Californls 

Environmental 

Protection 

A~ency 

555 Capitol Mall 

Suite 525 

Sacramento, CA 

95814 

(916) 445-3846 

(916)445-6401 FAX 

Depvenent 

of Pesticide 

Regulation 

-t 

of Toxic 

Subrrtancss 

Control 

Iotegmtcd 

waste 

Management 

Board 

Ollice of 

Environmental 

Heaith Hmd 

Assessment 

Sbk Walcr 

Rcsourccs 

Conpol Board 

Regional 

Waer Quality 

Control Boards 

Ms. Felicia Marcus 

Regional Administrator 

Region 9 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-3901 

Pee WlLpoo 

Goucn*a 

Dear Ms. Marcus: 

This letter conveys the comments of the California 

Enviror~ental Protection Agency on the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency' s (U.S. EPA' s) notice proposing 

approval of the 1994,california State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) for Ozone [61 a 10920-10962). An identical copy 

of these coments has been submitted to the official 

docket (No. A-96-13). Attachment 1 to this letter 

provides additional' technical comments on the notice. 

U.S. EPA'S proposed action to approve our clean air 

plan for ozone is a milestone in California's 

environmental program. We axe proud to continue 

California's tradition of air quality leadership with the 

first comprehensive ozone attainment plan in, the nation, 

and now the first to receive federal endorsement. Prompt 

final approval will clearly establish the California SIP 

as our road map for clean air. Of course, as recognized 

in the approval notice, some of California's specific 

strategies may require adjustment as actual rules are 

developed. We will retain the flexibility to revise the 

SIP as long as the emission reductions continue to 

provide for attainment. 

I am pleased to see U.S. EPA formally acknowledge 

the importance of reducing emissions from federal 

sources that California cannot control due to legal 

preemption or practical restrictions on our ability to 

enforce state-only requirements. Emission reductions 

from these categories of mobile sources are necessary if 

California is to attain the federal ozone standard. 

The consultative process you have proposed to 

address emissions from federal sources is much like the 

participatory approach California has used for many years 

to develop new environmental programs. The Air Resources 

Board staff are prepared to begin work right away with 

U.S. EPA and cther stakeholders to develop apprapriate 

controls for Zedera1 sources. 
MAP- 8-96 THU 12: 51 AM 

*..- 

Ms. Felicia Marcus 

by 2. 1996 

Page 2 

Two additional elements are required for the 

consultative process to succeed. Sources under federal 

control must accept their fair share of responsibility 

for the emission reductions needed far attainment; under 

no circumstances should the federal government seek to 

transfer their responsibility onto California or any 

other state. Similarly, U.S. EPA must honor its own 

regulatory obligations and fulfill the commitment you 

made in the announcement of the proposed action: 

"We will work with ~alifornia to help -meet its 

challenging but critical clean air goals.. . The 

state's blueprint calls for tighter emission 

standards on a national scale to help meet this 

challenge. our goal is to identify and implement 

solutions that make environmental and economic sense 

for evezyone . "' 

Through the consultative process, we expect to 

mirror the success of last July's joint agreement with 

engine manufacturers for the new national truck standard 

described in the SIP. The next step will be to extend 

that agreement to cover heavy-duty engines in off-road 

equipment as well. I am confident that the con~ultative 

process, which requires California and U.S. EPA to concur 

on the best approach for delivering the reductions 

assigned to the federal government, will achieve our 

mutual clean alr goals. 

The two follow-up items that U.S. &PA requests prior 

to final approval of the South Coast attainment 

demonstrationwill be provided very shortly. The first 

is an updated rule schedule for the South Coast which the 

South Coast Air Quality Management District Board adopted 

at its April 12, 1996, hearing. The second is our 

agreement to participate in the consultative process on 

federal measures. 

With our submittal of the additional documentation 

U.S. EPA has requested, we expect that the South Coast 

attainment demonstration will receive final approval. 
Ms. Felicia Marcus 

May 2. 1996 

Page 3 

We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the 

proposed approval notice. Should you have any questions 

or rewire additional information, please contact me at 

(916) 445-3046 or Mr. James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, 

Air Resources Board, at (916) 445-4383. 

