## CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Purpose Constraints in Achieving Standards
Control Efforts Progress in Implementing the 1997/1999 SIPs 2003 AQMP Revision
Format of This DocumentChapter 1 Introduction

1 - 1 

### PURPOSE
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) amended the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1999 to address the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) proposed disapproval of the 1997 Ozone SIP revision to ensure that the 1997 AQMP complied with or exceeded federal requirements. The 1999 AQMP amendments to the 1997 AQMP were subsequently a pproved by the U.S. EPA into the State Implementation Plan (SIP ) in April 2000. The District updated the PM10 portion of the 1997 AQMP for both the South Coast Air Basin and Coachella Valley in 2002 as part of the District’s request to extend the PM10 attainment date from 2001 to 2006 for these areas as allowed under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The U.S. EPA approved the 2002 update on April 18, 2003.
The purpose of the 2003 Revision to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan) for the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under District jurisdiction, is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead these areas into compliance with all federal and state air quality planning requirements. Specifically, the 2003 AQMP Revision is designe d to satisfy the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) tri-annual update requirements and fulfill the District’s commitment to update transportation emission budgets base d on the latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning a ssumptions. The Plan will be submitted to U.S. EPA as a SIP revision once it is appr oved by the District Governi ng Board and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The key fe deral and state planning requirements are summarized briefly later in this chapter.
The 2003 AQMP sets forth programs which requi re the cooperation of all levels of government: local, regional, stat e, and federal. Each level is represented in the Plan by the appropriate agency or jurisdiction that has the authority over specific emissions sources. Accordingly, each ag ency or jurisdiction is asso ciated with specific planning and implementation responsibilities.
At the federal level, the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged with regulation of 49-state on-ro ad motor vehicle standards; trains, airplanes, and ships; and non-road engines less than 175 horsepow er. The CARB, representing the state level, also oversees on-road vehicle emission standards, fuel specifications, some offroad sources and consumer pr oduct standards. At the regi onal level, the District is responsible for stationary sources and some mobile sources. In addition, the District has lead responsibility for the development and a doption of the Plan. Lastly, at the local level, Associations of Governments have a dua l role of leader and coordinator. In their leadership role, they, in cooperation w ith local jurisdictions and subregional associations, develop strategies for these ju risdictions to implem ent; as a coordinator, they facilitate the implementation of these stra tegies. For the South Coast Air Basin, theFinal 2003 AQMP

1 - 2 Southern California Association of Government s is the District’s major partner in the preparation of the AQMP. Interagency commitment and cooperation are the keys to success of the AQMP.
Since air pollution physically transcends city and county boundaries, it is a regional problem. No one agency can design or implem ent the Plan alone a nd the strategies in the Plan reflect this fact.



### CONSTRAINTS IN ACHIEVING STANDARDS

The District is faced with a number of constraints or confoundi ng circumstances to achieving clean air. These include the physic al and meteorological setting, the large pollutant emissions burden of the Basin, a nd the rapid population growth of the area.



### Setting

The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, consisting of the four-county South Coast Air Basin (Basin) (Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Rivers ide and San Bernardi no counties), and the Riverside County portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSA B) and Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The Basin, which is a subr egion of the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east. It includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Rivers ide, and San Bernar dino counties. The Riverside County portion of the SSAB is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans eastward up to the Palo Ve rde Valley. The federal nonattainment area (known as the Coachella Valley Planning Area) is a subregion of Riverside County and the SSAB that is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains to the west and the eastern boundary of the Coachella Valley to the east. The Los Angeles County Portion of the MDAB (known as north county or Antelope Valley) is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and west, the Los A ngeles/Kern county border to the north, and the Los Angeles/San Bernardino county border to the east. The SSAB and MDAB were previously included in a single large Basi n called the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). On May 30, 1996, the California Air Resources Board replaced the SEDAB with the SSAB and MDAB. In July 1997, the Antelope Valley area of MDAB was separated from the District and incorporated into a new air district under the jurisdiction of the newly formed Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD). The entire region is shown in Figure 1-1.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 3 South Coast A ir Quality Management District
SCAQMD Jurisdiction Mojave Desert A ir Basin

Salton Sea A ir Basin San Diego A ir Basin South Central Coast Air Basin

South Coast Air Basin

San Diego County I mperial County R iverside County L os Angeles County K ern County San Bernardino County

Orange County Santa Barbara County

Ventura County San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

FIGURE 1-1
Boundaries of the South Coast Ai r Quality Management District and Federal Planning Areas
The topography and climate of Southern Calif ornia combine to make the Basin an area of high air pollution potential, a nd constrain the District’s efforts to achieve clean air. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction be tween the ocean’s surfa ce and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper la yer forms a cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine laye r from dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions which produce ozone, a nd this region experien ces more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the nation except Phoenix.

The Basin’s economic base is diverse. Histor ically, the four counties of the Basin have collectively comprised one of the fastest-grow ing local economies in the United States. Significant changes have occurred in the com position of the industria l base of the region in the past twenty years. As in many ar eas of the country, a large segment of heavy manufacturing, including steel and tire manuf acturing and automobile assembly, has been phased down. Small se rvice industries and businesses resulting from growth in shipping and trade have replaced much of the heavy industry.Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 4 The Coachella Valley Planning Area is impact ed by pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, pollutant tran sport occurs to the An telope Valley, Mojave Desert, Ventura county, and San Diego county. As part of this AQMP revision, transport issues relative to the Coachella Va lley Planning Area are sp ecifically addressed in Chapter 8 and Appendix V.
In summary, the diverse geographical characte ristics of the Southern California region place a significant constraint on achieving air quality standards.



