UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGlON IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

JAN 8 2D89 

James Goldstene, Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

1001 I Street, P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 958 12 

RE: Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and 

Attainment Pl3n Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Dear stene: 

' We have found adequate for transportation conformity purposes certain motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) in the Sun Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan (April 2007), as 

amended by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on Julie 14,2007, and supplemented by 

CARB on February 1,2008 ("San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan"). As a result of our 

adequacy finding, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) in the San Joaquin Valley and 

the U.S. Department of Transportation must use the adequate budgets in future conformity 

analyses once the finding becomes effective. 

CARB submitted the Sun Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan (April 2007), as amerided f~y 

CARB on June 14, 2007, to EPA on November 17, 2007 as a revision to the California Stale 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and submitted supplemental material related to the plan's reasonaijle 

further progress (RFP) demonstrations on February 1,2008. The plan includes new control. 

measures and demonstrations of RFP and attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. The plan 

identifies subregional MVEBs for each county in the nonattinment area for reactive organic gases 

(ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO,) for each RFP milestone year through 2020 and for the 

attainment year 2023. We announced receipt of the plan on the Internet on April 18,2008, and 

requested public comment by May 19,2008. We received comments on the budgets and plan 

during that comment period. 

This letter transmits our decision that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 201 1, 2014 

and 2017 contained in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan are adequate for transportation 

conformity decisions. These budgets are consistent with the State's RFP demonstrations for 

milestone years 201 1,2014, and 2017, and these budgets are based on control measures, with one 

minor exception, that have already been adopted and implemenled. The budgets also meet the 

other adequacy criteria, therefore, these budgets meet the transp~rtation conformity adequacy 

criteria found in 40 CFR 93.1 1 8(e)(4). The adequate budgets, for each county in the 

nonattainment area, are as follcws: 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
This letter also transmits our finding that the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2008, 

2020 and 2023 are inadequate for transportation conformity purposes. The San Joaquin Valley 

2007 Ozone Plan does not show reasonable further progress for the year 2008. As a result, one of 

the transportation conformity rule's adequacy criteria is not met (40 CFR 93.1 18(e)(4)(iv)), and 

thus, the 2008 budget is inadequate. The 2020 and 2023 budgets include estimated emission 

reductions associated with a number of commitments for future rule adoption that lack 

specificity. As such, the SJV MPOs would not be able to accurately quantify future emission 

reductions associated with the commitments. Without additional specificity, it is also unclear 

how the 2020 and 2023 budgets are precisely quantified or related to the overall emissions 

inventory and other measures. Therefore, the 2020 and 2023 budgets do not meet the adequacy 

criteria found in 40 CFR 93.1 18(e)(4)(iii), (iv), and (v). 

S tanislaus 

Tulare 

We have detailed our adequacy findings in the enclosures. A copy of this letter and its 

enclosures will soon be posted on the Internet at 

' ROG is comparable to the term specified in the CAA and EPA SIP rules, for volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). 

9.0 

9.2 

Stanislaus 

Tulare 

22.3 

20.9 

' ROG is comparable to the term specified in the CAA and in EPA SIP rules, volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). 

10.5 

10.5 

7.5 

7.7 

26.7 

23.4 

17.2 

16.6 

4.9 

5.2 

6.5 

6.7 

8.0 

8.4 

13.4 

13.1 

4.6 

4.8 

7.1 

7.4 
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. We will also announce the 

adequacy findings in the Federal Register. The findings will become effective 15 days after the 

Federal Register announcement pursuant to 40 CFR 93.1 18(f). 

If you have any questions regarding these adequacy findings or would like copies of the 

comments received, please contact Kerry Drake at (415) 947-4157 or Karina O'Connor at (775) 

833-1276. 

Sincerely, 

Director, Air ~i;ision 

Enclosures 

cc: Errol Villegas, S JVUAPCD 

Barbara Goodwin, Fresno COG 

Ronald Brummett, Kern COG 

Terri King, Kings COG 

Patricia Taylor, Madera CTC 

Jesse Brown, Merced COG 

Andrew Chesley, S JCOG 

Vince Harris, Stanislaus, COG 

George Finney, Tulare COG 

Steve Luxenberg, FHWA 

Ted Matley, FTA 
Enclosure 1: Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review 

( Reviewers: Karina O'Connor I Date: 12/17/08 I I 

Control Strategy State Implementation Plan (SIP) Under Review: San Joaquin 

Valley (SJV) 2007 Ozone Plan: 8-hour ozone Reasonable Further Progress and 

Attainment Plan 

Governor (or designee) and was 

subject to a public hearing. 