Sincerely, 

James M. Strock 

Attachment 

cc: (all with attachment) 

Mr. John D. Dunlap, 111, Chairman 

Air Resources Board 

2020 L Street, 5th Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Mr. James D. Boyd 

Executive Officer 

Air Resources Board, 4th Floor 

2020 L Street 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Mr. Marty Keller, Chief 

Bureau of Automotive Repair 

400 R Street, Suite 3000 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Mr. James Wells, Director 

Department of Pesticide Regulation 

1020 N Street, Room 100 

Sacramento, California 95814-5624 
MAY- 8-98 THU 12: 55 AM 

~ .=" - 

Ma. Felicia Marcus 

May 2. 1996 

Page 4 

Mr. David Howekamp, Directox 

Air and Toxics Division 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 9 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-3901 

Docket No. A-96-13 

Office of Federal Planning (A-1-21 

Air and Toxics Division 

Region 9 

U.S. EnvironmentaL Protection Agency 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-3901 

Mr. Doug Allard, Air Pollution Control Officer 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 

26 Castilian Drive, Suite B-23 

Goleta, California 93117 

Mr. Richard Baldwin', Air Pollution Control Officer 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 

669 County Square Drive, 2nd Floor 

Ventura, California 93003 

Mr. Ken Corbin, Air Pollution Control Officer 

Feather River Air Quality Management District 

928 14th Street 

Marysville, California 95991 

Mr. Norman Covell, Air Pollution Control Officer 

Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District 

8411 Jackson Road 

Sacramento, California 95826 

Mr. David L. Crow, Air Pollution Control Officer 

San Joaquin Valley Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200 

Fresno, California 93721 

Mr. Ron Duncan, Air Pollution Control Officer 

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District 

2850 Fair Lane Court, Suilding C 

Placerville, California 95667 
Ms. Folicia Marcus 

May 2. 1996 

Page 5 

Mr. Chuck.Fryxel1, Air Pollution Control Officer 

Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District 

15420 Civic Drive, Suite 200 

Victorvflle, California 92392 

Mr. Larry Greene 

Acting Air Pollution Control officer 

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District 

1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103 

Davis, California 95616 

Mr. Dick Johnson, Air Pollution Control Officer 

Placer County Air Pollution Control District 

Dewitt Center 

11464 "B" Avenue 

Auburn, California 95603 

Dr. James M. Lents, Executive Officer 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

2.1865 E. Copley Drive 

Diamond Bar, California 91765 

Mr. Thomas Paxson, P.E. 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

Kern County Air Pollution Control District 

2700 "M" Street, Suite 290 

Bakersfield, California 93301 

Mr. Richard J. Sommerville 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District 

9150 Chesapeake Drive 

San Diego, California 92123-1096 
MAY- 8-98 THU 12: 5E AM 

Attachment 1 

TECHNICAL COMMENTS 

This actachment conrains the technical comments of the 

California Environrnencal Protection Agency on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (U.S. EPA's) proposed 

approval [61 EB 20920-109621 of the 1994 California State 

~mplementation Plan (SIP) for Ozone. 

APPROVAL ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION 

U.S. EPA identified two follow-up items that musc be 

submitted to secure final approval of the South Coast attainment 

demonstration. As discussed in the letter, we anticipate final 

approval of the south Coast attainment demonstration once you 

receive these items. 

The notice states that U.S. EPA will take separate action on 

the 15% ate-of-Progress Plans for the Sacramento Region and the 

Southeast Desert. Since these plane provide the required 

emiasion reductions between 1990 and 1996, and are consistent 

with the attainment demonstrations, we expect that you will 

propose and finalize approval in the next few months. 

In addition, U.S. EPA committed to separate rulemaking 

action on California's request for waiver from the post-1996 

rate-of-progress requirements for the Southeast Deserc due to 

overwhelming pollutant transport from the South Coast. Given 

your concurrence with our analysis of the transport impacts in 

the Southeast Desert, we anticipate favorable action on this 

waiver as well. 

The notice states U.S. EPA's intent to approve several 

updates to the SIP, if received prior to final federal action. 

The Air Resources Board (ARB) is submitting the following SIP 

revisions under separate cover to support the final rulemaking: 

updated rule schedules for the South Coast and Ventura, a revised 

Posc-1996 Rate-of-Progress Plan for the San Joacpin Valley, and 

an additional rule commitment for Ventura County. We ask that 

you approve each of these elements in the final SIP notice. 
We have identified several items that were improperly 

treated in the proposal that should be corrected in the final 

notice. The most significant items are summarized below. ARB 

will also be routing directly to your staff a list that provides 

further detail and identifies additional minor corrections. 

(a) SIP applicability. The proposal incorrectly says that the 

SIP submittal and U.S. EPA's proposed approval actions 

affect all areas of the State. However, in 

Resolution 94-60, the ARB specifically stated that unless 

otherwise noted "...the Board does not intend the i/ 

regulations which comprise the state element of the SIP to 

be federally enforceable in any area of California beyond 

the serious, severe, and extreme nonattainment areas." The 

final notice should reflect the State's intent. 