### Emission Sources
The pollution burden of the Basin is substan tial. In spite of substantial reductions already achieved, additional significant re ductions of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen in the South Coast Air Ba sin are needed to attain the federal air quality standards.
Air pollution forms either directly or indire ctly from pollutants emitted from a variety of sources. These sources can be natural, such as oil seeps, vegetation, or windblown dust. Emissions may also result from combustion, as in automobile engines; from evaporation of organic liquids, such as those used in coating and cl eaning processes; or through abrasion, such as from tires on roadways. The air pollution control strategy in the AQMP is directed almost entirely at contro lling man-made sources. Natural emissions are accounted for in the background and initia l conditions for the air quality modeling analysis described in Chapte rs 5 and 8 and Appendix V.



### Population
Since the end of World War II, the Basin has experienced faster population growth than the rest of the nation. Although growth ha s slowed somewhat, the region’s population is expected to increase significantly through 2020. Table 1-1 shows th e projected growth based on SCAG’s regional growth forecast.
Although per-capita emissions have been brought down substantially in the Basin through 50 years of implementing pollution c ontrols, increases in the population over that time have made overall emission reductions more difficult. Many sources, such as automobiles, have been significantly contro lled. However, increases in the number of sources, particularly those growing proportionally to popula tion, reduce the potential air quality benefits of new controls . The net result is that unless significant steps are taken to further control air pollu tion, growth will overwhelm much of the improvements expected from the existing control program.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 5 TABLE 1-1 Population Growth
Year Population Average Percent Increase Per Year Over the Period 1950 4.8 million --
1980 10.5 million 4.0
1990 13.0 million 2.4
2000 14.8 million 1.4
2010 16.6 million 1.2
2020 18.2 million 1.0
2025 19.2 million 1.0



### CONTROL EFFORTS

History
The seriousness of the local air pollution probl em was recognized in the early 1940s. In 1946, the Los Angeles County Board of Superv isors established the first air pollution control district in the nation to address the problems of industrial air pollution. In the mid-1950s, California established the first state agency to control motor vehicle emissions. Countywide or regional air pollu tion districts were required throughout the state by 1970. Many of the controls, originati ng in California, became the basis for the federal control program which began in the 1960s.
Nearly all control programs developed to date have relied on the development and application of cleaner technol ogies and add-on emission contro l devices. Industrial and vehicular sources have been significantly a ffected by these technol ogies. Only recently have preventive efforts come to the forefront of the air pollution control program, (e.g., alternative materials, waste minimization, and maintenance proce dures for industrial sources).
In the 1970s, it became apparent at both the st ate and federal levels that local programs were not enough to solve a problem that was re gional in nature and did not stay within jurisdictional boundaries. Instead, air ba sins, defined by ge ographical boundaries, became the basis for regulatory programs.Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 6 In 1976, the California Legislature adopted the Lewis Air Quality Management Act which created the South Coast Air Quality Management District from a voluntary association of air pollution control districts in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The new agency was charged with developi ng uniform plans and programs for the region to attain federal standa rds by the dates specified in federal law. The agency was also mandated to meet state standards by the earliest date achievable, using reasonably available control measures.
Rule development in the 1970s through 1990s resulted in dramatic improvement in Basin air quality (see Appendix II). However, the effort to impose incremental rule changes on the thousands of stationary sources through the command-and-control regulatory process had its limitations in economic efficiency. The 1991 AQMP introduced the concept of a Marketable Perm its Program and outlined the framework of an idea that was forerunner to what is now known as the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM).

A historical milestone occurred with the adoption of RECLAIM on October 15, 1993. RECLAIM is an alternative means of ac hieving further emission reductions from stationary sources, different from the trad itional source-specific regulatory program. RECLAIM, a cap and trade program, calls fo r declining mass emission limits on the total emissions from all sources within a facility. The facility can choose from a selection of methods for achieving the prescribed emi ssion reductions: add-on controls, use of reformulated products, changes in producti on, purchase of excess emission reductions from other sources, and/or any other methods that w ould be enforceable and quantifiable.
Since the introduction of the RECLAIM program , the District has committed to provide compliance flexibility and has developed va rious economic incentive programs to ensure maximum feasible reductions while re ducing compliance costs. For example, in 2001, the AQMD Governing Board adopted six mobile and area source pilot credit generation rules. NOx emission reductions generated from these pilot credit generation rules can be used in the RECLAIM program.
In summary, while the District’s effort to achieve applicable ambient air quality standards continues to rely on the successful command-and-c ontrol regulatory structure, the strategy is supplemented where appropria te with market ince ntive and compliance flexibility strategies.



### Impact of Control
Past air quality programs have been effec tive in improving the Basin’s air quality. Ozone levels have been reduc ed by half over the past 30 ye ars, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead standards have been met, and other criteria pollu tant concentrationsChapter 1 Introduction

1 - 7 have significantly declined. The federal and st ate CO standards were also met as of the end of 2002. However, the Basin still expe riences exceedances of health-based standards for ozone and particulate matter unde r ten microns in size (PM10). Air quality summaries and health effects in the Basin are briefly discussed in Chapter 2; Appendix II provides an in-depth analys is of air quality as measured within the District’s jurisdiction. The new federa l 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air qua lity standards and the state annual PM2.5 standards, alt hough not yet applicable for th e purpose of the AQMP, are discussed in Chapter 10.



### PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE 1997/1999 SIPs
Progress in implementing the 1997/1999 SIPs ca n be measured by the number of control measures that have been adopted as rules a nd the resulting tons of pollutants targeted for reduction. Emission reduction commitments and reductions achieved in 2010 are based on the emissions inventory from the 1997 SIP. Since October 1999, sixteen control measures or rules have been adopted or amended by the District through October 2002. Table 1-2 lists the District’s 1997/1999 SIP commitment and the control measures or rules that were adopted through October 2002. The primary focus of the District’s efforts had been the adoption and implementa tion of VOC control me asures. As shown in Table 1-2, for the control measures adopted by the District, the District has achieved 158 tons per day VOC re ductions, exceeding its 1997/1999 SIP commitment by approximately 44.5 tons per day.

Table 1-3 lists the control measures committe d to in the 1997/1999 SIPs that have been adopted by the U.S. EPA or CARB since 1995. To date, CARB committed to VOC and NOx emission reductions of a pproximately 90 and 106 tons pe r day, respectively, and achieved 67 and 140 tons per da y, respectively. While exceeding its NOx target by 34 tons per day, CARB fell short of the VOC target by 21 tons per day using the 1997 SIP currency. U.S. EPA was obligated to VOC and NOx emission reductions of approximately 35 and 75 tons per day, respectively, and achieved 38 and 63 tons per day, respectively.Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 8 TABLE 1-2 Rules and Regulations Adopted by Dist rict Since Adoption of 1997/1999 SIPs (October 1996 through October 2002 a )

Control Measure

(Rule) Title SIP Commitment

(tons/day) Emission Reductions

Achieved Through Rule Implementation (tons/day) Adoption Date

CTS-02C(P2) (Rule 1171) Solvent Cleaning Operations (VOC) 11.0 11.0 b 1999

WST-04 (Rule 1150.1) g Disposal of VOC-Containing Materials (VOC) 0.8 0.8 2000

PRC-3(P2) (Rule 1138) g Restaurant Operations (VOC) 0.9 c c

CTS-020 (Rule 442) g Solvent Usage (VOC) 1.0 1.9 2000

CTS-02E (Rule 1168) g Adhesives (VOC) 1.3 8.3 2000

RFL-02(P2) (Rule 461) g Gasoline Service Stations (VOC) 2.0 6.2 2000

CTS-09(P1) (Rule 1132) g Large Coating & Solvent Sources – High Emitting Spray Booth Facilities (VOC) 4.0 5.4 2000

FUG-06 (Rule 1189) g Hydrogen Plants (VOC) 0.8 1.6 2000

FUG-05(P1) (Rule 1178) Large Fugitive Emissions Sources (VOC) 1.0 1.7 2001

PRC-06 (Rule 1131) g Industrial Processes - Food Flavoring (VOC) 3.0 3.0 2001

CTS-08(P1) (Rule 1130) g Industrial Coatings and Solvents (VOC) 2.0 1.9 2002Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 9 TABLE 1-2 (continued) Rules and Regulations Adopted by Dist rict Since Adoption of 1997/1999 SIPs (October 1996 through October 2002 a )

Control Measure

(Rule) Title SIP Commitment

(tons/day) Emission Reductions

Achieved Through Rule Implementation (tons/day) Adoption Date

CTS-08(P2) (Rule 1122) Solvent Degreasing (VOC) 3.0 6.2 2001

CTS-09(P2) (Rule 1162) Polyester Resins (VOC) 3.0 1.6 2002

Rule 1102 g Dry Cleaners Using Solvent Other than Perchloroethylene (VOC) N/A 0.3 2000

Rule 1104 g Wood Flat Stock Coating Operations (VOC) N/A 0.1 1999

Rules adopted from October 1996 to September 1999 d, h 79.8 108.1 11/96 – 9/99

Total VOC 113.6 158.1

CMB-06 (Rule 1121) g Control of Nitrogen Oxides from Residential-Type Natural Gas Fired Water Heaters (NOx) 7.6 7.6 1999

Rule 1146 g Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Industrial, Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters (NOx) N/A 0.2 2000

Rules adopted from October 1996 to September 1999 d, h 2.4 4.2 11/96 – 9/99

Total NOx 10 12Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 10 TABLE 1-2 (continued) Rules and Regulations Adopted by Dist rict Since Adoption of 1997/1999 SIPs (October 1996 through October 2002 a )

Control Measure

(Rule) Title SIP Commitment

(tons/day) Emission Reductions

Achieved Through Rule Implementation (tons/day) Adoption Date

Rule 1158 Storage, Handling, and Transport of Petroleum Coke (PM10) N/A 1 1999

Rule 431.2 Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels (PM10) (SOx) N/A 0.1 e 0.4 e 2000

PRC-3(P1) (Rule 1138) Control of Emissions from Restaurant Operations (PM10) 7.8 1 1997

PRC-01 (Rule 1137) PM10 Emission Reductions from Woodworking Operations (PM10) 7.5 f 7.5 f 2002

PM10

SOx 15.3 9.6 0.4

a SCAQMD summer planning emission in 2010 (rounded to the nearest whole number), based on 1997 SIP inventory. b An additional 16 tons of VOC emission reductions associated with implementation of Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations are subject to technology assessments in 2003 and 2004 prior to implementation in 2005 and are not included in this value, but are included in the 2010 baseline.

