comment: Workshops should be held in the evenings to allow for more public 

participation.

Response: The District has done extensive outreach to obtain public input 

throughout the development of this plan. A number of meetings were held, 

including 6 town hall meetings, 2 workshops and 2 of the town hall meetings 

were held in the community during the evening hours to encourage public 

participation. It has been the Districtís experience that workshops are much 

more heavily attended during the daytime hours. 

74. Comment: A Spanish translator was requested for the Bakersfield office 

however this request was not addressed.

Response: The District works to provide interpretation at key District meetings 

upon request. The District received the request for the Bakersfield office and 

was not able to procure the equipment necessary for this service in the short 

timeframe given. The District is purchasing this equipment, so the District will 

have more interpretation flexibility in the future.

75. Comment: What is done with public comments?
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-25

Response: The District includes a summary of all comments received in 

Appendix L, which also includes the Districtís responses to those comments. 

The District also revises the plan accordingly when the District concludes that 

changes are appropriate. 

L.5 WRITTEN COMMENTS, FEBRUARY 8, 2007 PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE DRAFT 

2007 OZONE PLAN 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations:

Agricultural Industry Group (AG):

Almond Hullers and Processors Association, California Cotton Ginners and 

Growers Association, California Citrus Mutual, California Dairy Campaign, 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Kings 

County Farm Bureau, Madera County Farm Bureau, Nisei Farmers Leauge, San 

Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation, Tulare Lake Resource Conservation District 

United Pallet Services Inc. (UPSI) 

Cari Anderson Consulting/SJV COGs (COG) 

Sonny Barger (Barger) 

California League of Food Processors (CLFP) 

Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment (CRPE) 

Domitila Lemus (Lemus) 

Kern Oil & Refining Co. (KORC) 

Lisa Kayser-Grant (Grant) 

Refiners Council (RC) 

San Joaquin Refining Company and Tricor Refining, LLC (SJR/TR) 

Reclassification and Attainment Date 

76. Comment: Reclassification to extreme is the best of several unappealing 

choices (CLFP). 

Response: Comment noted. 

77. Comment: Delaying attainment beyond the current statutory deadline of 2013 is 

unacceptable for reasons of human health, agricultural loss, and environmental 

degradation. Although new regulations can be costly, residents are already 

paying the costs in health effects (Grant, CRPE). 

Response: The current statutory deadline as specified by EPA was based on 

peak ozone concentrations; it does not reflect the challenge of the many days 

over the 8-hour ozone standard in the Valley. In considering public comments 

received thus far, reviewing plans and control measures from other air districts, 

and completing an exhaustive analysis of all sources of smog-forming emissions 

in the San Joaquin Valley, the District has left no stone unturned in developing 

this plan. As a result, the 2007 Ozone Plan presents a far-reaching strategy that 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-26

will significantly reduce smog-forming emissions and ensure that all Valley 

residents can experience air that meets the federal standards for 8-hour ozone 

as soon as possible. The District is only considering a step-up to extreme 

because it is the only legal option under the clean air act. The technologies for 

achieving reductions necessary for any other attainment status do not exist at 

this time. 

Under this plan, over 50 percent of the Valleyís population will see attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard in 2015, with over 90 percent reaching attainment in 

2020. The remaining 10 percent is expected to come into attainment after 2020 

and before 2023. All Valley residents, however, will benefit from measurable 

improvements in air quality quickly with steady progress towards cleaner air over 

time. Also, the deadline to attain the PM2.5 standard is 2015, so the total health 

cost of air pollution will decrease dramatically by 2015. 

78. Comment: To help ensure earlier attainment, the District should persuade the 

Air Resources Board to commit to implement mobile and consumer product 

regulations earlier than currently planned. The District should demand that ARB 

adopt more stringent NOx controls from on-road mobile sources, especially 

heavy-duty diesel trucks and off-road mobile agricultural and construction 

equipment (CRPE). 

Response: The District concurs; the path to attainment is in reductions of NOx 

emissions of which 70%+ are from the mobile source categories. ARB is acutely 

aware of the need for NOx reductions from sources under their jurisdictional 

control. The ARB is workshopping their Statewide Strategy in March of 2007 

and public comments can be made on their planned reductions. Please see 

www.arb.ca.gov <http://www.arb.ca.gov> for the dates of their plan workshops. 

Alternative SIP 

79. Comment: Please review ISSRCís alternative plan and amend your plan 

accordingly (Grant, CRPE). 

Response: The District has undertaken an extensive review of the Alternative 

SIP proposals. The acceptance of alternative SIP suggestions is contingent on 

technical feasibility, economic impacts, and State/Federal Clean Air Act legal 

requirements, which the District is mandated to follow in submitting an 

approvable state implementation plan. Please see the District's response to the 

Alternative SIP in Appendix P. 

CEQA 

80. Comment: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the 

District analyze the Planís significant environmental effects. The District 

prepared Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for previous plans, which is 

consistent with CEQA because the plan may significantly impact the 

environment. A negative declaration is inappropriate (CRPE). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-27

Response: Historically, the District has prepared Environmental Impact Reports 

(EIRs) on only a few of its plans; by far the bulk of the Districtís CEQA 

compliance for plans has been done with negative declarations and in some 

cases notices of exemption. The Districtís most recent plan-related EIR was 

prepared for the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan in 2004; this 

EIR identified no significant environmental impacts from the Districtís plan, and 

no public comments were received on the Draft EIR. The District is complying 

with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

On February 21, 2006, the District issued for public comment a proposed 

Negative Declaration for the 2007 Ozone Plan. The Districtís analysis of the 

2007 Ozone Plan in its Initial Study showed no significant environmental impacts; 

consequently the proposed negative declaration appears to be the appropriate 

CEQA document for the 2007 Ozone Plan.

81. Comment: The Districtís 2/21/07 CEQA notice said that the Initial 

Study/Negative Declaration would be available on the Districtís workshops page 

on 2/21, but as of 2/26, it was not. The District needs to post the document and 

extend the comment period to allow for public review and comment (CRPE). 

Response: The Districtís Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration was 

available to the public on February 21, 2007. The Governing Board hearing for 

the 2007 Ozone Plan has been rescheduled for Monday, April 30, 2007. 

Additionally, the CEQA document comment period has been extended to 

Wednesday, March 28, 2007. The CEQA document is available at 

<http://www.valleyair.org/Workshops/public_workshops_idx.htm>

Permitting 

82. Comment: Collectively, we do not support the move from Severe designation to 

Extreme non-attainment designation because of the added burden that will be 

placed on farming operations. The major threshold for Title V permits will be 

reduced from 25 tons per year to 10 tons per year, and sources with 5 tons or 

more of emissions will require a District permit per SB-700. We oppose moving 

to extreme because the added load in regulation will be placed on farming 

operations and will not result in any air quality reductions. (AG) 

Response: In our aggressive pursuit of the earliest possible attainment date for 

all Valley residents, we have discovered that todayís technology and the 

promised new technologies on the horizon cannot bring about all of the 

reductions that the Valley needs, even if money were no object. While 

disheartening, this dilemma leaves us no choice but to step up to the ìExtremeî 

non-attainment designation as allowed for in the federal Clean Air Act. The 

District recognizes the impact that permitting has on regulated sources of air 

pollution, and we have a reputation for working hard to minimize those impacts 

while ensuring compliance with air pollution regulations. We have developed agfriendly application forms and Web-based agricultural emissions calculation tools. 

We have joined with ag industry representatives in over 50 workshops to help 

agriculture understand air regulations and assist them with filling out application 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-28

forms. We have been working with the agriculture industry on these efforts for a 

number of years now, and will continue to develop streamlined, efficient, and 

effective mechanisms to help agriculture comply with air pollution regulations. 

Control Measures 

83. Comment: United Pallet Services is currently being asked to take measures that 

would increase air pollution. Specifically, the District has suggested that the 

limited painting work that United Pallet conducts be done in a spray booth. Use 

of a spray booth would increase the use of forklifts and other internal combustion 

devices move in and out of the spray booth and to storage. Our calculations 

indicate that the use of a spray booth would decrease PM10 emissions by 2.23 

pounds per day, while increasing vehicle emissions by 47.7 pounds per day. It 

makes little sense to decrease PM10 emissions at the cost of significant amount 

of NOx emissions. United Pallet Services, because of differing jurisdictions, is 

being required to slightly decrease PM10 emissions for a District regulated 

source while significantly increasing NOx emissions from ARB regulated sources. 

It is requested that the District as part of the 2007 Ozone Plan: 

a.) Consider the total impact of the requested action on all emissions before it 

undertakes actual requirements 

b.) Give consideration to the overall good to the air basin and what should be 

complementary overall goals of all the regulators 

c.) Coordinate efforts with other agencies such as the ARB to arrive at 

efficient and effective actions that benefit the air basin as a whole 

(UPSI) 

Response: The District will continue to work with United Pallet Services resolve 

their current permitting issues with common-sense applications of the required 

rules and regulations. In addition, we plan on taking advantage of any future 

opportunities to modify existing regulations to prevent conflicts between the intent 

of the rule and the results of implementing the rule. Finally, the District continues 

to make every effort to collaborate with other regulatory agencies, such as ARB, 

regarding overall control strategies to prevent and resolve any potentially 

conflicting situations. 

84. Comment: We support the Districts efforts to work with the agricultural industry 

to locate viable alternatives to open burning. It is important that alternatives to 

disposing of wood waste are readily acceptable and economically viable. We 

look forward to working together on this rule. (AG) 

Response: Comment Noted. 

85. Comment: It would be premature and problematic to lower the current threshold 

outlined in District Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities. Future research efforts 

should aim to set the emission factors for animals on average breed weight as 

opposed to housing types. The California Dairy industry would oppose any 

efforts by the District to set a percentile as it pertains to the amount of silage to 

be fed to animals. Silage is and will continue to be one of the most valuable tools 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-29

in maintaining a lower cost of production as it relates to government set prices. 

Well managed silage pits are as effective as silage bags, but are far less costly to 

producers. The dairy industry would oppose regulations that require the bagging 

of silage. (AG) 

Response: These issues will be fully considered and explored during the rule 

development efforts for this control measure.

86. Comment: Orchard heaters are not used at all in the industry and when they 

were used years ago it was during the winter months, not during ozone season. 

We request that this item be removed from the plan as the items are not used 

and emission reductions are not warranted. (AG) 

Response: Comment noted.

87. Comment: The 2007 Ozone Plan notes a source in Monterey County that uses 

capture and control systems on its fumigation chambers. This may be feasible 

for large operations that can justify the associated cost because of the high 

volume of fumigation that is conducted, however in the San Joaquin Valley most 

facilities operate fumigation chambers only for export market requirements. Most 

facilities perform quarantine treatment on relatively small volumes in comparison 

to total production. If the District plans to conduct a future study on fumigation 

chambers, the agricultural community would request to participate to ensure that 

California producers are not placed in a non-competitive arena to other 

agricultural producing states. (AG) 

Response: Feasibility studies will fully examine the source category emissions 

inventory and any opportunities for emissions reductions. The feasibility studies 

will engage the public and industry.