Date of SIP Revision Receipt by EPA: November 2007 

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) The plan was developed through 

consultation with federal, state and 

local agencies; full implementation 

plan documentation was provided 

and EPA's stated concerns, if any, 

were addressed. 

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii) The motor vehicle emission budget(s) 

is clearly identified and precisely 

quantified. 

was sent by CARB's Executive Officer, James Goldstene, the Governor's 

designee. The transmittal letter indicates that the CARB formally adopted the plan 

on June 14,2007 through a Board Resolution (07-20). CARB released the plan on 

May 15,2007 and requested public comments by June 13,2007 or at the public 

hearing held on June 14,2007. The letter also indicates that CARB adopted the 

2007 State Strategy for the SIP on September 27, 2007. The plan relies upon 

reduction commitments from the 2007 State Strategy, which was submitted to EPA 

as a SIP revision also on November 16, 2007. CARB released the 2007 State 

Strategy on April 26,2007 and May 7,2007 and requested public comments by 

the public hearing held on September 27,2007. 

Consultation with federal, state and local agencies was undertaken; this 

consultation took place with the San Joaquin Valley interagency consultation 

working group (the Model Coordinating Committee). Members of the consultation 

group include: EPA, FHWA, FTA, CARB, Caltrans, the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and each county's 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). EPA received a copy of the draft SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan and draft State Strategy, and EPA's comments were addressed. 

The motor vehicle emissions budgets are clearly identified and precisely 

quantified on page 9-10 of the plan and in Appendix C of the plan as adopted by 

SJVUAPCD on April 30,2007. CARB amended the budgets through its June 

2007 approval, and the amendments are clearly documented in Appendix D of the 

Staff Report submitted by CARB as part of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone 

Plan in November 2007. The budgets for 2020 and 2023 are not precisely 

quantified because the new emission reductions from measures in the State 

Strategy do not result from adequately specified control measures. In contrast, the 

budgets for the years 2008, 201 1, 2014 and 2017 reflect control measures, with 
Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv) 

Sec. 93.1 18(e)(4)(v) 

Sec. 93.1 18(e)(4)(vi) 

The motor vehicle emissions 

budget(s), when considered together 

with all other emission sources, is 

consistent with applicable 

requirements for reasonable further 

progress, attainment, or maintenance 

(whichever is relevant to the given 

plan). 

The plan shows a clear relationship 

among the emissions budget(s), 

control measures and the total 

emissions inventory. 

Revisions to previously submitted 

control strategy or maintenance plans 

explain and document any changes to 

any previous submitted budgets and 

control measures; impacts on point 

and area source emissions; any 

changes to established safety margins 

(see 993.101 for definition), and 

reasons for the changes (including the 

in section 8.2.3 of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan), that are already adopted and 

implemented. Further, the budgets do not include new emission reductions 

attributed to general commitments; therefore, these budgets are precisely 

auantified. 

EPA has preliminarily concluded that the budgets for the years 201 1, 2014 and 

2017, when considered together with all other emission sources, are consistent 

with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress for eight-hour 

ozone. This finding is based on review of the plan's ozone RFP demonstration, as 

supplemented on February 1, 2008, that reasonably demonstrates the required 3% 

annual rate of progress (averaged over each three year period) called for in EPA's 

eight-hour ozone implementation rule. Other relevant materials include the 

District's control measure strategy in chapter 6 of the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan and 

the SJVUAPCD's Resolution 07-04-1 la) adopting the plan. EPA cannot 

determine that the 2008, 2020 and 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets are 

consistent with the requirement to demonstrate reasonable further progress and/or 

attainment. The plan does not demonstrate that the 3% reasonable further progress 

requirement is met in 2008. The 2020 and 2023 motor vehicle emissions budgets 

incorporate new emission reductions that do not result from specified control 

measures that have been drafted or adopted in regulatory form (or have been 

adequately supported as a voluntary measure). 