(b) SIP Credit for state measures. The notice omits SIP credit 

oucside the South Coast for two stace meaaures. Except for 

San Diego, all SIP areas should receive credit for these k 

measures (M-4 Incentive for Early Introduction of Low-NOx 

mgines and M-11 California Standard for ~as/LpG Industrial 

Equipment 1 between 1999 and the attainment year. 

(c) Credit for new state meaaures in San Diego. The notice 

assigns credit to San Diego in 1999 for the following new 

state measures: M-3 Medium-Duty Vehicle Standard, 

M-5 Additional NOx Reductions from Heavy-Duty Diesel /' 

Vehicles, M-0 Heavy-Duty ~asoline Vehicle Standard, and 

CP-2 Mid-Term Consumer ~roducts/~~-3 Aerosol Paints. The 

final notice should not show any reductions from new state 

measures in San Diego since the area did not use them for 

either rate-of-progrees or attainment. Instead, San Diego 

relied on reductions from adopted measures for rate-ofprogress, combined with expected reductions in the South 

Coast for attainment. 

(d) South Coast 2007 reductione. Several, but not all, of the 

tables showing reductions for new state measures include ,, L. 

incorrect reductions for the South Coaat in 2007; this ie 

not a milestone year for the area. The affected state 

measures are: M-1 Light-Ducy Vehicle Scxappage, 

M-2 Advanced Technology for Light-Duty Vehicles, M-7 HeavyDuty Vehicle Retlrement, and M-9 California Standard for 

Off-Road Diesel Equipment. The final notice should not show 

any reductions in 2007 for the South Coast. 
MAY: 8-9s THU 12: 57 AM 

(ef Interim pesticide reductions. The notice includea interim 

year reductions from the state pesticide measure. In the 

pesticide element of the SIP, the Department of. Pesticide 

Regulation projected a steady decline in volatile emissions 

from pesticides between 1996 and 2005. However, California yl 

took SIP credit for these reductions only in the applicable 

attainment year for the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento 

Region, Ventura County, the Southeast Desert, and the South 

Coast. The notice should reflect this information. 

(f) State law on aero~ol paints. The notice says that state law 

prohibits ARB from submitting the 1999 aerosol paint limits 

to u.S. EPA until after the mandated hearing on 

technological and commercial feasibility in 1998. This 

language does not accurately reflect the statutory provision 

and should be changed. What the law actually says is that 

the ARB must ensure the 1999 limits do not become federally 

enforceable prior to the final effective date, including any 

extension granted (after the 1998 review) . 

(g) 1996 Reductions for new meaaurea. The notice includes 1996 

emreductions from new local measures in the South Coast, 

Sacramento Region, and Ventura. These measures were not 

used to demonstrate compliance with the 1996 rate-ofprogress target. California relied solely on creditable 

reductions from previously adopted state and local measures 

to meet the 1996 target. The 1996 column and all associated 

reduction numbers should be deleted from each of the tablee 

of local control measures in the final notice. 

(h) South coast 15% Plan. The notice contains conflicting 

language as to the use of new commitments in the South Coast 

to meec the 15% reduction requirement in 1996. In the first 

discussion (p. 10952), the notice says no reductions from 

new local measures are assumed in the 15% Plan. Yet, later I 

in the notice (p. 10955), it says that the control strategy 

for the 15% Plan includes all local measures listed that 

show reductions in 1996. The second, incorrect statement 

should be deleted. 

(i) Transportation control measuree. The proposal does not list 

Ventura's R-700/N-700 Transportation Control Measures, nor 

the 2005 reductions used in the a~tainment demonstration. r 

~pproval of this measure should be included In the final 

1 

notice. Also, Ventura and the Sou~h Coast specifically 

requested that thelr new transportation control measures in 

the 1994 Ozone SIP replace prior transportation measures. 

In che final SIP norice for each area, we ask you to rescind 
MAY- 8-96 THlI 13: 58 AM 

the transportation control measures in*'the old "applicable 

SIP," and withdraw any other transportatLon control measures 

submitted prior to November 1994. 

(j) South Coaet ozone commitmonte. The notice includes 12 rule, 

commitments from che 1994 south Coast Air Quality Management 

Plan that are not needed for ozone attainment. ARB a 

specifically excluded these measures from the Ozone SIP 

submittal and they should be deleted from the final notice: 

CMB-O1A Miscellaneous Combustion, 

CMB-O1B Small Boilers. 

