CHAPTER 4 

AQMP CONTROL STRATEGY 

Introduction 

Overall Attainment Strategy 

District’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 

SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures 

State and Federal Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 

Long-Term Control Strategy 

Overall Emission Reductions 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 1 

INTRODUCTION 

The overall control strategy in the AQMP provides the path to achieving emission 

reductions and air quality goals. Implementation of the 2003 AQMP is based on a 

series of control measures that vary by source type (i.e., stationary or mobile) as well 

as by the pollutant that is being targeted. Although great strides have been made in 

air pollution control technologies, air quality goals cannot be achieved without 

significant further emission reductions. 

This chapter discusses the control measures for the 2003 AQMP and associated 

emission reductions. Where appropriate, information regarding the differences 

between the 1997 AQMP, the 1999 amendments to the 1997 ozone SIP and the 2003 

AQMP are identified. For additional information and details on control measures, 

please refer to Appendix IV-A: District's Stationary and Mobile Source Control 

Measures; Appendix IV-B: Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan; and Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation 

Strategy and Control Measures. For additional information regarding baseline 

emission projections, please refer to Appendix III. 

OVERALL ATTAINMENT STRATEGY 

The overall control strategy for this Plan is designed to meet applicable state and 

federal requirements, including attainment with ambient air quality standards. The 

focus of the Plan is to demonstrate attainment with the federal PM10 ambient air 

quality standard by 2006 and with the federal 1-hour ozone in 2010 while making 

expeditious progress toward attainment of state standards and upcoming new federal 

standards. Although the 2003 AQMP will not address the new federal 8-hour ozone 

and PM2.5 standards, it is designed to make continued progress toward meeting these 

standards. The 2003 AQMP relies upon the most recent planning assumptions and 

the best available information such as CARB’s EMFAC2002 for on-road mobile 

source emissions inventory, CARB’s off-road model for off-road mobile source 

emission inventory, latest point source and improved area source inventories as well 

as the use of the 1997 ozone episodes, expanded air quality modeling analysis, and 

SCAG’s forecast assumptions based on their 2001 Regional Transportation Plan. 

The proposed control measures in the 2003 AQMP are based on implementation of 

all feasible control measures through the application of available technologies and 

management practices as well as advanced technologies and control methods. These 

measures rely on proposed actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have 

the statutory authority to implement such measures. Similar to the 1999 SIP 

approach, the SIP commitment is to bring each control measure for regulatory 

consideration in a specified time frame. Each agency is also committed to achieve a 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 2 

total emission reduction target with the ability to substitute for control measures 

deemed infeasible, so long as equivalent reductions are met by other means. These 

measures are also designed to satisfy the federal Clean Air Act requirement of 

reasonably available control technologies [Section 172(c)], and the California Clean 

Air Act requirements of Best Available Retrofit Control Technologies (BARCT) 

[Health and Safety Code Section 40919, Subsection C]. 

To ultimately achieve ambient air quality standards and demonstrate attainment, 

additional long-term emissions reductions will be necessary from sources including 

those primarily under the jurisdiction of the California Air Resources Board (e.g., onroad motor vehicles, off-road equipment, and consumer products) and U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (e.g., aircraft, ships, trains, and pre-empted offroad equipment). Without an adequate and fair share level of reductions from all 

sources, the emissions reduction burden would unfairly be shifted to sources that 

have otherwise done their part for clean air. 

Designing the Overall Strategy 

The basic principles used in designing the District’s control strategy were to: 1) meet 

at least the same overall remaining emissions target committed to in the 1997/1999 

SIP; 2) replace long-term measures with more specific near-term measures, where 

feasible, and 3) develop new short-term control measures and long-term strategies to 

achieve the needed reductions for attainment demonstration. To develop the control 

strategy required in the Plan to meet state and federal requirements, an iterative 

process of technology review and ambient air quality modeling is utilized. 

Specifically, a remaining emissions target is defined utilizing air quality modeling 

that will achieve the ambient air quality standards. Technological assessments are 

then performed to determine if specific technological advancements can be expected 

to result in meeting this remaining emissions target. Further modeling analyses are 

conducted using the actual emissions reductions achieved based on the technology 

forecast. Ultimately an overall emissions target is determined that achieves the 

ambient air quality standard and for which controls have been proposed. Figure 4-1 

illustrates this iterative process used to define the preferred control strategy. 

