Opposition Brief — Environmental Protection Agency v. Environmental Council of Sacramento, Inc.

Court. WL!

e FILED

XQ DEC 8 wee

No. 92-799 OFFICE OE IME

a

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1992

¢

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner,

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF

SACRAMENTO, INC., ET AL.,

Respondents.

¢

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The

United States Court Of Appeals

en The Ninth Circuit

S

BRIEF IN O??OSITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

COUNCIL OF SACRAMENTO AND SIERRA CLUB

e

JosePH J. BRECHER

1970 Broadway, 12th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 272-0433

Counsel for Respondents

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO, Cm) 225 6964

OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-283

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether, even though the Environmental Protection

Agency has entered into a binding stipulation to promul-

gate a Federal Implementation Plan for the Sacramento

area, and despite the fact that the statutory language that

compels the adoption of such a plan was not changed by

the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, EPA should be

relieved of its obligation to provide relief for the breath-

ing public of the area on the basis of dubious policy

arguments.

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATESMEN: GF POU CAigee esist eee ewe eke cues 2

REASONS WHY THE PETITION SHOULD BE

it) rrr rrr rrr ry erin My pera 5

COONICLAISRIN ak enigus 4000 ee ees 10

ill

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CasEs

OE RS Se RE & Sa 6

Citizens for a Better Environment v. Costle, 515 F.

Sump. 204 (ND. Til. 1961). ..... 6... esse cece cece 8

George v. Morgan Constr. Co., 389 F.Supp. 253

ee re ee ee re rf

Havenfield v. H&R Block, Inc., 509 F.2d 1263 (8th

. aEG® pa ean oe a er eee ae ,

Logsdon v. Baker, 366 F.Supp. 332 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ..... 7

New England Law Foundation v. Costle, 475 F.

Suen. 425 (D. Conn. 1979)......... 6.2.6.0 eee eens 8

ee Ee MO AJ, GP CED7D) on nce eee neces ees 8

STATUTES

NE eee ee ee eee eee eee eee 6

EL Tere re eT eee ee 2

i SE ee rer 3, 6

Me, PO, AS, SOEDE i ice eee e ewe ence 3

ER er terre reer ere eer ee ee 7

No. 92-799

¢

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1992

¢

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner,

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF

SACRAMENTO, INC., ET AL.,

Respondents.

€

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The

United States Court Of Appeals

For The Ninth Circuit

¢

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL

COUNCIL OF SACRAMENTO AND SIERRA CLUB

+

The Environmental Council of Sacramento and Sierra

Club! oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s

Petition for Writ of Certiorari and urge that it be denied.

1 Respondents Environmental Council of Sacramento and

Sierra Club are not-for-profit corporations that do not have

publicly traded stock, or parent or subsidiary corporations.

Supreme Court Rule 29.1.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly held that

EPA is obligated to complete Federal Implementation

Plans for the Sacramento and Los Angeles air basins. This

holding applies to only three areas in California and will

have no further applicability under federal law.

¢

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case presents an extreme example of a govern-

ment agency doing everything it can to avoid performing

its duty under the law. The result has been over a decade

of unhealthy air for the citizens of the Sacramento area.

In 1979, the State of California submitted an air quality

plan for the Sacramento area in which it requested EPA to

approve an extension of the statutory deadline for achiev-

ing the ozone standard to December 31, 1987. In August,

1982, the State submitted an updated plan which

acknowledged that even if all measures contained therein

were implemented, the ozone air quality standard would

not be achieved by 1987.

On February 3, 1983, EPA proposed to disapprove the

1982 plan, primarily because it failed to demonstrate

attainment of the ozone standard by any date. See 48 Fed.

Reg. 5074. On July 3, 1984, EPA took “final” action on the

1982 SIP. It approved the control strategy in the SIP for

the Sacramento area because the measures included in

that. strategy would strengthen the 1979 SIP. However,

EPA announced that it would take no action on the attain-

ment demonstration and the provisions to sustain reason-

able further progress toward reducing emissions (RFP)

contained in the amended SIP, because of its previous

finding that the ozone standard would not be attained.

See 49 Fed. Reg. 30,300. Rather than disapprove the por-

tions of the Sacramento area plan dealing with attainment

demonstration and RFP, as originally proposed, EPA

stated it would perform an in-depth evaluation to deter-

mine what additional measures would be necessary to

achieve the NAAQS and would examine whether the

Sacramento authorities were continuing to make all rea-

sonable efforts to submit an approvable SIP.

At that point, EPA instituted its so-called “Reason-

able Extra Efforts Program,” (REEP) which emphasized

the implementation of all reasonably available additional

control measures, but did not set forth any specific attain-

ment date. The agency later explained that it would

implement the REEP program by requiring Sacramento

and the other non-attainment areas in California to sub-

mit a new SIP revision by February 1987. As part of that

revision, the Sacramento authorities would be required to

set forth an “expeditious schedule” under which they

would consider additional measures for adoption which

may be necessary to demonstrate reasonable efforts

under Part D of the Clean Air Act; to decide which of

those additional measures to adopt; to justify the rejec-

tion of other measures; and to implement those measures

which are adopted. See 51 Fed. Reg. 34428, 34431, col. 3,

September 26, 1986. Despite this strong language by EPA,

state and local authorities never submitted a revised SIP.

After lengthy, unsuccessful negotiations, the Envi-

ronmental Council of Sacramento and the Sierra Club

filed Action No. S-87-420 EJG in the Eastern District of

California on March 17, 1987, seeking to require EPA to

adopt a FIP for Sacramento. Negotiations resumed and on

April 17, 1989, the parties reached a settlement whereby

EPA agreed to adopt a FIP in two stages - a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking by June 26, 1991, followed by a

final Rulemaking on February 22, 1992. Thus, under the

Original stipulated timetable, EPA’s FIP would be promul-

gated almost ten years after its duty to do so arose. It was

approved by the court on June 22, 1989. Pursuant to the

settlement, EPA formally disapproved the Sacramento SIP

for ozone on December 1, 1988. 53 Fed. Reg. 48537.