The emission inventory for all stationary, area, on-road mobile, and nonroad 

mobile sources, and their relation to control measures and the reductions from 

existing measures are described in Attachment A of CARB's Resolution 07-28 

dated September 27, 2007 adopting the 2007 State Strategy. The reductions from 

individual existing measures used in the budgets are also described in more detail 

in Tables B-1 and B-2 in Appendix B and Table C.9 in Appendix C to the SJV 

2007 Ozone Plan. As stated elsewhere, the 2020 and 2023 budgets incorporate 

new emission reductions from the State's strategy that do not result from specified 

control measures that have been drafted or adopted in regulatory form (or have 

been adequately supported as a voluntary measure). 

The most recent ozone SIP for the SJV nonattainment area was the area's 2004 1- 

Hour Ozone SIP. EPA found the budgets from the 2004 SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan 

to adequate in 2005 (70 FR 7734, February 15, 2005). The motor vehicle emission 

inventories in the 2004 1-hour ozone SIP are based on the EMFAC2002 motor 

vehicle emissions model, and the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan includes motor vehicle 

emission inventories that were prepared using the most recent version of the 

model, EMFAC2007. EMFAC2007 was approved by EPA in January 2008 (73 

FR 3464, January 18,2008), and EPA's January 2008 notice of availability for 

EMFAC2007 details the basis for the changes to the emission factors. The budgets 
deemed adequate herein, for the 8-hour ozone standard, do not constitute a 

revision to the previously submitted budgets since the 2004 plan was written for a 

different form of the ozone standard. 

The 2007 Ozone Plan contains public comments and SJVUAPCD responses in 

appendices G and L to the plan. Specifically, appendix G includes comments and 

responses from SJVUAPCD's series of Town Hall meetings held from July 26-28, 

2006. Appendix L includes comments and responses from SJVUAPCD's public 

workshops and public comment periods on the draft 2007 Ozone Plan. Additional 

verbal comments were received during the adoption public hearings held by the 

SJVUAPCD and CARB and are also included as attachments to the November 

2007 SIP submittal. We have reviewed the compilation of comments and 

responses and find the responses to be acceptable. No issues that might have 

affected our adequacy finding remain unanswered. 

Sec. 93.1 18(e)(5) 

basis for any changes to emission 

factors or estimates of vehicle miles 

traveled). 

EPA has reviewed the State's 

compilation of public comments and 

response to comments that are 

required to be submitted with any 

implementation plan, 

Y 
ENCLOSURE 2 

Response to Comments 

Response to Comments submitted in Mav 9,2008 Letter from Earthiustice 

Comment 1: The commenter requests that EPA find the 2008 budgets inadequate because 

the plan does not show Reasonable Further Progress in 2008. 

Response 1: EPA agrees that the San Joaquin Valley $-hour ozone plan does not show 

reasonable further progress for the year 2008; therefore, we are finding the 2008 ROC and NO, 

motor vehicle emissions budgets inadequate because one of the transportation conformity rule's 

adequacy criteria is not met (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)) for those 2008 budgets. 

Comment 2: The commenter asserts that the plan's failure to show Reasonable Further 

Progress in 2008 limits the ability of the plan to provide extra emission reductions needed 

for later RFP years. The commenter also notes that this flaw prevents the plan from 

demonstrating that the area can achieve expeditious attainment and cannot include 

adequate contingency measures. 

Response 2: As discussed previously, EPA agrees that the plan does not show Reasonable 

Further Progress for the year 2008 and is finding those budgets inadequate since the budgets do 

not meet the transportation conformity adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.1 18(e)(4)(iv). 

However, the plan's inability to comply with the Clean Air Act's reasonable further progress 

requirements for 2008 does not preclude the SIP from complying with reasonable further 

progress requirements in later years. As discussed in the $-hour ozone implementation rule, the 

rate of progress reductions for each year are calculated separately. From the proposed $-hour 

ozone implementation rule, (68 FR 32802, at 3281 1, June 2,2003): "To the extent that subpart 2 

addresses a specific planning obligation, the provisions in subpart 2 control. For example, under 

section 182(b), moderate areas are subject to 15 percent ROP requirements rather than the more 

general RFP requirements of section 172(c)(2).lt This continues EPA's long-term interpretation 

that meeting the specific ROP requirement in subpart 2 satisfies the general RFP requirement in 

172(c)(2). See EPA's general preamble for implementation of title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498, at 135 10 and 135 18 (April 18,1992). 