The 1997 AQMP as well as the 1999 amendment to the 1997 California Ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) control strategies serve as the starting point to 

demonstrate attainment of both federal PM10 and ozone air quality standards. 

Additional reductions from implementation of controls on stationary, state and 

federal sources were then considered in order to demonstrate attainment with the 

federal air quality standards. Furthermore, these additional control measures are 

evaluated to determine consistency with potential future air quality standards and 

ensure the most cost-effective path to meet multiple clean air standards. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 3 

FIGURE 4-1 

Iterative Process to Define Emission Reduction Scenario 

2003 AQMP Control Measures 

The 2003 AQMP control measures consist of: 1) District's Stationary and Mobile 

Source Control Measures; 2) State Control Measures proposed by California Air 

Resources Board (CARB); and 3) Transportation Control Measures provided by 

SCAG. Overall, the Plan includes 28 stationary and 21 mobile source measures 

which are defined at this time. A summary of these measures is provided below. A 

detailed description of the control measures is provided in the following appendices: 

Appendix IV-A: District’s Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 

Appendix IV-B: Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan 

Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures 

Control Strategy Development

Future Air Quality 

 Projection 

PM10 Attainment 

Ozone Attainment 

Implement Control 

Strategy 

Yes 

Yes 

No 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 4 

These measures primarily rely on the traditional command-and-control approach 

facilitated by market incentive programs as well as advanced technologies expected 

to be implemented by 2010. 

DISTRICT'S STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 

Since the adoption of the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 amendment to the 1997 

California Ozone SIP (referred to as the 1999 SIP amendment), the District has made 

significant strides in achieving emission reductions from stationary sources. Table 1-

2 of Chapter 1 provides a listing of rules and regulations adopted by the District since 

adoption of the 1997 AQMP (October 1996) as well as the SIP commitment and the 

emission reductions achieved for each rule. 

For stationary sources under the District's jurisdiction, District staff conducted 

internal and external brainstorming sessions to solicit additional control concepts and 

assess control feasibility. The stationary control measures presented in the 2003 

AQMP are proposed to further reduce emissions from both point sources (permitted 

facilities) and area (generally small and non-permitted) sources. The basic principles 

followed in developing the District’s stationary source control measures included: 1) 

meet, at minimum, the same remaining emission reductions committed to in the 

1997/1999 SIP for the District’s portion, 2) replace long-term measures with more 

specific short-term measures, where feasible, and 3) identify new control measures to 

implement all feasible measures. Therefore, the proposed control strategy for 

stationary sources under the District’s jurisdiction include remaining revised and 

partially implemented measures from the 1997/99 SIP and new measures that are 

deemed feasible to provide additional control opportunity. All previous long-term 

measures in the 1997/1999 Plan have been incorporated into the short-term measures 

with specified SIP reduction commitments. In addition, to foster further technology 

advancement, a mid-term measure is also included aimed at achieving additional 

reductions from stationary sources based on implementation and accelerated 

penetration of advanced technologies. For each control measure, the District will 

seek to achieve the maximum reduction potential if deemed technically feasible and 

cost-effective. 

Furthermore, in light of significant VOC and NOx reductions needed for attainment 

demonstration, the District will expand its regulatory programs to mobile sources 

where the District has existing legal authority and is evaluating the possibility of 

additional limited authority for cost-effective local controls. Specifically, the District 

is proposing three new mobile source control measures; namely, a mitigation fee type 

program for federally-regulated sources (e.g., aircraft, ships, trains), an emission fee 

program for port-related mobile sources, and regulations for in-use off-road vehicles 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 5 

and equipment, in the event CARB or U.S. EPA does not develop regulations for 

these vehicles and equipment. 

