PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP



## -- REVISED --

PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERAL STRATEGY FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Release Date: August 25, 2003 Hearing Date: September 24-25, 2003

California Environmental Protection Agency 

# Air Resources BoardPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP



### DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY Electronic copies of this document, the Sept ember hearing notice, and related materials can be found on ARB’s web site at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm

. Alternatively, paper copies may be obtained from the Board’s Public Information Office, 1001 I Street, 1 stFloor, Environmental Services Ce nter, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 322-2990.

If you are a person with a disability and desire to obtain this document in an alternative format, please contact our Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator at (916) 323-4916, or TDD (916) 324-9531, or (800) 700-8326 fo r TDD calls from outside the Sacramento area.



### PROJECT LEADERS Cynthia Marvin, Chief, Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch Renee Kemena, P.E., Manager, Planning and Regulatory Development Section David Mallory, P.E., Manager, M easures Development Section Cindy Castronovo

, Staff Air Pollution Specialist, Engineering and Cert ification Branch Kim Heroy-Rogalski, P.E., Manager, State Implementation Plan De velopment Section

Edie Chang, P.E., Staff Air Pollution Spec ialist, State Implement ation Plan Section Robert Jenne, Senior Staff Counsel



### CONTRIBUTORS Managers and staff throughout the Air Resource s Board contributed their expertise and time on this project. While too numerous torecognize individually, their contributions were vital to the final product. 

### CONTACTS For questions, please see the contacts listed in Sections I through V.

Prior to the hearing, the public may subm it written comments through regular mail, e-mail or fax. To be considered by t he Board, written comments not physically submitted at the hearing must be received no later than 12:00 noon, September 23, 2003 and sent to:

Clerk of the Board Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, 23rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814

or by e-mail to: 2003sip@listserv.arb.ca.gov or by facsimile transmission to the Clerk of the Board at (916) 322-3928PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP

CONTENTS OF DOCUMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION I: OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

SECTION II: MOBILE SOURCES

SECTION III: CONSUMER PRODUCTS , VAPOR RECOVERY, AND PESTICIDES

SECTION IV: LONG-TERM STRATEGY

SECTION V: POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does notsignify that the contents nec essarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. How would Board approval of the Proposed Strategy benefit public health? .... ES-1

2. What are the harmful effects of air pollution on our health ? .............................. ES-1

3. Who regulates sources of air pollution in Cali fornia? ........................................ ES-2

4. What areas violate the federal ozone and particulate standards?..................... ES-3

5. What is the State Implem entation Plan (SIP)? .................................................. ES-3

6. How does the Proposed Strategy relate to t he 1994 SIP? ................................ ES-3

7. Why is ARB proposing to update the Stat e and federal SIP strategy now? ...... ES-4

8. How is the SIP connected to federal transportation funding? ............................ ES-4

9. What air pollutants are targeted in the Proposed St rategy? ............................. ES-4

10. How did we develop the Proposed Strat egy and seek publicinput? ................ ES-5

11. How does this document revise t he May 2003 Proposed St rategy? ................. ES-5

12. How is the Proposed Strategydocument stru ctured? ....................................... ES-6

13. What is the legal framework for the proposed State commitments? ................. ES-6

14. What kinds of new measures are in cluded in the Proposed Strategy? ............. ES-6

15. How would a defined SIP meas ure become a regulation? ................................ ES-7

16. What is the federal governm ent’s responsibility to reduce emissions from sources under its contro l? ............................................................................................. ES-7

17. What emission reductions are needed for ozone attainment in the South C oast? .............................................................................................. ES-8

18. What are the proposed near-term State co mmitments for the South Coast?.... ES-8

19. What are the proposed long-term State co mmitments for the South Coast? .... ES-8

20. What is the backstop if the federal government does not agree to achieve additional reductions in South Coast by 2010? ............................................... ES-10PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21. Is the State control strategy for the South Coast commensurate with the emissions from sources under Stat e jurisdiction?............................................................ ES-10

22. What commitments did the Board approve for the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP? ..................................................................................................... ES-12

23. What about State commitment s for other SIPs? ............................................. ES-12

24. How would the Proposed Strategy affect generation of emission reduction credi ts?............................................................................................ ES-12

25. How would the Proposed Strategy s upport environmental justice and reduce community exposure to air pollu tion?.............................................................. ES-13

26. How would the Proposed Strategy im pact the State’s environment? .............. ES-13

27. How would the Proposed Strategy impact the State’ s economy? ................... ES-13

28. What are the opportunities for public co mment on the Proposed Strategy?.... ES-14

29. What is the staff recommendat ion for Board action? ....................................... ES-14PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. How would Board approval of the Propo sed Strategy benefit public health?

This Proposed 2003 State and Federal Stra tegy (Strategy) for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP ) reaffirms the Air Resource s Board’s (ARB or Board) commitment to achieve health-based air quality standards in all California communities through specific near-term actions and developm ent of additional longer-term strategies. It maps out the next generation of statewide measures to reduce air pollution and the associated harmful effects on our health, environment, and economy. It identifies the Board’s near-term regulatory agenda to reduce ozone and particulate matter by establishing enforceable targets to devel op and adopt new measures for each year from 2003 to 2006. It provides emission reduction benchmarks for the Board and the public to use in assessing proposed regulations to meet the overall goal. It includes commitments for the Board to consider 19 specific measures that are potentially capable of reducing ozone-forming emissions statewide by over 240 tons per day in 2010. It would also set into motion a conc urrent initiative to identify longer-term solutions to achieve the full scope of emi ssion reductions needed to meet federal air quality standards in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley by 2010. In addition to meeting federal requirements, this Stra tegy will ensure continued progress towards California’s own health-based standards.

2. What are the harmful effects of air pollution on our health?

Current levels of air pollution exact a toll on our lives. Numerous studies have linked particulate pollution to premature death in the elderly and other vulnerable populations. Furthermore, researchers are concerned that particulate pollution may also play a role in infant mortality and are currently investigating this possibility. Research in Southern California also shows that children exposed to unhealthful levels of ozone suffer decreased lung function growth and increased asthma. And air toxics, like particles from diesel engines and benzene from gasoline, significantly increase our cancer risk.

Monitored air quality data and a health m odel allow us to quantify the potential scope of harm to Californians from air po llution each year – from premature death to asthma attacks, as well as the impacts on health care and productivity. For example, attaining the State’s own health-based air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone would annually prevent:

• 6,500 premature deaths,

• 10,000 hospital admissions,

• 350,000 asthma attacks, and

• 2.8 million lost work days.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-2 3. Who regulates sources of air pollution in California?

In California, primary responsibility for controlling air pollution is shared by the State ARB, 35 local air pollution control and air quality management districts (districts), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).

State. ARB is responsible for improving outdoor air quality by controlling emissions from mobile sources (except where federal law preempts ARB’s authority) and consumer products, developing fuel spec ifications, adopting statewide control measures for air toxics, establishing gaso line vapor recovery standards and certifying vapor recovery systems, providing technica l support to the loca l air districts, and overseeing local air district compliance with State and federal law. The State Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) is responsible for control of agricultural, commercial and structural pesticides, while the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) runs the State’s Smog Check programs to identify and repair polluting cars.

Local. Local air districts are primarily re sponsible for controlling emissions from stationary and areawide source s (with the exception of consumer products) through rules and permitting programs. Examples of stationary and areawide sources include industrial sources like factories, refiner ies, power plants, and smelters; commercial sources like gas stations, dry cleaners, and paint spray booth operations; and residential sources like fireplaces, water heaters, and house paints. Districts also inspect and test fuel vapor recovery systemsto check that such systems are operating as certified. In addition, local transportation agencies are responsible for developing and implementing transportation control measures aimed atreducing vehicle activity and emissions.

Federal. U.S. EPA has the authority to cont rol emissions from mobile sources, including sources under exclusive federal juri sdiction (like interstate trucks, some farm and construction equipment, aircraft, mari ne vessels, and locomotives based in this country). International organizations dev elop standards for aircraft and marine vessels that operate outside the Unit ed States. Federal agencies have the lead role in representing the U.S. in the process of developing international standards. U.S. EPA sets national ambient air quality standards fo r specific pollutants like ozone, inhalable particulate matter (PM10), and the subset of fine particles (PM2.5). The agency also has oversight authority for state air programs as they relate tothe federal Clean Air Act.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-3 4. What areas violate the federal oz one and particulate standards?

Air quality in the South Coast, S an Joaquin Valley, and Imperial County continues to violate the federal one-hour ozone and PM10 standard s; the Sacramento Region also experiences ozone levels abov e the existing federal standard. Coastal regions including San Diego, S anta Barbara, Ventura, and the San Francisco Bay Area have come into compliance with the one-hour ozone standard over the last few years. San Diego and Santa Barbara have been redes ignated as attainment. Ventura and San Francisco also qualify for redesignation, but have not yet s ubmitted redesignation requests and maintenance plans.

South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Region, Vent ura, San Diego and a number of counties downwin d from these regions are expected to be designated as nonattainment for the federal 8-hour oz one standard in 2004, based on monitoring data through 2002. The Bay Area is just belowthe ozone standard and might be designated as nonattainment if additional exceedances occur in 2003. The San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, and San Diego are likely to be designated nonattainm ent for the federal PM2.5 standards, based on monitoring data through 2002.

5. What is the State Impl ementation Plan (SIP)?

The SIP is our blueprint for meeting federal air quality standards by the applicable deadlines set in the f ederal Clean Air Act. California’s SIP is a compilation of region-specific plans that detail how each area will meet the air qua lity standards. The plan includes an estimate of the emission reductions needed to meet each air quality standard based on air monitoring results, dat a on emission sources, and complex air quality modeling. It reflects the benefits of the pollution cont rol program adopted by air agencies at all levels, and may also include commitments to implement new strategies. Together, these elements must reduce emissi ons by an amount sufficient to meet the air quality standard in each region. Once the local element of the plan is adopted by the air district(s) and other responsible local agenc ies, it is sent to ARB for adoption and then formally submitted to the U.S. EPA for approval as a re vision to the California SIP.

6. How does the Proposed Strategy relate to the 1994 SIP?

In 1994, ARB and local districts coveri ng six regions of the State developed a comprehensive control strategy to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard. U.S. EPA approved that plan in 1997, and agreed to pursue appropriate measures for sources under federal control as well. Mostof the measures ant icipated in the 1994 SIP, and many others, have since been adopted. We are proposing this Strategy to update the existing State and federal SIP element. Upon approval by ARB, the Strategy would identify a series of new State co mmitments to achieve the next increment of progress toward the federal one-hour ozone and PM10 standards in the most polluted urban areas. It also describes feasible approaches to reduce emissions from sources under the jurisdiction of the federal government.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-4 This Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strat egy for the California SIP (Strategy) would update and entirely replace the comp rehensive statewide control strategy contained in the existing 1994 Ozone SIP (as m odified in 1999 for South Coast). For areas of the State that have not yet achi eved the full amount of emission reductions committed to in the existing SIP, this proposed strategy would retain the existing statewide commitments to achieve all of t hese emission reductions. However, the specific statewide measures identified in t he existing SIP would be entirely replaced by the new proposed measures and control strategyto achieve these emission reductions. For those areas, we will reflect the new Stra tegy in the region’s next SIP revision.

7. Why is ARB proposing to update the State and federal SIP strategy now?

First, recent scientific studies in t he South Coast and San Joaquin Valley – including improved emission inventories and air quality modeling – show that both regions need further emission reductions to meetall of the existing federal air quality standards by 2010. With virtually all of t he State’s 1994 SIP measures already adopted and being implemented, we must develop new measures to continue progress. Second, new ozone SIPs are needed to address federal transportation conformity requirements. Third, the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the federal 1-hour ozone standard in 1999 which triggered t he requirement for a new a ttainment demonstration.

8. How is the SIP connected to federal transportation funding?

The Clean Air Act says that the emissi ons from the trans portation system must “conform” or fit within the motor vehicle emissions budgetestablished in the SIP to support attainment of the air quality standards in each region. A transportation agency must use the latest data to analyze the emissions projected to result from new transportation projects and plans to determi ne “conformity.” A positive conformity finding is required to obtain federal approv al and funding to expand the transportation system.

ARB has greatly improved the accuracy of its vehicle emissions inventory. More extensive real-world testing of vehicles and greater numbers of older vehicles on the road result in higher emissions than estima ted in prior SIPs. Thus, transportation agencies using the current vehicle data cannot make new conformity findings until the SIPs and their vehicle budget s are updated with the same data. The higher vehicle emissions also create a need for more contro l measures in the SIP to reduce them.

9. What air pollutants are targeted in the Proposed Strategy?

The Proposed Strategy will reduce t he reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute toboth ozone and PM10 formation; as well as direct PM10 emissions, primarily from diesel soot. Some of the measures also provide ancillary benefits – reducing emissions of toxic air pollutants and carbon monoxide.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-5 10. How did we develop the Proposed Strategy and seek public input?

As the Board neared adoption of all the defined measures in the 1994 SIP, ARB staff began to outline the next generation of State and federal control measures. In 2001, we initiated a public process to ident ify new emission reduction strategies for California. We solicited public input on opti ons for reducing ozone, particulate, toxics, and greenhouse gas pollution across California. We held two sets of workshops throughout the State to hear ideas from the public and share our concepts. From those efforts, the staff compiled an extensive list of potential control measures for sources under State, federal, and local control.