c Board approved infeasibility findings in October 2000 and used excess reducti ons from RFL-02(P2) to meet the SIP commitment. d Reference: Table 1-1 of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAQMD, 1999).

e Emission reductions listed include only those from stationary sources. f SIP commitment and emission reduction achieved are based on 1997 AQMP inventory methodology.
g Rules which have been approved by U.S. EPA. (L imited disapproval for portions of Rules 1168, 1132, and 1131 are being addressed in 2003/2004.) h Rules from Table 1-1 of the 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone SIP for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAQMD, 1999) which have been approved by U.S. EPA include: Ru le 1107 (CTS-02H), Rule 1145 (CTS-02M), Rule 1122 (CTS02N), Rule 1113(P1) (CTS-07), Rule 1146.2 (CMB-02B), Rule 1138 (PRC-03), and Rule 1104.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 11 TABLE 1-3 State and Federal Measur es Adopted Since 1994 SIP

ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd)Near-Term Measures Agency Adopted Commitment Achieved in 2010 Commitment Achieved in 2010

M1: Light-duty vehicle scrappage CARB 1998 0 0 M2: Low Emission Vehicle II program CARB 1998 19 4 17 43 M3: Medium-duty vehicles CARB 1995 Baseline 1 -- Baseline 1
- M4: Incentives for clean engines (Moyer Program) CARB 1999 0 3
M5: California heavy-duty diesel vehicle standards CARB 1998 5 44
M6: National heavy-duty diesel vehicle standards USEPA 1998 1 11
M7: Heavy-duty vehicle scrappage CARB Withdrawn NA NA M17: In-use reductions from heavy-duty vehicles CARB No 9

0 62

0
M8: Heavy-duty gasoline vehicle standards CARB 1995 Baseline 1 - Baseline 1
- M9: CA heavy-duty off-road diesel engine standards CARB 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 CARB 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 4 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 CARB 1997/1999 34 15 0 0
CP3: Aerosol paint standards CARB 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 0Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 12 TABLE 1-3 (CONTINUED) State and Federal Measur es Adopted Since 1994 SIP

ROG (tpd) NOx (tpd)Agency Adopted Commitment Achieved in 2010 Commit -ment Achieved in 2010 Adopted measures not originally included in SIP Clean fuels measures CARB Multiple 13 12 Marine pleasurecraft (reductions beyond M16) CARB 1998/2001 7 0
Motorcycle Standards CARB 1998 1 0 Urban transit buses CARB 2000 0 1 Enhanced vapor recovery program 5 CARB 2000 6 0 Medium/heavy-duty gasoline standards (beyond M8) CARB 2000 0 1
2007 heavy-duty diesel truck standards (beyond M5/M6) CARB/ USEPA 2001 1 16
Small off-road engine standard revisions CARB 1998 (1) 0 Gas can requirements 2 CARB 1999 30 2 0 NEAR-TERM TOTAL (excluding gas cans) 125 105 181 203

Long-Term Measures (Section 182(e)(5)) Advanced technology on-road mobile "Black Box" CARB No 37 0 6 - 3

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

CP4: Long-term measure for consumer products CARB No 43 0 0 0

LONG-TERM TOTAL 98 0 9

- 3GRAND TOTAL (near-term + longterm) 223 105 190 203

Remaining State and Federal Obligations under 1999 SIP 118 0 2010 summer planning based on 1997 AQMP inventory. Emissi on reductions from individual measure may not add to total due to rounding. ( ) = Emission increase relative to baseline. BAR = Bureau of Automotive Repair; DPR = Department of Pesticide Regulation 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 measures are included in the 1997 SIP baseline. Although the Smog Check II program is achieving significant benefits, the emission reductions are less than anticipated in the 1997 SIP as indicated by the negative number under reductions achieved. 2 Emissions from gas cans were not included in the 1997/1999 SI P baseline; reductions from this source are real, but not creditable until the SIP is revised to reflect these emissions. 3 The NOx reductions anticipated from the long-term mob ile source "Black Box" commitment have already been achieved from adopted measures. 4 Emission reductions from locomotives represent the national emission standards for locomotive engines as well as the MOU for the South Coast Air Basin. U.S. EPA has comm itted to adopt a backstop comm itment to ensure that the emission reductions associated with the MOU are achieved. The MOU is hereby included as part of the 2003 AQMP SIP submittal. A copy of the MOU is availabl e at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ms prog/offroad/loc/loco.htm.
5 CARB's rule complements District Rule 461. An overall reduction of 6 tons per day of VOC reductions from this category is included in the AQMP baseline.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 13 

### 2003 AQMP REVISION

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this 2003 revision to the AQMP is designed to satisfy the planning requirements of the California Clean Air Act and to develop transportation emission budgets using the late st approved motor vehi cle emissions model and planning assumptions. On ce approved by the District Governing Board and CARB, the 2003 AQMP will be submitted to U.S. EP A as a SIP revision. The District component of the 2003 AQMP contains the remaining measures from the 1997/1999 SIP along with new measures based on current technology assessments. The emission reduction commitment takes into account techni cal feasibility, cost effectiveness, and current emission estimates.