The Subpart 2 ROP requirements are calculated based on reductions for each year and are 

separate from the attainment demonstration requirement. Also, we note that the submitted RFP 

demonstrations for milestone years 201 1,2014, and 2017 would be sufficient as RFP plans even 

if the attainment demonstration ultimately demonstrates attainment in any year beyond 2017. In 

other words, since we preliminarily find that the plan shows 3% per year reduction in ozone 

precursor emissions for milestone years 201 1,2014, and 2017, and that the budgets are 

consistent with the RFP demonstrations for those years, the submitted RFP demonstrations and 

related motor vehicle emissions budgets would not necessarily need to be revised for milestone 

years 20 1 1,20 14, and 20 17 if the year representing expeditious attainment were to be 20 18 or 

later, and we have no information suggesting that 2017 or any earlier year represents expeditious 
attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. We address the issue of 

contingency measures in our response to comment #7 herein. 

Comment 3: The commenter asserts that the control measures in the plan fail to meet the 

minimum Clean Air Act requirements and that the plan unlawfully relies upon emissions 

reductions from such measures to demonstrate RFP. The commenter requests further that 

EPA find the motor vehicle emissions budgets inadequate because the budgets include 

emission reductions from these control measures. 

Response - 3: EPA has considered all issues in the SIP that are relevant to its budget adequacy 

decision, and has determined the 2020 and 2023 motor vehicle emission budgets include 

estimated emission reductions associated with a number of general iommitments for future rule 

adoption that lack specificity. Therefore the 2020 and 2023 motor vehicle emission budgets are 

inadequate pursuant to 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iii), (iv) and (v). In contrast, the motor vehicle 

emission budgets for earlier years (i.e., 201 1, 2014 and 2017) are consistent with the State's 

reasonable further progress demonstrations for 8-hour ozone, and these budgets, with one minor 

exception, are based on adopted control measures that have already been implemented. The one 

exception is the SJVUAPCD's commitment to adopt an employer-based trip reduction program 

in 2009 with implementation and emissions reductions to occur in the following year. See 

section 8.2.3 in the 2007 Ozone Plan. The emissions reductions included in the budgets from the 

trip reduction program are shown in table 8-1 of the plan. The 2007 Ozone Plan, as adopted by 

the SJVUAPCD Governing Board, includes the trip reduction program as described in section 

8.2.3 of the plan, and adoption of the plan by the Board constitutes the necessary written 

commitment allowing the related emissions reductions to be included in the budget consistent 

with the transportation conformity requirements in 40 CFR 93.122(a)(3)(iii). 

With respect to RFP, we agree that the RFP demonstrations for years 201 1,2014; and 2017, as 

submitted by CARB on February 1,2008, rely on reductions from unadopted measures (though 

only one of which (the employer-based trip reduction rule, as noted above) affects the budgets). 

We note, however, that the reductions so relied upon are established in specific commitments by 

SJVUAPCD to achieve, in the aggregate, the emissions reductions in the applicable milestone 

years as specified in table 6-1 of the plan. See page 6 (lines 6 through 14) of Governing Board 

Resolution 07-04- 1 la for the District's commitments to adopt and implement the rules and 

measures in the 2007 Ozone Plan by the dates specified in chapter 6 of the plan to achieve the 

emissions reductions shown in chapter 6, and to submit these rules and measures to EPA via 

CARB as a revision to the SIP. At this preliminary stage of plan review, we believe 

S JVUAPCD's commitments to be enforceable and the RFP demonstrations (in 201 1,2014, and 

2017) that rely upon them to be approvable. The budgets for years 201 1,2014, and 2017 also 

meet all of the other adequacy criteria, including being precisely quantified and clearly related to 

the overall SIP. Therefore, these budgets meet the transportation conformity adequacy criteria 

found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). In addition, EPA notes that in any case the budgets demonstrate 

progress towards attainment, because they reflect reductions in emissions from the mobile source 

sector compared to current levels. 
Comment 4: The commenter requests that EPA find the budgets inadequate on the basis 

that the emissions budgets are built on the foundation of an unapprovable SIP. The 

commenter indicates that the attainment demonstration in the plan contains errors and 

that the reasonable further progress is not demonstrated. 

Response - 4: EPA finds budgets adequate or inadequate based on whether the adequacy criteria in 

40 CFR 93.11 8(e)(4) and (5) are met. These comments are more directly related to the 

approvability of the SIP than to EPA's determination whether the budgets are adequate. EPA 

will consider all comments relevant to SIP approvability at the time of its comprehensive review 

of the SIP. 