In January 2003, ARB staff released a dra ft of this document focused on the subset of potential measures for sources under State and federal aut hority that would help reduce ozone and PM10 by 2010 (the latest existing SIP deadline). In March and April, we participated in eleven public wor kshops with the local air districts in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley, as well as an ARB technical workshop in both those regions plus Sacramento, to discuss the draft State and federal SIP strategy. ARB staff considered the public concerns and suggestions voiced at these workshops and additional stakeholder meetings, as well as over 300 comment letters on the draft Strategy.

In May, we issued the Proposed Strategy document to support district actions on the 2003 San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP and t he 2003 South Coast Ozone SIP. On June 26, the Board approved a subset of the commitments to develop defined measures on a statewide basis, with spec ified emission reductions to support the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP. To addre ss public concern and suggestions from the regulated industry, staff proposed and the Board approved a change that consolidated two defined measures for large spar k-ignition equipment like forklifts.

11. How does this document revise the May 2003 Proposed Strategy?

This document makes revisions to the May 2003 proposal based on subsequent information. The measures and strategies are largely unchanged. A significant revision is the consolidation of two measures proposed for large spark-ignited equipment like forklifts (see Section II, Measure OFF-RD LSI- 2). This version reflects the Board’s actions on June 26 to approve the State co mmitments for the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP, as well as its July 24 adoption of lo w-sulfur requirements for on-road and off-road diesel fuel throughout California. Another significant addition is the proposed State long-term strategy for the South Coast, incl uding staff’s proposal if U.S. EPA does not carry out its responsibilities for new emission reductions (see questions 19 and 20). We have also included minor updates to the range of anticipated reductions and timing for a few near-term measures without changing t he overall benefits of the proposed State commitment.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-6 12. How is the Proposed Strategy document structured?

• Executive Summary includes general questions and answers about the plan.

• Section I: Overview of Commitments presents the legal framework for the proposed State commitments, summari zes the measures and emission reductions, and includes the legal authority.

• Section II: Mobile Sources presents existing and proposed measures for all types of vehicles (cars, trucks, buses ), off-road equipment, recreational boats and vehicles, marine vessels and ports, aircraft and airports, locomotives and railyards, plus conventional and alternative fuels.

• Section III: Consumer Products, Vapor Recovery, and Pesticides describes the existing and proposed measures for these sources.

• Section IV: Long-Term Strategy identifies our init ial thoughts on additional approaches to further reduce emissions beyond the benefits of the defined measures. This section also outlines conc epts that the federal government could use to reduce emissions from the sources it is responsible for controlling.

• Section V: Potential Impacts describes the possible effects of the defined measures on California’s environmentand economy, as well as the environmental justice impacts.

13. What is the legal framework fo r the proposed State commitments?

We are proposing a three-tiered commitm ent, described in Section I of this document. The foundation is a near-term commitment to develop and propose for Board consideration 19 defined statewide control measures. The Board could take any action within its discretion in response to these proposals. The next element is an annual commitment to adopt m easures through 2006 to ac hieve specified further emission reductions in the South Coast. S pecific commitments for other regions, such as the San Joaquin Valley, will be included in fu ture SIPs for those regions. The final tier is a long-term commitment to ident ify additional measures by 2007. These measures would be adopted between 2007 and 2009 in order to reach attainment targets for the federal one-hour ozone standard in the South Coast, and likely San Joaquin Valley, by 2010.

14. What kinds of new measures are included in the Proposed Strategy?

The Strategy proposes 19 defined measures that ARB staff would develop, plus BAR’s planned improvements to the Smog Check program and continuation of DPR’s existing commitment to reduce volatile emi ssions from pesticides. The ARB measures cover on-road vehicles, off-road equipment, marine vessels/ports, fuels and refueling, and consumer products. Lower emission standards for new engines and consumerPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-7 products are complemented by measures to clean up the existing fleet of mobile sources. Other measures would reduce gas oline vapor emissions from storage tanks, service stations, and fuel tanker trucks. Tighter limits on fuel properties are also proposed. Sections II and III of this document discuss each measure in detail.

15. How would a defined SIP measure become a regulation?

Each defined measure would go through the full public, regul atory development process. ARB staff’s steps in this process typically include:

• Meetings with the affected industry to better understand the source, its uses, and its emissions;

• A rigorous technical evaluation to dete rmine the potential technologies and techniques to reduce emissions, including the feasibility, effectiveness, cost, and impacts;

• Public workshops to discuss the tec hnical evaluation and staff’s ideas for regulatory concepts, as well as participants’ suggestions;

• Release of a staff report with the formal regulatory proposal, including an assessment of the potential environment al and economic impacts for a 45-day public comment period; and

• Consideration by the B oard at a public hearing.

16. What is the federal government’s responsibility to reduce emissions from sources under its control?

Statewide, the emission sources under the exclusive legal or practical control of the federal government account for over one-quarter of all NOx emissions and almost two-thirds of all diesel particulate matter. In the South Coast, these sources contribute over 30 percent of NOx emissi ons and 60 percent of diesel particulate. Like State and local agencies, the federal gov ernment has a responsibility to further control emissions. The federal Clean Air Act directs U.S. EPA to continue reducing mobile source emissions that cause or contribute to ai r pollution that endangers public health. The ozone and particulate levels in the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and Sacramento Region clearly meet this test.

U.S. EPA needs to pursue new requirem ents for national and international sources, and complement them with financial incentives to speed turnover of the diesel fleet to cleaner engines. Federal action is essential to meet health-based air quality goals in these regions and throughout the State.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-8 17. What emission reductions are needed for ozone attainment in the South Coast?

The 2003 revision to the Ozone SIP for South Coast shows a need for much greater emission reductions than the existing 1999 SIP for two reasons. First, improved mobile estimates raise the emissions starting point in the 1997 baseline. We have a much better understanding of what vehicles and equipment emit in real life, which is enabling us to tailor our control strategies a ccordingly. Despite growth, total emissions from both on-road vehicles and off-road equipm ent continue to drop steadily over time in response to controls. And second, the plan uses a more severe modeling episode that increases the ROG 1 control requirement by100 tons per day (tpd).

The 2003 SIP identifies a need to reduce ROG and NOx emissions by a combined 1,540 tpd between 1997 and 2010 to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard. Over 960 tpd of these reductions are coming from measures already on the books – with three-fourths of t hose reductions from regulati ons adopted by ARB or other State agencies. The SIP revision focuses on strategies to reduce emissions by another 352 tpd ROG and 231 tpd NOx in 2010.

18. What are the proposed near-term Stat e commitments for the South Coast?

ARB staff is proposing that the State commit to additional reductions of 49 tpd ROG and 37 tpd NOx in South Coast in 2010 through new measures to be adopted between 2003-2006. These reductions wo uld be achieved from the defined new statewide measures or alter native measures. Section I. D.1. contains the specific language for the South Coast, including t he proposed annual adoption commitments for this region.

19. What are the proposed long-term Stat e commitments for the South Coast?

The federal Clean Air Act recognizes t hat extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the South Coast, must rely on evol ving technologies to meet attainment goals. Consistent with section 182(e)(5) of the Act, prior SIPs for South Coast have included a long-term commitment to achieve the last increment of emission reductions, with the remaining measures to be defined by 2007.

After accounting for the anticipated benefits of both adopted and new near-term defined State and local meas ures, the 2003 SIP demonstrat es a need for another 265 tpd ROG reductions and 181 tpd NOx reducti ons from long-term measures. This represents 30 percent of the total reductions needed by 2010. We believe that this gap can be bridged through a cooperative effort bythe local, State and federal agencies responsible for specific emission sources. This effort should focus on how to most effectively achieve the additional reductions , considering the availability and cost of potential controls. As the State agency charged with ensuring California’s SIP

1 The South Coast plan uses the term “volatile organic compound,” or “VOC,” rather than ROG.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-9 compliance, ARB is ultimately responsible for ensuring the necessary measures are identified by 2007 and the emission reductions are achieved by 2010.

We propose that ARB lead a multi-agency (S tate, federal, local) effort with the public to assess potential control concepts for every type of emission source and develop the full scope of strategies needed to ac hieve these reductions. In this report, we identify potential concepts to explore for the long-te rm measures. We have also received suggestions from others. In early 2004, ARB staf f plans to initiate a public process to solicit further ideas for development of the long-term measures.

The South Coast Air Quality Managem ent District (District) assigned responsibility for long-term emission reductions by agency. The District committed to 31 tpd ROG reductions from long-term meas ures and assigned the remaining 234 tons of ROG and all 181 tons of NOx reductions to be achieved by ARB and U.S. EPA. We view this as a placeholder between now and 2007, when the long-term measures must be defined. Until that process is complete , the relative long-term emission reduction split among agencies can’t realistically be defin ed. Nonetheless, it’s clear that ARB, U.S. EPA, the District and lo cal government need to obtain additional reductions and we acknowledge ARB’s responsibility to ensure t hat measures to achieve those reductions are ultimately ident ified and implemented.

We believe that all agencies must acti vely seek to identify additional costeffective control strategies to achieve the maximum feasible reductions from all source categories. Part of this evaluation will include a discussion of which agency or agencies can most effectively obtain the emission reductions in practice. We expect that the appropriate agency will begin development as s oon as practicable. Once all of the specific long-term measures are identified, the resulting reductions to be achieved by each agency may be different than envisioned by the District.

To reconcile the District’s adopted stra tegy with ARB staff’s recommendations, we propose that: (1) the B oard approve the local air district commitment for 31 tpd ROG reductions and the targets for the federal government of 18 tpd ROG and 68 tpd NOx reductions, and (2) the State assume overa ll responsibility to assure that measures are identified by 2007 and im plemented by 2010 to achieve the remaining 216 tpd ROG and 113 tpd NOx reductions needed for ozone attainment in the South Coast.

By 2007, the District and ARB will prepare a revision to the Ozone SIP that (1) reflects any modifications to the 2010 emission reduction target based on updated science, and (2) identifies the additional st rategies, including the implementing agencies, needed to achieve the necessary emissions reductions by 2010.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-10 20. What is the backstop if the federal government does not agree to achieve additional reductions in South Coast by 2010?

If U.S. EPA does not agree to carry out its legal responsibility for new emission reductions, the District adopted a backstop approac h to relax the region’s NOx control target by a corresponding 68 tpd. Becaus e stringent NOx control is essential for addressing the health threat from fine particulate pollution, ARB staff is proposing that the Board allow the federal reductions of 18 tpd ROG and 68 tpd NOx to be added to the overall State long-term co mmitment if needed, with no modifications to the control target at this time. As part of the process of developing the long-term measures, we continue to use every possible means to pre ss our federal counterparts to act where the State and local air agencies cannot.

21. Is the State control strategy for th e South Coast commensurate with the emissions from sources under State jurisdiction?

Yes. The State will continue leading the effo rt to improve air quality in the South Coast and statewide, providing a greater share of the emi ssion reductions than contributed by sources under its jurisdiction. This is essential since these sources are major contributors to the overall emissions . State actions to date are delivering three-fourths of all emission reductions to cut ozone in the South Coast. Table ES-1 shows the emissions accounting (between the 1997 baseline and 2010) to demonstrate attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard, includi ng the share of combined ROG and NOx emissions and reductions by jurisdiction.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-11 Table ES-1 Ozone Attainment Demonstration fo r the South Coast by Jurisdiction (tons per day in 2010)

ROG NOx Percent of Combined ROG+NOx by Jurisdiction 1997 Baseline Emissions State Local Federal Total 835 298 89 1222 758 128 279 1165 67% 18% 15%

Emission Reductions from Adopted Measures State Local Federal Total -418 -105 -37 -560 -317 -43 -44 -404 76% 15% 8%

2010 Baseline Emissions State Local Federal Total 417 193 52 662 441 85 235 761 60% 20% 20%

Emission Reductions from New Near-Term Measures State District Southern California Association of Governments Federal Total -49 -22 -16

0 -87 -37 -5 -8 0 -50 63% 20% 17%

0

Emission Reductions from New Long-Term Measures Proposed State Commitment for Multi-Agency Effort Local Commitment Federal Obligation Total -216* -31 -18 -265 -113* 0 -68 -181 74% 7% 19%

2010 Attainment Emissions Target 310 530 *Staff is proposing to increase this commitment to 234 TPD ROG and 181 TPD NOx reductions if U.S. EPA does not carry out its legal responsibility for new emission reductions.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-12 22. What commitments did the Board approve for the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP?

On June 26, 2003, the Air Resources Board approved a State commitment to develop five of the defined measures in the Proposed Strategyand a commitment to achieve 10 tpd of NOx reductions and 0.5 t pd of PM10 reductions in the San Joaquin Valley by 2010. Section I.D.2. describes t he Board’s actions, including approval of the local elements of the PM10 Plan. We hav e submitted these items to U.S. EPA for approval as SIP revisions.

23. What about State commitments for other SIPs?

We anticipate that the San Joaquin Valle y will require new emission reduction measures to achieve further ROG and NOx reductions from State and federal sources to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard. State commitments beyond those in the region’s PM10 SIP will be considered as part of the San Joaquin Valley’s Ozone SIP.