The 2003 AQMP includes 21 short-term stationary and 3 mobile source control 

measures proposed by the District. These measures are estimated to achieve a total 

of 21.5 tons per day of VOC, 5.1 tons per day of NOx, 2 to 6 tons per day of PM10, 

2.1 tons per day of SOx, and 10.6 tons per day of ammonia emission reductions by 

2010 and have proposed rule adoption schedules between 2003 and 2007 with 

implementation dates between 2004 and 2010. For control measures with 

quantifiable emission reductions, the District’s control strategy as currently proposed 

will achieve remaining emissions reductions of approximately 64 tons per day of 

VOC below the 1997/1999 SIP target or 3 tons per day of VOC below the 1994 SIP 

target. 

Appendix IV-A provides detailed descriptions for the District’s stationary and mobile 

source control measures. Overall, thirteen control measures originally contained in 

the 1997 AQMP or the 1999 SIP amendment have been updated for inclusion into 

the 2003 AQMP. Of thirteen measures, three advanced control measures from the 

1999 SIP amendment are now presented as near-term control measures. The eleven 

new measures incorporated into the 2003 AQMP include: 1) additional NOx 

reductions from RECLAIM (CMB-10); 2) further PM10 emission reductions from 

fugitive dust sources (BCM-07); 3) further PM10 emission reductions from 

aggregate operations (BCM-08); 4) emission reductions from miscellaneous 

ammonia sources (MSC-04); 5) truck stop electrification (MSC-05); 6) PM10 

emission reductions from wood-burning fireplaces and wood stoves (MSC-06); 7) 

natural gas fuel specifications (MSC-07); 8) further emission reductions for large 

VOC sources (MSC-08); 9) a mitigation fee program for federally-regulated sources 

(FSS-05); 10) further emission reductions from in-use off-road equipment and 

vehicles (FSS-06); and 11) emission fee program for port-related mobile sources 

(FSS-07). 

Table 4-1 provides a listing of the District’s short-term stationary and mobile source 

control measures in the 2003 AQMP which are grouped into two main categories: 1) 

remaining 1997/1999 SIP control measures, and 2) new control measures as 

described below. 

The District's long-term strategy is described in the "Long-Term Control Strategy" 

section of this chapter. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 6 

TABLE 4-1 

District's Short-Term Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 

Control 

Measure 

# 

Title 

Reduction 

Target1

(tons/day) 

Remaining 1997/1999 SIP Revision Control Measures

CTS-07: Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coatings and 

Cleanup Solvents (Rule 1113) (VOC) 8.5 

CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings & Solvent Operations (VOC) 3.02

FUG-05 Emission Reductions from Fugitive Emission Sources (VOC) 2.0 

CMB-07 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery Flares (SOx) 2.13

CMB-09 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Refinery FCCUs 

(PM10/NH3) 

0.3-0.5/1.64

MSC-01 Promotion of Lighter Color Roofing and Road Materials and Tree 

Planting Programs (All Pollutants) 

TBD 

MSC-03 Promotion of Catalyst-Surface Coating Technology Programs 

(All Pollutants) 

TBD 

PRC-03 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations (PM10) 1.0 – 5.0 

PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations (VOC) 2.0 

WST-01 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste (VOC/NH3) 4.85

/8.7 

WST-02 Emission Reductions from Composting (VOC/NH3) 1.2/1.9 

FSS-04 Emission Charges of $5,000 per Ton of VOC for Stationary 

Sources Emitting Over 10 Tons per Year (VOC) 

TBD 

 

1 The emission reduction estimates are based on the 2010 planning inventory in the 2003 AQMP. The 

actual reductions are subject to change during the rulemaking based on the latest available emission 

inventory data. 

2

 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. 

3

 Smaller concurrent reductions of VOC, NOx, PM10, and CO emissions are also expected from 

implementation of this control measure. 

4

 PM10 emission reductions are expected to be 2.1 to 4.7 tons per day if condensables are included of 

which 0.3 to 0.5 tons per day are filterable PM10, included in the AQMP inventory. The PM10 and 

ammonia emission reductions will be modified to reflect Board's action on PR1105.1." 

