Air Resources Board*
Board Hearing Room, Lower Level
2020 "L" Street
Sacramento, CA

March 11, 1993
9:30 a.m.



93-4-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Revision of 001
Emission Control Requirements to Mitigate the
Impact of Transported Pollutants on Ozone
Concentrations in Downwind Areas.

93-4-2 Public Meeting to Consider a Status Report on ---
the Use of Market Incentives for Consumer Products.

*Off-street parking is available in the parking lot to the west
and adjacent to 2020 L Street. Enter this lot from L Street or
20th Street. Overflow parking is available in the parking lot
across the street from 2020 L on the UPPER LEVEL ONLY. Enter
this lot from 20th Street. The cost for all day parking in these
lots is $2.00. After parking in either lot, see the Security
Officer in the lobby at 2020 L to make payment (exact change

ITEM NO.: 93-4-1

Public Hearing to Consider the Revision of Emission Control
Requirements to Mitigate the Impact of Transported Pollutants on
Ozone Concentrations in Downwind Areas.


Approve the proposed amendments to the Board's transport
mitigation regulations.


Last year key features of the California Clean Air Act of 1988
(Act) were modified, creating a need to revisit the permitting
component of the Board's transport mitigation regulations. Staff
is proposing that the regulations be amended to provide upwind
districts permitting relief comparable to that granted downwind
districts by the recent amendments (AB 2783; Chapter 945;
Statutes of 1992).

The Board's 1990 transport mitigation regulations required upwind
areas to adopt a "no net increase" permitting program for ozone
precursors for all new or modified stationary sources. This was
consistent with a statutory mandate that the same program be in
place in serious and severe nonattainment areas. Areas subject
to this restriction are: the Broader Sacramento Area, the San
Joaquin Valley, the South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin, and parts of the South Central Coast Air Basin.

Between 1988 and 1992 it became apparent that the no net increase
requirement put undue pressure on small businesses. AB 2783
relaxed the no net increase requirement by providing
applicability thresholds for serious and severe areas (moderate
areas had a 25 ton per year threshold under the original Act).

The amended Act allows districts with moderate, serious, and
severe classifications to permit incrementally smaller stationary
sources without mitigating air quality impacts. This permitting
relief is limited to stationary sources with the potential-to-emit of
less than 25, 15, and 10 tons per year for moderate,
serious and severe areas, respectively. The amendments also
added an additional classification--extreme--which retains the no
net increase requirement.

The statutory amendments did not modify the original transport
mitigation mandates for did they alter the Board's existing
regulations. Thus, the new permitting thresholds in AB 2783 can
be applied only in those areas not subject to transport
mitigation requirements.

Staff believe that the economic pressures which prompted the 1992
amendments to the Act are present throughout the state.
Permitting relief is needed whether small businesses are located
in upwind or downwind areas.

Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Board add a
potential-to-emit threshold of 10 tons per year to the current no
net increase requirement. This would restrict its applicability
to larger stationary sources in all but the south Coast Air
Basin, which is statutorily required to retain a more stringent
permitting program.


Staff's proposal would provide needed permitting relief for small
businesses and some large businesses. The amendments could also
result in adverse environmental impacts due to unmitigated
emission increases in upwind areas. Staff has estimated the
potential emission increases in the year 2000 to range from 0.1
to 2.1 tons per day (total ozone precursors) in each upwind area.
These increases are estimated to represent a small fraction of
the total emission inventories for the affected districts (less
than one percent). As discussed in the staff report, there are
uncertainties in this analysis which may affect the absolute
magnitude of the emission increases, nonetheless, some emissions
would go unmitigated as a result of the amendments.

The staff believe that there are overriding economic
considerations which outweigh the potential adverse environmental
impacts. These considerations are primarily economic, reflecting
the state's economic downturn, therefore, staff recommends that
the Board approve the proposed amendments, recognize that the
amendments may result in significant adverse environmental
impacts, and make a finding of overriding considerations.