If the commitment to devel op the State defined measures is approved by the Board, we will provide the appropriate la nguage and benefit estimate s to other regions developing attainment SIPs that demons trate a need for these measures in the proposed implementation timeframe. As part of this process, ARB will also work with each region to identify any addi tional strategies that are needed based on the nature of the problems in a particular region.

24. How would the Proposed Strategy aff ect generation of emission reduction credits?

Emission reduction credits are generat ed when sources clean up their pollution to a greater extent t han required. They can then bank, se ll, or use these credits to fund new emissions growth, or as a means to comply with certain control requirements. State and federal law require emission reducti on credits to be surplus to regulations and air quality plans. Credits may not be used to comply with technology-based requirements for new and modified sources of air pollution.

Board approval of the Proposed Strategy would provide advance notice of the source categories ARB intends to regulate in the future, helping to define opportunities to generate emission reduction credits and the pot ential life of those credits. Until the time new, more stringent regulations become effective, emissions from these sources can be voluntarily reduced beyond current requirements for credits. Once reductions are required for clean air purposes, fu rther credits can’t be generated.

For any measures that show a range of possible implementatio n dates, voluntary reductions from those sources will be reliably surplus only until the beginning of that range. If ARB establishes a later impl ementation date when the Board adopts the regulation, voluntary reductions may be cons idered surplus until the actual effective date of new requirements.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-13 25. How would the Proposed Strategy support environmental justice and reduce community exposure to air pollution?

The Proposed Strategy would reduce em issions of ozone and PM10 precursors in communities across California. The Proposed Strategy includes measures that use cleaner technologies to reduce multiple air pol lutants – ROG, NOx, and direct PM10 – as well as the toxic constituents of those pollutants.

The Proposed Strategy incorporates environmental justice policies in order to help prioritize our activities to reduce publicexposure to air toxics as well as regional pollutants whose sources are concentrated in some communities. For example, the series of measures to clean up the existing tr uck fleet would require the earliest controls on vehicles that travel through neighborhoods – solid waste collection vehicles and fuel tanker trucks. While the Proposed Strategy would be impl emented statewide to achieve regional emission reductions, several strategi es are especially beneficial to low-income and minority communities. These include measures to reduce vapor emissions from the hoses on gasoline tanker trucks and to in crease the number of heavy-duty truck inspections in communities with high truck traffic. In addition, ARB staff will evaluate potential environmental justice issues in detail during each individual rulemaking.

26. How would the Proposed Strategy impact the State’s environment?

We expect that implementation of the St ate defined measures would significantly decrease ambient ozone and particulate matter levels, with ancillary benefits that cut carbon monoxide and air toxics. Some of the proposed measures may have an impact on water quality, water demand, energy demand, hazardous waste, solid waste, and/or noise. However, in most cases, regulati ons are in place to prevent environmental degradation. As specific strategies are developed, we will evaluate the environmental impacts of each strategy in detail, and work with the appropriate agencies to recommend any necessary mitigation. For additional information, refer to Section V.

27. How would the Proposed Strategy impact the State’s economy?

ARB staff worked with the University of California, Berkeley to evaluate the impact of the Proposed Strategy of the State’ s economy. The total annual direct costs associated with all proposed defined State m easures are estimated to be approximately $770 million in 2010. Accounting for indirectcosts, these measures would be expected to reduce California economic output by about $1.5 billion, personal income by about $1.3 billion, and employment by less than 1, 300 jobs. In the cont ext of the State’s economy, the economic impacts of the measures are small, and are not expected to impose a noticeable impact on the California economy. The defined State measures would also bring about significant health, economic, and social benefits to Californians. These benefits, which are difficult to ex press solely in economic terms, are not quantified in this analysis. Prior anal yses have concluded t hat the benefits of California’s air quality program exceed the costs by a ratio of about 3 to 1. For additional information, pl ease refer to Section V.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES-14 28. What are the opportunities for public comment on the Proposed Strategy?

We invite public comment on the Proposed Strategy at meetings with staff, in writing prior to Board consideration, and at the Board meeting now scheduled for September 24-25, 2003. In addition, as ARB develops each SIP measure, it will go through the full regulatory devel opment process with extensiv e opportunities for public comment before the Board consi ders adoption at a public hearing.

29. What is the staff recommendation for Board action?

We recommend that the Board adopt the ent ire Proposed Strategy for use in the South Coast SIP, anticipated use in the upc oming San Joaquin Va lley Ozone SIP, and reflection in future attainm ent SIPs for other regions. We further recommend adoption of the specific State emission reduction commitments and long-term strategy proposed for the South Coast Ozone SIP.

For information on SIP development across the State, please see our website http://arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sip.htm or contact our Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch main lin e at (916) 322-0285.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS



## -- REVISED --

PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERAL STRATEGY FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SECTION I

OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

Release Date: August 25, 2003 Hearing Date: September 24-25, 2003PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ I-1

1. State, Local, and Federal Responsib ilities .......................................................... I-1 2. 1994 State Implem entation Pl an......................................................................... I-4

CHAPTER B. NEW STATE DEFINED MEASURES ................................................ I-6

1. Process for De velopment ................................................................................... I-6 2. Applicability to Multiple Re gions.......................................................................... I-7 3. State Defi ned Measures ..................................................................................... I-7 4. Post-2010 Benefits of St ate Defined M easures.................................................. I-9

CHAPTER C. APPROACHES FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY ............................. I-10

1. Possible State Approaches ............................................................................... I-10 2. Possible Federal Approache s........................................................................... I-11

CHAPTER D. STATE IMPLEMEN TATION PLAN COMMITMENTS ...................... I-14

1. 2003 South Coast State Im plementation Plan.................................................. I-14 2. 2003 San Joaquin Valley Particulate Ma tter State Implementation Plan.......... I-22 3. Future State Impl ementation Plans .................................................................. I-25

CHAPTER E. LEGAL AUTHORITY ....................................................................... I-27

1. Overview of Legal Author ity .............................................................................. I-27 2. Legal Authority to Adopt St ate and Federal SI P Measures............................... I-29

APPENDIX I-1. Letter from the Bureau of Automotive Repair on Improving the Enhanced Smog Check ProgramPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

INTRODUCTION I-1 

### Staff Contact List

General SIP Questions:

Andrew Panson apanson@arb.ca.gov (916) 327-0822

Subject Contact Email Phone

South Coast Ozone SIP

Commitment Joe Calavita jcalavit@arb.ca.gov (916) 327-5783

San Joaquin Valley PM10

SIP Commitment Sylvia Morrow smorrow@arb.ca.gov (916) 324-7163

San Joaquin Valley Ozone

SIP development Ravi Ramalingam rramalin@arb.ca.gov (916) 322-2085PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

INTRODUCTION I-2 CHAPTER A. INTRODUCTION

The Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy (Strategy) for the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) described in this document is intended to protect all Californians from the harmful effects of air pollution. To improve air quality and meet our legal obligations under st ate and federal law, the Ai r Resources Board (ARB or Board) will need to continue developing, adopting, and implementing programs to reduce emissions from all sources under its control – and to encourage other State, local and federal agencies to do the same . This document describes the next installment of new strategies for ARB, t he State Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR), the State Department of Pest icide Regulation (DPR), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and other federal agencies to reduce emissions that contribute to unhealthful ozone and particulate matter 10 mi crons in diameter and less (PM10) in California by 2010. The Strategy targets the precursors reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx), as well as direct PM10 emissions.

1. State, Local, and Federal Responsibilities

In California, the primary responsibility for controlling air pollution is shared between the State ARB, 35 local air po llution control and air quality management districts (air distri cts), and U.S. EPA.

a. State Responsibility

ARB is responsible for improving outdoor air quality by controlling emissions from mobile sources (except where federal law preempts ARB’s aut hority) and consumer products, developing fuel specifications, adopt ing statewide control measures for air toxics, establishing gasoline vapor reco very standards and certifying vapor recovery systems, providing technical support to t he districts, and overseeing local district compliance with State and federal law.

BAR is responsible for the administrati on of California’s vehicle inspection and maintenance program, known as “Smog Che ck.” These programs are meant to help ensure that in-use vehicles stay clean as they age. Under federal law, certain nonattainment areas are required to impl ement Smog Check programs. In addition, areas with more severe air quality probl ems must implement “Enhanced” Smog Check programs which use a treadmill-like device to allow the measurementof NOx emissions, in addition to the hydrocarbon and carbon monox ide emissions measured in the “Basic” Smog Check program.

DPR is the California agency responsible for regulating pesticides for commercial/structural and agricultural uses. DPR can establish regulations to reduce both toxic and criteria pollut ant emissions from pesticides using the best practicable control techniques available. Control measures may be implemented by severalPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

INTRODUCTION I-3 methods including regulatory actions, loca l permit conditions, and product substitution or cancellation. DPR also works with st akeholders to develop effective voluntary actions to reduce pesticide emissions.

Between 1990 and 2010, actions already tak en by the State to require cleaner passenger vehicles, trucks and buses will cut emissions of ROG by over 70 percent and NOx by 60 percent in California. Adopted regulations for off-road equipment, including boats and personal watercraft, will result in over 40 percent reduction in ROG and 30 percent reduction in NOx over the same time period. ARB’s consumer products program is cutting volatile emissions byover 20 percent from 1990 to 2005, with emissions growth projected after 2005 unl ess further controls are established.

b. Local Responsibility

Local air districts are primarily res ponsible for controlling emissions from stationary and areawide source s (with the exception of consumer products) through rules and permitting programs. Examples of stationary and areawide sources include industrial sources like factories, refiner ies, power plants, and smelters; commercial sources like gas stations, dry cleaners, and paint spray booth operations; and residential sources like fireplaces, water heaters, and house paints. Districts also inspect and test fuel vapor recovery systemsto check that such systems are operating as certified. In addition, local transportation agencies are responsible for developing and implementing transportation control measures aimed atreducing vehicle activity and emissions.

On a statewide basis, adopted air distri ct regulations wi ll reduce stationary sources emissions of both ROG and NOx byover 40 percent between 1990 and 2010. ROG emissions from areawide sources (e xcluding consumer products under State control) will decline by just under 10 percent, while NOx emissions from these sources are projected to increase slightly. On a regional basis, the emission trends may vary considerably from the st atewide numbers depending on the stringency of the local program.

c. Federal Responsibility

Mobile sources under the legal or practica l control of the federal government are an important contributor to California’s air quality problem s. These sources include vehicles registered outside California that travel within t he State, new pre-empted farm equipment and construction equipment, loco motives, marine vessels and aircraft, as well as the fuels sold outside California for these engines. The federal Clean Air Act directs U.S. EPA to continue reducing mobile source emissions that cause or contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. International organizations develop standards for aircraft and marine vessels t hat operate outside t he United States. Federal agencies have the lead role in representing the U.S. in the process of developing international standards. U.S. EPA also has oversight authority for state air programs as they relate to the federal Clean Air Act.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

INTRODUCTION I-4 The emissions sources that only the federal government can effectively regulate are significant contributors to California’ s air pollution problems, which continue to include ozone and particulate levels abov e the national air quality standards. Statewide, in 2010, these federal source s will account for over one-quarter of all NOx emissions and almost two-thirds of diesel particulate matter, a toxic air contaminant. These sources will also contribut e about 6 percent of statewide ROG emissions in 2010.

On a regional basis, the relative contribution of each source type differs. For NOx, in the San Joaquin Valley, farm equi pment is the most significant federal contributor at nine percent, while aircraft c ontribute the least at one percent. In the South Coast, construction equipment is t he top category at 11 percent, while farm equipment is the lowest at one percent. For diesel particulate ma tter, farm equipment is the largest category in the San Joaquin Valley at 25 percent, and construction equipment dominates in Sout h Coast at 34 percent.

U.S. EPA and ARB have partnered effectively, sharing technical resources to develop new emission standards and other approaches to reduce emissions from source categories under shared authority. For example, parallel regulations will reduce emissions from new 2007 heavy-duty trucks by95 percent compared to 1998 levels, when fully implemented. The national emissi on standards for these vehicles are vital to reducing NOx and particulate emissions to meet health-based air quality standards and reduce the cancer risk from exposure to dies el PM. These benefits are reflected in the baseline inventory.

Despite continued population and travel growth, ozone-forming emissions from most sources are declining over time due to the effectiveness of adopted controls. But, net emissions from marine and aircraft ca tegories are rising. Between 2000 and 2010 in the South Coast, the total NOx emissi ons from marine vessels are projected to increase 25 percent because the effects of activity growth are greater than the benefits of current controls. In contrast, tota l NOx emissions will drop by 60 percent for passenger vehicles and 30 percent for trucks over the same period in that region. Marine and aircraft emissions continue to grow dramatically by 2020 without new strategies. As State and local agencies continue to make commitments and adopt new Aircraft

3% Out-of-State

Trucks

5%

Trains 3% Ships 5% Farm Equipment

4% Construction Equipment

8% Sources Under Federal Authority Contribute 28% of NOx Emissions in California - 2010

All Other State and Local Sources Sources Under Federal Authority Contribute 61% of Diesel PM Emissions in California

- 2010

Construction Equipment

28%

Farm Equipment

10% Ships 15% Trains

4% Out-of-State Trucks

4%

All Other State and

Local SourcesPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

INTRODUCTION I-5 measures, the relative contribution of emi ssions (especially NOx and direct PM10) from sources under federal contro l will increase even faster.