Then began a series of delays which continues to this

day. First, the agency asserted it had inadequate air pollu-

tion modelling data and needed an extra year to complete

its task. Plaintiffs reluctantly agreed to this request, and

an order thereon was entered on May 16, 1991. On May 6,

1991, EPA moved to vacate the settlement and dismiss the

case on the ground that the 1990 Clean Air Act Amend-

ments had relieved it of the obligation to promulgate a

FIP. The motion was argued on November 15, 1991 and

Judge Garcia issued a decision denying the motion on

December 2, 1991. At the same time, the agency moved to

vacate the similar Los Angeles FIP settlement in the Cen-

tral District of California, in the Coalition for Clean Air

case, described in the petition for writ of certiorari. The

two District Courts issued spiit decisions on the issue,

with the court ruling in favor of the e. vironmentalist

position in the Sacramento case and the Central District

deciding in favor of the government in the Los Angeles

case.

Each decision was appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

That court ruled in favor of the environmentalists in the

Coalition case on July 1, 1992, issuing a lengthy opinion.

One week later, on July 9, the same Ninth Circuit panel

issued a two-sentence opinion affirming the trial court’s

decision in the present case, citing the opinion in the Los

Angeles case. Mandate issued in the current action on

July 31, 1992. Subsequently, at the request of Respon-

dents, the trial court issued orders on November 16 and

20, 1992, ordering EPA to propose a FIP by December 31,

1992 and to issue a final FIP six months after this Court

disposes of the current petition in favor of Respondents.

Thus, under the current schedule, Sacramento will finally

have a FIP eleven years after it was originally due.

¢

REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION

As the Solicitor General has noted, this case raises

legal issues identical to those presented in the petition for

certiorari in U.S.E.P.A. v. Coalition for Clean Air, which

was filed at the same time as the current petition and,

thus, should be disposed of in the same way as that case.

Respondents in the Coalition case have fully discussed the

lack of merit of the Government’s position; there is no

need for Respondents here to repeat those arguments. We

do wish to emphasize certain key points, however.

A. None of usual reasons for granting certiorari

are present in this case. Rule 10 of this Court’s rules

emphasizes that certiorari will be granted “only when

there are special and important reasons therefor.” That

Rule sets forth three typical reasons for granting the writ:

conflict between the circuits, conflict between state courts

on federal issues, or the desirability of settling an impor-

tant point of federal law on which this Court has not

spoken. Avoidance of conflicts is the principal reason for

this court to accept jurisdiction. Braxton v. U.S., 114

L.Ed.2d 385, 391.

None of those eventualities are present here. Every

court that has addressed the issue in this case (except the

trial court in the Coalition case) has decided in favor of

the Respondents’ position. Furthermore, this is not an

instance in which the Court needs to settle an issue which

will be of widespread and continual importance. As the

Government concedes, “ .. . [T]he particular legal ques-

tion presented in this case is of limited legal scope and of

a non-recurring nature.” Petition in the Coalition case, p.

26.

B. The prospects of economic doom advanced by

the Government are not credible. Since the normal con-

siderations governing the granting of certiorari are

admittedly not present here, the Government makes two

policy arguments to support its position. Neither are

well-founded. First, it claims that implementation of a FIP

will result in economic collapse in the three areas of

California that would be affected. This “sky-is-falling”

argument is belied by the facts.

None of the other areas where FIPs have been

adopted have experienced any noticeable dislocations

because of the implementation of FIPs. The Government

attempts to explain away the lack of intrusiveness of the

two Arizona FIPs by noting that Phoenix and Tucson had

already adopted most of the necessary control measures

by the time the FIP was issued. But the same is true in

Los Angeles and Sacramento — EPA has already approved

a wide range of control measures for those areas. 47 Fed.

Reg. 50,864, 49 Fed. Reg. 30,300. Thus, EPA will not be

“reinventing the wheel” when it adopts FIPs for those

areas. Furthermore, the agency adopted a FIP for Chicago

and,_ at last report, that city’s economy has not been

plunged into chaos.

The Government's predictions of dire economic con-

sequences are based upon the declaration of David P.

Howekamp, Director of the Air and Toxics Division for

EPA Region IX. Petition in the Coalition case, p. 22. Mr.

Howekamp’s knowledge of economics is problematical,

at best. The exaggerated hyperbole of his declaration

shows the wisdom of the rule against accepting “expert”

opinions from one who is totally unqualified in a given

field. “An expert witness must show special knowledge

of the very question upon which he is to express an

opinion.” George v. Morgan Constr. Co., 389 F.Supp. 253,

259 (E.D.Pa. 1975). See also Havenfield v. H&R Block, Inc.,

509 F.2d 1263, 1273 (8th Cir. 1975); Logsdon v. Baker, 366

F.Supp. 332, 336 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

EPA’s predictions of the need to include draconian

measures that will bring the Sacramento region to its

knees are not borne out by the facts. The agency has

issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

which lists all the control measures which will likely have

to be included in a Sacramento FIP. See 55 Fed. Reg.

12669, March 1, 1990. The list is included in Appendix A.

As can readily be seen, the list proposes no harsh mea-

sures such as gas rationing. Thus, contrary to the Govern-

ment’s assertion (Petition, p. 8), disruption to the

Sacramento area economy by a FIP will be minimal.

C. Adoption of a FIP will not interfere with state

air quality planning efforts. The Government emphas-

izes that the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments emphasize

state primacy in the effort to achieve the ambient air

quality standards. This is true, but it is nothing new.

Beginning with Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975), this

court has acknowledged the State’s “historically .. .

primary role.” Yet, during all that time, no court has ever

held that EPA’s FIP obligation under Section 110(c) con-

flicted with State primacy. To the contrary, several opin-

ions emphasized the important role of FIPs as a potent

way of motivating the states to comply with the law. See,

e.g., Citizens for a Better Environment v. Costle, 515 F. Supp.

264, 272, 277 (N.D. Ill. 1981); New England Law Foundation

v. Costle, 475 F. Supp. 425, 432 (D. Conn. 1979), modified on

other grounds, 632 F.2d 936 (2d Cir. 1980).