5

 VOC reductions achieved through dairy relocations, updated annual population, and the Regional Water 

Quality Control Board Regulations. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 7 

TABLE 4-1 (continued) 

District's Short-Term Stationary and Mobile Source Control Measures 

Control 

Measure 

# 

Title 

Reduction 

Target1

(tons/day) 

FLX-01 Economic Incentive Programs (All) TBD 

New Control Measures

CMB-10 Additional NOx Reductions for RECLAIM (NOx) 3.0 

BCM-07 Further PM10 Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources (PM10) TBD 

BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Plant 

Manufacturing Operations (PM10) 

0.7 

MSC-04 Emission Reductions from Miscellaneous Ammonia Sources (NH3) TBD 

MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrification (NOx) 2.1 

MSC-06 Emission Reductions from Wood-Burning Fireplaces and Wood 

Stoves (PM10) 

TBD 

MSC-07 Natural Gas Fuel Specifications (NOx) TBD 

MSC-08 Further Emission Reductions from Large VOC Sources (VOC) TBD 

FSS-05 Mitigation Fee Program for Federal Sources (All) TBD 

FSS-06 Further Emission Reductions from In-Use Off-Road Vehicles and 

Equipment (VOC, NOx, PM10) 

TBD 

FSS-07 Emission Fee Program for Port-Related Mobile Sources (All 

Pollutants) 

TBD 

TCB-01 Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Measure (PM10)2

 TBD 

 Total VOC 

PM10 

NOx 

SOx 

NH3

21.5 

2.0 – 6.0 

5.1 

2.1 

10.6 

 

1 The emission reduction estimates are based on the 2010 planning inventory in the 2003 AQMP. The 

actual reductions are subject to change during the rulemaking based on the latest available emission 

inventory data. 

2

 Control Measure TCB-01 is presented in this table for presentation purposes only as the adoption dates 

for this measure are 2019/2029. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 8 

Stationary Source Control Methods and Associated Emission Reductions

Stationary source control measures rely on a variety of control technologies and 

management practices identified in Table 4-2. Control technologies vary according 

to the source type and pollutant being controlled and generally include a process or 

physical modification such as product reformulation, installation of air pollution 

control equipment, etc. In addition, management modifications include 

administrative changes such as improved housekeeping techniques, inspection and 

maintenance programs, etc. 

TABLE 4-2 

Stationary Source Control Methods 

Source Category Control Method 

Coatings and Solvents • Reformulation 

• Higher Transfer Efficiency 

• Process Improvements 

• Add-On Controls 

• Alternative Coating and Solvent 

Application Methods 

• Market Incentives 

• Improved Housekeeping Practices 

Petroleum Operations and • Process Modifications 

 Fugitive VOC Emissions • Add-On Controls Systems 

• Market Incentives 

• Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance 

• Improved Vapor Recovery Systems 

Combustion Sources • Add-On Controls 

• Market Incentives 

• Process Improvement 

• Improved Energy Efficiency 

Fugitive Dust Sources • Road Dust Suppression 

 • Watering or Revegetation of Disturbed 

Surface Areas 

• Chemical Stabilization of Unpaved Areas 

• Track-Out Prevention 

• Reduced Vehicular Speeds on Unpaved 

Roads 

• Add-On Controls 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 9 

TABLE 4-2 (continued) 

Stationary Source Control Methods 

Source Category Control Method 

Miscellaneous Sources • Process Modifications and Improvements 

• Add-On Controls 

• Best Management Practices 

• Market Incentives 

Compliance Flexibility Programs • Compliance Flexibility to Lower Costs 

• Promotion of Early Reductions 

• Incentivize Clean Technologies 

• Investment in Clean Technologies 

The following text describes a brief description of the District's short-term measures 

for the seven groups of control measures: Group 1 – Coatings and Solvents; Group 2 

– Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions; Group 3 – Combustion 

Sources; Group 4 – Fugitive Dust Sources; Group 5 – Miscellaneous Sources; Group 

6 – Compliance Flexibility Programs; and Group 7 – District’s Mobile Source 

Control Measures. 

Coatings and Solvents

Controls for the coatings and solvents category are primarily targeted at reducing 

VOC emissions. The primary control approach for this category is command and 

control regulations that lower the allowable VOC content of various coating and 

solvent categories. As part of control option development, reactivity-based approach 

will further be evaluated for potential inclusion as a viable compliance option. This 

category includes two control measures which seek to achieve further reductions 

from architectural coatings as well as miscellaneous coating and solvent source 

categories which are briefly described below. 