Agencies at all levels need to deliver new reductions for sources under their respective jurisdictions. The magnitude of t he additional reductions required to attain air quality standards necessitates that federal government agencies with authority to control air pollution share responsib ility for reaching attainment targets.

2. 1994 State Implementation Plan

Under the federal Clean Air Act, all nonattainment areas must s ubmit SIPs that detail how they plan to improve air quality to meet federal ambient air quality standards. The 1994 Ozone SIP described an ambitious 16-year strategy to dramatically reduce emissions to attain the one-hour ozone standard in six regions of the State by the applicable federal deadline. The State and federal portion of the SIP contai ned 16 measures directed at mobile sources under State and federal control, 3 measures focused on consumer products and aerosol paints, an enhanced vehicle Smog Check program and a measure to cut volatile em issions from agricultural and structural pesticides.

For the South Coast ozone nonattainmentarea, the 1994 SIP also described a long-term strategy – allowed under Section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act – to identify and develop additional control measures needed to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard by the 2010 deadline.

Since 1994, most of the existing nea r-term SIP measures have been adopted by the responsible agency, along with additional controls (that had not been identified in 1994) to reduce emissions. The legal commitments described in the 1994 Ozone SIP applied only to the six regions explicitly co vered by that SIP. But, the regulations adopted to fulfill the commitments in the 1994 SIP are being implemented throughout California, leading to statewide reducti ons and improvements in air quality.

Table I-1 shows our progress impl ementing the defined State and federal measures described in the 1994 SIP. The t able also lists additional measures adopted, but not envisioned in the 1994 SIP. 1994 Ozone SIP Regions (with current attainment deadline)
South Coast (2010) Southeast Desert (2007)

Ventura County (2005) Sacramento Region (2005) San Joaquin Valley (2005*) San Diego (1999**)

* District has stated its intent to move to 2010 via voluntary reclassification ** Has been redesignated attainmentPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

INTRODUCTION I-6 Table I-1 State and Federal Measures Adopted Since 1994 SIP

Responsible Agency Adopted

Defined Measures in 1994 Ozone SIP M1: Light-duty vehicle scrappage ARB 1998 M2: Low Emission Vehicle II program ARB 1998 M3: Medium-duty vehicles ARB 1995 M4: Incentives for clean engines (Moyer Program) ARB 1999 M5: California heavy-duty diesel vehicle standards ARB 1998 M6: National heavy-duty diesel vehicle standards U.S. EPA 1998 M7: Heavy-duty vehicle scrappage ARB Replaced with M17 M17: In-use reductions from heavy-duty vehicles ARB No M8: Heavy-duty gasoline vehicle standards ARB 1995 M9: CA heavy-duty off-road diesel engine standards ARB 2000 M10: National heavy-duty off-road diesel engine stds U.S. EPA 1998 M11: CA large off-road gas/LPG engine standards ARB 1998 M12: National large off-road gas/LPG engine stds U.S. EPA 2002 M13: Marine vessel standards U.S. EPA 1999 M14: Locomotive engine standards U.S. EPA 1997 M15: Aircraft standards U.S. EPA No M16: Marine pleasurecraft standards U.S. EPA 1996 CP2: Consumer products mid-term measures ARB 1997/1999 CP3: Aerosol paint standards ARB 1995/1998 Enhanced I/M (Smog Check II) BAR 1995 DPR-1: Emission reductions from pesticides DPR Voluntary Adopted measures not originally included in 1994 Ozone SIP Clean fuels measures ARB Multiple Marine pleasurecraft (reductions beyond M16) ARB 1998/2001 Motorcycle standards ARB 1998 Urban transit buses ARB 2000 Enhanced vapor recovery program ARB 2000 Medium/heavy-duty gasolin e standards (beyond M8) ARB 2000 2007 heavy-duty diesel truck standards (beyond M5 and M6) ARB/U.S. EPA 2001

Small off-road engine standard revisions ARB 1998PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

NEW STATE DEFINED MEASURES I-7 CHAPTER B. NEW STATE DEFINED MEASURES

This chapter describes ARB staff’s revised proposal to update the State commitments from the 1994 SIP and develop measures to support upcoming SIP revisions for the South Coast, San Joaquin Valley, and other regions. After briefly discussing ARB staff’s development proce ss and how these proposals would apply to multiple regions of the State, we summarize the specific defined m easures. Section I.C. identifies general concepts for a long-term st rategy, including federal actions. Specific commitments for the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley SIPs are described in Section I.D.

1. Process for Development

As the Board neared adoption of all the defined measures in the 1994 SIP, ARB staff began to outline the next generation of State and federal control measures. In 2001, we initiated a public process to ident ify new emission reduction strategies for California. We solicited public input on opti ons for reducing ozone, particulate, toxics, and greenhouse gas pollution across California. We held two sets of workshops throughout the State to hear ideas from the public and share our concepts. From those efforts, the staff compiled an extensive list of potential control measures for sources under State, federal, and local control. Based on our experience developing and adopting regulatory controls, we assessed the list for technical feasibility, cost, costeffectiveness, feasibility of im plementation, and other factors. We passed the concepts for further reduction from sources under local aut hority to the air dist ricts for their use in plans to meet both federal and State air quality standards.

In January 2003, ARB staff released a dra ft of this document focused on the subset of potential measures for sources under State and federal aut hority that would help reduce ozone and PM10 by 2010 (the latest existing SIP deadline). In March and April, we participated in eleven public wor kshops with the local air districts in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley, as well as an ARB technical workshop in both those regions plus Sacramento, to discuss t he draft State and federal SIP strategy. In May, we issued the Proposed Strategy documentto support district actions on the 2003 San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP and the 2003 South Coast Ozone SIP. On June 26, the Board approved a subset of the commitm ents to develop defined measures on a statewide basis, with specified emission reductions to support the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP. At thatmeeting, staff proposed and the Board approved a change to the defined measures that consolidated two meas ures for large spark-ignition equipment.

This revision to the Proposed Strategy: reflects the Board’s actions on June 26 to approve the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SI P and on July 24 to adopt low-sulfur requirements for on-road and off-road diesel fuel, quantifies the long-term strategy for the South Coast, and incorporates mi nor updates to the May version.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

NEW STATE DEFINED MEASURES I-8 2. Applicability to Multiple Regions

In September, the Board will consider adopting the entire Strategy on a statewide basis, with specific emission reductions to support the South Coast. Because we will be asking the Board to commit to statewi de measures, the regi onal benefits could be reflected in other SIPs without further acti on or hearing by the ARB. If the Board approves the proposals, ARB staff will provide the appropriate commitment language and benefit estimates for other attainment SIPs that need these defined measures in the 2010 timeframe. We will also work with each region to identify any additional strategies that are needed based on the unique nature of t he problems in each particular region.

Although the ARB measures are intended to apply stat ewide, ARB could choose to develop a strategy for particular regions . BAR may distinguish application of its Smog Check improvements based on the Basic and Enhanced area designations allowed by State law. Further DPR acti on may be focused on the region(s) with the greatest need. Federal rulemaking has traditionally been nationwide, but U.S. EPA might choose to develop a regional strategy (for example, federal incentives for agricultural equipment in the San Joaquin Valley or a program to cut emissions from marine vessels and ports along the entire West Coast of the U.S.).

3. State Defined Measures

Table I-2 summarizes the proposal for the State’s defined measures to be reflected in upcoming SIPs upon approval by the Board. The table includes 19 near-term defined measures that ARB would develop, that are described in detail in Sections II and III of this document. Since the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy would update and replace our ex isting SIP commitments, Table I-2 also reflects the revised version of existing SIP measures that other agencies are still in the process of implementing.

BAR is improving the Enhanced Smog Check program, including bringing in heavier vehicles and requiring evaporative emission testing. The Enhanced Smog Check program in place today, combined with the remaining improvements in Measure LT/MED-DUTY-2 below, would alter and repl ace the prior SIP commitment for the program. For pesticides, we show the emi ssion reduction target in DPR’s existing SIP measure carried over intact to the new st rategy. In the 1994 SIP, DPR committed to reduce volatile emissions from pesticides in certain areas of the State to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. The benefits wereexpected to be achieved through a shift in the application practices and types of pesticides used. The reductions achieved so far are incorporated in the baseline inventory for each regional SIP.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

NEW STATE DEFINED MEASURES I-9 Table I-2 Proposed State Defined Measures Strategy (Agency) Name

LT/MED-DUTY-1 (ARB) Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Sy stems on Existing Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program LT/MED-DUTY-2 (BAR) Improve Smog Check to Reduce Emissi ons from Existing Passenger & Cargo Vehicles ON-RD HVY DUTY-1 (ARB) Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspecti ons with Community-Based Inspections

ON-RD HVY DUTY-2 (ARB) Capture and Control Vapors from Gasoline Cargo Tankers

ON-RD HVY DUTY-3 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existi ng and New Truck/Bus Fleet – PM In-Use Emission Control, Engine Software Upgrad e, On-Board Diagnostics, Manufacturers' In-Use Compliance, Reduced Idling OFF-RD CI-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existi ng Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment Fleet (Compression Ignition Engi nes) – Retrofit Controls OFF-RD CI-2 (ARB) Implement Registration and Inspection Program for Existing Off-Road Equipment to Detect Excess Emissions (C ompression Ignition Engines) OFF-RD LSI-1 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Gas Engines (Spark Ignited Engines 25 hp and Greater) OFF-RD LSI-2* (ARB) Clean Up Existing Off-Road Gas EquipmentThrough Retrofit Controls and New Emission Standards (Spark-Igniti on Engines 25 hp and Greater)

SMALL OFF-RD-1 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and Chainsaws) SMALL OFF-RD-2 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for Ne w Non-Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Lawnmowers) MARINE-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existi ng Harbor Craft Fleet –Cleaner Engines and Fuels

MARINE-2 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Reduce Land-Based Po rt Emissions – Alternative Fuels, Cleaner Engines, Retrofit Controls, Electr ification, Education Programs, Operational Controls FUEL-1 (ARB) Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to Control Engine Deposits

FUEL-2 (ARB) Set Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses, Off-Road Equipment, and Stationary Engines CONS-1

(ARB) Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006

CONS-2

(ARB) Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010

FVR-1 (ARB) Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from Aboveground Storage Tanks

FVR-2 (ARB) Recover Fuel Vapors from Ga soline Dispensing at Marinas

FVR-3 (ARB) Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline Dispenser Hoses

PEST-1 (DPR) Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy

*Consolidated OFF-RD LSI-2 and OFF-RD LSI-3 from May document. See measure discussion (in

Section II) for additional information.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

NEW STATE DEFINED MEASURES I-10 3. Post-2010 Benefits of State Defined Measures

Some of the defined State measures hav e relatively modest emission reductions projected for 2010 – the one-hour federal ozone attainment deadline for the South Coast and the anticipat ed ozone and PM10 attainment dates for the San Joaquin Valley. In many cases, particularly for m obile source strategies, the benefits of the measures increase substantially after 2010 as older engines are replaced with cleaner models.

It is critical that local, State, and federal agencies continue to pursue every available emission reduction, even if some of those benefits will not be fully realized until post-2010. Urban areas in California wi ll need additional reductions to attain the next health goals each region is striving to achieve.

In 1997, U.S. EPA promulgat ed tighter new federal air quality standards for eight-hour ozone and PM2.5. Al most half of the counties in California are anticipated to be nonattainment for the eight-hour ozone st andard. Based on pre liminary air quality monitoring data, the South Coast, San Joaqui n Valley, and some other urban areas are also likely to be nonattainment for the federal PM2.5 standards. In addition, virtually all areas of California do not meet ARB’s health-based ambient air quality standards. Because a large proportion of the emissions contributing to California’s ozone and fine particulate problems are from sources under State and federal authority, additional measures to reduce the impact of cars, tr ucks and equipment will be critical to meeting the new federal standards in the post-2010 time frame. Achieving the more protective standards will require substantial emission reductions beyond those needed to meet the one-hour federal ozone standard.

As the population of Califor nia continues to grow, more people will increase the number of cars, trucks, lawnmowers, hea vy equipment, consumer products and other emission sources being used in the State. Even after areas attain all health-based standards, ARB and the local districts must continue to push for new emission reductions simply to offset growth and maintain healthful air.

For informational purposes only, SectionsII and III include the projected benefits from some defined State measures for 2015 and 2020.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

APPROACHES FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY I-11 CHAPTER C. APPROACHES FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY

The defined State measures will prov ide sizeable benefits, but not enough to meet existing SIP attainment needs in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley. Both of these areas, and perhaps others, will need si gnificant additional emission reductions beyond those we will realize through even the maximum potential benefits of the defined State measures. To meet our currentlegal obligations under federal law, we must secure significant emission reducti ons from long-term measures by 2010.

As part of the public process to develop new emission reduction strategies, ARB staff also identified approaches that, alt hough promising, face barriers to successful implementation. Examples include strat egies that could not be successful without significant technological advances, improv ements to reduce cost or increase costeffectiveness, or the securing of a dependabl e stream of financial incentives.

ARB has a long-standing history of su ccessfully adopting and implementing both technology-advancing strategies and innovat ive emission control techniques. By working closely with the regulated industry and research scientists, ARB staff have been able to craft regulations that are stri ngent enough to compel technology development, yet flexible enough to encourage industry innov ations. Since 1998, the State has also provided over $200 million in funding for i nnovative incentive programs to speed the conversion to cleaner trucks, off-road equi pment, agricultural irrigation pumps, and harborcraft; another $50 million (from Proposition 40 funds) is earmarked for the next two years. These types of programs can reduce NOx and PM10 emissions.