The original Stipulation and Order of Settlement

adopted by the trial court in this case (included in

Appendix B) show how the SIP and FIP processes would

work in tandem. In that document, the parties acknowl-

edge that the State has the primary responsibility for

developing an acceptable Plan; the FIP measures adopted

by EPA would merely supplement the existing SIP provi-

sions, which remain in force.-See Appendix B, ¥ 6. Fur-

thermore, the Stipulation obligates EPA to act quickly on

any SIP revisions submitted by the State — within 7

months. See ¥ 8(c).

EPA’s Status Report filed June 26, 1990 in this case

(reproduced in Appendix C) illustrates the close partner-

ship between EPA and local authorities in the planning

process. That document shows that EPA and local Sacra-

mento authorities have been working together on the air

planning process for that area. EPA staffers are members

of the local Air Quality Technical Plan Committee and Air

Quality Review committees, which meet every 4-6 weeks

({ 3). The local agency conducted a major field study and

monitoring program partially financed by EPA ({ 4). The

local agency produced an interim air quality plan, which

was reviewed and evaluated by EPA. ({ 5). EPA met with

and discussed its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemak-

ing for a FIP with local officials (J 6). Finally, EPA joined

the State Air Resources Board in evaluating local plan-

ning efforts. The agency noted that “For purposes of the

FIP, the District’s planning functions are most impor-

tant.”

This recitation shows that the Government is being

entirely disingenuous when it disputes that a FIP would

do no more than “fill gaps in areas in which the State had

failed to satisfy fully its obligations under the Act.” (Peti-

tion in the Coalition case, p. 13.) The fact is that EPA’s FIP

efforts in Sacramento have been closely coordinated with

local activities; there has been no duplication or conflict.

Indeed, the two jurisdictions’ activities have comple-

mented each other. In short, the State is not precluded

from developing and ultimately putting into force revised

SIP measures simply because EPA is also developing a

FIP. Indeed, the adoption of a FIP has been and will

continue to be a powerful spur to State and local authori-

ties to produce a new SIP on time and in compliance with

the law.

D. EPA has its priorities backwards. The Govern-

ment worries about problems the “regulated community”

might have with a FIP. (Coalition petition, p. 25). Instead,

it should be concerned with the needs of the “breathing

10

community,” which has suffered with unhealthy air in

Sacramento for more than three decades. The overarching

intent of the Clean Air Act since its beginning was to

achieve the ambient standards as soon as possible. That

concern was not changed by the 1990 amendments. This

Court should not yield to the Government's invitation to

rewrite the law in favor of dirty air.

-

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, EPA’s petition for writ of

certiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

JosEPH J. BRECHER

1970 Broadway, 12th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 272-0433

Counsel for Respondents

December 8, 1992

App. 1

Appendix A - List of Potential FIP Control Measures

This ANPRM is intended to provide the public with a

list of possible control measures that may be promulgated

in a federal implementation plan for the Sacramento

AQMA. The list includes every possible control measure

that EPA could identify which may reduce emissions in

the Sacramento area. The publication of this list, however,

does not commit EPA to the proposal or promulgation of

any or all of these measures.

By listing a measure, EPA is not claiming that the

measure would, if promulgated, improve air quality in

the Sacramento AQMA nor is EPA claiming that any of

these measures are reasonably available control measures

within the meaning of section 172(b)(2) or (3) of the CAA.

EPA must carefully evaluate each possible potential con-

trol measure before considering any measure for inclu-

sion in a FIP.

On-Road Motor Vehicles

On-road motor vehicles include passenger cars; light,

medium, and heavy-duty trucks; buses; and motorcycles.

In the Sacramento AQMA on-road motor vehicles are

estimated to contribute 55.8 tons per day! (t/d) of

1 All inventory numbers are taken from the Interim Regional

Air Quality Plan, Committee Review Draft (SACOG, September

1989) p. 76, and represent projections off a 1985 baseyear inven-

tory. The inventories in the Interim Plan are draft and are subject

to change.

EEE OOo

App. 2

reactive organic gases (ROG)? and 80.4 t/d of nitrogen

oxides (NOx) in 1990 or 39.7 percent of the total ROG

inventory and 67.6 percent of the total NOx inventory.

While on-road motor vehicles are the largest source of

VOC emissions in 1990, their contribution to the overall

VOC inventory declines significantly in the future

because of continuing reductions from already-adopted

vehicle emission standards and from California’s Smog

Check program. However, on-road motor vehicles are

now and will continue to be the largest source of NOx

emissions.

There are two ways of reducing emissions from on-

road motor vehicles. The first way, referred to as “mobile

source control measures,” is to reduce the rate at which

motor vehicles emit pollutants through vehicle emission

standards, inspection and maintenance programs (Smog

Check), and the use of clean fuels. The second way,

referred to as “transportation control measures,” is to

reduce the number of trips and/or miles driven by motor

vehicles, change the time of day when trips are taken, or

increase vehicle speeds by reducing congestion or

improving traffic flow.

Regulatory Measures: Potential FIP regulatory measures

to control VOC and NOx from on-road motor vehicles

include the following.

2 In this notice, the terms “reactive organic gases (ROG)”

and “volatile organic compounds (VOC)” are used inter-

changeably.

App. 3

Mobile Source Control Measures

1. Lower and/or in-use emission standards for light

duty passenger vehicles, all weight ranges of trucks, and

buses; emission standards for motorcycles.

2. Greater control of evaporative emissions from gas-

oline-powered vehicles.

3. Lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) limits on gasoline

sold during the ozone season; diesel fuel quality stan-

dards to reduce NOx emissions; gasoline fuel quality

standards to prolong the life of on-board vehicle emission

control systems.

4. Minimum sales level of low-emitting (e.g., methanol)

motor vehicles or extremely low-emitting (e.g., electric)

motor vehicles; required purchase by vehicle fleet opera-

tors of clean-fueled vehicles; the manufacture, distribu-

tion, and sale of clean motor vehicle fuels.

5. Enhancements to the current inspection and mainte-

nance program (e.g., requiring annual inspections, reduc-

ing or eliminating waivers, expanding the geographical

boundaries of the program); the identification and repair

of “smoking” vehicles.

6. Requirements for the sale and use of oxygenated fuels

(e.g., gasohol) during the ozone season.