CTS-07 (P3) – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS (VOC): This control measure proposes to 

achieve additional VOC emission reductions from architectural coating categories 

and thinning and clean-up solvents. On-going technical evaluation of coating 

performance and research to further develop low-VOC and/or low-reactive coating or 

clean-up materials can provide further reduction opportunities. Control measure 

CTS-07 will implement the third phase of amendments to Rule 1113 - Architectural 

Coatings to achieve the level of reductions committed under the SIP settlement. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 10 

CTS-10 – MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIAL COATINGS AND SOLVENT 

OPERATIONS (VOC): This control measure is based on CM#99 ADV-CTS 

included in the 1999 amendment to the 1997 ozone SIP. This measure seeks 

additional VOC emission reductions from industrial coatings and solvent operations 

through a comprehensive review of existing Regulation XI and Regulation IV rules. 

The review would include, but not be limited to, a comparison of VOC limits 

adopted by other air districts in California, survey of recent BACT determinations, 

etc. Examples of future technical evaluation may include currently exempt clean-up 

materials, vanishing oils, aerospace handwipe cleaning operations, etc. Reactivity 

issues for VOC-containing materials associated with this control measure will also be 

reviewed. 

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions

Within this category, there is one control measure, which pertains primarily to 

fugitive VOC emissions from petroleum-related operations and chemical industries. 

Implementation of this control measure may be through several rulemaking phases 

targeting specific source categories. 

FUG-05 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE EMISSION 

SOURCES (VOC): This control measure proposes further VOC emission reductions 

from fugitive emission sources, such as refineries, oil and gas production facilities, 

terminals, chemical plants, and manufacturing facilities. Reductions could be 

achieved through the implementation of facility-specific and SCAQMD-approved 

compliance plans. As such, compliance flexibility opportunities could be 

maximized. This measure will implement CM#99 ADV-FUG and portions of 

CM#99 FUG-04 and CM#99 FUG-05(P3). 

Combustion Sources

The three control measures in this category include two control measures from the 

1997 AQMP (CMB-07 and CMB-09) and one new control measure (CMB-10). 

CMB-07 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERY 

FLARES (ALL POLLUTANTS): This control measure applies to all gas flares 

used at petroleum refineries, sulfur recovery plants and hydrogen production plants. 

This measure would consist of a two-step approach. During Step I, data collected 

from implementing Rule 1118 would be evaluated and assessed to develop an 

accurate emissions inventory from flare operations. Step II will consist of a thorough 

investigation of control options to identify the most feasible and cost-effective 

control strategies available to reduce emissions from refinery flares. The District will 

work with refineries to identify appropriate control options which may include 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 11 

physical modifications and improvements to operation and maintenance procedures 

to prevent or minimize upset conditions. 

CMB-09 - EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PETROLEUM FLUID 

CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS (PM10): This control measure seeks to refine 

the emission inventory and reduce PM10, PM2.5 and NH3 emissions from petroleum 

fluid catalytic cracking units. The proposed emission control method to reduce 

emissions would be to improve the operation of electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and 

cyclones presently installed on the catalytic cracking units, or to replace older 

equipment with new, more efficient models. A newly installed or upgraded ESP can 

be expected to achieve up to a 90 percent reduction in PM10 emissions, and 

significantly reduce emissions of PM2.5 and NH3. Control measure CMB-09 is 

currently being developed under Proposed Rule 1105.1. 

CMB-10 – ADDITIONAL NOX REDUCTIONS FOR RECLAIM (NOx): This 

new control measure proposes additional emission reductions from the NOx 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) program (Regulation XX) if 

additional emission reductions are feasible and needed for attainment demonstration. 

There are a variety of control strategies that can be implemented, including reducing 

ending allocations in 2003-2006, overlaying source-specific regulations, excluding 

smaller emitting facilities, and/or bifurcated market for powerplants and nonpowerplants. Depending on the control strategy implemented, this control measure 

may affect all NOx RECLAIM facilities or a portion of the facilities based on their 

annual emissions or the type of equipment at the facility. 