We have included these more speculative long-term approaches because we know that California will need additional emission reductions to meet our public health goals. In addition, the federal Clean Air Act allows extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the South Coast, to take credit for long-term te chnology measures. When the San Joaquin Valley acts on its intended request for reclassification as an extreme ozone area, it will also be eligible for t hese long-term technology provisions.

Specific information about the SIP commi tment for long-term measures in the South Coast can be found in Section I.D.

1. Possible State Approaches

Table I-3 contains an initial list of po ssible approaches that ARB staff will pursue to identify suitable long-term measures. AR B intends to provide opportunities for the public to offer additional input on this list – and also as we develop the measures. Further discussion about the long-term strat egy for each source category can be found in Sections II and III, as well assummarized in Section IV.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

APPROACHES FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY I-12 Table I-3 Possible State Approaches for Long-Term Measures

In-Use Light/Medium Duty Vehicles ■ Provide incentives for voluntary passenger vehicle retirement

Smog Check Explore program expansion to increase benefits, including:

■ Expanded enhanced smog check

■ Opt-in to test-only program

■ Replace rolling 30-year exempt ion with exemption of pre1975 vehicles On-Road Heavy Duty Vehicles ■ Provide incentives for cleaner trucks and buses, including school buses Off-Road Engines ■ Provide incentives for cleaner off-road vehicles and equipment Airports ■ Pursue approaches to reduce emissions from vehicles traveling to and from airports
Locomotives ■ Pursue approaches to reduce emissions from in-use locomotives Diesel Engines ■ Set toxics standard for existi ng stationary diesel fueled engines

■ Set toxics standard for existing portable diesel engines

■ Set toxics standard for diesel-fueled refrigeration units

Fuels ■ Set sulfur/ash content limits fo r diesel engine lubricating oils

■ Support infrastructure for zero emission vehicles – electric, fuel cell, hydrogen
Consumer Products ■ Consider future consumer products regulations

Public Education Programs and Outreach ■ Establish clean air labeling program

■ Continue Statewide energy conservation program

■ Consider Statewide public educ ation campaign for air quality
Pesticides ■ Explore approaches to further reduce volatile emissions from pesticides based on regional need

2. Possible Federal Approaches

Like State and local agencies, the federal government has a responsibility to further control emissions in response to the contribution from sources under its jurisdiction. Federal government action is essential to reach the attainment targets which will require reducing emissions acro ss all sources contributing to the problem.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

APPROACHES FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY I-13 U.S. EPA and ARB are continuing to coordinate on future rulemaking, including three on-going efforts described below. Firs t, U.S. EPA is developing more stringent emission standards for new off-road diesel equipment based on the transfer of emission control technology for on-road engines. Thes e benefits will be critic al in the post-2010 timeframe to both offset growth and make progress toward the new, more stringent federal standards. Second, U. S. EPA has proposed to phase in the use of lower sulfur diesel fuel in off-road applications nationw ide. Diesel fuel with a 15 parts per million sulfur level would support the use of more sophisticated control technology for all types of off-road diesel engines. Third, U.S. EPA is working in parallel with California to develop on-board diagnostics and to strengthen m anufacturers’ in-use testing to ensure that new heavy trucks and buses maintain expected emission levels throughout their useful lives.

We expect that U.S. EPA and other federal agencies will secure further reductions, and that the federal government may consider a mix of regulatory programs, incentives or other agreements to achieve reductions.

As part of the evaluation of long-term strategies under our authority, we also identified possible federal emission reducti on approaches. Accordingly, ARB staff is including concepts in this document that t he federal government could consider. Longterm strategies for new engines in locomoti ves, ocean-going ships, harbor craft, and commercial and non-tactical military aircraft are a feasible and effective means to cut emissions and will be critical to make progress toward all of the national air quality standards. Because of the extended life of these engines, we believe the long-term strategy will need to rely heavily on programs to replace existing engines with cleaner models or to add emission control equipment. Given the volume of equipment in operation and the public health im pact of the emissions, it is important that U.S. EPA and its federal partners take ear ly action in this regard.

Table I-4 lists some possible concepts that we urge the federal government to pursue. This list reflects ARB staff’s asse ssment of current technology. As technology advances, this list could be expanded. In addition, the federal government could provide economic incentives to accelerate cl ean up of diesel engines, especially those used in school buses and farm operations.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

APPROACHES FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY I-14 Table I-4 Concepts for Federal Action On-Board Diagnostics for New Truck/Bus Fl eet and In-Use Testing for Existing Truck/Bus Fleet Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel fo r Off-Road Equipment, Locomotives, and Marine Vessels More Stringent Emission Standards for Ne w Harbor Craft and Ocean-Going Ships Clean Up the Existing Ocean-Going Ship Fleet through Approaches such as Cleaner Fuels, Incentives for Cleaner Ships, Smoke (Opacity) Limits Reduce Emissions from Jet Aircraft through Approaches such as More Stringent Engine Standards, Retrofit Controls, CleanerFuel, and Applying Standards to NonTactical Military Aircraft More Stringent Emission Standards fo r New and Remanufactured Locomotive Engines Incentives to Accelerate Clean Up of Existing Diesel EnginesPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-15 CHAPTER D. STATE IMPLEMEN TATION PLAN COMMITMENTS

Under the federal Clean Air Act, regions with air quality that does not meet the national ambient air quality st andards must submit plans describing how they intend to reduce emissions to improve air quality and meet the health-based standards.

Based on forecasted inventories of emi ssions and air quality modeling, local districts and ARB develop estimates of the maximum amount of emissions a region can hold without violating ambi ent air quality standards (refe rred to as the “carrying capacity”). Local and State air quality pl anners compare the carrying capacity with the expected emission levels in the attainment year with the existing control program (the baseline inventory) to dete rmine whether additional reductions are necessary to meet the attainment target. If more reductions are needed, ARB and the air districts must work with their regulatory partners to ident ify ways to achieve them. The commitments to reduce emissions from new measures become part of the SIP, which must be approved at the local and State level before submittal to U.S. EPA. Once U.S. EPA approves a SIP, the commitments in t hat SIP become federally-enforceable.

This Proposed Strategy would update and entirely replace the comprehensive statewide control strategy contained in the existing 1994 ozone SIP (as modified in 1999 for South Coast). For areas of the State that have not yet achieved the full amount of emission reductions committed to in the existing SIP, this Proposed Strategy would retain the existing statewide commi tments to achieve all of these emission reductions. However, the specific statewi de measures identified in the existing SIP would be entirely replaced by the new proposed measures and control strategy to achieve these emission reductions. For thos e areas, we will reflect the new Strategy in the region’s next SIP revision.

This remainder of this section descri bes specific SIP commitments for two areas – the South Coast and the San Joaquin Valley. On August 1, the South Coast District approved a SIP revision that relies on additi onal emission reductions from State and federal sources. On June 26, the Air Resources Board approved both State commitments to obtain additional emission reductions to aid the San Joaquin Valley in meeting the federal PM10 st andard by 2010 and the Valley’s PM10 SIP. This section also discusses how we intend to handle fu ture SIPs that need new reductions from emission sources under St ate and federal control.

1. 2003 South Coast Ozone State Implementation Plan

For the South Coast, ARB proposes to entirely replace the existing State control measures in the approved South Coast SIP with the updated and expanded strategy described here for mobile sources, fuels and fueling infrastructure, consumer products, and pesticides. This updated strategy would also replace the submitted SIP measure M17 (In-Use Reductions from Heavy-Duty V ehicles), which U.S. EPA has not approved. The goals of M17 are included in proposed measure ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3. We havePROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-16 also updated the description of our expectati ons of federal strategies that should be pursued.

a. Existing South Coast SIP

Most of the existing near-term SI P measures have been adopted by the responsible agency, along with additional controls to reduc e emissions. The baseline emission inventory in this document reflects the benefits of Stat e and federal measures adopted since the 1994 ozone SIP. We track progress on SIP commitments in the inventory currency of the approved SIP that contained them to provide a consistent benchmark. Table I-5 shows the rulema king and emission reduction progress in the currency of the existing ozone SIP for t he South Coast. Since we have also made many inventory improvements in the interv ening years, our current estimates of the benefits of the adopted measures may differ subs tantially from those shown in the table because of changes to the baseline emissions.

Table I-5 State and Federal Measures Adopted Since 1994 SIP (tons per day in 2010 based on South Coast inventory from 1997/1999 SIP) ROG Reductions NOx Reductions Near-Term Measures Agency Adopted Commitment Achieved in 2010 Commitment Achieved in 2010 M1: Light-duty vehicle scrappage ARB 1998 0 0 M2: Low Emission Vehicle II program ARB 1998 19 4 17 43 M3: Medium-duty vehicles ARB 1995 Baseline 1

- Baseline 1

- M4: Incentives for clean engines (Moyer Program) ARB 1999 0 3 M5: California heavy-duty diesel vehicle standards ARB 1998 5 44 M6: National heavy-duty diesel vehicle standards USEPA 1998 1 11 M7: Heavy-duty vehicle scrappage ARB Replaced with M17 NA NA

M17: In-use reductions from heavy-duty vehicles ARB No 9

0 62

0 M8: Heavy-duty gasoline vehicle standards ARB 1995 Baseline 1

- Baseline 1

- M9: CA heavy-duty off-road diesel engine standards ARB 2000 4 18 M10: National heavy-duty off-road diesel engine stds USEPA 1998 4 6 47 25 M11: CA large off-road gas/LPG engine standards ARB 1998 16 5 M12: National large off-road gas/LPG engine stds USEPA 2002 32 14 17 5 M13: Marine vessel standards USEPA 1999 0 0 15 2 M14: Locomotive engine standards USEPA 1997 0 0 17 17 M15: Aircraft standards USEPA No 3 0 6 0 M16: Marine pleasurecraft standards USEPA 1996 21 17 0 0 CP2: Consumer products mid-term measures ARB 1997/1999 34 15 0 0 CP3: Aerosol paint standards ARB 1995/1998 Baseline 1

- - - Enhanced I/M (Smog Check II) BAR 1995 Baseline 1 (6) Baseline 1

- DPR-1: Emission reductions from pesticides DPR Voluntary 1 1 0 0PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-17 Adopted measures not originally included in SIP Clean fuels measures ARB Multiple 13 12 Marine pleasurecraft (reductions beyond M16) ARB 1998/2001 7 0 Motorcycle Standards ARB 1998 1 0 Urban transit buses ARB 2000 0 1 Enhanced vapor recovery program ARB 2000 6 0 Medium/heavy-duty gasoline standards (beyond M8) ARB 2000 0 1 2007 heavy-duty diesel truck standards (beyond M5 and M6) ARB/ USEPA 2001 1 16

Small off-road engine standard revisions ARB 1998 (1) 0 NEAR-TERM TOTAL 125 105 181 203 Long-Term Measures (Section 182(e)(5)) Advanced technology on-road mobile "Black Box" ARB No 37 0 6

- 2 Advanced technology off-road mobile "Black Box" ARB No 18 0 3

- 2 CP4: Long-term measure for consumer products ARB No 43 0 0 0 LONG-TERM TOTAL 98 0 9

- 2 GRAND TOTAL (near-term + long-term) 223 105 190 203

Emission reductions from individual measures may not add to total due to rounding. ( ) = Emission increase relative to baseline.
1 Measures M3, M8, CP3, and the Smog Check II program from the 1994 SIP had already been adopted when the SIP

was revised in 1997. The reductions from these meas ures are included in the 1997 SIP baseline. Although the Smog Check II program is achieving sign ificant benefits, the emission reductions are less than anticipated in the 1997 SIP as indicated by the negative number under reductions achieved.
2 The NOx reductions anticipated from the long-term mobile source "Black Box" commitment have already been

achieved from adopted measures.

b. New State Strategy

The proposed State element of t he South Coast 2003 SIP has three components: an annual adoption schedule for emission reductions, defined control measures, and a long-term strategy commitment.

The total emission reductions in Table I-6 and the obligation to propose specific measures in Table I-7 for Board cons ideration would bec ome enforceable upon approval by U.S. EPA of the comprehensiv e control strategy and revised attainment demonstration in the 2003 South Coast SIP. The commitments for emission reductions are calculated using ARB’s summer planning inventory for the 2003 South Coast SIP; progress will be tracked in the same inventory currency to assess compliance.

i. Commitment to Reduce Emi ssions via Adoption Schedule

ARB will commit to adopt and implement nea r-term measures to achieve, at a minimum, the ROG and NOx emission reductions in tons per day in the South Coast Air Basin in 2010 shown in Tabl e I-6. Reductions in exce ss of the minimum commitment for a given period may be applied to the commitment for subsequent years. ARB may meet this commitment by adopting one or more of the control measures in Table I-8, by adopting one or more alternative control measures, or by implementing incentivePROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-18 program(s), so long as the aggregate emissi on reductions therefrom comply with the schedule for adoption.