Transportation Control Measures

1. Regulations for employer-based trip reduction pro-

grams which may include requirements for alternative

work-hours, transit-use incentives, telecommuting and

App. 4

teleconferencing, car/vanpool matching and/or sub-

sidies, preferential parking for car/vanpools, and on-site

services; extension of current local trip reduction regula-

tions to multi-tenant employer complexes

2. Requirements that new facilities with over a thresh-

old number of parking spaces receive a permit of

approval based on air quality considerations prior to

construction (management of parking supply).

3. Regulations to reduce off-peak trips such as requiring

merchants to offer customers alternative mode facilities

and incentives and programs to increase the use of at-

home shopping and banking services.

4. Conformity procedures under CAA section 176(c)

that require detailed analysis of the air quality impacts of

federally funded, approved, permitted, and/or licensed

activities and require mitigation of or prohibit federal

activities that have adverse air quality impacts, especially

those activities that increase job/housing imbalances.

5. Use of the transportation funding priority require-

ment in CAA section 176(d) to advance air quality-benefi-

cial transportation projects such as transit improvements,

traffic flow improvements, nonrecurrent (accident-

response) congestion relief programs, high-occupancy

3 Parking pricing has been shown to be an effective method

of reducing the number of vehicle trips; however, EPA is prohib-

ited from imposing parking surcharges in FIPs by section

110(c)(2)(B) of the CAA. This prohibition does not extend to

state or local agencies adopting, and EPA approving, such pro-

grams as part of SIPs.

App. 5

vehicle lanes, park and ride lots, and reduction of at-

grade rail crossings.

6. Review and mitigation program for federally-assisted

or owned indirect sources.

7. Requirements for special event centers (e.g., sta-

diums, arenas, large concert halls) to develop programs

that reduce trips to events at their centers.

8. Restrictions on truck traffic during peak traffic

periods; requirements for off-peak delivery and shipping.

Prohibitory Measures: Potential FIP prohibitory mea-

sures to control VOC and NOx from on-road motor vehi-

cles include the following.

1. Limits on vehicle registration which may include pro-

hibiting the registration of older, higher-polluting vehi-

cles.

2. Mandatory no-drive days.

3. Restrictions on the sale of motor vehicle fuels.

Organic Solvents

Organic solvents are hydrocarbon-based liquids that

are used in the manufacture of or are contained in almost

every product made. They are found in paints and inks;

pesticides; and consumer products such as deodorants,

auto care products, and household care products. They

4 EPA is prohibited from promulgating in FIPs an indirect

source review program for non-federal facilities by section

110(a)(5)(A)(ii) of the CAA. A state or local agency may adopt,

and EPA may approve, such a program as part of a SIP.

App. 6

are also used in a wide variety of industries to clean

(degrease), prime, and coat surfaces. In the Sacramento

AQMA, emissions from solvent evaporation are esti-

mated to be 51.0 t/d of ROG in 1990 or 36.3 percent of the

total ROG inventory; solvent usage does not emit NOx. In

the Sacramento AQMA, as throughout California, organic

solvents are expected in the future to become the largest

single emission source category of VOC.

Regulatory Measures: Potential techniques for the con-

trol of VOC from organic solvents include the following.

1. Reformulation to lower VOC content of solvents,

coatings, primers, and clean-up solvents.

2. Substitution of less- or non-photochemically reactive

compounds in solvents, coatings, primers, and/or clean-

up solvents.

3. Specification of a maximum daily VOC emission rate

from a source.

4. Specification of minimum transfer efficiency in coat-

ing operations.

5. Specification of the equipment used to apply surface

coatings.

6. Controls on previously exempt coatings, solvents,

and sources.

7. Add-on controls (afterburners or carbon adsorption).

8. Workpractice and recordkeeping rules.

9. Solvent disposal rules.

Source categories in the Sacramento AQMA that

could potentially be subject to the new or additional FIP

App. 7

regulatory controls are listed below. The specific tech-

niques to be applied to a source category depend on the

type and use of solvent to be controlled and, therefore,

will vary among categories.

1.

2.

Can coating.

Road paving operations.

Degreasing operations.

Graphic arts (printing).

Aerospace manufacturing.

Fiberglass-reinforced plastics manufacturing.

Auto and truck refinishing.

Plastic, rubber, and glass coating operations.

Paper, film, and fabrics coating operations.

Semiconductor manufacturing.

Pesticide application.

Dry cleaning.

Pharmaceutical manufacturing.

Rigid and flexible computer disk manufacturing.

Metal parts cleaning and coating operations.

Products used in the Sacramento AQMA that could

potentially be subject to reformulation, maximum VOC

content limit, and/or substitution under FIP regulations

include the following.

App. 8

1. Asphalt paving materials.

Degreasing solvents.

Inks.

Architectural coatings.

Aerospace coatings.

wr Fe Fe

Primers and clean-up solvents used in all coating

operations.

7. Fiberglass resins.

8. Automobile and truck paints.

9. Adhesives.

10. Dry cleaning solvents.

11. Paper, film, and fabric coatings.

12. Consumer products such as personal care products

(e.g., colognes, deodorants, and hair care products),

household products (e.g., room deodorants, furniture pol-

ishes, and laundry products), lawn and garden pesticides,

and automotive and industrial products (e.g., refrig-

erants, lubricants, and engine degreasers).

13. Agricultural and commercial pesticides, herbicides,

and fungicides.

14. Marine coatings.

15. Building construction materials.

16. Barbecue lighter fluid.

Prohibitory Measures: Potential FIP prohibitory mea-

sures to control VOC from organic solvents include the

following.

: App. 9

1. Restrictions or prohibitions or on the manufacture,

sale, and/or use of any solvent, pesticide, consumer sol-

vent, and/or coating with a VOC content or a vapor

pressure greater than a given limit.

2. Restrictions on the total sales/use of solvents,

pesticides, consumer products, or coatings to a given

level during a given time period.