Fugitive Dust Sources

This category includes two new control measures (BCM-07 and BCM-08) which are 

proposed to achieve further reductions of fugitive PM10 emissions from sources such 

as paved and unpaved roads, construction and demolition activities, aggregate 

processing facilities, and cement manufacturing operations by requiring “best 

available control measures.” These measures are proposed in order to ensure that 

attainment with the federal PM10 standard is demonstrated by 2006 and progress is 

also made toward meeting the PM2.5 standard. 

BCM-07 - FURTHER PM10 REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE DUST 

SOURCES (PM10): Based on U.S. EPA guidance,1

 previous AQMPs identified 

“candidate” Best Available Control Measures (BACM) to reduce PM10 emissions 

from all man-made fugitive dust sources. At the time, these measures were at least as 

stringent as control measures included in any other PM10 non-attainment plan or 

 1

 U.S. EPA, Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document 

for Best Available Control Measures, September 1992 (EPA-450/2-92-004). 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 12 

achieved in practice. BACM that met established cost and technological feasibility 

were subsequently adopted as SCAQMD rules in 1997 to meet CAA requirements. 

Other PM10 non-attainment areas have recently developed and adopted fugitive dust 

regulations based on special federal requirements or in response to lawsuits. 

Elements of these new regulations contain requirements that may improve the 

effectiveness of the District's fugitive dust control program. A review of existing 

District's BACM rules is proposed to consider enhancements that would further 

reduce PM10 emissions from paved and unpaved roads, construction/demolition and 

earth-movement activities, disturbed vacant lands, and agricultural sources. Based 

on a preliminary review of other air districts' recently adopted rules, potential District 

rule enhancements may include: improved compliance test methods, specific shortand long-term soil stabilization requirements, construction project signage, and 

mandatory use of track-out control devices (e.g., access road paving). Furthermore, 

the BACM review will consider regulations for specific geographic areas to provide 

additional compliance margin for PM10 attainment demonstration in 2006. 

BCM-08 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM AGGREGATE 

OPERATIONS (PM10): This control measure proposes to establish prescriptive 

measures to control fugitive dust from area sources within aggregate facilities and 

cement manufacturing plants. Aggregate plants produce sand and gravel and crushed 

stone, which generate particulate matter in the form of fugitive dust. Examples of 

such requirements include pre-application of water prior to material extraction, 

application of chemical dust suppressants or establishment of a vegetative ground 

cover to inactive disturbed areas, covering of material conveyors and haul vehicles, 

and installation of wheel washing systems where haul vehicles exit the site. 

Miscellaneous Sources

Twelve measures are proposed under the Miscellaneous Sources category for a 

variety of sources ranging from service-oriented industries such as restaurants to 

composting and waste-related emissions (such as livestock waste) to incentive 

programs. Of these measures, seven are carried over from the 1997/1999 SIP and 

five are new measures (MSC-04, MSC-05, MSC-06, MSC-07, and MSC-08). 

MSC-01 – PROMOTION OF LIGHTER COLOR ROOFING AND ROAD 

MATERIALS (ALL POLLUTANTS): This measure seeks to provide incentives 

for voluntary actions to reduce VOC or NOx by lowering the ambient temperature 

through the use of lighter colored roofing and paving materials. This measure is 

implemented in part through the U.S. EPA’s Cool Communities Program. The U.S. 

EPA and the SCAQMD have been moving forward with the promotion of the use of 

lighter color roofing and paving materials. Several demonstration projects are 

currently being conducted nationally (one with the City of Los Angeles). In addition, 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 13 

tree planting programs are being promoted throughout the region. The SCAQMD 

has sponsored several studies to further quantify the benefits of these actions. 

MSC-03 – PROMOTION OF CATALYST-SURFACE COATING 

TECHNOLOGY (OZONE, CO): This control measure proposes to reduce ozone 

and CO emissions through a regional-scale use of ozone destroying catalyst coatings. 

Several field studies have been conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of the use of 

the ozone destroying catalyst and preliminary results do indicate reductions in ozone 

concentrations when the catalyst is used. There are ongoing technical research 

studies and projects demonstrating the relationship between the amounts of ozone 

destroyed and the amount of VOC and/or NOx emissions reduced under various 

meteorological and geographic conditions. In addition, staff is reviewing the 

CARB’s LEV II Program that contains an element to allow for VOC credits for the 

use of catalyst surface coating in mobile source applications. If the mobile source 

credit approach is found to be applicable to stationary sources, staff will develop an 

incentives program for stationary sources. 

