 	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION IX

	75 Hawthorne Street

	San Francisco, CA  94105 

	February 7, 2005				

Ms. Catherine Witherspoon

Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815 

Sacramento, CA 95812 

Dear Ms. Witherspoon:

We have found adequate for transportation conformity purposes the motor
vehicle emission budgets in the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District(s Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan ((Plan()
(October, 2004) submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board
((CARB() on November 15, 2004.  As a result of our adequacy finding, the
various San Joaquin Valley County Regional Transportation Commissions
and the Federal Highway Administration can use these budgets in future
conformity analyses.  

On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued a decision on Environmental Defense Fund v.
Environmental Protection Agency, No. 97-1637, that we must make an
affirmative determination that the submitted motor vehicle emission
budgets contained in State Implementation Plans ((SIPs() are adequate
before they are used to determine the conformity of Transportation
Improvement Programs or Long Range Transportation Plans.  In response to
the court decision, we are making any submitted SIP revision containing
a control strategy plan available for public comment and responding to
these comments before announcing our adequacy determination.  The
conformity rule was revised last year to reflect the procedures we have
been using since the court decision. See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004) and
related correction notice at 69 FR 43325 (July 20, 2004).  

In April 2004, in response to a request by CARB, EPA reclassified the
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin ((SJVAB() from severe to extreme
nonattainment for the national one-hour ozone standard. (69 FR 20550). 
Under the extreme classification, EPA required the State, on behalf of
the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
((SJVUAPCD(), to submit a plan by November 15, 2004, demonstrating
attainment of the national ozone standard by the applicable attainment
date for extreme areas November 15, 2010.  In addition, a new Rate of
Progress ((ROP() plan was required demonstrating reduction of ozone
precursor emissions at a rate of three percent per year, between 2005
and 2008, and 2008 to 2010.

On October 8, 2004, the SJVUAPCD Governing Board adopted the Plan for
the SJVAB that was developed to address requirements under the Clean Air
Act for ozone nonattainment areas classified as extreme. The Plan was
submitted to EPA by CARB on November 15, 2004 and identifies regional
motor vehicle emissions budgets for each county under the District(s
jurisdiction in terms of tons of VOC and NOx per day for years 2008 and
2010.  On December 7, 2004, we announced receipt of the Plan on the
Internet and requested public comment by January 6, 2005.   We did not
receive any comments during that comment period.

This letter transmits our decision that the motor vehicle emissions
budgets in the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for San
Joaquin Valley are adequate for transportation conformity decisions. 
These budgets are provided in the following table:

	

	Transportation Conformity Budgets1

Reproduced from Table 3-4 of the San Joaquin Valley(s Extreme Ozone
Attainment Demonstration Plan 

County	

VOC Emissions (tons/day)	

NOx Emissions (tons/day)

	

2008	

2010	

2008	

2010



Fresno	

15.8	

13.0	

33.7	

27.7



Kern (SJVAB) 	

11.5	

9.6	

32.7	

27.2



Kings	

2.5	

2.1	

6.2	

5.4



Madera	

3.9	

3.3	

8.4	

7.2



Merced	

5.0	

4.0	

11.4	

9.1



San Joaquin	

9.3	

7.7	

22.4	

17.9



Stanislaus 	

8.5	

7.0	

17.4	

14.0



Tulare	

8.5	

6.9	

18.8	

15.3



Total	

65.0	

53.6	

151.0	

123.8

1All emissions are expressed as summer tons/day and were derived using
EMFAC2002, Version 2.2 (April 2003) with updated vehicle population and
vehicle miles traveled data.  Emissions totals reflect the emission
reductions benefits from motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M),
state measure reductions, and reductions from the District(s Indirect
Source Rules (ISR) and mobile source incentive programs; consequently,
totals will not match those in Table 3-1 which do not reflect these
additional control measures.  The budget was established by taking the
EMFAC results, subtracting the emissions reductions benefits, rounding
up to the nearest tenth if the hundredths place was (1" or higher. 
Appendix A of the District(s Plan contains the county-specific breakdown
of on-road motor vehicle emissions and emission reduction benefits. 

Source: CARB, Submitted Extreme Ozone Attainment Plan.

