December 4, 1996

Ms. Felicia Marcus
Region IX Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105

Dear Ms. Marcus:

        California stakeholders have been working with staff at the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region IX and the U.S. EPA headquarters over the last several years to address outstanding issues associated with implementing the federal air toxics program in California. While we appreciate the U.S. EPA's willingness to discuss our needs, we strongly believe the time has come to take decisive action.

        Based on the work done to date, it is clear a number of policy decisions and regulatory changes must be made to ensure a smooth integration of the federal program with existing state and local programs. The foundation for these changes is outlined in Enclosure 1. This foundation is a consensus position and is supported by a diverse and very broad group of California overnment and industry, as evidenced by the number of organizations that have signed this letter (See Enclosure 2).

       We believe that the U.S. EPA should insist that state and local programs provide for equivalent public health protection, but should provide substantial flexibility to make local decisions regarding the appropriateness of other federal requirements that do not compromise the protectiveness of the state or local program.  The unnecessarily prescriptive and complex nature of the federal requirements make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for both sources and administrating agencies to understand and comply with the requirements. In addition, we believe that the U.S. EPA must provide for a realistic means for comprehensive program approval.   To make this option possible, the Subpart E regulation must be amended.

        The policy and regulatory changes we are advocating would result in enforceable programs with an equivalent or superior level of protection of public health and the environment. In addition, these changes would: preserve the environmental benefits of the federal, state, and local programs at a lower cost; eliminate duplicate and potentially conflicting requirements; simplify the process for obtaining approval of alternative requirements; provide certainty to industry regarding the requirements they are to meet; and reduce the considerable amount of resources that are being spent on integrating the programs.


Ms. Felicia Marcus
December 4, 1996
Page Two

        We would like to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss how we can expeditiously move forward with the concepts outlined. Mr. Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer, Air Resources Board, will contact you in the near future on this issue. In the interim, if you have any questions, please call Mr. Kenny at (916) 445-4383, or Mr. Mark Boese, President, California Air Pollution Control Officers Association at (209) 497-1000.


/s/                                                                    /s/
Michael P. Kenny                                          Mark Boese, President
Executive Officer                                           California Air Pollution Control Officers
Air Resources Board Association


cc:       Mr. David Howekamp
           United States Environmental Protection Agency
           75 Hawthorne Street
           San Francisco, California 94105




            The following recommendations provide a foundation for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to develop the policy and regulatory changes necessary to ensure that the federal air toxics program is appropriately integrated with state and local air pollution control programs.

  1. The U.S. EPA needs to make the necessary policy and regulatory changes to incorporate the following general principles.
A.   Alternative emission limitations must result in equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to the corresponding federal standard based on a reasonable technical demonstration.
B.   Alternative work practice standards where a quantifiable emission reduction can be determined must result in equivalent or greater emission reductions compared to the corresponding federal standard based on a reasonable technical demonstration.
C.   A demonstration of equivalent emission reductions should, at a minimum, be based on the accumulation of emission points, process units, equipment, products, or materials that can logically be considered part of the source category for which the federal standard was promulgated. However, a facility-wide basis may be appropriate and should be considered.
D.   Alternative compliance and enforcement measures (monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting) must be practically enforceable and adequate to determine compliance.
E.   States and local agencies need the ability to substitute effective alternative compliance and enforcement measures. For example, a demonstration that alternative compliance and enforcement requirements are "at least as stringent" as the corresponding federal requirement is not necessary or appropriate.
F.   States or local agencies need to be allowed to establish interim applicable federally-enforceable requirements for both new and existing sources until the state or local agency takes final action to amend rules or revise permits.
G.   States or local agencies with sufficient expertise should be delegated the authority to approve minor and significant changes to test methods and monitoring methods and procedures.
H.   State or local agencies must implement the standards in a "sufficiently expeditious" timeframe rather than "no later than would be required by the federal rule."


I.   The state and local agencies should be given substantial flexibility to address the administrative requirements established in the General Provisions.

J.   The concepts established in White Paper 2 should be incorporated into the policy and regulatory changes necessary to integrate state and local programs with the federal program.
2.   The U.S. EPA needs to develop a flexible program approval option that achieves the
      following objectives
A.   Simplifies the process for integrating alternative requirements.
B.   Provides industry with a single set of requirements that must be met.
C.   Provides for an upfront approval of state and local agency programs that have the ability to establish alternative, federally enforceable, requirements based on adequate authority and resources, legally binding commitments that ensure that alternative requirements will result in equivalent or better emission reductions, are adequate to determine compliance, are practically enforceable, and are implemented in a sufficiently expeditious manner.
D.   Specifies a general process that state and local agencies must follow in establishing alternative requirements after promulgation of a federal standard. The process must include an opportunity for the U.S. EPA and the public to review and comment on the alternative requirements.
E.   Establishes a process whereby the U.S. EPA can withdraw approval of any part of a program, or the program itself, and require sources to comply with the otherwise applicable federal requirements based on a reasonable compliance schedule if it finds that the state or local agency is not adequately implementing the program.
F.   Incorporates the general principles outlined in 1 above.
3.   The U.S. EPA needs to make the policy and regulatory changes applicable to any federal
      requirement promulgated under section 112, while ensuring that only those state or local
      requirements which become federally enforceable are those requirements that are necessary
      to meet the legally binding commitments.

4.   The necessary policy and regulatory changes should be made as soon as possible but no later
      than July 1997.


Signature on original document include:

R. J. Sommerville, Director San Diego APCD
Douglas Quetin, Air Pollution Control Officer, Monterey Bay Unified APCD
Doug Allard, Air Pollution Control Officer, Santa Barbara County APCD
Ellen Garvey, Air Pollution Control Officer, Bay Area AQMD
Barbara A. Lee, Air Pollution Control Officer, Northern Sonoma County APCD
Douglas Henderson, Executive Director, Western States Petroleum Association
Jack Stewart, Executive Vice-President, California Manufacturer's Association
Dan Phelan, Executive Director, Bay Area League of Industrial Associations
Randy Solganik, Chairman Air Quality Committee, Metal Finishing Association of Southern
Clay Hinkle, Corporate Environmental Affairs, Rhor, Inc.
Joseph G. Ruzicska, By direction of the Commander, Naval Base San Diego, Department of
Defense Regional Environmental Coordinator, EPA Region IX
Victor Weisser, President, California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
Brian White, Director, Air and Waste Management, California Chamber of Commerce
Craig Anderson, Chairman Air Committee, Industrial Environmental Association of San Diego
Harry Levy, President, Gene's Plating Works
Roger A. Isom, Director of Technical Services, California Cotton Ginners and Growers
Jon D. Mikeis, Chairman Governing Board South Coast AQMD, Chairman Interagency AQMP
Implementation Committees
James M. Lents, Executive Officer, South Coast AQMD
Raymond C. Miller, Southern California Alliance of POTWs
Gene Beck, Small Business Coalition/Business Community Development Coalition
Curtis Coleman, California Aerospace Environmental Association
Michael Lewis, Construction Industry Air Quality Coalition
Lee Wallace, Pacific Enterprises
Thomas Wilson, Council member Orange County Transportation Authority Member,
SCAQMD Interagency AQMP Implementation Committee
Micke Carroll, Regulatory Flexibility Group
Tim Dixon, IBEW
Arnie Sherwood, Southern California Association of Governments
Ed Laird, Coating Resources Corporation
Randy Scott, Planning Manager, San Bernardino County Planning Department
Jack Wyatt, Regional Manager, Southern California Edison, Community Representative for
Riverside County