Table I-6 Proposed State Annual Adoption Commi tments for Near-Term Measures 2003 South Coast SIP (emission reductions in tons per day in 2010, summer planning inventory)

2003 2004 2005 2006 Total State Reductions from Near-Term Measures ROG 10 4 21 14 49 NOx 11 5 21 0 37

ii. Commitment to Propose Defined Control Measures

In addition to the commitment to reduce emissions via an annual adoption schedule through 2006, the ARB staff also commi ts to submit to the Board and propose for adoption the ARB control measures set fort h in Table I-7. The staff proposal for each control measure shall, at a minimum, achieve the estimated emission reductions set forth in Table I-7 based on the ARB’s summer planning inventory for the 2003 South Coast SIP. Where a range of estimated emi ssion reductions is set forth for a measure in Table I-7, the staff proposal shall, at a minimum, achieve the bottom end of the range of reductions. The Board shall take acti on thereon on or before t he action dates set forth in Table I-7. Such action by the Board may include any action within its discretion.

Since the control strategy in this element would replace the approved SIP strategy in its entirety, we must reflect any existing SI P measures that other State agencies are still in the process of implem enting. Further improvements to the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance program, or Smog Check II, will provide emission reductions as shown in Table I-7. (Appendix I-1 includes evidence of BAR’s commitment to finish implementing the Enhanced Smog Check improvements described in LT/MED-DUTY-2.) This implem entation may require additional regulatory action. Anticipated ROG reductions from pes ticide emissions in the South Coast have been achieved and incorporated into the baseli ne inventory. The concepts described in the submitted SIP measure M 17 (In-Use Reductions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles) – and the estimated benefits – have been in corporated into new measure ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3.

For more information about individual m easures, please refer to the descriptions in Sections II and III.

iii. Commitment to Reduce Emissions via Long-Term Strategy

The federal Clean Air Act recognizes t hat extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the South Coast, must rely on evol ving technologies to meet attainment goals.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-19 Consistent with section 182(e)(5) of the Act, prior SIPs for South Coast have included a long-term commitment to achieve the last increment of emission reductions, with the remaining measures to be defined by 2007.

The approved 1999 South Coast SIP in cluded commitments for long-term State and federal measures approved under sction 182( e)(5). ARB adopted its defined longterm measures, including the Low Emissi on Vehicles II and Heavy-Duty Diesel Off-Road standards earlier than anticipated in t he SIP. ARB has already satisfied its existing long-term commitment to reduce NOx, butnot ROG.

The new SIP shows a need for much great er emission reductions than the 1999 SIP for two reasons: (1) improved mobile es timates raise the emissions starting point in the 1997 baseline and (2) the Plan uses a more severe modeling episode that lowers the ROG target by 100 TPD.

After accounting for the anticipated benefits of both adopted and new near-term defined State and local measures, t he 2003 SIP demonstrates a need for another 265 tpd ROG reductions and 181 tpd NOx reducti ons from long-term measures. This represents 30 percent of the total reductions needed by 2010. We believe that this gap can be bridged through a cooperative effort bythe local, State and federal agencies responsible for specific emission sources. This effort should focus on how to most effectively achieve the additional reductions, considering the availability and cost of potential controls. As the State agency charged with ensuring California’s SIP compliance, ARB is ultimately responsible for ensuring the necessary measures are identified by 2007 and the emissi on reductions achieved by 2010.

We propose that ARB lead a multi-agency (S tate, federal, local) effort with the public to assess potential control concepts for every type of emission source and develop the full scope of strategies needed to ac hieve these reductions. In this report, we identify potential concepts to explore for the long-te rm measures. We have also received suggestions from others. In early 2004, ARB staf f plans to initiate a public process to solicit further ideas for development of the long-term measures.

The South Coast Air Quality Managem ent District (District) assigned responsibility for long-term emission reductions by agency. The District committed to 31 tpd ROG reductions from long-term m easures and assigned the remaining 234 tons of ROG and all 181 tons of NOx reductions to be achieved by ARB and U.S. EPA. We view this as a placeholder between now and 2007, when the long-term measures must be defined. Until that process is complete , the relative long-term emission reduction split among agencies can’t realistically be defin ed. Nonetheless, it’s clear that ARB, U.S. EPA, the District and lo cal government need to obtain additional reductions and we acknowledge ARB’s responsibility to ensure t hat measures to achieve those reductions are ultimately ident ified and implemented.

We believe that all agencies must acti vely seek to identify additional costeffective control strategies to achieve the maximum feasible reductions from all sourcePROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-20 categories. Part of this evaluation will include a discussion of which agency or agencies can most effectively obtain the emission reductions in practice. We expect that the appropriate agency will begin development as s oon as practicable. Once all of the specific long-term measures are identified, the resulting reductions to be achieved by each agency may be different than envisioned by the District.

To reconcile the District’s adopted stra tegy with ARB staff’s recommendations, we propose that: (1) the B oard approve the local air district commitment for 31 tpd ROG reductions and the targets for the federal government of 18 tpd ROG and 68 tpd NOx reductions, and (2) the State assume overa ll responsibility to assure that measures are identified by 2007 and im plemented by 2010 to achieve the remaining 216 tpd ROG and 113 tpd NOx reductions needed for ozone attainment in the South Coast.

If U.S. EPA does not agree to carry out its legal responsibility for new emission reductions, the District adopted a backstop approac h to relax the region’s NOx control target by a corresponding 68 tpd. Becaus e stringent NOx control is essential for addressing the health threat from fine particulate pollution, ARB staff is proposing that the Board allow the federal reductions of 18 tpd ROG and 68 tpd NOx to be added to the overall State long-term co mmitment if needed, with no modifications to the control target at this time. As part of the process of developing the long-term measures, we continue to use every possible means to pre ss our federal counterparts to act where the State and local air agencies cannot. Table I- 7 shows the resulting range of reductions that would be addressed by the proposed State long-term strategy.

By 2007, the District and ARB will prepare a revision to the Ozone SIP that (1) reflects any modifications to t he 2010 emission reduction target based on updated science, and (2) identifies the additional st rategies, including the implementing agencies, needed to achieve the necessary em issions reductions by 2010. If the specific measures developed to satisfy t he long-term obligation affect on-road motor vehicle emissions, we will work with the Distr ict and SCAG to revise the transportation conformity budgets accordingly.

c. Summary of New State and Federal SIP Element

Table I-7 summarizes the proposed near-term and long-term State commitment for the South Coast Ozone SIP.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-21 Table I-7 Proposed State Strategy 2003 South Coast Ozone SIP (tons per day in 2010)

Expected Reductions (South Coast 2010)* Strategy (Agency) Name Final Action Date Implementation Date ROG NOx DEFINED STATE MEASURES TO BE DEVELOPED AND PROPOSEDLT/MEDDUTY-1

(ARB) Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program 2005 2007-2008 0-19 0-18

LT/MEDDUTY-2

(BAR) Improve Smog Check to Reduce Emissions from Existing Passenger and Cargo Vehicles 2002-2005 2002-2006 5.6-5.8 8.0-8.4

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-1 (ARB) Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspections with Community-Based Inspections 2003 2005 0-0.1 0

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-2 (ARB) Capture and Control Vapors from Gasoline Cargo Tankers 2005 2006-2007 4-5 0

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing and New Truck/Bus Fleet 2003-2006 2004-2010 1.4-4.5 8-11

OFF-RD CI-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment Fleet (Compression Ignition Engines) – Retrofit Controls 2004-2008 2006-2010 2.3-7.8 NQ

OFF-RD CI-2 (ARB) Implement Registration and InspectionProgram for Existing Heavy-Duty OffRoad Equipment to Detect Excess Emissions (Compression Ignition Engines) 2006-2009 2010 NQ NQ

OFF-RD

LSI-1 (ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Gas Engines (Spark Ignited Engines 25 hp and Greater) 2004-2005 2007 0 0.8

OFF-RD

LSI-2** (ARB) Clean Up Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls and New Emission Standards (Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater) 2004 2006-2012 0.8-2.0 2-4

SMALL OFF-RD-1

(ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and Chainsaws) 2003 2005 1.9 0.2

SMALL OFF-RD-2

(ARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Non-Handheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as Lawnmowers) 2003 2007 6.3-7.4 0.6-1.9

MARINE-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Harbor Craft Fleet – Cleaner Engines and Fuels 2003-2005 2005 0.1 2.7PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-22 Expected Reductions (South Coast 2010)* Strategy (Agency) Name Final Action Date Implementation Date ROG NOx

MARINE-2 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Reduce LandBased Port Emissions – Alternative Fuels, Cleaner Engines, Retrofit Controls, Electrification, Education Programs, Operational Controls 2003-2005 2003-2010 0.1 0.1

FUEL-1 (ARB) Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to Control Engine Deposits 2006-2009 2006-2010 NQ NQ

FUEL-2 (ARB) Set Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses, Off-Road Equipment, and Stationary Engines 2003 2006 Enabling Enabling

CONS-1

(ARB) Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006 2003-2004 2006 2.3 0

CONS-2

(ARB) Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008-2010 2006-2008 2008-2010 8.5-15 0

FVR-1 (ARB) Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from Aboveground Storage Tanks 2003 2007 0-0.1 0

FVR-2 (ARB) Recover Fuel Vapors from Gasoline Dispensing at Marinas 2006-2009 2006-2010 0-0.1 0

FVR-3 (ARB) Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline Dispenser Hoses 2004 2007 0-0.7 0

PEST-1 (DPR) Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy

--- 1996-2010 Baseline N/A Potential Range for Defined Near-Term State Measures 33.3-71.9 22.4-47.1 Minimum Commitment via Adoption 2003-2006 49 37

PROCESS FOR LONG-TERM STRATEGY

LONG-TERM STRATEGY (ARB) Lead Multi-Agency Effort (State, federal and local) and Public Process Beginning in 2004 to Identify and Adopt Long-Term Measures 2007-2009 2010 216-234 113-181

* Based on ARB’s summer planning emission inventory for the 2003 South Coast SIP. ** Reflects consolidation of the former OFF-RD LSI-2 and OFF-RD LSI-3 measures published on May 12, 2003.

Table I-8 shows the resulting 2010 inv entory for sources under State and federal jurisdiction, with implementation of t he near-term State meas ures. The source categories in this table correspond with t he chapters in Sections II and III of this document, which describe the emissions, ex isting control program, proposed new nearterm measures, and concepts fo r long-term strategies.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-23 Table I-8 Summary of Emissions for Sources Under State and Federal Jurisdiction 2003 South Coast Ozone SIP (tons per day)

2010 Emissions with Existing Control Program 2010 Emissions with Proposed Near-Term State Measures Source Category

ROG NOx ROG NOx Light and Medium-Duty Vehicles 1,2 170 164 145-165 138-156 On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 2 23 241 18-21 230-233 Off-Road Diesel Engines 14 116 6-12 115 Off-Road Large Spark-Ignition Engines 4 15 1-3 8-10 Small Off-Road Engines 56 7 47-48 5-6 Recreational Vehicles 41 16 41 16 Commercial Marine Vessels 5 58 5 55 Aircraft 5 32 5 32 Locomotives 2 18 2 18 Consumer Products 108 0 91-97 0 Fueling and Vapor Recovery 22 0 16-18 0 Pesticides 2 0 2 0 Total State and Federal Sources 453 668 381-419 618-643
1 Includes on-road motorcycles
2 Emission reductions from SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are reflected in

the 2010 Emissions with Existing Control Program.

d. Process for State Action

The Air Resources Board will hold a pub lic hearing on September 24-25, 2003 to consider adoption of ARB staff’s proposal fo r new State commitments, as well as the local elements of the South C oast SIP. If adopted by the B oard, ARB will submit these elements to the U.S. EPA for approval as revisions to the California SIP.

2. 2003 San Joaquin Valley Pa rticulate Matter State Implementation Plan

This section describes the State co mmitments to achieve further emission reductions in PM10 and its precursors to hel p attain the federal PM10 standards in the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) by 2010. On June 26, 2003, the Air Resources Board held a public hearing in Fresno and approved a portion of the proposed new State commitments, as well as the local elements of the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP. ARB has submitted these commitments and the San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP to the U.S. EPA for approval as a revi sion to the California SIP.

The motor vehicles and equipment under State and federal jurisdiction are responsible for the majority of Valley air pol lution, but are also contributing the majorityPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-24 of the emission reductions needed for a ttainment. Adopted State and federal regulations for cleaner engines and fuels are driving Valley NOx emissions down by over 140 tpd, or nearly 40 percent between 1999 and 2010. Emissions of direct particulate matter from these sources will drop by over 10 percent and ROG by well over 40 percent in the same timeframe.

To supplement the existing program, AR B staff identified a series of new measures that will be developed over the next several years to provide additional NOx and PM10 reductions, consistent with the a ttainment demonstration needs established in this SIP. These measures are a subset of the larger strategyARB staff has proposed to cut emissions of ROG, NOx, and par ticulate matter statewide. ARB began developing the strategy in 2001 with works hops around the State, including the Valley, to solicit ideas from the public and to s hare initial concepts for emission reduction

measures.

The State commitment for this plan has tw o parts – achieving specific emission reductions and developing the defined m easures for Air Resources Board consideration.

a. State Commitment for Further Emission Reductions

Table I-9 shows the State commitmen t to adopt new measures between 2002 and 2008 that reduce emissions by an additi onal 10 tpd NOx and 0.5 tpd direct PM10 in the San Joaquin Valley in 2010. ARB ma y meet this commitment by adopting one or more of the control measures in Table I-10, by adopting one or more alternative measures, or by implementing incentive program(s), so long as the total new emission reductions are achieved. While the l egal commitment is to adopt and implement strategies that achieve the emission reducti ons by the attainment date, ARB staff is already working on several of the meas ures for near-term consideration.