In reaching this decision, we have reviewed the extreme ozone
attainment demonstration plan including responses to public comments on
the plan, and have preliminarily determined that it meets the necessary
attainment demonstration and rate of progress requirements for extreme
ozone nonattainment areas. The plan indicates that efforts have been
made to incorporate the SJVAB Metropolitan Planning Organizations
updated vehicle miles traveled into the emissions budgets.  These
emissions budgets, therefore, reflect not only the latest Vehicle Miles
Traveled ((VMT() data, but also reflect the additional impact of those
data on emissions from evaporative losses and vehicle starts.  As
indicated in the footnote to the table above, EMFAC2002 results were
reduced to account for any emissions controls that were not included in
the model runs.  When showing conformity to these new budgets,
transportation agencies in the San Joaquin Valley should use this
methodology to ensure that the latest VMT data be used, per 40 CFR
(93.110. 

We have enclosed a table that summarizes our adequacy determination.  We
will soon post this information on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/oms/transp/conform/pastsips.htm.  We will also
announce this adequacy determination in the Federal Register.  This
determination will become effective 15 days after the Federal Register
announcement.

If you have any questions regarding this decision, please contact David
Wampler at (415) 972-3975.

Sincerely,

// signed // 

Deborah Jordan 

Director, Air Division

	

Enclosure (Adequacy Review)

cc: 	Mr. Jesse Brown

Executive Director 

Merced County Association of Governments

369 West 18th Street

Merced, California 95340-6305

Ronald Brummett 

Executive Director

Kern County Council of Governments

1401 19th Street, Suite 300

Bakersfield, California 93301

Mr. David Crow

Executive Director

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

1990 E. Gettysberg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726

Mr. Gary Dickson

Executive Director

Stanislaus Council of Governments

900 H Street, Suite D

Modesto, California 95354-6443

Mr. George Finney

Executive Secretary

Tulare County Association of Governments

Tulare County Government Plaza

5961 South Mooney Boulevard

Visalia, California 93277-6237

Ms. Barbara Goodwin

Executive Director

Council of Fresno County Governments

2100 Tulare, Suite 619

Fresno, California 93721

Ms. Julia E. Greene

Executive Director

San Joaquin Council of Governments

6 South El Dorado Street, Suite 400

Stockton, California 95202

Ms.  Patricia Taylor-Maley

Executive Director

Madera County Transportation Commission

1816 Howard Road, Suite 8

Madera, California 93637-6341

Mr. William Zumwalt

Executive Director

Kings County Association of Governments

Kings County Government Center

1400 West Lacey Boulevard

Hanford, California 93230-6323

Ms. Lynn Terry

California Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812

Ms. Cynthia Marvin 

California Air Resources Board

P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812

Ms. Cari Anderson 

Earth Matters 	

1023 E. Montebello Ave. 

Phoenix, AZ 85014 

Ms. Sue Kiser

Chief, Planning, Environment and ROW Team

Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento Office

980 Ninth Street, Suite 400

Sacramento, California 95814

Ms. Sharon Scherzinger

Supervising Transportation Planner

California Department of Transportation

Division of Transportation Planning MS -32, Room 5302

1120 N Street, P.O. Box 942874

Sacramento, California 94274-0001

Enclosure

Transportation Conformity Adequacy Review

Control Strategy SIP Under Review: Extreme Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan and Rate of Progress	

Date of SIP Revision Receipt by EPA: November 16, 2004 



Reviewers: David Wampler	

Date: 1/20	





Transportation Review Criteria	

Is Criterion Satisfied?

Y/N	

Reference in SIP Document / Comments



Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(i)	

The plan was endorsed by the Governor (or designee) and was subject to a
public hearing.	

Y	

The November 15, 2004 SIP transmittal letter from CARB to Wayne Nastri
indicates endorsement from CARB (which is the agency designated by the
Governor to adopt and submit plans).  Also, included in the letter is
ARB Resolution 04-29 dated October 28, 2004, adopting the 2004 Ozone
Plan as a revision to the California SIP.  The resolution also discusses
CARB(s authority as the State agency responsible for the preparation of
any SIP required by the Act. The information submitted to CARB by the
District and forwarded to EPA contains documentation of the public
hearing on October 8, 2004, that was held to adopt the Extreme Ozone
Attainment Demonstration Plan. 



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.	

Y	

We understand that consultation with federal, state and local agencies
and the public was undertaken. An overview of the Regional TPA RACM
analysis is included in Section 4.6 of the Plan and identifies the
Valleywide committee as being composed of each RTPA, the District,
Caltrans, ARB, EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, and Federal
Transit Administration.  EPA did not provide comments on the proposed
plan.  