Off-Road Mobile Sources

Off-road mobile sources include off-road motorcy-

cles, recreational and commercial boats, trains, airplanes,

farm equipment, construction equipment, home and com-

mercial lawn care equipment, and other small utility

equipment. In the Sacramento AQMA, these types of

sources are estimated to emit 18.9 t/d of ROG and 24.5

t/d of NOx or 13.4 percent of the total 1990 ROG inven-

tory and 20.6 percent of the total NOx inventory

Regulatory Measures: Potential FIP regulatory measures

to control VOC and NOx from off-road mobile sources

include the following.

1. Electrification of utility equipment, locomotives,

ships at berth, pleasure boat motors, and ground equip-

ment at airports.

2. Use of clean fuels in utility equipment, locomotives,

construction equipment, farm equipment, ground equip-

ment at airports, and pleasure boat motors.

3. Emission standards for utility equipment, locomo-

tives, new and reconditioned construction equipment,

farm equipment, off-road motorcycles, and pleasure boat

motors.

App. 10

4. Airport operation programs that reduce aircraft taxi-

ing and idling, require centralized power supply for air-

craft at gates, and/or prohibit landing/take-off of non-

Stage Ill aircraft.

5. Use of vapor recovery equipment during marine ves-

sel loading, ballasting, and housekeeping.

Prohibitory Measures: Potential FIP prohibitory mea-

sures to control VOC and NOx from off-road mobile

sources include the following.

1. Restrictions on the use of utility equipment, locomo-

tives, motorized pleasure boats, and construction and

farm equipment during the ozone season.

2. Restrictions on take-offs and/or landings of commer-

cial and general aviation planes during the ozone season.

3. Restrictions on the docking, loading, and operation of

marine vessels during the ozone season.

Petroleum Extraction and Marketing

This category includes emissions from oil and gas

extraction in Yolo and Solano Counties and mobile source

fuels distribution. Also included here and not in the fuel

combustion category are emissions from fuel combustion

during petroleum extraction. Emissions from petroleum

extraction and marketing in the Sacramento AQMA are

estimated to be 8.7 t/d of ROG and 2.1 t/d of NOx in

1990 or 6.2 percent of the total ROG inventory and 1.8

percent of the total NOx inventory.

Regulatory Measures: Potential FIP regulatory measures

to control VOC and NOx from petroleum extraction and

marketing include the following.

App. 11

1. Controls on oil production wells and other oil field

equipment such as internal combustion engines, tanks,

sumps, and pits; controls on leaks from valves, flanges,

pumps, and compressors.

2. More stringent controls on tanks used for the storage

of petroleum products.

3. Elimination of exemptions based on throughput and

tank size in existing local rules for vapor recovery equip-

ment at bulk gasotine distributors.

4. “Fail-safe” Stage I (underground storage tanks) vapor

recovery at service stations; certification of installation

and maintenance contractors of Stage II vapor recovery

equipment (gasoline pump nozzles).

5. Vapor recovery controls during marine bunkering

and lightering.

6. Vapor recovery equipment for pleasure boat fueling.

7. Vapor recovery equipment at airport transfer points

of aviation fuel.

Prohibitory Measures: Potential FIP prohibitory mea-

sures to control VOC and NOx from petroleum extraction

and marketing include the following.

1. Restrictions or prohibitions on the storage of petro-

leum products during the ozone season.

2. Restrictions or prohibitions on the extraction of petro-

leum during the ozone season.

3. Restrictions or prohibitions on the transfering, trans-

portation, and/or dispensing of any petroleum product

App. 12

including any motor vehicle fuels or aviation fuel during

the ozone season.

Stationary Point and Area Sources

This category includes emissions from processes at

point sources and area sources which are not included in

the emission categories discussed previously. Sources in

this category include chemical manufacturing, food and

agricultural processing, waste handling and disposal, and

wood and paper manufacturing. Emissions from these

sources in the Sacramento AQMA are estimated to be 5.3

t/d of ROG and 0.3 t/d of NOx in 1990 or 5.3 percent of

the total ROG inventory and 0.3 percent of the total NOx

inventory.

Regulatory Measures: Potential FIP regulatory measures

to control VOC and NOx from stationary point and area

sources include the following.

1. Control of VOC emission releases to the atmosphere

from airstripping, wastewater treatment plants, and soil

decontamination.

2. Collection and recovery or destruction of landfill

gases.

3. Add-on controls (carbon adsorption) to reduce emis-

sions from fermentation at wineries and breweries.

4. Add-on controls on commercial charbroiling opera-

tions.

5. Add-on controls (afterburners) to reduce emissions

from bread ovens at large commercial bakeries.

6. Controls on paper manufacturing.

App. 13

7. More stringent control of fugitive emissions chemical

plants.

The following regulatory measures potentially apply

to all stationary point sources and most discrete area

sources in this category as well as in the organic solvent;

petroleum extraction and marketing; and fuel combustion

categories.

1. More stringent levels of best available control tech-

nology (BACT) and lower emission thresholds for appli-

cation of BACT.

2. Application of best available retrofit control technol-

ogy (BARCT) on all existing sources.

3. Lowering or elimination of the emission thresholds

(VOC and NOx) at which new sources or modifications to

existing sources become subject to new source review and

offset requirements; increased offset ratios for new and

modified sources.

4. Elimination of the use of existing banked credits and

prohibition on future banking of credits for source shut-

downs, controls, or production curtailment.

Prohibitory Measures: Potential FIP prohibitory mea-

sures to control VOC and NOx from stationary point and

area sources include the following.

1. Restriction on or prohibition of controlled burning

(e.g., agricultural) during the ozone season.

2. Restriction on or prohibition of the operation of char-

broilers and bakeries during the ozone season.

The following FIP prohibitory measures potentially

apply to all stationary point sources and most. discrete

App. 14

area sources in this category as well as in the organic

solvent; petroleum extraction and marketing; and fuel

combustion categories.

1. Allowing no net growth in emissions by restricting or

prohibiting the construction and/or modification of any

source within the non-attainment area for which emis-

sions are not fully off-set.

2. Shut-down of or curtailment of production at station-

ary pollution sources during the ozone season.

3. A cap on annual growth of VOC and NOx emissions

from all sources to a pre-determined level.