88. Comment: If the District plans to move forward in increasing the size of engines 

that can be regulated to less than 50 brake horse power, it is requested that the 

District conduct a survey to look at the economic factors. Agricultural engines, 

especially smaller engines, are generally operated on a seasonal basis. Also, 

declaring that all engines should be electrified is not a feasible option. Most 

growing operations are located in rural and/or remote settings, which donít 

always have the needed power poles and lines established. Electrification would 

require a sizable investment to be made by the power companies and agricultural 

operations, and these costs should be shared with the District. In some cases 

transmission infrastructure upgrades would be necessary to handle the increased 

capacity. These issues should be addressed within Districtís CEQA 

documentation. (AG) 

Response: Comment noted. As mentioned above, feasibility studies will fully 

examine the source category to include the suggestions recommended and it will 

also fully explore any opportunities for reductions. Feasibility studies will explore 

the emissions inventory and all reasonably available technology to achieve 

additional reductions. Should the feasibility result in a rulemaking effort that 

rulemaking will undergo CEQA. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-30

89. Comment: The agricultural community is concerned with the proposed rule and 

limitations that would be imposed on green waste composting facilities. The 

emission levels listed in the 2007 Ozone Plan appear to be high and the 

methodology is used to calculate those numbers is questionable. The 

agricultural industry has few options in diverting wood waste that has been 

burned in the past. If stringent controls are put on the few green waste 

composting facilities in the District, it is assumed that the facilities will increase 

fees. The agricultural community would like to participate in examining a 

possible rule. (AG) 

Response: All members of the public will have an opportunity to participate in all 

rulemaking efforts. The agricultural community is encouraged to participate in 

the rulemaking for green waste composting. 

90. Comment: The District has revised the Farm Equipment section to recommend 

that incentive funds be the primary tool for reducing emissions from this source 

category. The Agricultural industry supports this effort as the only feasible and 

practical way to achieve emission reductions from this category. Retrofits and 

catalysts are often not feasible for farm equipment. Mandatory retrofit or 

replacement programs would not be cost effective because agriculture sells its 

products on a world market and cannot raise prices to compensate for local 

impacts. (AG) 

Response: Comment noted.

91. Comment: The agricultural industry supports the District and its proposal to 

enhance the incentive funding program for large diesel engines. This is the only 

feasible and practical way to achieve additional emission reductions. (AG) 

Response: Comment noted.

92. Comment: The agricultural industry remains opposed to the Districtís proposal 

to require portable engine to meet the ARBís PERP rule. Portable engines used 

in agriculture are seasonal in nature and do not operate as many hours as the 

typical portable engine rental. (AG) 

Response: This will be considered should any program changes be proposed.

93. Comment: The control measure for large boilers and process heaters 

>5MMBTU/hr (S-COM-1) is of concern since Rules 4306 and 4307 were recently 

amended. The already stringent Phase 3 of Rule 4306 will not be fully 

implemented until 2008, and it requires near BACT limits. Some firms that 

recently changed their equipment indicated that their actual costs of compliance 

far exceeded the Districtís estimates, and since retrofits were not available, costly 

replacements were necessary in one fase. Candidate control measures for large 

boilers should be put in the Feasibility/Future Study category to allow time to 

evaluate actual compliance costs, socio-economic impacts, technical concerns, 

whether it is justifiable to pursue an additional generation of control on this 

category, and potential for multi-pollutant strategies with greenhouse gas 

regulations (CLFP, KORC, RC, SJR/TR). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-31

Response: NOx reductions are needed for attainment of the ozone standard. 

This control measure would not be appropriate as a ìfeasibilityî study since 

technology currently exists and is being utilized at various sites that achieve 

additional reductions from units in this source category. For these reasons this is 

being pursued as a control measure for development by 3rd quarter 2008. The 

issues raised are one of the many issues that will be considered during the 

development of the rule limits and compliance schedule.

94. Comment: The District should investigate the possibility of outdoor ambient air 

filters to reduce pollution without changing emissions (Barger). 

Response: The District is willing to consider any viable option to clean the 

ambient air should the technology be proven for use reducing air pollution. 

Other Comments 

95. Comment: Combining all mobile sources into one category is misleading, as 

most individuals associate ìmobile sourcesî with on road vehicles. It is 

requested that mobile sources be subdivided into on road and off road categories 

throughout the plan. (COG) 

Response: The District is adding a footnote to this figure to indicate the 

contributions of on-road and other mobile sources. 

96. Comment: Please explain why EMFAC 2007 was not used for this plan. The 

model has been available since November 2006 and it should be included in this 

version, especially for valley-wide numbers. (COG) 

Response: The January 29, 2007 Draft 2007 Ozone Plan is based on the 

California Air Resources Board emissions inventory version 1.06, which does use 

EMFAC 2007 for calculating emissions from on-road motor vehicles. The 

planning emissions inventory presented in Appendix B contains on-road motor 

vehicle emissions data calculated with EMFAC 2007, using default values for 

input data to EMFAC 2007.

97. Comment: Please clarify the sanctions paragraph on page 16 of the Executive 

Summary to more accurately reflect the EPA process for imposing sanctions. 

(COG) 

Response: Clarifying text has been added to page 16.

98. Comment: Please confirm that Employer Based Trip Reduction was not 

credited in the attainment demonstration, but was credited in the RFP 

demonstration (see Table 10-2). Explain why this control measure was not 

included in Table B-1. (COG) 

Response: Table B-1 includes rules that have already been adopted and 

adjustments to the inventory based on improved information. Reductions from 

proposed measures are included in Chapter 6, 7, 8, and 9. These reductions 

have been removed from Table 10-2. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-32

99. Comment: Please explain how emissions reductions were calculated using 16% 

increase in use of alternative transportation and 2% reduction in work commute 

VMT. It is recommended that this control measure not be included in the current 

on road mobile conformity budgets. (COG) 

Response: The Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs (M-TRAN-1) will be 

a rule-based control measure, which will require businesses with at least 100 

employees to establish ride share programs (the relevant legislation is California 

Health & Safety Code Section 40601 (d)(1&2)). Alternative transportation 

methods are all other types of commuting to work, other than the use of singleoccupancy vehicles. The District's preliminary estimate of 16% represents the 

number of workers who do not currently use alternative transportation and who 

will take part in employer-based programs. This is in addition to the 12% of 

workers who currently use alternative transportation (2000 US Census). The 2% 

reduction in VMT is a conservative estimate based on existing programs, which 

are voluntary. Mandatory employer-based programs will likely result in greater 

VMT reductions, and it will be examined during rule development of this 

measure. However, in the absence of longstanding mandatory programs, the 

conservative estimate of 2% is currently being used. This acknowledges the 

difficulties experienced by current alternative transportation programs, which 

attempts to effect changes in the use of single-occupancy vehicles in a car-based 

culture. Since this control measure is not part of transportation plans and 

programs by public agencies, Federal Clean Air Act requirements on 

transportation conformity are not triggered. 

100. Comment: Please explain why emissions reduction for Enhanced ISR is 

not consistent with the 2004 Extreme Ozone Demonstration Plan. It is 

recommended that this control measure not be included in the current on road 

mobile conformity budgets. (COG) 

Response: The January 2007 Draft 2007 Ozone Plan does not quanitify 

emissions reductions for ìEnhanced Indirect Source Reviewî (Section 8.2.7). 

Rather, the plan notes that ìthe District is exploring all possibilities of gaining 

additional emissions reductions from sources under its jurisdiction.î Table B-1 of 

the January 2007 Draft 2007 Ozone Plan does present emissions reductions 

from the adopted Rule 9510, Indirect Source Mitigation. These reductions are 

based on Version 1.06 of the ozone SIP planning emissions inventory, which is a 

different inventory than that used in the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan; consequently, estimated reductions are not the same.

101. Comment: There are several references in the 2007 Ozone Plan to 

improving air quality through transportation initiatives, including the possibility of 

diverting traffic to I-5. Please consult with state and local transportation planning 

agencies when considering such controls. (COG) 

Response: Comment noted. 

102. Comment: The text in the first paragraph of Section 9.2 indicates that 

the Districtís on road emissions reductions are primarily through ISR and that 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-33

additional controls are described elsewhere; please specify where these 

descriptions are located in the plan. (COG) 

Response: Please see Chapter 8. 

103. Comment: Section 10.1 of the 2007 Ozone Plan references conformity 

budgets. Historically in the District, conformity budgets have not been developed 

using RFP demonstration. It is unclear how the on road emission estimates were 

developed for this section. The rest of the plan indicates that EMFAC 2007 was 

not used. Please clarify how conformity budgets would be established from this 

demonstration. (COG) 

Response: The District concurs that conformity budgets are not developed with 

RFP, but the text is there for clarity. The reference to EMFAC 2007 was 

mistakenly carried over from earlier versions of the plan. EMFAC 2007 was 

used, so the incorrect text has been removed. 

104. Comment: Please explain why the emissions eliminated by the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Program is listed as zero for all years on page 10-2. 

(COG) 

Response: The District listed the FMVCP as zero under the direction of ARB. 

The District has forwarded this comment to ARB for clarification in their plan. 

105. Comment: Please explain why reductions in Table 10-2 for RFP are not 

consistent with attainment demonstration reductions. Also, please explain how 

this table relates to Table 11-1. (COG) 

Response: The primary difference between the RFP tables and attainment 

demonstration is that for RFP, both VOC and NOx are used, whereas the 

attainment demonstration is just NOx. The attainment demonstration also 

includes reductions from the proposed control strategy and the Black Box. Both 

tables draw from similar information, including the emissions inventory and offline 

adjustments from the District and from ARB. 

106. Comment: Please explain why the year 2024 is used in section 11.5.3 

when the last year of the plan is 2023. Please clarify on road vs off road 

contributions in this section as well as including inventory summaries subdivided 

by source category. Please note in this section that results from the Blueprint 

project may be available for future plans. (COG) 

Response: References to 2024 have been changed to 2023. Footnotes have 

been added to clarify on-road versus other mobile source contributions. The text 

now indicates that results of the Blueprint project may be available for future 

plans. 

107. Comment: Appendix B indicates that future drafts of the plan will include 

updated EI to incorporate results from EMFAC 2007. However v1.06_RF980 

was used as the default EI and this version was provided as the default data for 

EMFAC 2007 conformity budget development. Please explain this discrepancy. 

(COG) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-34

Response: This was mistakenly carried over from earlier versions of the plan. 

EMFAC 2007 has been incorporated into v1.06 of the inventory, so the incorrect 

text has been updated.

108. Comment: It is recommended that School Bus Fleet NOx reductions 

found in Table B-1 and reflash, idling and Moyer NOx reduction found in Table 

10-1 not be included in the on road mobile conformity budgets that are currently 

being drafted at the time. (COG) 

Response: The District and the California Air Resources Board worked with the 

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in the Valley to develop emissions 

reductions from District and state rules that affect on-road motor vehicle 

emissions, and transmitted those reductions to the MPOs in the proper format for 

inclusion in budget calculations.

109. Comment: Please add a table of contents for Appendix I. (COG) 

Response: A Table of Contents has been added to Appendix I. 

110. Comment: Where Valley schools are surrounded by agriculture, the 

District should have meetings with school teachers and field supervisors so that 

people can be aware of the side effects to pesticides and the students will 

experience fewer side effects. (Lemus) 

Response: Pesticides are under the jurisdiction of the State (the Department of 

Pesticide Regulation [DPR]). However, the District works closely with key stakeholders 

throughout the Valley, including schools and agriculture. For example, the District has 

information on the Active Indoor Resource program to assist school districts that are 

using the outdoor air-quality flag program in maintaining healthy student bodies. 

L.6 VERBAL COMMENTS, OCTOBER 17, 2006 PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON THE DRAFT 

2007 OZONE PLAN 

Approximately 45 people in attendance (21 Fresno, 11 Bakersfield, and 13 Modesto) 

1. Comment: The District should work with cities and counties to promote green 

building. For example, houses could be oriented to reduce energy demand. 

Response: Although green building is, overall, beyond the Districtís regulatory 

jurisdiction, green building can be beneficial to the Valley. The Districtís Air 

Quality Guidelines for General Plans includes policy suggestions with air quality 

benefits that cities and counties can include in their general plans. The District 

also encourages air-friendly building practices through its ISR (Indirect Source 

Review) rule and through development project comments submitted through the 

CEQA process. The District is also investigating partnerships with the newlyformed Central California Chapter or the US Green Building Council. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-35

2. Comment: Wastewater stations can drive turbines to generate electricity. Wind 

power can be used to run the stations. This can remove hundreds of tons of 

pollutants out of the air. 