The new reductions also include the benefits of planned improvements to the enhanced vehicle inspection and maintena nce program, or Smog Check. This implementation may require additio nal regulatory action by BAR.

Table I-9 State Commitment for New Emission Reductions 2003 San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP (tons per day in 2010)

State Commitment NOx 10 PM10 0.5PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-25 b. State Commitment to Propo se Defined Control Measures

In addition to the enforceable commitment to reduce emissions, the ARB staff also commits to submit to the Board and propose for adoption the ARB control measures set forth in Table I-10. For LT/MED-DUTY-1, ARB commits to complete the pilot program and propose a control measure if the approach described proves to be feasible and effective.

The specific regulatory proposal for each potential measure will be developed in an extensive public process that considers t he technical feasibility, effectiveness, cost, and other impacts of the strat egy. The Board shall take action on or before the dates set forth in Table I-10. Such action by the Board may include any action within its discretion. For informational purposes, T able I-10 shows the benefits that would be expected from implementation of each def ined measure, although the enforceable commitment is for the total new reductions.

The defined State measures are descri bed in detail in Section II of this document. Appendix I-1 includes evid ence of BAR’s commitment to finish implementing the Enhanced Sm og Check improvements descri bed in LT/MED-DUTY-2.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-26 Table I-10 New State Measures 2003 San Joaquin Valley PM10 SIP (tons per day in 2010)

Expected Reductions*, tpd Strategy (Agency) Name ROG PM10 NOx Action Dates Implementation Dates

LT/MEDDUTY-1

(ARB) Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program 0-2.4

-- 0-2.7 2005 2007-2008

LT/MEDDUTY-2

(BAR) Smog Check Improvements 1.5

-- 3 2002-2005 2002-2006

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing and New Truck/Bus Fleet – PM In-Use Emission Control, Engine Software Upgrade, On-Board Diagnostics, Manufacturers' In-Use Compliance, Reduced Idling 1.5 0.1 4 2003-2006 2004-2010

OFF-RD CI-1 (ARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment Fleet (Compression Ignition Engines) – Retrofit Controls 1.0 0.4 0 2004-2008 2010

OFF-RD

LSI-2 (ARB)** Clean Up Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls and New Emission Standards (Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater) 0.2

-- 0.3 2004 2006-2012

Total Emission Reduction Commitment from New State Measures 0 0.5 10 2002-2008 * Expected reductions from individual defined measures are shown for information only. The State is

proposing commitments for total new reductions in NOx and PM10 emissions only, consistent with the PM10 attainment demonstration. Commitments for further reductions will be considered in the context of the upcoming Valley Ozone SIP. ** Reflects staff’s proposal and Board approval at the June 26, 2003 hearing to consolidate the former

OFF-RD LSI-2 and OFF-RD LSI-3 meas ures published in the May 12, 2003 Proposed State and Federal Strategy for the Calif ornia State Implementation Plan . See Section II for the text of the consolidated measure.

3. Future State Implementation Plans

As other regions of California develop a ttainment SIPs that demonstrate a need for these measures in the proposed implem entation timeframe, ARB will provide the appropriate commitment language and benefit estimates. Because this Proposed Strategy would update and entirely replac e the comprehensive statewide control strategy contained in the existing 1994 ozone SIP, for areas of t he State that have not yet achieved the full amount of emission reductions committed to in the existing SIP, we will reflect the new Strategy in the region’s next SIP revision.

For those areas, this Proposed Strategy would retain the existing statewide commitments to achieve all of these emi ssion reductions. However, the specificPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN COMMITMENTS I-27 statewide measures identified in the existing SIP would be entirely replaced by the new proposed measures and control strategy to achieve these emission reductions.

As part of this process, ARB will also work with each region to identify any additional strategies that are needed based on t he nature of the problems in a particular region.

We anticipate that the San Joaquin Valle y will require new emission reduction measures to achieve further ROG and NOx reductions from State and federal sources to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard. Commitments beyond those in the San Joaquin Valley’s PM10 SIP will be cons idered as part of the San Joaquin Valley’s Ozone SIP.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-28 CHAPTER E. LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ADOPT SIP MEASURES

1. Overview of Legal Authority

This chapter discusses the legal aut hority to adopt the regulations and other measures that comprise the Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California SIP. This chapter also di scusses the appropriate reliance on commitments in the SIP to pursue measures based on advanced technology.

Legal authority to regulate sources of air pollution in California is found in both federal and state law. At t he federal level, the Clean Air Act (“the Act” or “CAA”) calls for a two or three partner endeavor involving federal, state and, where permitted by state law, local authorities. The Act dire cts the U.S. EPA to undertake a national effort to improve air quality. To carry out this di rective, U.S. EPA is directed to establish national ambient air quality standards to protect the pub lic health and welfare (CAA §109).

The primary tool to be used in the effort to attain national standa rds is a SIP to be developed by each state with one or more nonattain ment areas. The SI P must provide for implementation, main tenance, and enforcement of the national standards (CAA §110(a)(1)). CAA § 110(a)(2)(A) broadly authorizes and di rects states to include in their SIPs:

"...enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentivessuch as fees, ma rketable permits, and auctions of emission s rights), as well as sc hedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act."

While the Act requires statesto develop SIPs, and clea rly intends that they bear primary responsibility for attaining the national standards (CAA §101 (a)(3)), it also provides U.S. EPA with two signi ficant roles in this process. As a partner in the effort to attain and maintain the standa rds, U.S. EPA is authorized and directed to adopt measures to control emissions from vari ous sources, such as consum er products, motor vehicles, nonroad engines and vehicl es, and aircraft (CAA §§183(e)(3), 202, 213 and 231). Additionally, U.S. EPA has ultimate authority and responsibility to intervene with direct federal action if the SIP is in adequate, incomple te or not properly impl emented by the state (CAA §§ 110(c)(1) and 113).

Similarly, California law generally divi des responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (as well as se parate, comprehensive state requirements related to air quality) betw een ARB and local air polluti on control or air quality management districts (districts ). However, other state or local agenci es also have the authority under stat e law to regulate certain pollutant-em itting sources or activities. For example, the State's motor v ehicle inspection and maintenance program is primarily thePROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-29 responsibility of BAR in the Department of Consumer Affairs, and DPR has primary authority to regulate the pesticidal use of pestici des. Legal authority fo r state, district, and local efforts to improve air qual ity is contained primarily in Division 26 of the California Health and Safety Code, althou gh authority fo r some programs is lo cated elsewhere in the state codes. 2

Pursuant to these codes, the ARB is charged with coordinating state, regional and local efforts to attain and maintain both state and national ambient air quality standards. The direct statutory link between the AR B and the mandates of the CAA is found in §39602 of the Health and Sa fety Code, which states:

"The state board isdesignated the air pollution control agency for all purposes set fort h in federal law. The state board is designated as t he state agency resp onsible for the preparation of the state implementati on plan required by the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C., Sec. 7401, et seq.) and, to this end, shall coordinate the activities of all districts neces sary to comply with that act. Notwithstanding any other provisio n of this division, the state implementation plan shall only include those provis ions necessary to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act."

In directing the California ap proach to improving air quality, state law divides control activities into vehicular and nonvehicular sectors (§§ 39002 and 40000). The control of vehicular sources is the responsibility of the ARB, while primary responsibility for nonvehicular controls falls tothe local air districts (§ § 39002, 40000-40002, 40702, 40717; see also §§ 40400-40540 fo r provisions specific to the SCAQMD). These authorities have been used by the local dist ricts to adopt and enforce numerous ru les to control air pollution. In addition, the ARB has co mprehensive oversight authority over the districts to undertake nonvehicular source control activities if any dist ricts fails to perfo rm satisfactorily (§§39002, 41500, 4150 2, 41503, 41504, 41505 and 41652).

The Clean Air Act requires that SIP provis ions be legally enfo rceable. A tiered system of authority for enforcement exists wh ich parallels the aut hority to develop and implement the SIP. The ARB has authority to enforce vehi cular controls. (See, e.g., §§41510, 41511 and 41513 , 43012, 43016 and 43017, 43100, 43105 , 43106, 43204- 43212 and Vehicle Code §§27 156, 38390 and 38391.) Prim ary responsibility for nonvehicular enforcement is vested in the lo cal air districts. (See, e.g., §§41510, 41511 and 41513, and 42300 et seq.) However, if the ARB finds t hat a district is not taking reasonable action to enfo rce applicable air pollution contro l statutes, rules and regulations, the ARB may, after a public hearing, assume the distri ct's enforcement powers and enforce these laws (§41505). U.S. EPA has similar auth ority to assume enforcement jurisdiction if a state fails to enforce SIP provisions (CAA §113).

2 All section references in this chapter are to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise specified.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-30 Within the framework of state and loca l shared responsibility for air pollution control, with ultimate air district account ability to the ARB, the ARB has the necessary statutory authority to assure compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act relating to the attainment of national st andards and the rate-of-progress demonstrations.

2. Legal Authority toAdopt State and Federal SIP Measures

State components of this comprehensive SI P revision target mobile sources, fuels, consumer products, vapor recovery , and pesticides. The legal authority for implementing the measures in each of these components is described below.

a. Mobile Sources

Motor vehicles and other m obile sources comprise the most significant source of ozone precursor emissions in the State. The ARB's mobile source se ction of California's SIP includes numerous measures to reduce mobile source emissions at the state level and is a central component of this SIP revi sion. The measures include reductions to be realized from actions taken or to be taken at both the federal and state level.

i. Federal Responsibility for Na tional Mobile S ource Measures

If all areas of the State are to demonstrate attainment by the specified deadlines, a critical part of the overall strategy to reduce mobile source emissions in California must be U.S. EPA's fulfillment of the Act's promise fo r regulation of national sources pursuant to §§202(a)(2)(B), 213 and 231. While U.S. EPA has not yet provided comple te information regarding what regulato ry actions w ill be undertaken pursuant to these authorities, the ARB anticipates adoption by U.S. EPA of national standards for sources states are preempted from regulating (i .e., new locomotives and airc raft, and nonroad engines used in farm and construction equipm ent under 175 horsepower); and sources the ARB cannot regulate as effectively as a practical matter (i.e., new heavy-duty diesel trucks registered in other states, marine vessels, an d fuels sold outside of California). As discussed in Section I.A.1.c of this SIP revision, the projecte d 2010 emissions from sources under federal jurisdiction are very significant, and these emission s are expected to grow dramatically by 2020 without new strategies. Under these circumstances, U.S. EPA has an obligation under the Clean Air Act to promulgate stan dards for these unregul ated or underregulated national sources. Such measures should be full y creditable in the SIP.

Certainly, U.S. EPA has the authority to adopt standards fo r national sources in order to assist states in achieving the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). U.S. EPA's authority derives from a number of provisions of the Clean Air Act which authorize or require the promul gation of vari ous types of control measures. The scope of U.S. EPA's authority under m any of these provisions is broadly defined. For example, §202 directs the Administrato r of the U.S. EPA to establ ish emission standards for new motor vehicles and §231 directs the Administra tor to establish aircra ft emission standards. Both of these sections direct the Administrator to promulgate regulations in order to control emissions:PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-31 "which, in [her] judgement , cause or contribute toair pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger pub lic health and welfare ..." (CAA §§202(a) and 231(a)(2)).

Under §213, the Ad ministrator is required to deter mine whether ozone precursor or carbon monoxide emissi ons from nonroad engi nes or vehicles (oth er than locomotives) "cause, or significantly contri bute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public h ealth or welfare" and to regulate the sources that in her judgment "cause, or contribute to , such air pollution." That section also directs the Administrator, by 1995, to adopt emi ssion standards for new locomotives that

"achieve the greatest degree of emis sion reduction achievable through the application of technology which the Administrator determines will be available for the locomotives or en gines to which such standards apply, giving appropriate consi deration to the cost of applying such technology within the period of time available tomanufacturers and tonoise, energy and safety factors associated with the a pplication of such technology." (CAA §213(a)(5).)

Federal law preempts indivi dual states from adopting emission standards for most of these sources (§§209 and 233 ). California has concurrent authority to regulate some nonroad engines or vehicles including marine vessels, and California can ob tain a waiver of federal preemp tion to adopt emission standards for other national source categories (e.g. heavy-duty trucks). However, as a practical matteradoption of separate, Californiaonly standards for national transportation sources (e.g., heavy-duty trucks or marine vessels) is not a fully effect ive means of controlling emi ssions from these sources.

If California is to adequately protect public health, the essential emission reductions necessary from these sources must be fully realized through timely promulgation of all feasible standards for national sources by U.S. EPA under the authorities provided in the Act. Without such federal control of preempted and national transportation sources, California simply cannot ad equately protect public health because it is not possible to obtain sufficient emission redu ctions solely from sources under local and state jurisdiction to offset uncontrolled or undercontrolled emissions contribu ted by national sources subject to federal control.