### Federal Clean Air Act Planning Requirements
In November 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act intended to intensify air pollution control effo rts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments was an overhaul of the planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstration of reasonable further progre ss and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. The discussion that follows br iefly presents the general planning requirements of the CAA, lists previous State Implementation Plan (SIP) s ubmittals, and introduces CAA provisions that are addressed in the 2003 AQMP.



### General Requirements
The CAA requires plans to provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures “as expeditiously as prac ticable,” including the adoption of reasonably available control technology fo r reducing emissions from existing sources. Emission control innovations in the form of market-based approaches are explicitly encouraged by the CAA. As mentioned earlier, the District is the first local agen cy in the country to adopt a market-based approach for controlling stationary source em issions of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. The CAA also requires plans to include standards for reasonable further progress, which is de fined as annual incremental reductions in emissions of relevant air pollutants needed to ensure attainment of th e National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the applicable date. A similar demonstration of progress was instituted in California with the passage of th e California Clean Air Ac t in 1988. This is discussed further later in this chapter.
There are several sets of general planni ng requirements, both fo r nonattainment areas [Section 172(c)] and for implementation plans in general [Section 110(a) (2)]. TheseFinal 2003 AQMP

1 - 14 requirements are listed and very briefly descri bed in Tables 1-4 and 1-5, respectively. The general provisions apply to all applicable pollutants unl ess superseded by pollutantspecific requirements.

TABLE 1-4 Nonattainment Plan Provisions [CAA Section 172(c)]

Requirement Description
Reasonably available control measures Implementation of all reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable.
Reasonable further progress Provision for reasonable further progress which is defined as “such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.” Inventory Development and periodic revision of a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions from all sources. Allowable emission levels Identification and quantification of allowable emission levels for major new or modified stationary sources.
Permits for new and modified stationary sources Permit requirements for the construction and operation of new or modified major stationary sources

. Other measures Inclusion of all enforceable emission limitations and control measures as may be necessary to attain the standard by the applicable attainment deadline. Contingency measures Implementation of contingency measures to be undertaken in the event of failure to make reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 15 TABLE 1-5 General CAA Requirements for Implementation Plans

Requirement Description Ambient monitoring An ambient air quality monitoring program. [Section 110(a)(2)(B)]
Enforcement and regulation A program for the enforcement of adopted control measures and emission limitations and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. [Section 110(a)(2)(C)] Interstate transport Adequate provisions to inhibit emissions that will contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of NAAQS or interfere with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in any other state. [Section 110(a)(2)(D)] Adequate resources Assurances that adequate personnel, funding, and authority are available to carry out the plan. [Section 110(a)(2)(E)] Source testing Monitoring Requirements for emission monitoring and reporting by the source operators. [Section 110(a)(2)(F)] Plan revisions Provisions for revising the air quality plan to incorporate changes in the standards or in the availability of improved control methods. [Section 110(a)(2)(H)] Other CAA requirements Adequate provisions to meet applicable requirements relating to consultation, notification, and prevention of significant deterioration and visibility protection contained in other sections of the CAA. [Section 110(a)(2)(J)] Impact assessment Appropriate air quality modeling to predict the effect of new source emissions on ambient air quality. [Section 110(a)(2)(K)] Permit fees Provisions requiring major stationary sources to pay fees to cover reasonable costs for reviewing and acting on permit applications and for implementing and enforcing the permit conditions. [Section 110(a)(2)(L)] Local government participation Provisions for consultation and participation by local political subdivisions affected by the plan. [Section 121]
Transportation control

measures Provisions requiring that serious and above nonattainment areas submit an implementation plan that includes transportation control measures considering at least the measures listed in Section 108(f). [Section 182(c)(5)]Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 16 U.S. EPA guidance 3 states that regulatory programs tend to be less than 100 percent effective for many source categories. Rule effectiveness reflects the ability of a regulatory program to achieve all the emissi on reductions that could be achieved by full compliance with the applicable regulations at all sources at all times. An effectiveness factor of 80 percent is requi red by EPA for all stationary source and non-tailpipe mobile source control measures for th e future controlled scenarios. EPA, however, does allow exceptions to this rule if da ta exists to adequately demonstrate that the “real world” control percentage is higher. The District has an aggressive field enforcement program and periodic rule effectiveness studies have a ssisted the District in strategic deployment of inspection resources to minimize emissi on-related non-compliance. In addition, the District conducts workshops and compliance education programs for facility operators. Consequently, historical emissions invent ory reporting has demonstrated sufficient compliance margin by the regulated sources th at would ensure nearly 100 percent rule effectiveness. As a result, the contro l measures proposed in the 2003 AQMP with quantifiable emission reductions are based on a rule effectiveness of 100 percent.
The CAA requires that most submitted plan s include information on tracking plan implementation and milestone compliance. Requirements for these elements are described in Section 182(g) and Secti on 187(d) for ozone and carbon monoxide, respectively. Chapter 7 addresses these issues.
EPA also requires a public hearing on many of the required elements in SIP submittals before considering them officially submitte d. The District’s AQMP adoption process includes a public hearing on all of the required elements prior to submittal.
CAA Planning Requirements Addressed by the 2003 AQMP
Table 1-6 lists the CAA planning requireme nts addressed by the 2003 AQMP. The table lists the relevant CAA section and submitta l deadline along with the AQMP document or chapter where the submittal is discussed. It may be used as a re ference guide showing where each of the CAA planning requirements is addressed.
Besides the CAA requirements due prior to this plan revision (i.e., attainment demonstration plans for ozone, carbon monoxide, and n itrogen dioxide; 1996 Rate-ofProgress and Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress fo r ozone; and Best Available Control Measures (BACM) for PM10), the Distri ct is updating its 1997 PM10 attainment demonstration, which wa s required by Section 189.