EPA believes that it is required to review separately each budget that is initially submitted to 

meet a reasonable further progress or attainment SIP requirement. Specifically, section 93.118(e) 

requires EPA to determine the adequacy of each initial SIP budget that is established for a 

particular year and Clean Air Act requirement. The statute requires separate demonstrations for 

SIP purposes for each milestone year. See CAA sections 182(b)(l)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B). 

Therefore, since a separate RFP demonstration is required for each milestone year and the 

attainment demonstration is another separate SIP requirement, the transportation conformity rule 

requires EPA to review each RFP SIP budget separately according to our adequacy criteria. See 

40 CFR 93.1 18(e)(4)(iv). In this case, we are finding adequate the budgets for milestone years 

201 1,2014, and 2017 because they meet the adequacy criteria and because, based on our initial 

review, the SIP demonstrates RFP for those years. Also, we note that the budgets for 201 1,2014, 

and 2017 do not necessarily need to be revised once the concerns that we have raised in 

connection with the RFP (milestone years 2020 and 2023) and attainment demonstrations are 

resolved. We are finding inadequate the budgets for milestone years 2020 and 2023 because we 

have preliminarily determined that RFP for those years relies on general commitments for future 

rule adoption that lack specificity. In addition, EPA has determined that the 2008 Reasonable 

Further Progress budgets are inadequate because these motor vehicle emissions budgets do not 

meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.11 8(e)(4)(iv). 

Comment 5: The commenter asserts that the plan fails to meet the requirement to provide 

for application of reasonable available control technology (RACT). 

Response 5: This comment is outside the scope of EPA's adequacy review. The requirement to 

implement RACT is separate from the requirement to demonstrate RFP. The RACT requirement 

calls for a state to demonstrate that applicable stationary sources are subject to emission 

limitations constituting RACT. In contrast, the RFP requirement calls for a state to demonstrate, 

for each milestone year, that creditable reductions in emissions from all sources (including 

stationary, mobile, and area) meet or exceed a specified percentage reduction in emissions 

relative to the base year. We are finding adequate for transportation conformity purposes the 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for RFP milestone years 201 1,2014, or 2017 because we 

preliminarily find that the submitted plan demonstrates RFP for those years and because we find 

that the adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5) are met, including the criterion that 

budgets for those years are consistent with the RFP demonstration (40 CFR 93.1 18(e)(4)(iv)). 

The RFP demonstration for years 201 1,2014, and 2017 relies on stationary source controls 

currently approved by SJVUAPCD and does not rely on the tighter controls that might be 
implemented if EPA were to disapprove the RACT demonstration. Thus, even if we ultimately 

disapprove the RACT demonstration, the motor vehicle emissions budgets, which by definition 

do not reflect stationary source emissions, would remain unchanged and would remain adequate. 

Comment 6: The commenter asserts that the plan fails to meet the requirement for new 

source review permitting in extreme ozone nonattainment areas. 

Response 6: This comment is outside the scope of EPA's adequacy review. The requirement to 

amend new source review (NSR) rules for new or modified stationary sources to reflect an area's 

8-hour ozone classification is separate from the requirement to demonstrate RFP. We are finding 

adequate for transportation conformity purposes the motor vehicle emissions budgets for RFP 

milestone years 201 1,2014, or 2017 because we preliminarily find that the submitted plan 

demonstrates RFP for those years and because we find that adequacy criteria at 40 CFR 

93.1 18(e)(4) are met, including the criterion that the budgets for those years are consistent with 

the RFP demonstration (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv)). The RFP demonstrations for years 201 1, 

2014, and 2017 rely on stationary source controls currently approved by SJVUAPCD and do not 

rely on the tighter controls on new or modified stationary sources that will be implemented once 

SJVUAPCD amends its new source review rules to appropriately reflect the area's nonattainment 

classification. Thus, even when SJVUAPCD amends its new source review rules, the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets, which by definition do not reflect stationary source emissions, would 

remain unchanged and would remain adequate. 