Response: The District is considering every possible emission reduction. Ideas 

involving larger emissions reductions receive higher priority. Electric utilities 

comprise a relatively small portion of the Valleyís emissions inventory. 

3. Comment: Especially given the diminishing returns of regulations and the fact 

that some source categories have undergone three to five generations of rules, 

the District should have a de minimis table in this plan (as on page 4-10 of the 

2006 PM10 Plan). This would ensure that resources are focused on the rules 

with the biggest reductions. 

Response: The District is committed to looking for every available emission 

reduction. Measures with large potential emissions reductions will be given 

higher priority for implementation (with preference for NOx reductions as 

discussed elsewhere in the plan). EPAís guidance, ìIncorporating Bundled 

Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP) (August 2005) may be used to 

group together individually small control measure reductions. 

4. Comment: The Districtís alternative compliance strategy is troubling. It is not fair 

or equitable to require a source that has already paid to comply with several rules 

to then pay an additional alternative compliance fee. 

Response: See the AERO discussion in Chapter 8. Compliance options will be 

considered in cases where significant reductions are achievable, but the 

applicable technologies are very expensive and result in costly emission 

reductions. 

5. Comment: What does the Governorís recently reported visit to New York 

regarding green house gas (GHG) emissions trading mean to the Valley? 

Response: The District is keeping up to date on these reports. However, GHG 

emissions and global warming are beyond the scope of this plan. 

6. Comment: The NPCA (National Paint and Coatings Association) wants to work 

with the District to develop reasonable emissions reductions. NPCA prefers 

ARBís approach to architectural coatings over that of South Coast. The South 

Coast approach is not feasible for the Valley. The District should review ARBís 

recently released draft report for SCM and wait for their rule. 

Response: The District has reviewed the ARBís draft report, the 2005 

Architectural Coatings Survey, for which the District participated in ARBís 

statewide architectural coatings working group. The SCM is scheduled for 

adoption in September 2007. The District would be able to compare the SCM 

with the South Coast rule as the Districtís rule is developed. The District would 

also evaluate the South Coastís issues in implementing their rule as well as how 

those issues might have been resolved. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-36

7. Comment: The District overestimated the architectural reductions in this draft 

ozone plan. 

Response: The architectural coatings control measure in the draft ozone plan 

has been revised to reflect the emission reduction that accrues from lowering the 

VOC limits of the coatings only, using the South Coast Rule 1113 VOC coating 

limits as a preliminary model. The new estimate also reflects the data from the 

draft 2005 Architectural Coatings Survey, but does not include the 

thinning/cleaning solvents category. 

8. Comment: The recognition that incentives are needed is appropriate. The 

agriculture industry will take advantage of available incentives, and they have a 

good track record of using incentives effectively. EPA needs to contribute, 

though. 

Response: The District concurs with agricultureís proven track record on 

effective use of incentive funds. The District is working to secure funding and 

support from any sources possible, including the federal government. 

9. Comment: Incentives will be needed to reach attainment. This presents an 

enormous public policy challenge, though. 

Response: The Districtís ìAction Plan for Reducing Emissions with Incentive 

Fundsî (Chapter 7 in the 2007 Ozone Plan) strives to expand and enhance the 

incentive program, while making the process more robust, simpler, and more 

user friendly. 

10. Comment: It is inappropriate for the District to differentiate areas of the Valley 

coming into attainment at different times. Making it seem as though Stockton 

and San Joaquin are not part of the problem may undermine support for the 

Districtís programs. All of the Valley will have to contribute to bring the air basin 

into attainment. 

Response: In the San Joaquin Valley, it is clear that upwind areas contribute 

significantly to the air quality of downwind areas. The intent in showing different 

areas coming into attainment at different times is to show that air quality will 

improve continuously as a result of this plan and previous efforts. Getting the 

southeastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley into attainment requires very 

large upwind reductions, as the emissions in the immediate vicinity around that 

monitoring station have a relatively small impact. The nature of the air basin, 

with its intra-basin transport, is that everyone ñ all businesses, government 

agencies, and individuals - must do their part to bring the entire region into 

attainment. 

11. Comment: Can we expect strong support from the Districtís Governing Board on 

the point of incentives? 

Response: The Districtís Governing Board has been consistently supportive of 

incentive funding use. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-37

12. Comment: Has the District considered collaborating with South Coast AQMD on 

incentives and mobile sources? 

Response: With several areas in California working 8-hour ozone SIPs, the 

District has collaborated with other districts on several occasions. However, the 

District has not collaborated with South Coast in the specific area noted by the 

commenter. Each regionís ultimate approach will depend on the regionís 

resources and emissions sources. Both South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley 

districts are noting the importance of mobile source reductions in reaching 

attainment. 

13. Comment: The October 2 Draft lacked detail. The District should declare any 

intentions for reclassification in the next draft plan. The District has not 

committed either way at this point. Whatever the final classification might be, 

there will be corresponding requirements (beyond the black box for extreme), so 

the District needs to show that all requirements will be met. 

Response: Much of the planís detail is in the appendices. The January 29, 2007 

draft of the Plan indicates the Districtís recommendation for ozone classification, 

the applicable requirements, and the plan for implementing those requirements. 

14. Comment: Where in the planning schedule would there be a bump up? 

Response: See response #13. 

15. Comment Is the $7.5 billion the total public funding needed, or does this total 

amount assume cost sharing? There needs to be further explanation in the next 

draft. Incentives should be cost shares, not buy outs. 

Response The District expects some level of matching funds from grant 

recipients, depending on nature of the project. See Chapter 7 for the Districtís 

action plan for incentives. 

16. Comment There are concerns over alternative compliance, as described in 

Appendix K in the October 17 draft. Will each control measure be considered for 

alternative compliance? If so, that is troubling. 

Response See Response #4. 

17. Comment The District should have the money in hand before credit is taken for 

reductions achieved with incentive programs. 

Response See Chapter 7, which discusses creditability of incentive reductions. 

The Districtís understanding of federal policy is that commitments for reductions 

from ìunsecuredî incentive funds are not creditable, except in Extreme Ozone 

plans as part of the ìBlack Box.î 

18. Comment Showing different areas reaching attainment at different times is an 

Environmental Justice issue. The District needs to come up with extra measures 

to bring Arvin and other small communities into attainment. 

Response It is unavoidable that different areas will reach attainment at different 

times due to their different carrying capacities. The District is committed to 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-38

ensuring that all areas in the Valley reach attainment as expeditiously as 

practicable. The Districtís control measure development process will continue 

even after the plan is adopted to identify and implement the ìBlack Boxî 

reductions. 

19. Comment If the District hasnít secured adequate incentive funding to bring the 

region into attainment, then regulations need to be identified. 

Response As shown in the Executive Summary, even if all of the sources under 

District regulatory jurisdiction were to shut down, the NOx reductions would not 

provide enough reductions for attainment. The Districtís strategy and 

classification request as described in the Plan fulfill the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act. 

20. Comment The District should include an estimate of the public health costs in 

the cost effectiveness evaluation of rules and control measures. 

Response Current public health cost studies are linked to ambient air quality, 

not specific emissions reductions. As such, the public health cost savings 

associated with any single control measure would likely be low. However, the 

District is a public health agency that always keeps public health impacts in mind. 

21. Comment 2024 is too far away for attainment. 

Response The number one guiding principle in developing this Plan has been to 

attain as quickly as possible. The District also resolved to not request an 

Extreme classification unless no other option is found to be physically and legally 

possible, given current technologies. As drafted, the Plan ensures that the Valley 

will experience continuous air quality improvements and attain at the earliest 

possible date, regardless of ozone classification. By obliging all Valley 

stakeholders to employ the cleanest technology available, the Plan will provide 

attainment to about half of the Valleyís population by 2012, and 90% of the 

population by 2020. Furthermore, even the more resistant areas - Fresno and 

the Southeast San Joaquin Valley - will experience continually improving air 

quality as emissions are reduced and progress is made towards attainment. 

22. Comment The District needs to use its position to develop guidelines and policy 

options for local communities to adopt to reduce emissions from small engines. 

The public will be supportive. 

Response The Districtís ìAir Quality Guidelines for General Plansî is a guidance 

document containing guidelines and policies that local governments might 

include in their General Plans to reduce vehicle miles traveled and other 

emissions associated with population growth. 

23. Comment It is dangerous to discuss attainment geographically. Arvin canít pay 

the $7.5 billion. Discussions need to be kept regional. 

Response Getting the entire Valley - including Arvin - into attainment requires 

an approximate 75% reduction in Valleywide NOx emissions from the 2005 level. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-39

L.7 WRITTEN COMMENTS, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDING ON NOVEMBER 7, 

2006 

Comments were received from the following people and organizations: 

Agricultural Industry Group (AIGp) 

On behalf of the agriculture industry in California: California Cotton Ginners and 

Growers Associations, California Citrus Mutual, California Dairy Campaign, 

California Grape and Tree Fruit League, California Independent Oil Marketers 

Association, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Merced County Farm Bureau, Nisei 

Farmers League, San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation, Tulare Lake Resource 

Conservation District 

Arthur Unger (AU) 

Community Alliance for Responsible Environmental Stewardship (California Dairy 

producers and processors) (CARES) 

Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment (CRPE) 

Earthjustice (EJ) 

John Paoluccio (JP) 

Kelly-Moore Paints (K-MP) 

Mark Lopez (ML) 

Kern Oil and Refining Co. (KORC) 

National Paint and Coatings Association (NPCA) 

PETROtech Environmental Solutions (PES) 

Refiner’s Council (RC) 

WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association) (WSPA) 

Western United Dairymen (WUD) 

General 

24. Comment: The District should work with the COGs, other municipal and county 

government agencies, and the state legislature to develop urban growth 

boundaries in the region. This would encourage planning and land use that 

reduces vehicle miles traveled. (EJ) 

Response: The District agrees with the suggestion. The District works closely 

with local agencies through the Model Coordinating Committee and with the 

Regional Planning Agenciesí air quality 

consultants to encourage reductions in vehicle miles traveled. The District 

promotes community-based programs through participation in Operation Clean 

Air, cosponsoring Great Valley Center conferences, updating the District's Air 

Quality Guidelines for General Plans, participating in the SJV Regional Blueprint 

Project, participating in the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley, 

hosting the California Air Quality Research Symposium in May 2006, sponsoring 

the Health Impacts Symposium in October 2006, hosting another air quality 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-40

symposium in December 2006, and holding a series of Town Hall meetings at six 

locations throughout the Valley in July 2006. 

25. Comment: Although the effect of outreach is difficult to measure, it will probably 

help many individuals and businesses decrease emissions. (AU) 

Response: As in the past, the District will commit significant energies and 

investments to public outreach. Engaging the public in efforts to reduce 

emissions is a key element of the Districtís ozone attainment strategy, and 

education increases public support for new and controversial regulations. For 

more information on the Districtís public education, awareness, and information, 

please refer to Chapter 4 in the Draft 2007 Ozone Plan. 

26. Comment: It is encouraging to see reference to Agriculture Improving 

Resources (A.I.R) in the ozone plan. It is a crucial avenue to voice concerns and 

questions to the District. We would like to see A.I.R play a greater role. (AIGp) 

Response: Comment noted. 

27. Comment: Due to regulator inaction on the part of EPA, a ìSIP gapî has been 

created within the SJV; this must be resolved to avoid the costly streamlining 

demonstration or ìsubsumeî exercises performed by applicants to demonstrate 

compliance with existing approved rules. We request that the District identify 

each rule the EPA has failed to take required action on (as defined in CAA 

section 110(k)(2 and 3)) and list those rules in the 2007 Ozone Plan as a federal 

EPA deficiency. EPA should be requested to correct these deficiencies. (AIGp) 

Response: EPA is allowed legally-specified amounts of time for processing 

district and state-approved rules, and at this time, there are no major EPA 

deficiencies. Unless specified otherwise, District rules go into effect at the time 

of District Governing Board adoption, not at EPA approval. 