3 Emission Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State Implementation Plans ; U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency; OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1991.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 17 TABLE 1-6 CAA SIP Revisions and Submittals in the 2003 AQMP

Submittal CAA Section 2003 AQMP Reference PM10 Attainment Demonstration Revision (Basin) 189(b)(1)(A) Chapter 5 Appendix V

PM10 Attainment Demonstration Revision (Coachella Valley) 189(b)(1)(A) Separate Cover

PM10 Reasonable Further Progress Milestones 189(c)(1) Chapter 6 Appendix V
PM10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 176(c)(2)(A) Chapter 6
Maintenance Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide 175A(a) and (d) Chapter 5 and 6 Appendix V

Revision to the Ozone Attainment Demonstration (Basin) 182(c)(2)(A) Chapter 5 Appendix V

Revision to the Ozone Attainment Demonstration for Salton Sea Air Basin (under District jurisdiction) 182(c)(2)(A) Chapter 8 Appendix V
Revision to the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Demonstration 182(c)(2)(B) Chapter 6 Appendix V

Revision to the Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration 187(b)(1) Chapter 5 Appendix V
Growth Factors -- Appendix III
Control Measure Documentation -- Appendix IV

As specified in Section 189(b )(1)(A) of the Act, the PM10 attainment demonstration is due no later than four years after reclassifica tion of an area to “serious.” The South Coast Air Basin and the Co achella Valley were reclassified from “moderate” to “serious” on February 8, 1993. The 1997 AQMP and the 1994 Co achella Valley SIP satisfied the attainment dem onstration requirements for the Basin and Coachella Valley, respectively. Prior to 1997, the Coachella Valley achieved federal PM10 standards and, accordingly, the District prepared a redesigna tion request and mainte nance plan in 1996. During 1999 – 2001, however, Coachella Va lley exceeded the annual average PM10Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 18 standard. Accordingly, the District revi sed the PM10 Coachella Valley SIP in 2002 to request a 5-year extension for PM10 atta inment. The U.S. EPA approved the 2002 update on April 18, 2003.
Also in 2002, the District submitted a PM10 SIP update for the South Coast Air Basin and requested U.S. EPA to e xpedite its approval process a nd grant the Basin a 5-year extension for PM10 attainment demonstration. As part of this update, the District committed to provide a SIP update in 2003 usi ng the latest emissions data and planning assumptions. The 1997 PM10 SIP as updated in 2002 was deemed complete by U.S. EPA in November 2002 and approved on Ap ril 18, 2003. The 2003 AQMP serves to provide an update to the 1997 PM10 SI P (and subsequent 2002 update) and it incorporates the most current emissions data, including the latest available motor vehicles emissions budgets based on EMFA C2002 and latest planning assumptions.
As part of the PM10 attainment demonstra tion, the plan must also contain emission reduction milestones to be ach ieved every three years until the area is redesignated attainment and the emission reductions must demonstrate reasonable further progress as defined under Section 171(l) of the Act.

The U.S. EPA released a natural events policy in 1996 which exempts certain high wind events causing PM10 air quality exceedances as being counted as a violation. The District will be applying this policy to the Coachella Valley in designing the attainment demonstration for that area. The 2003 Coachella Valley plan is released under a separate cover and is discussed in Chapter 8 of this document.

With new technical information on emissi ons estimates, the future-year baseline emissions projections changed, thereby requiring updates to pr evious SIP submittals. In particular, the emission budgets currently appr oved for federal conformity purposes must be updated and the California Ozone SIP for the South Coas t Air Basin must be updated to reflect the best available technical information.
Monitoring data for the past several year s have shown that the nitrogen dioxide concentrations were below the federal ai r quality standard. Accordingly, the 2003 AQMP will serve as the maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide. As required under Section 175A(a), the plan must provide for main tenance of the air quality standard for at least 10 years after the area is redesignated to attainment (which occurred in 1998). In addition, the plan must contai n contingency measures to assu re that any violations will be promptly corrected. Similarly, the S outh Coast Air Basin me t the carbon monoxide standard by December 2002. As such, the 2003 revision to the ca rbon monoxide plan serves a dual purpose: it replaces the 1997 attain ment demonstration that lapsed at the end of 2000, and it provides the basis for a carbon monoxide maintenance plan in the future.Chapter 1 Introduction