National standards for these sources are feasible. These measures are described in Section I.C.2 and under each source category in Section II of this submittal. Furthermore, while California ma y present the worst case and, therefore, have the greatest need for such standards, there are many other long-term ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 nonattainment areas in other states that will benefit from the adoption of such standards. It is not even subject to debate that Congress intended U.S. EPA to participate in states' efforts to attain nat ional air quality standards by regulating these

sources.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-32 The very broad language of the Clean Air Act authorizes and directs the Administrator to establish appropriate st andards for national sources in order to effectively address emissions from these s ources in California and other states. Such standards are necessary and technologicallyfeasible; therefore, U.S. EPA has an obligation to promulgate t hese standards without delay. The agency's failure to fully exercise its national standard-setting authority fully places burdens on California never envisioned by Congress, and the lack of thes e emission reductions cannot be made up by additional state measures because the st ate and local air districts already must extract the maximum emission reductions possible from all source categories under their control.

ii. State Authority for Mobile Source Measures

The ARB has broad au thority under State law to regul ate motor vehicl es and other mobile sources. These au thorities empower the Board to adopt the mobile source regulations and other control meas ures identified in Section II of this SIP revision. Health and Safety Code §43013(a) provides that:

"The state board may adopt and implement mo tor vehicle emission standards, in-use performance st andards, and moto r vehicle fuel specifications for the control of ai r [pollutants] and sources of air pollution which the state board ha s found to be necessary, costeffective, and technologically feasible to carry out the purposes of this division, unless preemp ted by federal law."

In addition, Health and Sa fety Code §4 3018 provides:

"The state board shall endeavor to achieve the maximum degree of emission reduction poss ible from vehicular and other mobile sources in order to accomplish the attainme nt of the state standards at the earliest practical date."

To carry out these directives , the Board is directed to:

"... adopt and implement emission st andards for new motor vehicles [or new motor vehicle e ngines] for the control of emissions therefrom, which standards the st ate board has found tobe necessary and technologically feasibleto carry out the purposes of this division. Prior to adopting such standards, the state bo ard shall consider the impact of such standards on the economy of the state, including, but not limited to, their effect on motor vehicle fuel efficiency." (§43101.)

The Board is also directed by §43013(b) to regulate other ca tegories of mobile

sources:PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-33 “The state board shall ... adopt standards and regul ations for ... off-road or nonvehicle engine categories, including, but not limited to, off-highway motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, cons truction equipment, farm equi pment, utility engines, locomotives, and, to the extent permitted by federa l law, marine vessels.”

Each of these sections must be read in the context of Heal th and Safety Code 39600, which provides th at: "The state board s hall do such acts as may be necessary for the proper execution of the powers and dutie s granted to, and impos ed upon, the state board by this division and by any other provision of law."

Pursuant to these author ities the ARB has adopted the world's most stringent standards for passenger cars , light-duty trucks and medium- duty vehicles, including the Low Emission Vehicle/Clean F uels. (13 Cal. Code Regs. §1960.1.) The ARB has also adopted regulations establishi ng standards for heavy-duty vehi cles that are at least as protective as the comparablefederal standards applicable el sewhere in the nation. (13 Cal. Code Regs. §1956 .8.) In addition, th e ARB has adopted regulations establishing standards for off-road vehi cles and engines, including small off-road engines and equipment (e.g., lawn and garden, small utili ty engines), off-road re creational vehicles (e.g., dirt bikes, all-terrai n vehicles, golf carts), off-road diesel engines and equipment (e.g., certain farm and construction equipment, portable generators), off-road gasoline and LPG engines and equipment (e.g ., forklifts, airport ground support equi pment), and marine pleasure craft (e.g., jet skies, recreational boats).

In addition to the emission reductions to be achieved from implementation of existing ARB mo bile source measures, Section II of this SIP revision contains a detailed description of the new mobile source measures proposed for adoption. This SIP revision also includes advance technology measures that rely on new or evolving technology. These measures will be adop ted pursuant to CAA 182(e)(5).

b. Smog Check Program

California’s vehicle inspection and ma intenance program (commonly referred to as the “smog check program”) is adminis tered by BAR, which has the sole and exclusive authority within the State fo r developing and implementing the program. (Health and Safety Code § 44002) The overall structure of California’s current smog check program was established by legislation enacted in 1994 in response to the requirements of the federal Clean Air Act and U.S. EPA regulations. The laws governing the implementation and enforcement of the program are found in Health and Safety Code §44000 et seq. A descrip tion of the smog check program and the proposed improvements to the program can be found in Section II.A of this SIP revision.

c. Fuels

The ARB has the authority to regulate the content of moto r vehicle fuels. This was recognized by the Cali fornia Supreme Court in a 1975 decision, Western Oil & Gas Assn.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-34 v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District (1975), 14 Cal. 3d 411 , 418-420, which held that the authority of the AR B to adopt and implement moto r vehicle emission standards includes the authority to set standards for motor vehicle fuels.

The ARB’s authority over fuels was reaffirmed and clar ified in the Ca lifornia Clean Air Act of 1988, whic h added §43018 tothe Health and Safety Code and substantially amended §43013. These sections provid e that the ARB has the authority to establish motor vehicle fuel regulations , and that before adopting and amending such regulations the ARB must make take certain specified actions and make specified determinations. Pursuant to §§43013 a nd 43018, the ARB has adopted a nu mber of fuels regulations. A description of the existing fuels regulations and the two prop osed SIP measures for diesel fuel are set forth in Section II, Chapter I of this SIP revision.

One of the two proposed meas ures for diesel fuel, FU EL-2, would set low-sulfur standards for diesel fuel used in trucks, buses, off-road equipment, and st ationary engines. Health and Safety Codes §§ 43013 and 43018 provide the legal authority for the ARB to regulate motor vehicle fuels, but they do not address the re gulation of nonvehicular fuels. While these sections can therefore be reli ed upon as legal authority for the FUEL-2 provisions that apply to moto r vehicle fuels, they cannot be relied upon for the FUEL-2 provisions that apply to fuel produced for nonveh icular sources. The legal authority to adopt the nonvehicular provisions of FUEL-2 is instead provid ed by the California’s toxic air contaminant control law, th e Tanner Act (Health and Safety Code §3965 0 et seq.). For substances that have been identified as to xic air contaminants (TACs), the Tanner Act directs the ARB to adopt ai r toxic control measures to control TAC emissions from nonvehicular sources (§§36658 and 39666). “Particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” has been identified by the ARB as a TAC (17 Cal. Code Regs. § 93000). The Tanner Act thus provides the ARB with the authority to adoptthe nonvehicular provisions of FUEL-2 as an air toxic control measure.

d. Consumer Products

The ARB has broad auth ority under Californialaw to regulate consumer products. Specifically, Health and Safety Code §41712 (b) provides that:

"The state board shall a dopt regulations to achieve the maximum feasible reduction in volatile organic compounds [VOC ] emitted by consumer products, if the stat e board determines that adequate data exists to establish both of the following: (1) The regulations are necessary to attain state and federal ambient air quality standards. (2) The regulations are commercial ly and technologically feasible and necessary.” (See also Health & Safety Code §39600.)

Pursuant to this author ity the ARB has already adop ted standards for numerous categories of consumer products and has achi eved significant emis sion reductions fromPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-35 these products. The ARB will co ntinue to develop and adopt measures that limit the VOC emissions from consumer produ cts. A description of the existing regulat ions and the proposed consumer products me asures are set fort h in Section III, Chap ter A of this SIP revision.

e. Vapor Recovery

Health and Safety Code §41954 requires the ARB toadopt procedures and performance standards for cont rolling gasoline vapor emissionsfrom gasoline marketing operations, including transfer a nd storage operations, to achi eve and maintain ambient air quality standards. Thissection also authorizes the ARB, in cooperation with districts, to certify vapor recovery systems that meet th e performance standards. Health and Safety Code 39607(d) re quires the ARB to adopt test proce dures to determine compliance with ARB and districts non-vehicular st andards. State la w (§41954) furt her requires districts to use ARB test procedures for determining compliance wi th performance standards and specifications esta blished by ARB.

To comply with th ese provisions of State law, the ARB has adopt ed the gasoline vapor recovery certification and test proc edures found in 17 Cal. Code Regs., §§94010 to 94015 and 94101 to 94165 . These regulations reference procedures for certifying vapor recovery systems and test procedures fo r verifying complianc e with performance standards and specifications.

f. Pesticides

DPR has broad authorities unde r state law to control the use of pesticides for the purposes of protecting human health and the environment, including improving air quality. (Food & Agriculture Code §§14102, also §§1 2781, 12824-12828, 12976-12977, 12991- 12995, 12996-12999, 1 3101 and 13102.) Purs uant to these authorit ies, in 1994 the DPR approved a plan to institute and monitor a vo luntary VOC reduction program, together with a commitment to adopt regulati ons to require reductions in VOC emissi ons from pesticide use if the voluntary program does not produce specified re ductions in acco rdance with a schedule approved as part of th e pesticide element of the plan. Thisplan was submitted as a SIP revision in 1994 and approved by the U.S. EPA on January 8, 1997. (62 FR 1150, 1169-1170; January 8, 1997). DPR’s approved SIP commitment to control pesticide emissions is described in Section III.C, of this SIP revision.

g. New Technology Measures for ARB’s Long-Term Strategy

Like the 1994 and 1999 SI Ps for the South Coast Air Basin, this SIP revision contains a special class of new technology measures ne cessary to contribute to attainment in the South Coas t. CAA §182 sets out requirements for marginal, moderate, serious, severe and extreme ozone nonattain ment areas, with the requirements for each level building on the preceding. As the only extreme area in the nation at this time, the South Coast must meet the most strenuous re quirements applicableto areas with less intense ozone problems, plus all of the requirements of §1 82(e)(1) through (3). UnderPROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-36 181(a) of the Act, extreme areas have until 2010 to atta in the national ozone standard. Other regions may choose to vo luntarily request reclassificati on to extreme. The San Joaquin Valley has stated its in tention to do so in parallel with a SIP revision to show attainment of the federal one -hour ozone standard by 2010. The following discussion applies to any California nonattainment area classified as extreme.

To address attainment planning for extreme ozone nonattainment areas, Congress enacted §182(e)(5) as part of t he 1990 CAA amendments. Specifically, §182(e)(5) provides:

"The Administrator may, in accordancewith section 110, approve provisions of an implementation plan for an Extreme Area which anticipate development of new contro l techniques or improvem ent of existing control technologies, and an attainment demonst ration based on such provisions, if the State demonstrates to the satisf action of the Administrator that-- (A) such provisions are not nece ssary to achieve the incremental emission reductions required during the fi rst 10 years after the date of the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; and (B) the State has submitted enforce able commitments to develop and adopt contingency measuresto be implemented as set forth herein if the anticipated technologies do not achieve planned reductions. Such contingency measures shall be subm itted to the Administrator no later than 3 years before proposed implementati on of the plan prov isions and approved or disapproved by the Administrator in accordance with section 110. The contingency measures shall be adequate to produce emission reductions sufficient, in conjunction with ot her approved plan provisions, to achieve the periodic emission reductions required by subsection (b)(1) and (c)(2) and attainment by the applicable dates. If the Administrator determines that an Extrem e Area has failed to achieve an emission reduction require ment set forth in subsection (b)(1) or (c)(2), and that failure is due in whole or pa rt to an inability to fully implement provisions approved pursuant to this subsection, the Administ rator shall require t he State to implement the contingency measures to the extentnecessary to assure compliance with subsections (b)(1) and (c)(2)."

U.S. EPA approved the new technology me asures set forth in the 1994 and 1999 Ozone SIPS (60 FR 43379, 4381 (August 21, 1995); 65 FR 6091, 6093 (February 8, 2000), and further ex plained its interpreta tion of §182(e)(5):

“ The 1990 Amendments to the Act add ed section 182(e)(5), which applies exclusively to “Extreme ozone areas. Th is provision authorizes the State to use conceptual, as yet unadopted measures for its ozone attainment demonstration and rate-of-progress after the year 2000, if these measures anticipate new or improved technology or control te chniques and are not need to meet the progress requirements of the first 10 years . . . These measures necessarily are preliminary, and as such lack both regulations and technical s upport or even decisions regarding specific directio ns and approaches. Comple te SIP rule elements arePROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS

LEGAL AUTHORITY I-37 dependent upon futu re years of research projects, analyses of technologies and associated commercial feasibility, public workshops, and public decisionmaking.” (60 FR 43381)

California's SIP revisions for extreme areas are expected to rely on §182(e)(5) measures for substantial emission reductions beyond the year 2009. This reliance was intended by the Act and affects both the comp leteness review and the approval process for this SIP revision.

Long-term measures that rely on new or evolving technology (including measures requiring complex analyses and decision-ma king and coordinati on among numerous government agencies) fall with in the coverage of §182(e)(5) (57 Fed. Reg. 13498, 13524) and are approvable as SIP revisi ons although not in final rule form. Because §182(e)(5) contemplates th e use of yet-to-be-developed tec hnologies or yet-to-be-completed analyses and decision-making, the rules impl ementing these measures have not yet been developed or adopted. For purposes of U.S. EPA's review under §110(k), these measures should be treated in the same wa y as fully adopted rules because they are fully developed in the manner contemplated by the Act at this point in time.PROPOSED 2003 STATE AND FEDERA L STRATEGY FOR CALIFORNIA SIP SECTION I – OVERVIEW OF COMMITMENTS



### APPENDIX I-1

LETTER FROM THE BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR ON IMPROVING THE ENHANCED SMOG CHECK PROGRAM