28. Comment: We believe that the Department of Energy, EPA, and the 

Department of Resources along with various state agencies should help develop 

and implement programs like EQIP. (AIGp) 

Response: Comment noted. 

29. Comment: In general, CARES views the Draft 2007 Ozone Plan as a sound 

strategy for continued improvement of Valley air quality. Continued growth in the 

Valley demands continued efforts from all sectors. We are pleased that efforts 

thus far have contributed to the current attainment of the PM10 standards. 

(CARES) 

Response: Comment noted. 

30. Comment: Historically, the District has prepared environmental impact reports 

to accompany its decisions to adopt attainment plans. The District should 

prepare an Environmental Impact Report to provide informed decision-making 

and informed public participation in the Plan adoption process. CEQA requires 

that the District analyze the Planís significant environmental effects, require 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-41

feasible mitigation measures, and provide alternatives to reduce those effects. 

The Districtís failure to provide CEQA analysis at this point in time prevents 

CRPE from meaningfully considering the Planís strategies and goals. (CRPE) 

Response: The District will comply with the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) in preparing and adopting the 2007 Ozone Plan. Historically, the District 

has prepared Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) on only a few of its plans; by 

far the bulk of the Districtís CEQA compliance for plans has been done with 

negative declarations and in some cases notices of exemption. The Districtís 

most recent plan-related EIR was prepared for the Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan in 2004; this EIR identified no significant environmental 

impacts from the Districtís plan, and no public comments were received on the 

Draft EIR. The District will prepare the appropriate level of CEQA documentation 

for the 2007 Ozone Plan and will conduct its plan-related decision-making in 

accordance with CEQA. 

Modeling and Technical Issues 

31. Comment: Why are the effects of the many stationary source rules and 

regulations (with associated emissions reductions) not reflected in ambience air 

quality levels (Appendix A)? The linking of emission reductions to air quality 

improvement is a very complex endeavor but should be a fundamental aspect of 

the plan. (WSPA) 

Response: The District has shown that the various stationary source rules and 

regulations that have been developed and adopted to satisfy commitments in the 

1-hour ozone plans and PM10 plans have resulted in air quality improvements in 

1-hour ozone and PM10. With this Draft Plan, the Districtís first plan for 8-hour 

ozone, the District is using new studies and modeling to determine what amount 

and types of reductions will bring the Valley into attainment of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. The District will include more information in future drafts of this plan. 

32. Comment: EPAís 8-hour ozone modeling guidance calls for the development of 

a modeling protocol prior to modeling to establish how modeling will be done and 

how it will be judged for adequacy. The lack of a protocol (Appendix F) may be 

considered as unresponsive to the SIP requirements and EPA guidance, thus 

jeopardizing the technical basis of the Plan. Other modeling issues include: 

criteria for episode selection, evaluation of performance, assumptions related to 

the relative reduction factors (RRF), and accounting for air quality background in 

RRF development. (WSPA) 

Response: The District is aware of these requirements and is working with ARB 

to satisfy these requirements. 

Emissions Inventory 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-42

33. Comment: Early in the process, the District estimate suggested that 300 tpd of 

VOC and NOx reductions would be needed to attain the standards. However, 

although on-road trucks added 100 tpd to the inventory, the District is now saying 

that 480 tpd of VOC and NOx reductions will be needed. Where did the extra 80 

tpd of reductions come from? (AIGp) 

Response: All of these numbers have been updated. Although the District 

preliminarily projected that 300 tpd of reductions would be needed in the Town 

Hall Meeting Discussion Paper published in July 2006, this figure was based on 

older inventories and preliminary modeling. There have since been numerous 

changes in the emissions inventory and very significant findings from the 

modeling effort. 

The most significant modeling finding is that NOx emissions are critical getting 

the Valley into attainment. VOC reductions will help to improve air quality, but 

NOx reductions are the only way to get all the way to attainment. Although VOC 

reductions are being sought, the Districtís strategy is centered on NOx control. 

The modeling also showed that a 47% reduction in NOx from the 2020 baseline 

emissions would provide for attainment. 

The Discussion paper used version 1.01 of the inventory being developed for this 

plan, which was the best inventory available at the time. This inventory showed 

that combined VOC and NOx emissions in 2012 totaled about 500 tpd of NOx 

and VOC emissions, so a 60% reduction required 300 tpd of reductions. 

The Draft 2007 Ozone Plan now uses version 1.06 which was developed 

specifically for this plan. In 1.06, the NOx inventory for 2005 is 622 tons per day 

and for 2020 is about 302 tons per day. A 47% reduction from the 2020 

baseline leaves approximately 160 tons per day of NOx; this level of emissions 

appears to be the Valleyís NOx carrying capacity for ozone. In order to attain at 

any time, the Valleyís NOx inventory can be no higher than 160 tons/day. This 

level represents about a 75% reduction form the 2005 inventory. 

There may be further adjustments to the inventory until the plan is adopted, so 

the 75% emission reduction estimate might undergo further revisions. 

34. Comment: The emissions inventory needs to include biogenic sources of 

ozone precursors. Omitting these understates the challenges faced by the 

District, and does not provide adequate description of ìcarrying capacity.î (PES) 

Response: Biogenics are incorporated in the modeling that produces the 

carrying capacities. Biogenics are not included in the planning inventory 

presented in Appendix B since they cannot be controlled and since they are not 

considered in RFP calculations. 

35. Comment: The emissions inventory show the food and agriculture category 

increasing between 2002 and 2023. Is this correct? Why are emissions 

increasing, when California Department of Conservation reports indicate that 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-43

farmland is being replaced with urban land at a rate of 17,000 acres per year? 

(AIGp) 

Response: The ROG emissions in the Industrial Processes Food and 

Agriculture summary category are shown as increasing over time, by 

approximately 17% (2 tpd) between 2000 and 2020. NOx emissions are 

decreasing. This category represents emissions at industrial facilities that turn 

raw agricultural products into consumer items. The largest emission sources in 

this category are Wine Fermentation and Wine and Brandy Aging. The District 

has achieved a 0.7 t/d reduction in ROG due to Rule 4570 (see Table B-1), which 

affects the Wine and Brandy Aging category. This needs to be deducted from 

this category. As population increases, the District expects production of wine, 

bread baking, breweries, potato chips, and milk products to increase in the 

coming years. 

Attainment Date 

36. Comment: It doesnít seem feasible to reach attainment by 2013 because of the 

short time frame and insurmountable price tag. (AIGp) 

Response: The January 29, 2007 draft of the Plan indicates the Districtís 

recommendation for ozone classification, the applicable requirements, and the 

plan for implementing those requirements. 

37. Comment: The District should do whatever is necessary to achieve the 

standard by 2012. Any delay forces the public to bear additional costs of 

pollution. (CRPE) 

Response: The District will attain as soon as possible. See response #21. 

Permitting 

38. Comment: How does the SIP affect permit review? A Title V permit must 

assure compliance with all rules approved into the SIP by either including the SIP 

rule, or by including a local rule in the permit with a streamlining demonstration 

that the local rule assures compliance with the SIP rule. (AIGp) 

Response: No changes to Title V permits are automatically mandated as a 

result of the adoption of a plan like this ozone attainment plan. However, the 

plan contains control measures that will eventually become rules through a 

process that includes opportunities for the public to participate and comment on 

the proposed rules. 

After these rules are adopted by the Air Pollution Control Districtís Governing 

Board, Title V permits must be updated to incorporate any applicable new or 

modified requirement contained in those rules. 

The general rule of thumb is that if, at the time the new or modified requirement 

takes effect, there are less than three years left before the Title V permit expires, 

the new requirements can be incorporated into the Title V permit at the time of 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-44

permit renewal. If, on the other hand, the Title V permit expiration date is more 

than three years away, the permittee must apply to modify their Title V permit to 

include the new requirements at the time they become applicable. 

39. Comment: Agricultural sources are being forced to provide emission reduction 

credits (ERCs) to mitigate modeled violations of the NAAQS at farmersí property 

lines. It is our opinion that the application of Rule 2201, section 4.14.1.1 to 

agricultural sources is unjustified based upon the lack of appropriate models for 

CAFOs. We request that the District follow the administrative procedures act and 

develop in an open public process the methods used by NMED to determine the 

required offsets and to provide guidance based on ìaccepted science and 

engineering for all parties involved in the permit application process.î Inherent 

modeling errors may exist when analyzing the dispersion characteristic for 

CAFOS, according to a study conducted by Texas A&M University. (AIGp) 

Response: The issue discussed here is a PM-10 issue that has no bearing on 

this plan, which is a plan designed to achieve attainment with ozone ambient air 

quality standards. The ozone precursors do not include PM-10, and so this 

comment is not relevant. 

In addition, Rule 2201, ìNew and Modified Stationary Source Reviewî, or NSR, is 

a rule designed to limit the emissions impact of new and modifying sources of air 

pollution. It is not designed to reduce emissions from existing sources of 

pollution, and is therefore not proposed for modification as a part of this 

attainment plan. Comments on Rule 2201 should be sent directly to Dave 

Warner, Director of Permit Services, so that they may be addressed at the time 

of the next revision of the rule. 

40. Comment: New Source Review - the District should 1) increase BACT costeffectiveness threshold to $20,000 per ton of VOC or NOx; 2) remove the 

exemption for pollution control projects from all District rules; 3) remove the 

newly adopted offset exemption for certain agricultural sources; 4) change the 

equivalency program to demonstrate compliance with the December 19, 2002 

version of the Federal NSR regulations; 5) eliminate the like-kind replacement 

exemption; 6) eliminate the distance offset ratio and require all sources to offset 

emissions at a 1:1.5 ratio; and 7) retire all banked pre-baseline year NOx and 

VOC emission reduction credits. (EJ) 

Response: Please see the response to the previous comment #39, regarding 

Rule 2201. 

Alternative Compliance 

41. Comment: While WSPA supports alternative compliance strategies, we cannot 

support mandatory control or fees beyond those required by rules and 

regulations. It is unreasonable to propose cost-prohibitive or technologically 

unproven control measures. The concept of alternative compliance needs further 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-45

stakeholder discussion in terms of applicability and technical/cost implications. 

(WSPA)

Alternative compliance illustrates a potential problem with BACT determinations 

and feasibility. Compliance limits could be set that arenít achievable. (CARES)

Response: See Chapter 8. The AERO (Advanced Emissions Reductions 

Options) Program would offer alternatives for relatively expensive emission 

controls. All control measures adopted by the District, including those eligible for 

AERO, will be based on proven technology. The District will not require cost 

prohibitive controls (i.e., costs are so high that the business could not continue 

operating) on any private industry or public sector.

42. Comment: The Council is concerned as to how the District proposed to apply 

Alternative Compliance. It appears to force equipment down to BACT or nearBACT levels that are not cost-effective or technically feasible. This generates 

funds from sources that have already paid their fair share. (RC) 

Response: During its rulemaking processes, District staff must consider the 

most effective emission controls that can be applied to existing sources, which by 

definition includes BACT-level controls. As stated above, the District will not 

require cost prohibitive controls. 

43. Comment: While alternative compliance may be needed to maintain flexibility, 

Kern has concern that these programs may be used to levy funds from controlled 

sources. (KORC)

Response: The intent of AERO is not to collect funds, but to reduce emissions 

more cost effectively. The operator will have the choice as to how to comply. 

44. Comment: In the case of alternative compliance, regulatory agencies have to be 

sensitive to the type of alternative provided. A rule that provides for alternative 

emission reductions does not provide the full range of voluntary incentives. 

(AIGp)

Response: In order to make AERO reliable, alternative controls would need to 

be limited to verifiable methods and be specified within AERO regulations. 

During each rulemaking process, the District would work with stakeholders to 

identify the most promising and appropriate alternative methods of reducing 

emissions. 