1 - 19 Section 181(a)(1) classifies the Basin as an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and states that the Basin must achieve the fede ral ozone standard by N ovember 15, 2010. As such, an attainment demonstration for ozone was provided as part of the ozone portion of the 1997/1999 SIP. The ozone attainment demonstration followed U.S. EPA and CARB modeling guidelines and was based on the photochemica l grid model called the Urban Airshed Model (UAM ). Based on new technica l information, the 1997/1999 AQMP ozone attainment demonstration is revised as part of the 2003 AQMP revision and the attainment demonstration is summari zed in Chapters 5 and 6 and Appendix V.
According to Section 182(c)(2)(B), the Distri ct must demonstrate how the Basin will achieve actual volatile organic compound emissi on reductions of at least three percent per year averaged over each consecutive three-year period beginning from November 15, 1996 and ending November 15, 2010 (i.e., the Basin’s attainment date). The rate-ofprogress milestone years in the 2003 AQMP for the Basin are 2005, 2008, and 2010. Section 182(c)(9) requires that the post- 1996 rate-of-progress demonstration must contain a set of contingency measures, that is, additional control measures which would be implemented in the event of a milestone or attainment failure. Chapter 6 contains the detailed calculations of the post-1996 rate-of-p rogress demonstration. Chapter 6 also provides an estimation of the em ission levels at each of the milestone years compared to the CAA target levels. Contingency measures are listed in Chapter 9.
The South Coast Air Basin both transports to and receives air pollutants from the coastal portions of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties in the South Central Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin also receives air pollutants from oil and gas development operations on the outer continental shelf. The 2003 AQMP does not specifically address the control requirements for th ese adjacent areas. However, th e control measures in this Plan meet the CAA transport requirements a nd will assist downwind areas in complying with the federal ozone air quality standard.
The Coachella Valley is classified as a “s evere-17” ozone nonattainment area under the CAA and must comply with the federal ozone air quality standard by 2007. The CAA requires separate attainment and post-1996 rate-of-progress demonstrations for each severe air basin under the District’s jurisdicti on. Such demonstrati ons were provided in Chapter 8 and Appendix V of the 1997 AQMP. Revisions to the PM10 attainment demonstration for the Coachella Valley area are provided under a separate cover and Appendix V of the 2003 AQMP.



### State Law Requirements
The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) wa s signed into law on September 30, 1988, became effective on January 1, 1989, and was amended in 1992. Also known as the Sher Bill (AB 2595), the CCAA es tablished a legal mandate to achieve health-basedFinal 2003 AQMP

1 - 20 state air quality standards at the earliest practicable date. The Lewis Presley Act provides that the plan must also contain de adlines for compliance w ith all state ambient air quality standards and the federally manda ted primary ambient air quality standards [Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 40462(a)]. In September 1996, AB 3048 (Olberg) amended Sections 40716, 40717.5, 40914, 40916, 40918, 40919, 40920, 40920.5, and 44241, and repealed Secti ons 40457, 40717.1, 40925, and 44246 of the Health and Safety Code relating to air pollution. The amendments to the Health and Safety Code became effective January 1, 1997. This plan revision reflects state planning requirements as they pertain to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Through its many requirements, the CCAA serv es as the centerpiece of the Basin’s attainment planning efforts sinc e it is generally more stringent than the federal Clean Air Act.
Based on pollutant levels, the CCAA divides nonattainment areas into categories with progressively more stringent requirement s (H&SC 40918 - 40920.5). The categories are outlined in Table 1-7. The state nonattainme nt designations are on a county basis. The entire Basin is an extreme nonattainment ar ea for ozone. Los Angeles County is the only county classified as a serious nonatta inment area for carbon monoxide. However, in 2001 the carbon monoxide standards were not exceeded anywhere in the Basin. Although PM10 is not explicitly addressed in the CCAA, it is governed by the Lewis Presley Act. The plan therefore provide s achieving all federal ambient air quality standards by their applicable date and stat e ambient air quality standards as early as possible.

TABLE 1-7
California Clean Air Act Nonattainment Area Classifications (H&SC 40921.5)

Concentration Level (ppm) Category Ozone Carbon Monoxide

Moderate 0.09 to 0.12 * 9.0 to 12.7 *

Serious 0.13 to 0.15 * > 12.7

Severe 0.16 to 0.20 *

--
Extreme > 0.20 -- * Inclusive range.

Serious and above nonattainment areas ar e required to revise their air quality management plan to include specified em ission reduction strategies, and to meet milestones in implementing em ission controls and achieving more healthful air quality. The key planning requirements ar e provided in Table 1-8. Some of these requirementsChapter 1 Introduction

1 - 21 are discussed in further detail in the next section. Chapter 6 addresses how these requirements are met in the Basin. The CCAA also includes some additional requirements that can significantly affect c ontrol strategy selection. These requirements are provided in Table 1-9. All of these mandates have either already been met through District regulations or are included/consid ered in the preparation of the 2003 AQMP.

Plan Effectiveness
The CCAA requires, beginning on December 31, 1994 and every three years thereafter, that each district demonstrate the overall e ffectiveness of its air quality program. For those areas that do not attain state air quality standards by 2000, a comprehensive plan update was required to be s ubmitted by December 31, 1997. In addition, Section 40925 of the Health and Safety Code requires that the plan incor porate new data or projections including, but not limited to, the quantity of emission reductions actually achieved in the preceding three-year period and the rates of population-related, i ndustry-related, and vehicle-related emissions growth actually e xperienced in the district and projected for the future. The 2003 AQMP serv es as the comprehensive plan update for the South Coast Air Basin.

TABLE 1-8 California Clean Air Act Planning Requirements

Requirement Description
Indirect and area source controls An indirect and area source control program [H&SC 40918(a)(4)],

Best available retrofit control technology Best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for existing sources of specified sizes [H&SC 40918(a)(2))],
New source review A program to mitigate all emissions from new and modified permitted sources [H&SC 40918(a)(1)) and 40920.5(b)],
Transportation control measures Transportation control measures as needed to meet plan requirements [H&SC 40918(a)(3)], and
Clean fleet vehicle programs Significant use of low-emission vehicles by fleet operators [H&SC 40919(a)(4)].

