UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGlON IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901



### JAN 8 

## 2D89

James Goldstene, Executive Officer California Air ResourcesBoard 1001I 

### Street, P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 95812

RE: 

### Adequacy Status of San Joaquin Valley 8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Pl3n Motor Vehicle EmissionsBudgets

Dear stene:

' 

### We have found adequatefor transportation conformitypurposes 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 supplementedby CARB on February 1,2008("San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan"). As a result of our adequacy finding, MetropolitanPlanning Organizations(MPOs) in the San Joaquin Valley and the U.S. Department of Transportationmust use the adequatebudgets in future conformity analyses once the finding becomes effective.

CARB submitted the Sun Joaquin Valley

### 2007 OzonePlan (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 supplementalmaterialrelated to the plan's reasonaijle further progress 

### (RFP) demonstrationson February 1,2008. The plan includes new control. measures and demonstrations of RFP and attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.The plan identifies subregionalMVEBs for each county in the nonattinment area for reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NO,) for each RFP milestoneyear through 2020 and for the attainmentyear 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 2011,2014 and 2017 contained in the San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan are adequate for transportation conformity decisions. These budgets are consistentwith the State's RFP demonstrations for milestone years 2011,2014,and 2017, and thesebudgets 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 adequatebudgets, 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 conformitypurposes. 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 adoptionthat lack specificity. As such, the SJVMPOs 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 areprecisely 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 

### 93.118(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 soonbe posted on the Internet at 

## 'ROG is comparableto the term specifiedin 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 specifiedin the CAA and in EPA SIPrules, 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 SteveLuxenberg,FHWA Ted Matley, FTAEnclosure 1: Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review



### ( Reviewers: Karina O'Connor 

# I Date: 12/17/08 

# I I

Control Strategy StateImplementation 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 subjectto a public hearing. Date of SIPRevision Receiptby EPA: November 2007

Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(ii) The plan was developed through consultationwith 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 14,2007through a Board Resolution (07-20).CARB released the plan on May 15,2007 and requested public comments by June 13,2007or at the public hearing held on June 14,2007.The letter also indicates that CARB adopted the 2007 State Strategyfor the SIP on September 27, 2007. The plan relies upon reductioncommitmentsfromthe 2007 State Strategy, which was submittedto EPA

as a SIPrevision also on November 16,2007. CARB released the 2007 State Strategy on April 26,2007 and May 7,2007 and requested public commentsby the publichearing 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 MetropolitanPlanning Organization (MPO). EPA received a copy of the draft SJV 2007 OzonePlan and draft State Strategy, and EPA's commentswere addressed. The motor vehicle emissionsbudgets 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 documentedin Appendix D of the Staff Report submittedby CARB as part ofthe San Joaquin Valley 2007 Ozone Plan in November 2007. The budgets for 2020 and 2023 are not precisely quantified because the new emissionreductionsfrom measures in the State Strategy do not result from adequately specified controlmeasures. In contrast,the budgets for the years 2008, 201 1, 2014 and 2017 reflect control measures, withSec. 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 isrelevant to the given plan).

Theplan 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 07-04-1la) 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. Theplan 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 budgetsdeemed 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 responsesfrom SJVUAPCD's public workshops and public commentperiods on the draft 2007 Ozone Plan. Additional verbal commentswere received during the adoptionpublic hearings held by the SJVUAPCDand 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. 93.118(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 implementationplan, 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 emissionsbudgets 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 commenterasserts 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 commenteralso notes that this flaw prevents the plan from demonstrating that the area can achieve expeditious attainmentand 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 sincethe budgets do
not meet the transportation conformity adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.1 18(e)(4)(iv). However, the plan's inabilityto comply with the Clean Air Act's reasonable further progress requirements for 2008 does not precludethe 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 implementationrule, (68 FR 32802, at 32811,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 15percent ROP requirements rather than the more general RFP requirementsof section 172(c)(2).lt This continuesEPA's long-term interpretation that meeting the specific ROP requirement in subpart 2 satisfiesthe 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 10and 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 attainmentin any year beyond 2017. 

### In other words, since we preliminarilyfind that the plan shows 3% per year reduction in ozone precursor emissions for milestoneyears 2011,2014,and 2017, and that the budgets are consistent with the RFP demonstrationsfor those years, the submitted

### RFP demonstrations and related motor vehicle emissionsbudgets would not necessarily need to be revised for milestone years 20 11,2014, and 20 17if the year representing expeditious attainmentwere to be 20 18or later, and we have no information suggestingthat 2017 or any earlier year represents expeditious

### attainment of the 8-hour ozoneNAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. We address the issue of contingency measures in our responseto comment#7 herein.