45. Comment: The District should modify alternative compliance concept to achieve 

greater reductions and EPA approval. The Districtís strategy should require all 

stationary and area sources under the Districtís jurisdiction to achieve reductions 

that exceed RACT. Alternative compliance concept should have higher fees so 

that sources have the incentive to achieve additional reductions on-site. (CRPE)

Response: The concept has been modified to satisfy the bulk of this comment - 

see Chapter 8 for a brief overview of the Proposed AERO Program. The 

Districtís strategy for stationary and area sources uses BARCT emission control 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-46

techniques that are much closer to BACT than RACT, and thus achieve more 

reductions than RACT. 

Incentives 

46. Comment: Kern recommends that lawnmowers brought in for exchange through 

the Clean Green Yard Machines Program be required to demonstrate operability 

to ensure that machines that have actual potential to pollute are the ones being 

scraped. (KORC) 

Response: The scrap metal dealer will not accept the lawnmowers if they have 

fluids in them. Therefore, the lawnmowers need to be drained of all fluids when 

they are traded in, so operability cannot be demonstrated at the time of the 

exchange. An added consideration is that a currently inoperable lawnmower 

might later be fixed, so allowing inoperable machines to be traded in still removes 

a potential polluting machine from the Valley. 

47. Comment: For agricultural purposes, the requirement for providing ERCís for 

production agricultural activities may be addressed through a sustainable 

concept along the lines of irrigation well electrification or other on-site or off-site 

emission reductions. The key is to provide incentives, not mandates. (AIGp) 

Response: Comment noted. 

48. Comment: Due to the economics of agriculture, incentives and options must be 

crucial components of any District rules that affect agriculture, including those 

listed in the Ozone Plan, such as open burning, CAFOS, orchard heaters, and 

pesticides/fertilizers. (AIGp) 

Response: Incentives are a crucial part of the Districtís multi-faceted control 

strategy. The District will evaluate which programs are the best candidates for 

incentive programs as those programs are developed. The District will also 

consider options within control measures as appropriate to achieve equivalent 

reductions. 

 

49. Comment: Regarding the Pesticides/Fertilizers ñ Power Harvest Fumigation 

measure in Appendix I, there are factors that limit the choices some commodities 

have available as quarantine treatments to address export requirements. 

Factors include the commodity to be treated, plant pest or disease, treatments 

available, and efficacy and cost of treatment. Further restrictions would restrict 

export trade. Emergency action programs must be maintained. 

Incentive-based proposals would be better serving a move towards alternatives 

currently underdevelopment (I.e. Controlled Atmosphere Temperature Treatment 

System (CATTS), irradiation, or combing partially effective treatments with other 

mitigation measures). Funding should be directed towards commodities that 

support the development of methodologies that replace methyl bromide 

quarantine treatments for export, and provide technical assistance to APHIS to 

gain acceptance of alternative treatment by trading partners. We suggest that 

the District consider long-term goals. (AIGp) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-47

Response: Comment noted. 

50. Comment: We are also pleased that the District recognizes the potential for 

utilizing incentive programs. (CARES) 

Response: Comment noted. 

51. Comment: The Light and Medium Duty Emission Reduction Incentive Program 

include overall miles per gallon as a consideration. (AU) 

Response: The Light and Medium Duty Emission Reduction Incentive Program 

does not involve calculations. It is designed to promote early introduction of low 

emission technology such as hybrid, natural gas, and alternative fuel vehicles. 

52. Comment: Were any of the Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Reduction Incentive 

program engine replacements solar-powered? The District should consider solar 

energy to supplement all outdoor stationary engines and driers. (AU) 

Response: The District's incentive programs are designed to maximize 

reductions by considering the cost-effectiveness (ton of reductions per dollar 

spent). Staff has looked at solar energy projects and will consider any solar 

energy projects submitted. However, to date, no cost-effective solar energy 

project has been submitted to the District for grant funding. 

53. Comment: Kern recommends that the Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Reduction 

Incentive Program be expanded to include retro-fitting of heavy duty diesel 

engines with control technology designed for use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel, 

which is more cost-effective to use than retrofits for natural gas and does not 

require new fueling stations. The Heavy Duty Engine Emission Reduction 

Incentive Program should be fuel neutral. (KORC) 

Response: The District has completed numerous diesel retrofit projects. The 

Incentive Program welcomes applications for all types of control technologies 

and is fuel neutral. The cost-effectiveness is calculated for all projects and 

incentives are based on cost effectiveness. In some cases retrofits for natural 

gas are more cost effective that control technology for ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 

due to higher reductions. For additional information, please see 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/cng-lpg/appb.pdf. 

54. Comment: The District should aggressively seek additional sources of funding 

for incentive programs. (AIGp) 

Response: The District staff is doing so and the District employs a consulting 

firm to assist the District in obtaining additional sources of funding. 

55. Comment: Regarding the Farm Equipment measure of Appendix I, incentives 

will be needed. Fleet change-out will be difficult primarily due to the inability to 

retrofit most farm equipment, manufactured where the frame and engine are 

interconnected, so it is impossible to retrofit or re-power. Most equipment in this 

category will have to be replaced, which is cost prohibitive. Incentives provide 

the best opportunity to make gains in this source category. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-48

The agricultural industry is opposed to any type of registration and inspection 

program in this source category, due to cost, paperwork, low return, and 

dissuasion from participation in voluntary change-outs. There is no need to adopt 

further new equipment standards (since federal non-road equipment standards 

have been adopted), only a need for incentives to help expedite the turnover of 

the existing fleet to these new standards. 

Restricting hours of operation can result in significant crop loss and economic 

harm to the farming community, since operations are based upon growing 

conditions that cannot be shifted. (AIGp) 

Response: The District currently provides incentives for farm equipment and 

concurs that, in some cases, retrofits or repowers are not reasonable options. 

The need for and feasibility of a registration program, inspection program, and/or 

a rule development project will be further evaluated to determine whether any of 

these options are feasible, reasonable, and necessary to reduce VOC or NOx 

emissions. 

56. Comment: Kern supports the efficient use of incentive funding. With regard to 

Section 7.4, third paragraph on page 7-7, Kern recommends an independent 

third-party auditor be used to prepare the annual Audit Reports that clearly 

shows how funds were used, what quantified emissions reductions were 

achieved, which reductions are being credited to the SIP, and how emissions 

reductions will be verified during the life of the reductions. The third party will 

disclose District accountability for incentive fund use and help ensure that the 

funds are being used in the most cost-effective manner. (KORC) 

Response: The District undergoes routine incentive program audits conducted 

by the California Air Resources Board, the California Department of Finance, and 

the Bureau of State Audits. These are all occurring within the next four to six 

months, and are expected to continue after any program changes are made to 

enhance SIP creditability of emissions reductions from incentive programs. 

Results are made public by the auditing agencies. 

57. Comment: Incentives are crucial to rule adoption, especially in situations where 

the owner or operator could not feasibly make those changes individually. 

Incentive funding is critical to agricultural operations because of the limited funds 

that growers have access to. We request that reference to sustainable 

incentives (as described in section 4.3.3 of the 2004 Ozone Plan) be placed in 

the Draft ozone plan. Incentives have demonstratively provided a more flexible 

route for emissions reductions. (AIGp) 

Response: The District is adding the information on sustainable incentives (as 

described in the 2004 Ozone Plan) in Chapter 4 of the Draft 2007 Ozone Plan. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-49

Control Measures 

58. Comment: Further study is needed to determine the VOC emissions reductions 

that can be obtained from the manufacture of coatings, inks and adhesives, 

especially since the total emissions are small. Since VOC levels in architectural, 

industrial, and maintenance products have decreased, the VOCs from 

manufacturing of these products have decreased as well. The exemption in the 

current rule for the manufacture of water-based coating is intended to provide 

flexibility and incentives for the manufacturer to move towards producing lower 

VOC products. Drastic VOC controls for water-based coatings will result in few 

reductions, and these measures will be costly. The District should not take this 

incentive away by requiring costly VOC emission control systems. (NPCA) 

Response: Although the potential for additional controls was noted, District staff 

recommends further study of this source category for the reasons outlined by the 

commentor. This comment was added to the control measure for further 

consideration. 

59. Comment: Proposed solvent cleaning control measures should include 

exemptions for cleaning operations associated with the manufacture of paint, 

coatings, resins, and adhesives and exempt the stripping of cured coatings, 

cured ink, or cured adhesives. The manufacture and use of paint, resins, and 

adhesives require strong solvents to effectively clean production/process 

equipment. Coatings, ink, and adhesive manufacturing and application industries 

need to be able to use recycled or reclaimed solvents in cleaning operations, 

otherwise the industries will be faced with increased hazardous waste disposal 

and purchasing of cleaning materials. (NPCA) 

Response: In the current rule development project for solvent cleaning, 

operators will continue to have the option to use strong solvents or 

recycled/reclaimed solvents for cleaning operations either under a VOC emission 

control system or by using specified work practices. This comment was added to 

the control measure for further consideration. District staff will consider this issue 

during the current rule development process. 

60. Comment: We request that the cleaning solvent vapor pressure requirement be 

continued as an option for the end user. (NCPA) 

We request that the solvent cleaning operations match SCAQMDís VOC limits for 

cleaning solvents, as suggested in the Draft Plan. (EJ) 

The District should set VOC limits for all solvents used in graphic arts cleaning at 

72 grams per liter, as proposed in Yolo-Solano. (EJ) 

We are concerned about the cost effectiveness and availability associated with 

lowering the VOC content of organic solvents (AIGp) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-50

Response: These comments were added to the control measure for further 

consideration. District staff will consider these issues during the current rule 

development process. 

61. Comment: The District should set a NOx limit of 3 lbs/NOx per ton of container 

glass pulled and 5 lbs/NOx per ton of flat glass pulled, as recommended by ARB 

and as implemented in other air districts. Compliance with these limits should be 

no later than 2007. Also recommended by ARB and the public, the averaging 

period should be changed to no more than every 3 hours and start up limits 

should be drastically reduced to several days, not the better part of a year. If an 

operational change occurs during the first months of start-up, the facility operator 

should be allowed to apply for a conditioned exemption rather than receiving a 

blanket exemption from all emission controls during start-up periods. (EJ) 

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for further 

consideration. District staff will consider this issue during the rule development 

process. 

62. Comment: For future PM planning purposes, it would be helpful if SOx limits in 

Rule 4354 (Glass Melting Furnaces) were reinstated as originally deemed 

feasible by the District. (EJ) 

Response: For glass furnaces, designing the pollution control system to remove 

as much SOx as possible interferes with the ability to reduce NOx. Air quality 

modeling shows that both ozone and particulate pollution are more sensitive to 

changes in NOx emissions; therefore, the SOx limits in the current glass melting 

rule allow the District staff to consider imposing the much lower NOx limits 

proposed by the commentor. This comment was added to the control measure 

for further consideration. District staff will consider this issue during the rule 

development process. 

63. Comment: The District should amend its proposed Composting and Biosolids 

rule to meet or exceed South Coastís rule provisions requiring enclosed facilities 

meeting specified criteria or compliance plans demonstrating 70-80% reductions 

(depending on whether facility is existing or new) and implement as soon as 

possible. (EJ) 

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for further 

consideration. District staff will consider this issue during the current rule 

development process. 

64. Comment: Components Used in Oil/Gas Production & Processing ñ the District 

should match Sacramentoís proposal to make this rule applicable to process 

streams with VOC content ≥ 1% for natural gas. (EJ) 

Response: For natural gas processing plants, the ≥ 1% VOC is already in effect 

(See Rule 4409, section 4.2.7). Further study is needed to determine the current 

emission inventory for the new sources, what potential VOC emission reductions 

might be realized, and whether changing the VOC content for natural gas 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-51

production or crude oil production will net any new sources. This comment was 

added to the control measure for further consideration. 

65. Comment: The District should expand the Graphic Arts rule to apply to all 

operations that emit 60 lbs or more of VOC per month, as is proposed in 

Sacramento and Yolo-Solano. (EJ) 

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for further 

consideration. 