Transportation Review Criteria	

Is Criterion Satisfied?

Y/N	

Reference in SIP Document / Comments



Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iii)	

The motor vehicle emission budget(s) is clearly identified and precisely
quantified.	

Y	

The motor vehicle budgets are clearly identified and summarized in
section 3.5 of the Plan (pages 3-23 and 3-24) and precisely quantified
in Appendix A. Appendix A shows which adjustments were made to the
EMFAC2002 results to account for further reductions in ROG, CO and NOx
emissions predicted for 2008/2010 due to I/M adjustments, State
Measures, Indirect Source Rules (ISR) and Mobile Source Incentives. 



Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(iv)	

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).	

Y	

The motor vehicle emissions budgets are consistent with the attainment
plan and ROP plan requirements.  The attainment plan demonstrates
attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by 2010 and the ROP plan
provides for all the control measures and emission reductions necessary
to show required Rate of Progress reductions. 

The ROP demonstration shows that VOC reductions alone are not enough to
meet ROP milestones by 2008 and 2010. The predicted shortfall is 98.4
tpd VOC for 2008 and 126.8 tpd VOC by 2010. Thus, the District
substituted NOx reductions for VOC reductions.  NOx substitution is
allowed by the statute and is explained in EPA(s 1993 NOx Substitution
Guidance. In general, substituting NOx for VOC is allowed if the
resulting reduction in ozone concentration is at least equivalent to
that which would result from VOC emissions reductions.  Additional 1994
EPA Guidance explains how NOx substitution can be found acceptable for
ROP purposes prior to completion of modeling supporting an area's
attainment demonstration. NOx reductions in San Joaquin Valley have been
shown to be beneficial to reducing ambient ozone concentration (see
Figure 5-5 Carrying Capacity Diagram on p. 5-10 of the plan). 



Transportation Review Criteria	

Is Criterion Satisfied?

Y/N	

Reference in SIP Document / Comments



Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(v)	

The plan shows a clear relationship among the emissions budget(s),
control measures and the total emissions inventory.	

Y	

The emission inventory for all point, area and motor vehicles, is
described and summarized in Chapter 3 (see Table 3-1).  Adjustments to
the MVEB inventory to account for ISR and incentive programs, I/M
adjustments and State Measures were made and are described in section
3.5.  More detailed inventories are provided in Appendix A  ( County
Emission Inventories for On-Road Motor Vehicles (2008 and 2010
inventories for VOC, NOx and CO).  



Sec. 93.118(e)(4)(vi)	

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 (93.101 for definition), and
reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes to emission
factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).	

Y	

The most recent attainment demonstration SIP for the San Joaquin Valley
was approved by EPA in 1997 (62 FR 1150 at page 1172, January 8, 1997)
including the emissions inventory (and MVEBs) for San Joaquin Valley.
Since that time, the SJVAB has been reclassified from serious to severe
(66 FR 56476, November 8, 2001), and in 2004, reclassified to extreme
(69 FR 20550, April 18, 2004). The November 15, 2004 submitted 1-hour
ozone extreme area plan also included a ROP plan demonstrating required
reductions by 2008 and 2010.  Together the attainment and ROP plans
reflects the latest VMT data and additional impacts that the VMT data
have on emissions from vehicle starting and fuel evaporation. Further,
local and state control strategies have been updated to provide
sufficient emission reductions to demonstrate attainment by 2010. 

      The State(s prior ROP plan submittal for milestone years 2002 and
2005 occurred on April 10, 2003, and demonstrated required NOx and VOC
reductions by 2002 and 2005. EPA found the MVEB budgets contained in the
2003 ROP plan adequate effective August 8, 2003.  (68 FR 43724). In
general, the budgets in both the current ROP (and ozone) plan and the
April 2003 ROP rely on EMFAC version 2.2 and include benefits from I/M
improvements.



Sec. 93.118(e)(5)	

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	

The Draft extreme area plan was released for public review on July 30
and workshops were held on August 12 and 13, 2004.  The District(s
30-day formal comment period began on September 7, 2004 and the District
Board adoption hearing was held on October 8, 2004. In addition to
comments received during the workshops, the District received public
comments on the plan during this 30-day public notice period prior to
the District Board hearing. Also, public comments were received by CARB
prior to and during its public hearing which was held on October 28,
2004.  EPA has reviewed the public comments and the State(s and
District(s response to the comments. 