CMB- O1C ~uring/~rying Ovens, 

CMB-OID Afterburners, 

CMB-O1E Metal Melting Furnaces, 

CMB-O2A Miscellaneous Combustion, 

CMB-02B Small Boilers, 

CMB-O2C Curing/Drying Ovens, 

CMB-06 ~esidential/~ommercial Water Heaters, 

CMB-10 Glass Melting Furnaces, 

CMB-11 Non-RECLAIM Incinerators, and 

MON-07 High Emittere. 

(k) VOC RECLAIM substitutes. The nocice lists the VOC RECLAIM 4 

- commitment with no emission reductions. The South Coaat 

rate-of-progress and attainment demonstrations relied on 

emission reductions to be supplied by VOC RECLAIM or the 

twelve alternative measures identified in Table A-10 of 

Volume IV of the state SIP element. With the South Coast's 

decision to pursue the alternative measures, the listing of 

new local control measures in the final notice should show 

"Substitute Measures for VOC RECLAIM" with the aggregate 

reductions originally estimated for VOC RECLAIM in 1999 

through 2010, foilowed by the twelve individual rules (with 

the reductions for each individual measure left blank). 

These rules are; 

CTS-A Electronic Components (Rule 1164 1 , CTS-B Petroleum Cold Cleaning (Rule 11221, 

CTS-C Solvent Cleaning Operations (Rule 11711, 

CTS-D ~arine/~leasure Craft Coating (Rule 1106/1106.1), 

CTS-E Adhesives (Rule 1168) , 

CTS-F Motor Vehicle on-~ssembly Coating (Rule 1151), 

CTS-G Paper, Fabric and Film Coating (Rule 1128) , 

CTS-H Metal Parts and Products Coatings (Rule 1107), 

CTS-I Graphic Arts/Screen Printing (Rule 1130.1) , CTS-J Wood Produccs Coatings (Rule 11361, 

CTS-K Aerospace and Component Coatings (Rule 11241, and 

CTS-L Automotive Assembly Operations (Rule 11511. 
MAY-* 8-95 THU 12: 58 AM 

(1) South Coast Regional Mobility Element.h' The notice lists 

South Coaet cransportation control meaeures with zero h 

reductions when those measures are counted in WE-01, the 

Regional Mobility Element adjustment. Similar to the 

correction recommended for VOC RECLAIM above, U.S. EPA 

should show the RME-01 measure with reductions, followed by 

a 1isting.of the specific measures that are subsumed into 

the Regional Mobility Element (with the reductions for 

individual measures left blank). These measures are: 

- TCM-01 rans sport at ion Improvements, - ATT-01 Telecommunications, 

- ATT-02 Advanced Shuttle Transit, - ATT-03 Zero Emission ~ehiclee/~nfrastructure, 

- ATT-04 Alternative Fuel ~ehicles/Infrascructure, and 

- ATT-05 Intelligent Vehicle ~ighway Systems. 

(m) South Coast alternative8 to indirect aourco moesuraa. The 

notice lists south Coast market-based measures with zero 1/ 

reductions when the local plan presents those measures as 

possible alternatives or replacements for the seven indirect 

source measures. Similar to the correction recommended for 

the Regional Mobility Element above, U.S. EPA should list 

the three market-based alternatives (with the reductions 

left blank) directly below the indirect source measures. 

The market measures are: 

- MKT-01 ~mission/VMT Fee 

- MKT-02 At-the-Pump Fee - MKT-03 Congeetion Pricing 

(n) M0ja~e Desert rneasuree. The notice includes a table showing YJ 

three Mojave SIP control measures with 1996 reductions. The 

Southeast Desert attainment demonstration relied on 

reductions from seven Mojave rules chat had not yet been 

adopted and/or approved as SIP revisions. Three of theee 

seven rules have since been fully approved by U.S. EPA 

(461 Gasoline Transfer Dispensing, 6/2/95; 1160 Internal 

Combustion Engines, 6/13/95; and 1103 Asphalt Paving, 

2/5/96). Only the remaining four rules, shown below, need 

to be approved in the final SIP notice: 

- 1113 Architectural Coatings, 

- 1157 Boilers and Process Heaters, 

- 1158 Electric Power Generation, and - 1159 Gas Turbines. 

(0) Placer woodwaste boilers rule. The notice includes a rule 

commitment for the Placer County Air Pollution Control L 

District that is not in the Regional Plan: The Woodwaste 

Boilers measure should be deleted.