Fuel Combustion

Fuel combustion sources include both VOC and NOx

emissions emitted during the burning of fossil fuels in a

wide variety of activities from industrial to agricultural

and residential. Emission sources include stationary

internal combustion (I/C) engines (pumps, compressors,

small generators), boilers, water heaters, and steam gen-

erators. Emissions from fuel combustion in the Sacra-

mento AQMA are estimated to be 0.9 t/d of ROG and

11.7 t/d of NOx in 1990 or 0.6 percent of the total ROG

inventory and 9.8 percent of the total NOx inventory.

Because of the importance of these sources to NOx emis-

sions, fuel combustion controls are primarily NOx con-

trols.

Regulatory Measures: Potential FIP regulatory measures

to control NOx from fuel combustion include the follow-

Ing.

App. 15

1. Emission standards for, or modifications to, new nat-

ural gas residential water heaters.

2. Emission standards or flue-gas controls, use of alter-

native fuels, burner modifications, and/or Operating con-

trols for industrial, institutional, and commercial boilers,

steam generators, incinerators, and process heaters.

3. Emission standards for stationary I/C engines; elec-

trification of, use of clean fuels in, flue-gas controls, or

engine modifications on such engines.

4. Combustion treatment of exhaust streams, clean fuel

use in, or combustion system modifications for after-

burners.

5. Substitution of clean fuels (e.g., natural gas, meth-

anol) for current uses of fuel oils/solid fossil fuels in all

stationary source fuel combustion processes.

Prohibitory Measures: A potential FIP prohibitory mea-

sure to control NOx from fuel combustion is the follow-

ing.

1. Restrictions or prohibitions on the use of certain

higher-polluting stationary source fuels (e.g., fuel oils)

during the ozone season.

App. 16

APPENDIX B

DONALD A. CARR

Acting Assistant Attorney General

LAWRENCE BLATNIK

United States Department of Justice

Land & Natural Resources Division

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

(202) 633-2617

DAVID LEVI

United States Attorney

MARY L. GRAD

Assistant United States Attorney

650 Capitol Mall, Room 3305

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 551-2752

LUCIA L. BLAKESLEE

Assistant Regional Counsel

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Attorneys for Defendant United States

Environmental Protection Agency

JOSEPH J. BRECHER

Attorney at Law

506 — 15th Street

Oakland, California 94612

(415) 763-3594

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON

295 Fell Street, Suite A

San Francisco, California 94102

(415) 864-1725

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

App. 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF )

SACRAMENTO, INC., and SIERRA ) Case No.

CLUB, ) CIVS-87-0420 EJG

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION

an AND ORDER OF

SETTLEMENT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (Filed

AGENCY; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION; CITY OF

SACRAMENTO; COUNTY OF

SACRAMENTO; SACRAMENTO

AREA COUNCIL OF

GOVERNMENTS,

Defendants.

Apr. 18, 1989)

ee Se a a Sa ae ad See Sia Sg Hepes

Plaintiffs, Environmental Council of Sacramento and

the Sierra Club, and Defendant, United States Environ-

mental Protection Agency (“EPA”), through their respec-

tive counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

1. In March 1987, plaintiffs filed a Complaint in this

action in the Eastern District of California under the

Clean Air Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604, against the

EPA, the United States Department of Transportation,

various local governmental agencies and various private

parties. An Amended Complaint was filed on June 6, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as the “Complaint”). By their

Complaint, plaintiffs sought to halt, reduce or ensure

adequate mitigation for a proposed development in the

North Natomas area of Sacramento. In addition, plaintiffs

App. 18

alleged that EPA failed in its mandatory duty to disap-

prove the Sacramento State Implementation Plan (“SIP”)

for ozone and to promulgate a Federal Implementation

Plan (“FIP”) for attainment of the primary National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) in the Sacra-

mento area.

2. Subsequently, plaintiffs entered into a settlement

agreement with many of the defendants. EPA was not a

party to those settlement negotiations. On August 8, 1988,

the Court entered an Order of Partial Dismissal, dismiss-

ing claims against various defendants, not including the

EPA.

3. On December 1, 1988, pursuant to an agreement

with plaintiffs, EPA published final disapproval of the

1982 Sacramento Air Quality Management Plan

(“AQMP”) for attainment of the primary national ozone

standard.

4. The final remaining issue between plaintiffs and

EPA is the Third Claim for Relief in the Complaint which

alleges that EPA has a non-discretionary duty to promul-

gate a FIP for the Sacramento area and seeks an order of

the Court to direct EPA to promulgate a FIP for ozone in

the Sacramento area.

5. The parties wish to effect a settlement of plain-

tiffs’ Third Claim for Relief without expensive and pro-

tracted litigation and therefore have agreed to enter into

this Stipulation. Nothing contained herein shall be con-

strued as an admission by EPA that it has a duty other-

wise to undertake any obligation agreed to herein.

App. 19

6. Section 110(c)(1) of the Act provides that the

Administrator of EPA shall prepare “an implementation

plan, or portion thereof” for any State which fails to

prepare and implement a SIP to achieve reasonable pro-

gress toward attainment of the NAAQS. Based on its

December 1, 1988 disapproval of the 1982 Sacramento

AQMP and pursuant to Section 110, EPA agrees to under-

take the promulgation of FIP for the attainment and

maintenance of the primary NAAQS for ozone for the

Sacramento area according to the schedule described

herein except to the extent that, prior to the date(s) on

that schedule, EPA approves a State-submitted imple-

mentation plan for attainment of the primary ozone

NAAQS for the Sacramento area.

The parties acknowledge that the primary respon-

sibility for developing a comprehensive revision of the

SIP lies with the Sacramento Area Council of Govern-

ments (“SACOG”) and other responsible local and

regional agencies. The parties also agree that the purpose

of the measures to be promulgated by EPA pursuant to

Section 110, as specified in Paragraph 8 herein, is to

develop additional control measures as needed to create

an approvable plan. EPA agrees that any plan or mea-

sures promulgated by EPA under the authority of Section

110, pursuant to Paragraph 8 herein, shall supplement,

and hence keep in effect, the approved provisions of the

present SIP and any additional provisions submitted by

the State that EPA approves into the SIP before EPA takes

final action to promulgate the plan under Section 110.