MSC-04 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS 

AMMONIA SOURCES (AMMONIA): This new control measure proposes to 

develop a comprehensive plan by evaluating possible control options for reducing 

ammonia emissions in the Basin. Ammonia reacts in the atmosphere with gaseous 

nitric and sulfuric acid to form secondary particles which contribute to PM10 and 

PM2.5 levels in the Basin. To expeditiously attain the PM10 standard and make 

progress toward the PM2.5 standard, further reductions of certain ammonia sources 

may be necessary. The control measure proposes to further refine the ammonia 

emissions inventory and identify potential control methods or technologies for 

various sources of ammonia emissions such as motor vehicles, poultry and other 

livestock operations, composting operations, and other stationary sources.

MSC-05 – TRUCK STOP ELECTRIFICATION (ALL POLLUTANTS): This 

new control measure will require the mandatory installation of electric systems at 

truck stops that can provide heating, ventilating, and air conditioning to truck cabs, 

run appliances inside truck cabs, and on-board truck systems at truck stops in order to 

eliminate truck idling thereby eliminating the operation of diesel-fueled engines used 

by trucks (i.e., during engine idling). In order to reduce or eliminate the operation of 

auxiliary engines that power refrigeration units on refrigerated trailers, this control 

measure will also require the installation of external power supplies at truck stops for 

use by truck operators to power their trailer refrigeration units. 

MSC-06 - EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM WOOD BURNING 

FIREPLACES AND WOOD STOVES (PM10): This new control measure 

proposes to reduce PM10 emissions from wood-burning fireplaces and wood stoves 

used in the Basin. The current PM10 emissions inventory for these units is about 5 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 14 

tons per day. The measure proposes to further refine the emissions inventory, assess 

available emissions data and air quality impact for burning manufactured logs versus 

natural wood, consider control approaches (e.g., U.S. EPA certified wood stoves or 

fireplace inserts in new residential or public settings), develop incentive programs to 

encourage the replacement of old wood burning units, and strengthen public 

awareness and education programs. 

MSC-07 – NATURAL GAS FUEL SPECIFICATIONS (NOx): The purpose of 

this new control measure is to prevent emission increases from the combustion of 

natural gas with uncharacteristically high heating value (HHV) in stationary 

applications. The high heating value of such gas relative to natural gas with a lower 

heating value may result in increased combustion temperature and, possibly, higher 

NOx emissions. This control strategy considers setting an upper limit of the heating 

value of natural gas. Natural gas producers/suppliers could achieve the objective of 

this control strategy by either not supplying hot gas to the District, or by removing 

higher hydrogen compounds or otherwise reducing the Btu value of the hot gas. The 

District will continue data collection to further determine the relationship between 

the HHV for natural gas fuel and NOx emissions from gas-fired equipment. Based 

on this information, the District will make a final determination about the potential 

emission reductions that can be realized from this measure.

MSC-08 - FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LARGE VOC 

SOURCES (VOC): This new control measure seeks to achieve further emission 

reductions from the largest stationary sources through implementation of facilityspecific emission reduction plans. Under this control measure, facilities will be 

required to submit a plan to outline specific measures which would be implemented 

to reduce their overall emissions beyond the existing regulations and achieve a 

specified emission reduction target. The reduction targets will be based on 

technology-based control targets for various source categories which would be 

developed by District staff and would take into account technical feasibility and costeffectiveness. Under the District-approved emission reduction plan, facilities would 

have the flexibility to select the most feasible combination of control technologies for 

their facility to achieve the required reductions. In addition, emission inventory 

improvements at these facilities that result in lower emission estimates is considered 

to be SIP creditable provided a public review process is conducted to solicit 

comments to make appropriate revisions. 

PRC-03 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM RESTAURANT OPERATIONS 

(PM10): This control measure seeks to reduce PM emissions from charbroilers. 