Comment 3: 

### The commenter assertsthat the control measures in the plan fail to meet the minimum Clean Air Act requirementsand that the plan unlawfully relies upon emissions reductions from such measuresto 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 determinedthe 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. Thereforethe 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., 2011, 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 alreadybeen implemented. The one exception is the SJVUAPCD's commitmentto adopt an employer-based trip reduction program in 2009 with implementationand emissionsreductions to occur in the following year. See section 8.2.3 in the 2007 Ozone Plan. The emissions reductions included in thebudgets from the trip reduction program are shown in table 8-1 of the plan. The 2007 Ozone Plan, as adoptedby 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 2011,2014; and 2017, as submittedby 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 sorelied upon are established in specific commitments by SJVUAPCDto achieve, in the aggregate, the emissions reductions in the applicable milestone years as specified in table 6-1 of the plan. Seepage 6 (lines 6 through 14) of GoverningBoard Resolution 07-04- 1lafor the District's commitmentsto adopt and implementthe 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 2011,2014, and 2017 also meet all of the other adequacy criteria, includingbeing 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 inadequateon the basis that the emissions budgets are built on the foundationof an unapprovable

### SIP. The commenter indicates that the attainment demonstrationin 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 93.118(e)(4) and (5) are met. These comments are more directly related to the approvability of the SIP than to EPA's determinationwhether the budgets are adequate. EPA will consider all commentsrelevant 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 demonstrationis another separate SIPrequirement, the transportation conformity rule requires EPA to review each RFP SIPbudget separately according to our adequacy criteria. See 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).

### In this case, we are finding adequatethe budgets for milestoneyears 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 necessarilyneed to be revised once the concerns that we have raised in connection with the RFP (milestoneyears 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 emissionsbudgets do not meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).



### Comment 

### 5: The commenter asserts that the plan fails to meet the requirementto provide for applicationof reasonable available control technology (RACT).

Response 5: This comment is outsidethe scope of EPA's adequacyreview. The requirement to implement RACT is separate from the requirementto demonstrateRFP. 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 2011,2014,and 2017 relies on stationary source controls currently approved by SJVUAPCD and does not rely on the tighter controls that might beimplemented 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 commenterasserts that the plan fails to meet the requirementfor new source review permitting in extreme ozone nonattainmentareas.
Response 

### 6: This comment is outside the scope of EPA's adequacy review. The requirementto amend new sourcereview (NSR) rules for new or modified stationary sourcesto reflect an area's 8-hour ozone classification is separate from the requirementto 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 submittedplan 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 sourcereview rules to appropriately reflect the area's nonattainment classification. Thus, even when SJVUAPCD amends its new sourcereview 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 commenterasserts that the plan fails to meet the requirementfor contingency measures.

, Response 7: This comment is outside the scope of EPA's adequacy review. The requirementto include contingency measuresto 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 failuresto actuallymeet 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 contingencymeasures included in the submitted ozone plan, the motor vehicle budgets would remain unchanged and would remain adequate.



### Comment 

### 8: The commenterfurther assertsthat 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 implementationplan 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 appropriateNSR controls, we assume that the commenter suggests that if such requirements were met and reflected in the plan, attainmentwould 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 attainmentyear to be inadequate. The most distant year for which we are finding budgets to be adequateis 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 milestoneyears 20 11,2014, and 20 17would not be affected unless meeting such requirements would provide for attainmentby 2017 or before. The reason for this is that the submitted RFP demonstrations for milestoneyears 2011,2014,and 2017 could remain sufficienteven 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 ozoneprecursor emissions for milestoneyears 2011,2014,and 2017, and that the budgets are consistentwith the RFP demonstrations for those years, the submitted RFP demonstrations and related motor vehicle emissionsbudgets 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, additionalon-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 emissionsbudgets.

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 requiredNSR rule changes are adopted, to achieve attainmentin San Joaquin Valley by 2017 or earlier. We compared the ozone precursor emissionsin 2017 from stationary/areasources with the predicted carryingcapacity. The carrying capacity is 160tons per day of NO, and 342 tons per day of ROG. The 2017 emissionsinventory 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 eliminatingall stationary/area source emissionsin 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 2011,2014, and 2017 would remain adequate even if we should ultimately find that 2023 does not reflect expeditiousattainment 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 withoutthe required control measures, California's use of the black box fails to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Response9: 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, sincethe plan does not rely on "black box" measure reductions for RFP. As discussed elsewherein EPAYs adequacy finding, we are determining that the &hour ozone attainment year budgets in the plan are inadequate. Pleaserefer to other parts of today's finding for further information.