7. The parties jointly agree to request the Court to

Stay these proceedings until January 1, 1992 to permit

EPA to develop and promulgate a FIP for attainment of

a

App. 20

the primary NAAQS for ozone for the Sacramento area

according to the schedule set forth below at Paragraph 8.

8. In the event the Court enters the Order which is

part of this Stipulation, and subject to legal and equitable

considerations that both parties or the Court may ulti-

mately determine applicable, EPA shall, unless otherwise

provided herein, take the following steps during the

period of the stay:

a. Within three (3) months from the date of the

entry of this Stipulation, EPA shall send plaintiffs a letter

outlining EPA’s workplan for the promulgation of the

FIP;

b. Within six (6) months from the date of the

entry of this Stipulation, EPA shall sign an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) and shall

subsequently publish this ANPRM in the Federal Regis-

ter. The ANPRM, which shall solicit public comment,

shall include, among other things:

i. a list of possible control measures that

might be included in a FIP for the Sacra-

mento area; and

ii. the criteria by which EPA will determine

whether the local planning agencies are

making the “reasonable efforts” toward

the submission of an approvable SIP

which are necessary to avoid the imposi-

tion of discretionary sanctions under Sec-

tion 176(a) and (b).

c. Inthe event that the California Air Resources

Board (“ARB”) submits any SIP amendment for the Sacra-

mento area to EPA during the period of this Stipulation,

ee «

App. 21

EPA shall publish proposed approval of those amend-

ments that EPA determines are approvable within three

(3) months of its submittal, and shall take final action on

such amendments within four (4) months from the pub-

lished proposal;

d. Within twenty (20) months of the entry of

this Stipulation, EPA shall make a preliminary decision

Whether the State has submitted an approvable SIP or

whether it will be necessary to promulgate a FIP for the

Sacramento area;

e. Within twenty-four (24) months of the entry

of this Stipulation, the Administrator of EPA shall sign a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to be pub-

lished in the Federal Register that sets forth either the

proposed SIP or EPA’s proposed FIP to attain the primary

ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento area; and

f. Within thirty-two (32) months of the entry of

this Stipulation, the Administrator of EPA shall sign a

Notice of Final Rulemaking (“NFRM”) to be published in

the Federal Register that sets forth either EPA’s approval

of the final SIP or EPA’s final FIP to attain the primary

ozone NAAQS in the Sacramento area.

9. EPA shall confer, either in person or by tele-

phone, at a mutually agreed upon time and place, with

plaintiffs every four months during the period of the stay

for the purpose of providing plaintiffs with information

on the progress of the SIP/FIP development. EPA may, at

its option, open these meetings to the general public or

other governmental agencies.

App. 22

10. The parties jointly agree to report to the Court

the status of EPA’s progress in undertaking the tasks

described in Paragraph 8 above every six months after

entry of the Order imposing the stay of proceedings

referred to in Paragraph 7.

11. Plaintiffs may move the Court to vacate the stay

of the proceedings referred to in Paragraph 7 and reacti-

vate the litigation if:

a. EPA has substantially failed to carry out the

tasks described in Paragraph 8; and

b. Plaintiffs have contacted EPA at least four (4)

weeks before filing such motion to discuss the grounds

for such motion and to attempt to resolve any di: agree-

ment between the parties without recourse to the Court.

12. By this Stipulation, plaintiffs do not waive any

claims they have or may have against EPA, and EPA does

not waive any defenses it has or may have against any to

the claims advanced by plaintiffs.

13. This Stipulation may be modified at any time

during the period of the stay by consent of the parties or

upon motion to the Court by either party on a showing of

good cause.

14. In the event that legislation enacted by the

United States Congress during the period of the stay

affects EPA’s or the State’s obligations under the Clean

Air Act with respect to the final rulemaking on a SIP or

FIP for the Sacramento area, EPA reserves the right to

move the Court for an order vacating this Stipulation in

its entirety and relieving EPA of any and all obligations

under the Stipulation and Order.

App. 23

15. Within thirty days after the promulgation of a

Plan as set forth in Paragraph 8(f) above, plaintiffs shall

file with the Court a motion to dismiss or withdraw the

Complaint with prejudice. If plaintiffs fail to do so, EPA

may file such a motion and plaintiffs shall not oppose

dismissal with prejudice.

16. After the lodging of this Stipulation, parties to

this litigation, other than the parties signing this Stipula-

tion, shall have thirty days to comment on this Stipula-

tion prior to its being entered.

17. Nothing in the terms of this Stipulation shall be

construed to confer on the Court jurisdiction to review

the substance of any decision to be made by the Adminis-

trator of EPA with respect to the approval of a SIP or the

promulgation of a FIP for the Sacramento area.

WHEREFORE, the parties have executed this Stipula-

tion and Order of Partial Settlement by their duly autho-

rized counsel or legal representatives:

For defendant United States Environmental Protection

Agency:

DONALD A. CARR

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Dated: 4/12/89 /s/ Lawrence Blatnik

a Pe LAWRENCE BLATNIK

U.S. Department of Justice

Land & Natural Resources

Division

Environmental Defense Section

DAVID LEVI

United States Attorney

App. 24

Dated: 4/14/89 /s/ Mary L. Grad

MARY L. GRAD

Assistant United States Attorney

Dated: 4/11/89 /s/ Lucia L. Blakeslee

LUCIA L. BLAKESLEE

Assistant Regional Counsel

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

For plaintiffs Environmental Council of Sacramento and

Sierra Club:

Dated: 4/4/89 /s/ Joseph J. Brecher

JOSEPH J. BRECHER

Dated: 4/5/89 /s/ Kathryn Burkett Dickson

KATHRYN BURKETT DICKSON

App. 25

APPENDIX C

RICHARD B. STEWART

Assistant Attorney General

MICHAEL D. ROWE

United States Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

P.O. Box 23986

Washington, D.C. 20026-3986

(202) 514-3144

DAVID LEVI

United States Attorney

MARY L. GRAD

Assistant United States Attorney

650 Capitol Mall, Room 3305

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 551-2752

Attorneys for the United States

Environmental Protection Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF

: -87-

SACRAMENTO, INC., and prison

SIERRA CLUB,

ek STATUS REPORT

Plaintiffs,

(Filed

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY, et al.,

Defendants.