66. Comment: Appendix I (S-AGR-1, R4103 Open Burning) To minimize smokerelated problems, open burning of prunings, weeds, grasses, brush, orchard 

debris, etc, should only be allowed during periods free of inversion layers. (JP) 

Response: State law already prohibits burning of many of the listed waste 

materials. Where open burning of materials is allowed, it is strictly controlled, by 

permit, under the District's Smoke Management Program. 

67. Comment: Agricultural open burning could be minimized through conservation 

tillage. (AU) 

Response: The District encourages conservation tillage under Section 6.2 of 

District Rule 4550 (Conservation Management Practices (CMP)). The District 

recognizes that this CMP may also indirectly reduce emissions from agricultural 

open burning; however, there are crop categories and certain scenarios where it 

is not feasible for growers to implement conservation tillage as a CMP. 

68. Comment: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) should try to 

breed citrus that doesnít need orchard heaters. (AU) 

Response: District staff is not aware of research projects supported by the 

USDA that addresses frost resistant citrus. However, the District will continue its 

commitment to identifying and seeking feasible opportunities that may benefit air 

quality in the SJVAB. 

69. Comment: We should not allow more dairies to move into the Valley. (AU) 

Response: The Districts does not have the authority to prohibit certain types of 

commerce or land uses in the in the SJVAB. However, the District actively 

encourages decision makers with local land use authority to make land use 

decisions that benefit air quality. The Districtís ìAir Quality Guidelines for 

General Plansî includes sample policies benefiting air quality that cities and 

counties might include in their general plans. The District also provides CEQA 

comments on various projects, including dairies. Any new dairies in the Valley 

would be subject to the Districtís recently adopted Rule 4570 (Confined Animal 

Facilities), which limits VOC emissions from dairy operations. 

70. Comment: The emissions inventory for the open burn source category 

identified in Appendix I does not reflect the emissions reduced from the 

alternatives to open burning that have been implemented by agriculture. (AIGp) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-52

Response: In September 2003, the CH&SC was amended to prohibit the open 

burning of most agricultural waste categories by June 2010. Under certain 

conditions of the CH&SC, the District may postpone the commencement dates in 

the CH&SC for any agricultural crop category that is prohibited from burning. 

In order to reduce agricultural open burning, the District had committed to 

working with the agricultural industry to restrict the burning of certain categories 

of agricultural waste where feasible. Through efforts by the District and 

agriculture, emissions from agricultural open burning in the SJVAB have been 

reduced by 0.2 tpd of PM10 and 0.05 tpd of NOx. These reductions are not 

reflected in Appendix I of the Draft 2007 Ozone Plan under the Projected 

Reductions Section because they are included in the calculated emissions 

inventory baseline. Upon further implementation of the requirements set forth by 

the CH&SC, District staff anticipates future additional emissions reductions from 

this source category. 

71. Comment: S-AGR-3, Orchard Heaters For the Orchard heaters section of 

Appendix I, the District should not include orchard heaters in the control 

measures because the equipment is no longer used (so there would be no 

reductions) in the industry. (AIGp) 

Response: The candidate control measure for orchard heaters is included in 

Appendix I because it is a source category that is regulated by the District. It is 

noted in the discussion section that the use of orchard heaters is very low and 

does not occur during ozone season. This category is not recommended for 

further action in the context of the ozone plan. 

72. Comment: M-IND-2, Forklifts, Specialty Vehicles/Portable Generators, Pumps, 

Compressors, Farm Equipment, and Construction Equipment Regarding the 

Forklifts, Specialty Vehicles/Portable Generators, Pumps, Compressors, Farm 

Equipment, and Construction Equipment (M-IND-2) measure in Appendix I, 

certified retrofit kits are not available for pre-1990 forklifts, which are predominant 

in the agriculture industry; replacement is not economically viable due to their 

limited usage. The agriculture industry supports incentives. Shifting time of use 

is not viable for agriculture, since products are perishable. Harvesting must be 

done in the daytime. (AIGp) 

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for future 

consideration. 

73. Comment: The economy of the Valley is closely tied to the agriculture industry. 

Any revisions to Rule 4570 should be pursued with caution. One reason for this 

is that the growth in the dairy industry has substantially slowed, with several 

operations relocating out of the Valley under the burdensome regulatory 

environment (including new water quality programs). Secondly, the current Rule 

4570 should be allowed to be implemented, to do its job and be evaluated. 

Additional measures for dairies should also be pursued with caution, as it may be 

beneficial to wait for the results of some of the current research. (WUD, CARES) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-53

Response: Staff believes that recent research has identified several 

opportunities for enhancing Rule 4570. In the rule development process, staff 

will review any additional research and will consider the socioeconomic impact of 

the amendments and mitigate any impacts to the extent feasible. This comment 

was added to the control measure for further consideration. District staff will 

consider this issue during the rule development process. 

74. Comment: For the Confined Animal Facilities section of Appendix I, we think it 

would be premature and problematic to lower the current threshold outlined in 

Rule 4570. Science suggests that the reductions being achieved are much 

greater than those the District assumes. The current inventory for dairy cattle is 

based on housing type rather than average weight, whereas thousands of 

animals in the SJV have lower body weight. Dietary changes are a complex 

animal welfare issue. Dairies differ from one operation to the next. The dairy 

industry would continually support a menu of choices to meet reductions needed. 

(AIGp, CARES) 

Response: Rather than set specific emission reduction goals for its control 

measures, the Districtís primary objective is to implement all feasible controls 

based on the best available science, and therefore achieve as much emission 

reduction as is feasible considering economic, energy, and environmental 

issues. The emission reductions shown in the Planís control measures are 

preliminary estimates and are subject to revision at the time of rule development. 

The menu approach used in Rule 4570 acknowledges the complexity of factors 

that affect emissions, that there may be animal welfare issues at some facilities, 

and that facilities vary widely in their physical characteristics and operations. This 

comment was added to the control measure for further consideration. District 

staff will consider this issue during the rule development process. 

75. Comment: The District should include a more aggressive control strategy for 

Confined Animal Facilities, the Valley's most significant source of VOCs. The 

increase in the Valley's dairies will virtually wipe out reduction being achieved by 

the current Rule 4570 in the long term. Rule 4570 should be amended to require 

Tier 2 control measures, including the enclosure, capture, and treatment of VOC 

emissions from the animal housing, liquid manure handling, and feed storage 

units. (CRPE) 

Response: Rule 4570 is the most stringent rule for Confined Animal Facilities in 

the US and the Tier 1 control measures are considered BARCT. Based on the 

information, scientific research, and control cost estimates available when Rule 

4570 was adopted, Tier 2 controls were considered more stringent than BARCT. 

It should be noted that VOC emission reductions will help to improve ozone air 

quality, but even large VOC reductions will not provide attainment for the entire 

Valley. 

Rule 4570 will be amended when additional research is completed, and 

additional controls may be added, based on the results of the new research. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-54

This comment was added to the control measure for further consideration. 

District staff will consider this issue during the rule development process. 

76. Comment: The District's rule does not go far enough to get emission reductions 

from this source category. The District proposes requiring an additional 2 

mitigation measures and reduction the applicability threshold from 1,000 milking 

cows to 500. South Coast applies its rule to facilities of 50 or more cows of any 

kind. In order to get maximum reductions and maintain flexibility for sources, the 

District should consider establishing an emission reduction target (i.e. 70-80%) 

and then allow sources to choose as many or as few mitigation measures as are 

necessary to achieve that target. This approach would require the District to do a 

real BACT analysis to determine the best target to set in the rule and would 

reward the best actors by setting the emission reduction target at or near their 

current levels. (EJ) 

Response: Rule 4570 is more stringent than South Coast Air Quality 

Management's Rule 1127 because it requires more controls to be implemented 

than Rule 1127 and affects more emissions sources (feed and enteric emissions 

in addition to livestock waste emissions). Additionally, the dairies in South Coast 

are not comparable to dairies in the SJV because they tend to use different 

management practices and, on the average, have less than half the number of 

animals as dairies in the SJV. Expanding Rule 4570 to dairies that have 500 

cows would double the number of dairies subject to the rule, but would only 

increase the ruleís applicability by about 24%. This comment was added to the 

control measure for further consideration. District staff will consider this issue 

during the rule development process. 

77. Comment: Appendix I (M-IND-4, Large Diesel Engines) The District should 

establish a rule that requires limited or no use of off-road equipment on high 

ozone days. The District should also work with the legislature to increase the 

Districtís authority to require that public agencies operating within the air Valley 

adopt green contracting practices that motivate construction contractors to use 

less polluting construction equipment on publicly funded projects. (EJ) 

Response: The District will be investigating the economic and technical 

feasibility of instituting regionally-focused episodic controls on stationary, area, 

and mobile sources to mitigate or avoid high ozone concentrations. This 

comment was incorporated into Chapter 6 and Chapter 8. The District is also 

proposing to pursue a Green Contracting Program, as suggested by the 

commentor. 

78. Comment: M-IND-4, Large Diesel Engines Regarding the Large Diesel 

Engines measure in Appendix I, there are concerns over availability and cost for 

alternative fuels. Additional studies are needed. A voluntary approach is best 

until infrastructure has been provided and costs are supportable. Incentives are 

needed for fleet upgrades, as replacements are cost prohibitive. Shifting time of 

use is not feasible for agriculture. (AIGp) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-55

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for further 

consideration. 

79. Comment: Since many old school buses in the Valley have toxic diesel fumes 

as well as NOx and VOC emissions, they should be the first internal combustion 

engines replaced. (AU) 

Response: The District agrees that cleaning up the school bus fleet is a high 

priority for the health of the children who ride buses, and for the communities 

where those buses travel. The District is seeking to get a fair share of the recent 

$200 million state bond passed for cleaning up the school bus fleet, and allocates 

incentive funds to the oldest buses first. The need to clean up the school bus 

fleet comes more from a toxic risk reduction than a NOx control measure for 

ozone. NOx emissions from the school bus fleet are lower than other categories 

of diesel vehicles because of lower annual mileage. 

80. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-3, Lawn Care Equipment) The use of 2-stroke 

small off-road engines (lawn mowers and tractors, weed whips, leaf blowers, 

generators) should be prohibited on days that AQI is forecasted to be above 100 

(orange alert). Also prohibit use of all SOREs on days that AQI is forecasted to 

be above 150 (red alert). (EJ) 

Response: See response #77 regarding episodic controls. 

81. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-4, Off-Road Recreational Vehicles) Prohibit the 

use of Off-Road Recreational Vehicles that do not meet ARBís new emission 

limits on days that AQI is forecasted to be above 100; prohibit all Off-Road 

Recreational Vehicle use on days that AQI is forecasted to be above 150. (EJ) 

Response: See response #77 regarding episodic controls. 

82. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-6, Recreational Boats) The District should 

establish anti-idling rules for recreational boating and should prohibit 2-stroke 

recreational boat use on days that AQI is forecasted to be above 100; prohibit all 

recreational boat use on days that AQI is forecasted to be above 150. (EJ) 

Response: See response #77 regarding episodic controls. 

83. Comment: Appendix I (M-IND-5, Off-Road Equipment) As with large diesel offroad equipment, the District should establish a rule that requires limited or no use 

of off-road equipment on high ozone days. (EJ) 

Response: See response #77 regarding episodic controls. 

84. Comment: Appendix I (M-TRAN-3, Diesel Trucks and M-TRAN-8 Motor Homes) 

The District should move cautiously on developing policies that would move more 

diesel traffic over to Interstate 5 (I-5). This action would increase diesel emission 

exposure in rural communities near the I-5, shifting emissions from one hard-hit 

area to another community whose members are low-income and have less 

political clout. (EJ) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-56

Response: Environmental justice is a key consideration in the development and 

implementation of this plan, and the rules and incentive programs it generates. 