The CCAA suggests a number of air quality indicators to show Plan effectiveness, including actual emission reductions, oz one and carbon monoxide design valueFinal 2003 AQMP

1 - 22 improvements, population exposur e reductions, and pollutant concentration hours. In Chapter 6, plan effectiveness is illustra ted by trends in the following indicators:

• volatile organic compound, oxides of n itrogen, and carbon monoxide emissions,

• ozone and carbon monoxide air quality (i.e., exceedance days), and

• ozone and carbon monoxide population exposure above air quality standards.

TABLE 1-9 California Clean Air Act Requirement s for Control Strategy Development

Requirement Description
Rate-of-progress Reducing pollutants contributing to nonattainment by five percent per year or all feasible control measures and an expeditious adoption schedule(H&SC 40914),
Public education programs Public education programs [H&SC 40918(a)(6)],
Per-capita exposure Reducing per-capita population exposure to severe nonattainment pollutants according to a prescribed schedule [H&SC 40920(c)],
Any other feasible controls Any of the feasible controls that can be implemented or for which implementation can begin, within 10 years of adoption date of the most recent air quality plan [H&SC 40920.5(c)], and
Control measure ranking Ranking control measures by cost-effectiveness and implementation priority (H&SC 40922).

Emission Reductions
According to the CCAA, dist ricts must design their air quality management plan to achieve a reduction in basinwide emissions of five percent or more per year (or 15 percent or more in a three-year period) for each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors (H&SC 40914). However, an air basin may use an alternative emission reduction strategy which achieves a reduction of less th an five percent per year if it can be demonstrated that either of the following applies:

• The alternative emission reduction strategy is equal to or more effective than the five percent per year control a pproach in improving air quality; orChapter 1 Introduction

1 - 23 • That despite the inclusion of every fe asible measure, and an expeditious adoption schedule, the air basin is unable to achieve the five percent per year reduction in emissions.
For emission reduction accounting purposes, th e CARB established a seven-year initial reporting period from January 1, 1988, to December 31, 1994 (Section 70701 of the California Code of Regulations ). The reporting intervals after this initial period occur every three years (i.e., 1997, 2000, etc.). Therefore, the 2003 AQMP must seek to achieve a 15 percent additional reduction for ev ery subsequent interv al using 1990 as the base year, or demonstrate implementation of all feasible measures.
Population Exposure
The CCAA also requires that exposure to severe nonattainment pollutants above standards must be reduced from 1986 thr ough 1988 levels by at least 25 percent by December 31, 1994; 40 percent by December 31, 1997; and 50 percent by December 31, 2000. Reductions are to be calculated based on per-capita exposure a nd the severity of exceedances. This provision is applicable to ozone, carbon m onoxide, and nitrogen dioxide in the Basin [H&SC 40920(c)]. The definition of exposur e is the number of persons exposed to a specific pollutant concen tration level above the state standard times the number of hours. The per-capita expos ure is the population exposure (units of pphm-persons-hours) divi ded by the total population. The 2003 AQMP will demonstrate that this requirement has al ready been met through implementation of previous SIP commitments.
Control Measure Ranking
The CCAA requires the District Governing Boar d to determine that the AQMP is a costeffective strategy that will achieve attainme nt of the state standards by the earliest practicable date (H&SC 40913). In addition, th e Plan must include an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of available and proposed measures and a list of the measures ranked from the least cost-effective to the most cost-effective [H&SC 40922(a)].

In addition to the relative cost -effectiveness of the measures, the District must consider other factors as well in developing an adoption and implementation schedule [H&SC 40922(b)]. The other factors noted in the CCAA include technological feasibility, emission reduction potential, rate of reducti on, public acceptability, and enforceability. Efficiency, equity, and legal authority ha ve also been included in the 2003 AQMP for prioritization purposes because of their importa nce. The results of the prioritization are given in Chapter 6.Final 2003 AQMP

1 - 24 

### FORMAT OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document is organized into ten chapters, each addressing a specific topic. Each of the remaining chapters are summarized below.
Chapter 2, “Air Quality a nd Health Effects,” discusses the Basin’s air quality in comparison with the federal and state air pollution standards.
Chapter 3, “Base Year and Future Emi ssions,” summarizes recent updates to the emissions inventories, estimates current em issions by source and po llutant, and projects future emissions with and without controls.
Chapter 4, “AQMP Control Strategy,” pr esents the attainment strategies.
Chapter 5, “Future Air Quality,” describe s the modeling approach used in the AQMP and summarizes the Basin’s future air quality projections with and without controls.
Chapter 6, “Clean Air Act Requirements, ” discusses specific federal and state requirements as they pertain to the 1997 AQMP.
Chapter 7, “Implementation,” presents th e implementation schedule of the various control measures and delineates each agency’s area of responsibility.
Chapter 8, “Future Air Quality - Desert Nona ttainment Areas,” describes the future air quality in the Coachella Valley Planning Area.
Chapter 9, “Contingency Measures,” presents contingency measures as required by the federal CAA .
Chapter 10, “Looking Beyond Current Require ments”, examines the planning and control implications of federal standards for 8-hour ozone and PM 2.5; and provides a first look at an ozone air quality analysis for the year 2020. This chapter also presents a discussion on uncertainties associ ated with the technical analysis used to develop the 2003 AQMP, including selection of air quality episodes and models.
For convenience, a “Glossary” is provided at the end of the document, presenting definitions of commonly used terms found in the 2003 AQMP.