Jun 26, 1990)

er Neer ee Ne ee es es ee es es es Ge

App. 26

On June 26, 1989, this court entered an Order, pur-

suant to Stipulation of Settlement by the parties, staying

this proceeding until January 1, 1992. During that period,

defendant Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has

agreed to prepare, propose and promulgate a federal

implementation plan (“FIP”) for the attainment and

maintenance of the primary National Ambient Air Qual-

ity Standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone for the Sacramento

area. EPA will develop and promulgate the FIP according

to a schedule set forth in the parties’ Stipulation of Settle-

ment (the “Stipulation”). In compliance with the Court’s

June 26, 1989 Order, EPA hereby submits the following

report on the status of its activities:

1. Weekly conference calls among EPA personnel

working on FIP development for various locales in

Region 9 have continued through this six month period.

The calls typically are one hour in length and are devoted

to coordinating FIP development activities and reaching

decisions on critical FIP issues.

2. Region IX staff working on the Sacramento FIP

continue to evaluate work products from EPA contracts

awarded to assist in the development of the South Coast

and Ventura FIPs to determine applicability in develop-

ing the Sacramento FIP. The contracts for the South Coast

FIP are nearing completion in order to support the Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking which must be signed, pursuant

to court order, by the Administrator no later than July 31,

1990. The South Coast FIP is currently scheduled to be

finalized, and the Ventura FIP proposed, before the Sacra-

mento FIP is proposed. It is Region IX’s intention to

utilize applicable measures from these areas in the Sacra-

mento FIP.

App. 27

3. Since May, 1987, the Sacramento Area Council of

Governments (“SACOG”) has been coordinating efforts

to update the 1982 Sacramento Air Quality Plan for the

Sacramento Air Quality Maintenance Area (“AQMA”). As

part of the update process, three advisory committees

were formed to provide guidance and advice on the work

being performed. EPA, Region IX staff are voting mem-

bers on two of these advisory committees: the Air Quality

Plan Technical committee (“AQPTC”) and the Air Quality

Technical Review committee (“AQTRC”) for modeling. In

addition to Region IX staff, the AQPTC is comprised of

representative from SACOG, the cities and counties

within the Sacramento AQMA, the Cleaner Air Partner-

ship of Sacramento, and Air Pollution Control Districts

within the Sacramento AQMA. In addition to Region IX

staff, the AQTRC for modeling is comprised of represen-

tatives from SACOG, Air Pollution Control Districts

within the Sacramento AQMA, and the California Air

Resources Board. Both the AQPTC and the AQTRC meet

every 4 to 6 weeks. Region IX staff continue to attend

these meetings regularly.

4. Under the leadership of SACOG, a major field

study and monitoring effort was conducted last summer.

Information collected during this study was to be used to

support air quality modeling for Sacramento. However,

unusual weather in the Sacramento area made it impossi-

ble to gather the necessary meteorological and emissions

data to run the model. During January and February of

1990, the AQTRC for modeling met to analyze the avail-

able options and decided to repeat the field study this

summer. Contracts are now underway to carry out this

summer’s study, and equipment is being located in the

App. 28

field. Intensive monitoring will commence in July and

will continue through August, 1990. EPA staff is oversee-

ing this work through the AQTRC.

EPA intends to award $640,000 in FY-90 federal grant

funds to Sacramento agencies toward these monitoring

and modeling efforts. These funds will be passed through

the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Maintenance

District (“SMAQMD”) to SACOG. SACOG will, in turn,

contract with Systems Applications Incorporated and

Sonoma Research.

5. In January of 1990, SACOG produced a final

“Interim Regional Air Quality Plan.” This Interim Plan

provides a new emissions inventory through the year

2010, evaluates various emission control strategies, ranks

control strategies in terms of relative effectiveness, and

sets forth a process to obtain public input as well as to

obtain commitments by cities and counties in the AQMA

to adopt various emission control measures. SACOG is

now in the process of obtaining these commitments from

the Sacramento area jurisdictions. Region IX staff con-

tinues to review and evaluate the Interim Plan through

the AQPTC.

6. On March 1, 1990, the Regional Administrator

signed an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(“ANPRM”) for the Sacramento area. The ANPRM was

subsequently published on April 5, 1990 (55 FR 12669).

The ANPRM contains two parts. The first part is a list of

possible control measures that might be included in a FIP

for the Sacramento area. The second part is a set of

criteria by which EPA will determine whether the Sacra-

mento area and the State are making reasonable efforts to

App. 29

submit an adequate air quality plan. The publication of

the ANPRM satisfies EPA’s obligations pursuant to para-

graph 8.b of the Stipulation.

Prior to the signing of the ANPRM, Region 9 devel-

oped a communication strategy to prepare the State and

Sacramento local agencies for EPA’s action. On February

27, 1990, EPA staff met with State and local agencies staff

to discuss the ANPRM.

EPA solicited public comment on both parts of the

ANPRM. The comment period closed on June 4, 1990.

Region IX is now monitoring the State and local agencies’

activities in light of the reasonable efforts criteria.

7. On April 20, 1990, EPA staff conferred via tele-

phone with representatives of plaintiffs to discuss the

Progress of SIP/FIP development. This conference call

was conducted to satisfy EPA’s obligations under para-

graph 9 of the Stipulation. The discussion focused on

plaintiffs’ comments and questions on the ANPRM.

8. Region IX joined the California Air Resources

Board (“CARB”) in conducting a comprehensive program

evaluation of the SMAQMD. EPA and CARB reviewed

many of the SMAQMD’s programs including new source

review, asbestos, compliance, monitoring, rule develop-

ment, and planning. For purposes of the FIP, the District’s

planning functions are most important. The planning por-

tion of the evaluation was conducted during April, 1990

through more than sixteen interviews with planning staff

and managers at the SMAQMD, SACOG, the City of

Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, and the Cleaner

Air Partnership of Sacramento. EPA and the CARB are

App. 30

now in the process of drafting program evaluation find-

ings and recommendations.