The District will work with stakeholders to assure that no disparate impacts result 

from the implementation of this plan. 

85. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-5, Aircraft) The District should establish idle 

rules for aircraft at airports in the basin. (EJ) 

Response: Although very small, aircraft idling and taxiing emissions will be 

investigated as shown in Control Measure M-OTH-5, Aircraft. 

86. Comment: Appendix I (M-TRAN-10, Other Buses) The District should 

encourage transit agencies to use smaller, less polluting vans and buses on lowridership routes. (EJ) 

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for further 

consideration. 

87. Comment: [M-TRAN-12,Trains]. ñ Using the South Coastís rule as a guide, the 

District should prohibit excessive (greater than 30 minute) locomotive idling by 

shutting off the engine, installing an anti-idling device that automatically turns off 

the engine, or demonstrating that the locomotive will achieve equivalent 

reductions in emissions over a calendar year using other methods; encourage 

locomotive engine retrofits or replacements on short-line rail routes. (EJ) 

Response: The Districtís understanding of a recent Air Resources Board legal 

opinion is that air districtís are precluded from regulating locomotive emissions. 

Nevertheless, the District will pursue emission reductions from this category 

using incentives, and by encouraging the state and federal agencies to establish 

appropriate regulatory controls for locomotives in the San Joaquin Valley. 

88. Comment: Gasoline Trucks ó establish a rule for existing oil refineries, gasoline 

wholesale operations, and retail operations to motivate and capture emissions 

from gasoline trucks. (EJ) 

Response: State law and Rule 4621 (Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage 

Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants) currently require the control of 

gasoline vapors from gasoline delivery vessels. 

89. Comment: S-GOV-6, Prescribed Burning Has the District addressed the 

prescribed burns that deal with private land owners, parks, forests lands, and 

other federal lands? (AIGp) 

Response: Rule 4106 addresses prescribed burning on private and public lands 

within the Districtís jurisdiction. The District allocates burning based on predicted 

meteorological conditions and whether the total tonnage of emissions and smoke 

would impact smoke-sensitive areas or create or contribute to an exceedance of 

an ambient air quality standard. 

90. Comment: Appendix I (M-IND-7, Off-Road Portable Engines) Information should 

be collected to categorize emissions levels of off-road portable engines so 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-57

control strategies might be better targeted. Upgrading the standards in District 

Rule 2280 to reflect ARBís PERP is not appropriate unless emission reductions 

justify the engine standard changes. Incentives would be needed to support any 

change in standards. (AIGp) 

Response: The District concurs that emission reductions that accrue from a 

better-targeted strategy would justify changes in the emission standards. As 

mentioned in the write-up of District Control Measure M-IND-7 (Off-Road 

Portable Engines), a more thorough analysis of this categoryís source emissions 

inventory is needed in order to determine current operation in terms of location 

and model distribution. The comment regarding use of incentives was added to 

the control measure for further consideration. Please see changes to M-IND-7 in 

Appendix I. 

91. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-9, Expanded Spare the Air Programs) Make all 

operational restrictions and no-sell policies mandatory, rather than voluntary; 

also, South Coast has long had a rule controlling VOC emissions from the 

ignition of barbeque charcoal (see South Coast rule 1174). The District should 

implement a similar rule in the Valley to control emissions from this source 

category. (EJ) 

Response: See response #77 regarding episodic controls. Additionally, the San 

Joaquin Valley is subject to state requirements for charcoal lighter fluid (CCR 

94509(h)) that are similar to South Coast Rule 1174. 

92. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-8, Indirect Source Review Enhancement) 

Regarding land-based port equipment ó the air district should establish an 

indirect source rule specifically for the Port of Stockton to address port landbased equipment, and enhance opportunities to get certain and quick emissions 

reductions at the port. The South Coast Air Quality Management District has 

included a similar measure among those in its draft ozone Air Quality 

Management Plan. (EJ) 

Response: New development at the Port of Stockton is subject to the Districtís 

Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review), Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary 

Source Review), and BARCT prohibitory rules of Regulation IV. The Districtís 

ISR rule is currently being implemented, and it is an important component of the 

Districtís attainment strategy. The South Coastís proposed indirect source 

measure for ports and port-related facilities is designed as a backstop measure 

that is to be implemented only if the ports do not take actions to achieve 

ìsufficient, timelyî emission reductions. It should be noted that because the Port 

of Stockton does not handle significant amounts of containerized cargo, 

emissions from its land-based port equipment do not compare in magnitude to 

the ports in Long Beach and Los Angeles. 

93. Comment: (Control Measure Prioritization) The District should consider 

establishing an objective method to rank control measures on the basis of 

emission reduction potential. A "de minimus level", similar to that used in the 

PM10 Plans, should be established as part of the method to focus on measures 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-58

that will result in meaningful, cost-effective reductions. (KORC, PES, RC, 

WSPA) 

Response: The control measures are prioritized based on a variety of factors, 

including the benefit for public health, cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, 

and magnitude of emission reductions (need for the emission reduction for 

attainment and federal Rate of Progress requirements). 

94. Comment: (Cost Effectiveness) Several of the rules are in conflict with guiding 

principles #4 (Cost-effectiveness) and #7 (NOx priority). Also, cost-effectiveness 

is based on a 10-year pay-out cycle. However, District rule making schedule 

cycles are now more frequent than 10 years. Cost-effectiveness determinations 

are skewed. (KORC) 

Response: See responses above regarding the value of VOC reductions. 

District staff will consider more specific cost effectiveness project lives for 

rulemaking projects when appropriate. 

95. Comment: Any rule that would require farmers to disturb the soil should only be 

enacted on a voluntary basis. (JP) 

Response: The District is not proposing any rules that require disturbing soil 

that would be contrary to good farming practices. Any proposed requirement 

undergoes public review and comment to prevent such an occurrence. 

96. Comment: Rule 4694 Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks allows an 

alternative compliance option where an operator may obtain surplus reductions 

generated by changes implemented at another operation. This flexible 

compliance could greatly benefit both industry and environment at large, if 

extended to use for compliance with other rules. (AIGp) 

Response: Rule 4694 was adopted as a pilot project to see if such a 

compliance option would mitigate impacts to operators without sacrificing air 

quality goals. Similar provisions could be implemented in other rules, where 

appropriate. 

97. Comment: All existing stationary source rules should be reviewed to require 

cost-effective controls based on the $14,000+ cost-effectiveness assumptions 

used for the incentive program. (EJ) 

Response: The District does not have a specific cost threshold for BARCT 

rules. A number of factors are considered when setting the rule requirements, 

including cost effectiveness, technological feasibility, and socioeconomic 

impacts. The District has adopted rules with cost-effectiveness that were 

significantly higher than the indicated level. The District always complies with 

state and requirements for socioeconomic and cost effectiveness analyses. 

In developing this plan, the District has attempted to find and recommend the 

most cost effective options, but we have not used any go/no-go cost 

effectiveness threshold to determine the status of a candidate control measure. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-59

98. Comment: (S-COM-1, Rule 4306 Boilers) The rule should not be considered a 

potential control measure for future reductions. The subject equipment has 

recently been retrofitted or replaced at great expense. The current standards far 

exceed Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 182(b)(2) and 182 (f) RACT requirements 

and have forced the complete replacement of burners since retrofit equipment 

was not available to comply with the new limits. It is not the intent of the CAA to 

establish a limit that forces a source to replace the unit which then makes the unit 

subject to BACT and offsets. (PES, RC) 

Response: The CAA does not limit control measures to RACT levels, but 

mandates RACT as the minimum control requirement standard for major 

sources. The District has and will continue to consider a variety of factors during 

rule development, including current controls, technological feasibility and costeffectiveness, to set appropriate control levels that produce meaningful, costeffective reductions. Replacement units should not trigger BACT and offsets 

unless production is increased as part of the project. 

99. Comment: Appendix I, (S-COM-4, Rule 4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers) The 

District should accept ARBís suggestion to set lower NOx limits on this source 

category. Many other air districts have adopted these lower limits for sources 

fired on solid fuel. At the very least, the District should lower the emission limit on 

Biomass-fired sources to match Sacramentoís limit of 70 ppmv for NOx. This limit 

has been deemed feasible by both Sacramento and EPA. In 1994, EPA 

proposed this limit on biomass boilers in Sacramento, South Coast, and Ventura 

during the promulgation of a FIP. (EJ) 

Response: The suggested option was added to the subject control measure for 

further consideration. 

100. Comment: Appendix I (S-C-5, Rule 4703 Stationary Gas Turbines) ñ The 

District should remove the exemption for turbines rated ≤ 4 MW and limited to 

operations of ≤ 877 hours per year, as this exemption does not exist in other air 

districts. (EJ) 

Response: The suggested option was added to the subject control measure for 

further consideration. 

101. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-6, Rule 4702 Stationary Engines) Recent 

rule changes have already made this rule very stringent, so it is difficult to obtain 

further reductions. The conversion of existing engines to electric motors should 

be voluntary. The electrical infrastructure may not be in place for across-theboard engine replacements. Cost-effectiveness may also be an issue. Also, the 

standard for electricity should not overlook conversion of diesel to cleaner 

alternative fuels. Consideration for remote locations (where alternatives might be 

unavailable or costly) must be included. (AIGp, JP, PES) 

Response: The subject control measure does not suggest the engines be 

replaced. The District has and will continue to consider technical and economic 

issues when developing any rule. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-60

102. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-6, Rule 4702 Stationary Engines) The 

NOx limits for spark ignited engines used in agricultural operations should be 

lowered to match non-agricultural spark-ignited engine limits of 25 ppmv for rich 

burn and 65 ppmv for lean burn. Furthermore, in a 1994 Federal Implementation 

Plan for South Coast, Sacramento, and Ventura counties, EPA proposed setting 

NOx limits for lean burn at 45 ppmv. (EJ) 

Response: The District is emphasizing the electrification of agricultural engines, 

where feasible, through its incentive programs. The suggested option was added 

to the subject control measure for further consideration. 

103. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-9, Rule 4902 Residential Water Heaters) 

The District should encourage expedited compliance (rather than at the natural 

attrition rate) with the proposed new emission limits on residential water heaters 

by adopting a mitigation fee program similar to the South Coastís program. (EJ) 

Response: The suggested option was added to the subject control measure for 

further consideration. 

104. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-10, Rule 4905 Natural Gas Fired, Fan 

Type Residential Central Furnaces) The District should reduce NOx emission 

limits to 20 ppm, as proposed in the South Coastís 2006 Air Quality Management 

Plan. (EJ) 

Response: The suggested option was added to the subject control measure for 

further consideration. 

105. Comment: Appendix I (S-GOV-3, Rule 4642 Solid Waste Disposal Sites) 

The active landfills, hazardous waste sites, and sites with no VOC control 

devices account for 82% of the emissions from this source category. The District 

should consider removing the exemption for these sources. (EJ) 

Response: It is generally not feasible to add vapor extraction and collection 

systems to active landfills. The mechanical process of spreading and burying 

waste materials would quickly destroy any pipes that are buried to collect vapors 

and move them to an emission control device. The suggested option was added 

to the subject control measure for further consideration. 

106. Comment: Appendix I (S-GOV-4, Rule 4641 Cutback, Slow Cure, and 

Emulsified Asphalt Paving) In addition to removing the low temperature 

exemption, the District should address NOx emissions from the burners used to 

heat the rotary dryers. Low NOx burners and flue gas recirculation can be used 

to achieve NOx reductions from these sources. See Sacramentoís 2006 Ozone 

Plan. (EJ) 

Response: Please refer to Appendix I, S-COM-11, Rule 4309 Dryers, which 

addresses NOx emissions from burners such as those used in rotary dryers. 

107. Comment: Appendix I (S-GOV-5, New Rule Composting Green Waste) 

As such a large source of VOC emissions, this category should be controlled as 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-61

soon as possible by requiring the most effective best management practices and 

installation of VOC control devices where feasible. (EJ) 

Response: Please refer to the referenced control measure, which describes 

District plans to address VOC emissions from green waste composting 

operations. 

