Californls Environmental Protection A~ency
555CapitolMall Suite525 Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)445-3846 (916)445-6401FAX

Depvenent ofPesticide Regulation

-t ofToxic Subrrtancss Control

Iotegmtcd waste Management Board

Olliceof Environmental HeaithHmd Assessment

SbkWalcr Rcsourccs ConpolBoard

Regional WaerQuality ControlBoards 

### Ms. FeliciaMarcus Regional Administrator Region 9 U.S. 

### Environmental ProtectionAgency 

### 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105-3901 PeeWlLpoo Goucn*a



### Dear Ms. 

### Marcus:
This letter conveys the comments of the California Enviror~ental ProtectionAgency on the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency'

### s (U.S. EPA's)notice proposing approval of 

### the 1994,californiaState 

### 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 environmentalprogram. 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 theflexibility 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 formany 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. FeliciaMarcus by 2. 1996 Page 2

Two 

### additional elements are required 

### for the consultativeprocess 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. 

### EPAmust honor its own regulatory obligations and fulfill the commitment 

### you made in the announcement of the proposed action:

"Wewill work with ~aliforniato help-meetits challenging

### but critical 

### clean air goals..


# .The state's blueprint callsfor tighteremission standards on a national scale tohelpmeet this challenge. 

### our goal is toidentify and implement solutions that make environmental and economic sense for evezyone

# . "' Through the consultativeprocess, we expect to mirror the success of last 

### July's joint agreement with enginemanufacturers 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. &PArequests 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 QualityManagement 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 ofAutomotive 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. FeliciaMarcus May 2. 1996 Page 4

Mr. David Howekamp, Directox 

### Air and Toxics Division 

### U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency-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 ProtectionAgency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105-3901
Mr. DougAllard, Air Pollution Control Officer Santa Barbara CountyAir 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 95667Ms. FoliciaMarcus May 2. 1996 Page 5

Mr. Chuck.Fryxel1, AirPollution Control Officer Mojave Desert AirQualityManagement 

### District 15420 CivicDrive, 

### Suite 200 Victorvflle, California 92392


### Mr. 

### Larry Greene Acting Air PollutionControl 

### officer Yolo-Solano Air QualityManagement 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 AirQualityManagement District 2.1865E. 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 AirPollution Control Officer San Diego Air Pollution Control District 9150 Chesapeake 

### Drive San Diego, California 92123-1096

## MAY-8-98THU 

### 12:5E

## AM

Attachment 1

TECHNICAL COMMENTS

This actachment conrains the technical comments of the California Environrnencal ProtectionAgency on the 

### U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency'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-upitems 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'srequest for waiver from the post-1996 rate-of-progressrequirements for the Southeast Deserc due to overwhelming pollutant transport from the South Coast. Given your concurrencewith 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-1996Rate-of-ProgressPlan for the San JoacpinValley, 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 allareas of the State. However, in Resolution 94-60,the ARB specifically stated that unless otherwise noted "...theBoard 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 stacemeaaures. 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 Equipment1 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 statemeasures: M-3 Medium-DutyVehicle Standard, M-5Additional NOx Reductions 

### from Heavy-DutyDiesel 

### /' Vehicles, M-0 Heavy-Duty~asoline Vehicle Standard,and CP-2Mid-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-progreesor 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-1Light-DucyVehicle Scxappage, M-2Advanced Technology for Light-DutyVehicles, M-7HeavyDuty Vehicle Retlrement, and M-9 California Standard for Off-RoadDiesel Equipment. The final notice should not show any reductions in 2007 for the South Coast.

### MAY: 

## 8-9sTHU 

### 12:

### 57

## AM

(ef Interimpesticide 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 steadydecline 

### in volatile emissions 

### frompesticides between 1996 and 2005. However, California 

### yl took 

### SIP credit for these reductions only in 

### the applicable attainment year for the San JoaquinValley, 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 statutoryprovision and should be changed. What the law actually says is that the

### ARB must ensure the 1999 limits do not become federally enforceableprior to the final effective date, including 

### any extension granted (afterthe 1998 review)

.

(g) 1996 Reductions 

### fornewmeaaurea. 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 frompreviously 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 controlmeasuree. The proposal does not list Ventura'sR-700/N-700Transportation 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 transportationmeasures. In che final SIP norice for each area, we ask you to rescind

## MAY-8-96THlI 

### 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 forozone attainment. 

### ARB a specifically excluded these measures 

### from the Ozone 

### SIP submittal and they should be deleted 

### from the final notice:
CMB-O1AMiscellaneous Combustion, CMB-O1B Small Boilers. CMB-O1C ~uring/~rying Ovens, CMB-OIDAfterburners, CMB-O1E Metal Melting Furnaces, CMB-O2AMiscellaneous Combustion, CMB-02B Small Boilers, CMB-O2C Curing/Drying Ovens, CMB-06 ~esidential/~ommercial Water Heaters, CMB-10 Glass Melting Furnaces, CMB-11Non-RECLAIM Incinerators,and MON-07High 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 "SubstituteMeasures forVOC RECLAIM"with the aggregate reductions originally estimated for VOC RECLAIM in 1999 through 2010, foilowedby the twelve individual rules 

### (with the reductions for each individual measure left blank). These 

### rules are;
CTS-AElectronic 

### Components (Rule 11641 

### , CTS-B Petroleum Cold Cleaning (Rule 11221, CTS-C Solvent Cleaning Operations (Rule11711, CTS-D~arine/~leasure Craft Coating (Rule1106/1106.1), CTS-EAdhesives (Rule 1168), CTS-FMotor Vehicle on-~ssembly Coating (Rule 1151), CTS-G Paper, Fabric 

### and Film Coating (Rule 1128), CTS-HMetal Parts and Products Coatings (Rule 1107), CTS-IGraphic Arts/Screen Printing (Rule1130.1)

### , CTS-JWood Produccs Coatings (Rule 11361, CTS-KAerospace and Component Coatings (Rule 11241,and CTS-LAutomotive Assembly Operations (Rule11511.

## 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-01measure with reductions, followed by a 1isting.ofthe specific measures that are subsumed into the Regional Mobility Element 

### (withthe reductions for individual measures left blank). These measures are: 

# - TCM-01 rans sport at ion Improvements,

- ATT-01 Telecommunications,



### - ATT-02Advanced 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 (withthe reductions left blank) directly below the indirect source measures. The market measures are:



# - MKT-01 ~mission/VMTFee 

# - 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 (461Gasoline 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.