Comment 7: The commenter asserts that the plan fails to meet the requirement for 

contingency measures. , 

Response 7: This comment is outside the scope of EPA's adequacy review. The requirement to 

include contingency measures to address any RFP milestones that are not met or to address a 

failure to attain by the applicable attainment date is separate from the requirement to demonstrate 

RFP. Emissions reductions from contingency measures by their nature are not relied upon to 

demonstrate RFP (but, rather to address failures to actually meet RFP milestone targets) and thus 

are not included in the related motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 'RFP years. Thus, even if 

we were to disapprove the contingency measures included in the submitted ozone plan, the motor 

vehicle budgets would remain unchanged and would remain adequate. 

Comment 8: The commenter further asserts that since the plan does not contain adequate 

control measures (e.g. RACT and NSR), that it cannot assure expeditious attainment, and 

that the budgets cannot assure timely attainment. 

Response 8: As explained above, this EPA action (i.e, adequacy finding) does not determine 

whether the implementation plan contains adequate RACT and NSR control measures. However, 

even if it were the case that the plan does not reflect measures meeting the RACT requirement 

and appropriate NSR controls, we assume that the commenter suggests that if such requirements 

were met and reflected in the plan, attainment would be achieved earlier than 2023. We reiterate 

that we are finding motor vehicle emissions budgets for both the 2020 RFP milestone year and 

the 2023 attainment year to be inadequate. The most distant year for which we are finding 

budgets to be adequate is 2017. Thus, even if, as the commenter asserts, the plan does not meet 
nor reflect the RACT or NSR requirements, our adequacy determination for the budgets for RFP 

milestone years 20 1 1,20 14, and 20 17 would not be affected unless meeting such requirements 

would provide for attainment by 2017 or before. The reason for this is that the submitted RFP 

demonstrations for milestone years 201 1,2014, and 2017 could remain sufficient even if the 

attainment demonstration ultimately provides for attainment for any year beyond 2017. In other 

words, since we preliminarily find that the plan shows 3% per year reduction in ozone precursor 

emissions for milestone years 201 1,2014, and 2017, and that the budgets are consistent with the 

RFP demonstrations for those years, the submitted RFP demonstrations and related motor 

vehicle emissions budgets need not be revised for milestone years 20 11,2014, and 2017 even if 

the year representing expeditious attainment were to be 2018 or later. With an earlier attainment 

year (i.e., earlier than 2023 but later than 2017), the RFP demonstration and related budgets for 

201 1, 2014, and 2017 could be revised, if, for example, additional on-road control measures 

were implemented, but it is not a certainty that the SIP will be revised in a way that will 

necessitate a revision to any of these RFP demonstrations or motor vehicle emissions budgets. 

EPA evaluated the potential for additional stationary source controls, such as those that would be 

implemented in the event that we disapprove the RACT demonstration and that will be 

implemented once the required NSR rule changes are adopted, to achieve attainment in San 

Joaquin Valley by 2017 or earlier. We compared the ozone precursor emissions in 2017 from 

stationary/area sources with the predicted carrying capacity. The carrying capacity is 160 tons 

per day of NO, and 342 tons per day of ROG. The 2017 emissions inventory shown in the 

revised RFP table is 370 tons per day of NO, and 402 tons per day of ROG. Thus, the amount of 

reduction from the 2017 inventory sufficient to reach attainment is 210 tons per day of NO, and 

60 tons per day of ROG. In 20 17, the entire stationary/area source inventory is 109 tons per day 

of NO,. Completely eliminating all stationary/area source emissions in 20 17 would achieve only 

52% of the reductions needed for attainment. Thus, while it is theoretically possible that tighter 

controls on stationary sources could advance the attainment date, such controls would not 

advance the attainment date in San Joaquin Valley to 2017. Therefore, the budgets for RFP 

milestone years 201 1,20 14, and 2017 would remain adequate even if we should ultimately find 

that 2023 does not reflect expeditious attainment because RACT and NSR are not being 

implemented in San Joaquin Valley as required to meet the corresponding requirements under 

the Clean Air Act and our 8-hour ozone implementation rule. 

Comment 9: The commenter notes that without the required control measures, California's 

use of the black box fails to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

Response 9: This comment is outside the scope of EPA's adequacy review. EPA will consider 

these comments and the issues they raise when we take rulemaking action on the 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration for 2023. The question of whether the "black box" portion of the plan 

is approvable affects only the adequacy of the attainment year budgets, since the plan does not 

rely on "black box" measure reductions for RFP. As discussed elsewhere in EPAYs adequacy 

finding, we are determining that the &hour ozone attainment year budgets in the plan are 

inadequate. Please refer to other parts of today's finding for further information.