108. Comment: Appendix I (S-IND-6, Rule 4682 Polystyrene Foam, 

Polyethylene, and Polypropylene) The District should ensure that its recent 

proposed rule reflects the fact that EPA considers emissions from storage of in 

process materials and warehousing of finished product capable of capture and 

control and should not be considered fugitive emissions. (EJ) 

Response: Please refer to the subject control measure, which describes the 

Districtís current rule development effort addressing VOC emissions from these 

operations. 

109. Comment: Appendix I (S-IND-12, Rule 4694 Wine Fermentation and 

Storage Tanks) Remove the alternative compliance provision, require 86% VOC 

capture and control efficiency on tanks, include emissions from brandy aging 

operations in this rule or draft a separate rule to encompass emissions from 

these sources. Emissions from the aging of brandy cannot be considered 

surplus, and the District must not ignore the sizeable emissions from brandy 

operations in order to allow alternative compliance under the wine rule. (EJ) 

Response: The suggested option was added to the subject control measure for 

further consideration. Appendix I (S-IND-14, Aging of Brandy and Wine) 

discusses the VOC emissions and control options for that source category. 

110. Comment: Appendix I (S-SOL-1, Rule 4606 Wood Products Coating 

Operations) reduce VOC limits to match South Coastís limits of 250g/liter on all 

wood coatings. (EJ) 

Response: The suggested option is already included in the subject control 

measure for further consideration. 

111. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-1, Green Contracting Programs) The 

District should promote green building. District staff should meet with City and 

County officials (not all of whom read CEQA documents). Buildings with white 

roofs can save energy. Buildings can also be oriented to with windowís facing 

north or south to lower the cooling costs. Compact florescent bulbs should be 

used more. Pools should only be heated with solar heaters. (AU) 

Response: Please see District Control Measure M-OTH-1, (Green Contracting 

Programs) in Appendix I. 

112. Comment: Appendix I (M-TRAN-1, Employer-Based Trip Reduction 

Programs) Encourage mass transportation. (AU) 

Response: Please see District Control Measure M-TRAN-1 in Appendix I. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-62

113. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-12.1 Energy Conservation Programs) 

Encourage energy efficiency. (AU) 

Response: Please see District Control Measure S-COM-12.1 (Energy 

Conservation Programs) in Appendix I. 

114. Comment: Appendix I (S-COM-13, Heat Island Mitigation Programs) 

Regarding the Heat Island Mitigation Programs measure in Appendix I, we 

recommend that the Plan provide discussion on the benefits that crop production 

has for ozone absorption potential, the role of VOC emissions in rural areas in 

controlling ozone, and the role of orchards as buffers. (AIGp) 

Response: The Heat Island Mitigation Program is designed to lower ambient 

temperatures in urban areas, which is conducive to less ozone formation and 

also reduces demands on the power grid (less power plant emissions from 

peaker stations). The benefits of crop production have more to do with the lower 

potential for ozone precursor production of farming areas in contrast to urban 

areas. This is an argument for the preservation of agricultural areas and for 

denser population centers, which are more amenable to transit development 

strategies. Both issues are dealt with through land-use planning, for which there 

are currently efforts for a more regional approach. The suggestion to provide 

discussion on the ozone reduction potential of agricultural areas was added to 

the control measure description. This comment will be considered further in the 

development of this control measure as a District program. 

115. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-1, Green Contracting Programs) As 

suggested above under Large Diesel Engines, the District should work with the 

legislature to increase the Districtís authority to require that public agencies 

operating within the air district adopt green contracting practices. (EJ) 

Response: This suggestion has been added to the Control Measure M-OTH-1 

recommendations. It will be considered further in the implementation of this 

program. 

116. Comment: Appendix I (M-OTH-8, Indirect Source Review Enhancement) 

The District should increase the rule's value by lowering the threshold of 

construction equipment covered from anything 50 horsepower or greater to 

anything 25 horsepower or greater. The District should also lower the threshold 

for new development projects covered from those that are expected to produce 

two tons or more of indirect pollution to those that are expected to generate one 

ton or more of indirect pollution. Finally, the District should consider requiring 

onsite mitigation for a substantial portion or all of the indirect source emissions 

linked to a development project. This will ensure that a developer is not able to 

simply pay mitigation fees, but must also incorporate at least some permanent 

emission reduction measures into the development. Most importantly, though, 

the District should not delay expanding the indirect source rule simply because 

the rule has been challenged in court. The District clearly has authority to 

promulgate an indirect source rule. To wait until the challenge has played out in 

court risks needlessly delaying an opportunity to reduce pollution. (EJ) 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-63

Response: These comments were added to the control measure for further 

consideration. District staff will consider these issues during the rule 

development process. On the issue of requiring onsite mitigation requirements, 

the District has continually indicated the preference for onsite mitigation. 

However, the option of paying mitigation fees was incorporated to the ISR rule to 

provide flexibility for development projects, while guaranteeing that emission 

reduction goals are met by providing incentives to sources where equivalent 

reductions can be realized. Equivalent reductions are sought with SIP 

creditability designed into these incentive-funded projects. In addition, the 

possibility of exceeding the emission reductions is a factor when evaluating 

potential, fundable projects. 

The timeline for the possible expansion of the ISR rule has not been determined. 

However, the court challenge would have been resolved by the time the ISR rule 

undergoes rule development so that there will be no delay in realizing potential, 

additional emission reductions from an enhanced ISR rule. 

117. Comment: M-TRAN-1, Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programsó

explore the applicability of state laws governing parking pay-out programs in 

California, and work to strengthen that law and its enforcement in the San 

Joaquin Valley. (EJ) 

Response: This comment was added to the control measure for future 

consideration. District staff will consider this issue during the rule development 

process. 

118. Comment: The District should separate grades at railroad crossings to 

prevent idling cars and advocate properly inflated tires, which would help 

vehicles use less gasoline. New businesses should not be built with employee 

parking. Public money should be spent on improved transit instead of more 

roads, which would eventually be clogged with cars. (AU) 

Response: The District works to the extent authorized under the federal Clean 

Air Act and state Health and Safety Code to attain clean air standards. However, 

railroad crossings and transit issues fall under the regulatory authority of local 

land use agencies. Projects that use federal funds are subject to conformity 

regulations (Transportation Conformity and General Conformity), which assure 

that these projects do not negatively impact air quality plans. New businesses 

are subject to the Districtís Indirect Source Review Rule 9510 and with the recent 

passage of Fresno County's Measure C, local money will be available for 

improved transit. The Spare The Air campaign brochures and public service 

announcements advocate maintaining proper tire pressure and the benefits of 

utilizing mass transportation. 

119. Comment: S-IND-21, Flares - The District should adopt a flare 

minimization program similar to those in the South Coast and Bay Area air 

districts. The Bay Area reports greater than 80% reductions in emissions from 

flaring based solely on increased monitoring and reporting requirements. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-64

Furthermore, the District should adopt NOx and CO limits on flares used for 

landfill gases similar to those adopted in the San Luis Obispo air district. (EJ) 

Response: Staff reviewed the indicated rules and found that neither the 

BAAQMD nor the SCAQMD rules require specific reductions or actions that 

would lead to reductions to be included in the plans. The comment regarding 

NOx and CO limits on landfill flares was added to the control measure for future 

consideration. District staff will consider this issue during the rule development 

process. 

120. Comment: Under separate cover, the refinish coating manufacturers of 

the NPCA submitted separate comments on the proposed control measure for 

motor vehicle and mobile coatings operations. (NPCA) 

Response: The District received these comments. Amendments to this rule 

were adopted in September 2006. 

121. Comment: We appreciate the District giving priority to NOx emissions 

reductions, mobile source strategies, seasonal approaches and hot spots. (WUD) 

Response: Focusing on NOx is essential for both 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

attainment. Achieving reductions from mobile sources will be integral for 

attainment, since mobile sources comprise such a significant portion of the 

emissions inventory. The District hopes that ongoing technical work will allow for 

seasonal and regionally-targeted approaches to ensure the best use of resources 

and the most expeditious attainment possible. 

122. Comment: S-SOL-4, Wood Products Coating Operations - The District 

should maintain the existing exemptions for aerosol coatings, coatings used in 

quantities of less than 20 gallons per year, coatings used for specific limited uses 

and limited finishes. Reducing the exemption to 1 gallon results in very little VOC 

reductions. Facilities may not be able to increase device efficiencies with 

existing equipment, so expensive new systems would need to be purchased. 

(NPCA) 

Response: These comments were added to the control measure for further 

consideration. District staff will consider this issue during the rule development 

process. 

123. Comment: S-SOL-3, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products - The 

District should maintain existing exemptions for touch-up coatings, since they are 

often used in small quantities. The District should also provide exemptions for 

specialty coatings that require high VOC limits for special applications (i.e. high 

or extreme performance coatings) (NPCA) 

Response: All possible control options as well as socioeconomic impact and 

cost effectiveness must be considered during the rulemaking process. This 

comment was added to the control measure for further consideration. District 

staff will consider this issue during the rule development process. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-65

124. Comment: S-PET-1, Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage 

Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants and Organic Liquid Loading - The 

agricultural industry expresses concerns with a blanket removal of current 

exemptions. Tanks are used infrequently. Installation of Phase 1 vapor recovery 

would be cost prohibitive due to infrequent filling of the tanks. (AIGp)

Response: Rule 4621 (Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers, 

Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants) and Rule 4624 (Organic Liquid Loading) are 

part of a current rule development project that is underway. District staff will 

consider this issue during the rule development process. 

125. Comment: S-PET-2, Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicle Fuel TanksThe Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks measure in Appendix I, 

installation of Phase 2 vapor recovery at agricultural operations is cost prohibitive 

due to infrequent use. (AIGp) 

Response: Rule 4622 (Gasoline Transfer into Motor Vehicle Fuel Tanks) 

currently under development. District staff will consider this issue during the rule 

development process. 

126. Comment: S-SOL-1, Architectural Coatings - Adopt South Coastís new 

coating limits, as suggested in the Draft Plan. (EJ) 

Response: Comment noted. District staff will consider this issue further during 

the rule development process. 

127. Comment: Rule development projects have resulted in rules which have 

or will shortly impact industries such as agricultural and oil refining. Although 

rules are normally developed for specific equipment types or processes, the 

complex nature of some industries can cause operators to be faced with multiple 

new rules; each having a separate list of requirements. The combined impact 

of these rules can result in a significant economic burden on operations. Recent 

rules have addressed a number of equipment including boilers, dryers, engines, 

and gasoline storage and dispensing equipment, which can all often be found at 

a single facility. (AIGp and KOR) 

Response: Cumulative impacts are difficult to evaluate since some costs and 

practices are already part of the operatorsí operational baselines. The District 

recognizes the effect that more stringent requirements can have and performs a 

socioeconomic analysis to collect stakeholder input and evaluate those impacts. 

Where possible, rule compliance schedules are adjusted to mitigate those 

impacts and still generate timely emission reductions. 

128. Comment: The company ìSave the World Air, Incî (STWA) has a variety 

of products that have been significantly tested and proven to reduce harmful 

exhaust emissions, improve performance, and enhance fuel economy. Why are 

these not being implemented? (ML)

Response: The District does not have jurisdiction over the products that STWA 

is manufacturing. Aftermarket products used for private mobile sources falls 

under the authority of the EPA and the ARB. These agencies are also 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District April 30, 2007

Appendix L: Comments and Responses 

2007 Ozone Plan 

Appendix L-66

responsible for certifying products, including fuel additives, retrofit devices, etc., 

which may be used by stakeholders in complying with regulations. Other 

regulatory agencies, such as the District, do not require or recommend the use of 

products. Rather, these agencies formulate regulations that require certain 

emission limits to be met by devices or products.