Charbroilers consist of three main components: a heating source, a high-temperature 

radiant surface, and a grill. The grill, which is grated, holds the meat while exposing 

it to radiant heat. Particulate emissions result from the fat being entrained when 

dripping grease flares up. Testing has been conducted since 1998 and is an ongoing 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 15 

process to identify effective control technologies for under-fired charbroilers, which 

contribute to approximately 85 percent of the total PM emission inventory for this 

source category. This control measure will focus on PM emission reductions; 

however, concurrent VOC emission reductions may occur. 

PRC-07 – INDUSTRIAL PROCESS OPERATIONS (VOC): This control 

measure, which has evolved from CM#99 ADV-PRC, proposes to refine the 

emission inventory and further control VOC emissions from miscellaneous chemical 

processes subject to Regulation XI and Regulation IV rules. Potential control 

methods include enhanced inspection and maintenance and other housekeeping work 

practices to reduce fugitive emissions from material transfer, storage, and processing. 

Process modification may also provide an effective control option to minimize or 

eliminate emission sources. 

WST-01 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LIVESTOCK WASTE (VOC, 

AMMONIA): This control measure considers the ammonia and VOC emissions 

inventory associated with livestock waste and the development and assessment of 

feasible control approaches. Emission benefits associated with dairy relocations and 

existing water quality regulations will be taken into account. Potential control 

options include, but are not limited to, removal of manure out-of-Basin or processing 

of manure at controlled composting facilities or at anaerobic digesters. VOC and 

ammonia emission benefits associated with dairy relocations, existing water quality 

regulations, and control measure WST-01 are estimated to be 4.8 tons per day of 

VOC and 8.7 tons per day of ammonia emissions in 2010. This control measure is 

currently being developed under Proposed Rule 1127 - Emission Reductions from 

Livestock Waste. PR1127 will seek to achieve additional reductions beyond those 

anticipated from dairy relocations and water quality regulations. 

WST-02 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM COMPOSTING (VOC, 

AMMONIA): This control measure proposes to achieve VOC and NH3 reductions 

from composting and related operations in two phases. Under Phase I, a series of 

rules will be developed which would 1) establish a registration program for 

composting and chipping and grinding facilities; 2) establish holding and/or 

processing (e.g., chipping and grinding, on-site applications) time requirements for 

greenwaste in order to prevent inadvertent decomposition; and, 3) set forth VOC and 

ammonia emission reduction requirements for co-composting operations. Potential 

control options may include forced aeration, enclosures, process controls, and add-on 

controls (e.g. biofilters). In Phase 2, feasible control options will be evaluated and 

developed for greenwaste and foodwaste composting operations. Rules 1133, 

1133.1, and 1133.2 adopted in January 2003 would implement Phase 1 of this control 

measure. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 16 

FSS-04 – EMISSION CHARGES OF $5,000 PER TON OF VOC FOR 

STATIONARY SOURCE EMITTING OVER 10 TONS PER YEAR (VOC): 

The federal CAA requires that all major stationary sources of VOC emissions 

(greater than 10 tons per year) in an extreme nonattainment area that has failed to 

attain the ambient air quality standard for ozone pay a fee as a penalty for such 

failure (Title I, Section 185). This control measure proposes that if the federal 

ambient air standards are not met by the year 2010, the District shall impose an 

emissions fee of $5,000 per ton of VOC, emitted by each major source in excess of 

80 percent of the sources’ baseline emissions. The fee rate will be adjusted annually 

to reflect increases in the consumer price index. The fee shall be paid for each 

calendar year after the year 2010 and until the area is redesignated as an ozone 

attainment area. This fee will be in addition to the annual emission fee required by 

SCAQMD Rule 301. 

Compliance Flexibility Programs

One control measure proposed under this category was originally contained in the 

1999 SIP amendment. Control measure FLX-01 (Intercredit Trading Program) is 

designed to complement command-and-control measures. The primary objectives of 

these programs are to enhance regulatory compliance flexibility by providing 

additional compliance options and thereby lowering compliance costs and to 

incentivize early reductions and advancement of clean technologies. 

FLX-01 – ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS (ALL POLLUTANTS): 

Control measure FLX-01 (Intercredit Trading Program) is designed to complement 

command-and-control measures. The primary objectives of this measure are to 

enhance regulatory compliance flexibility by providing additional compliance 

options and thereby lowering compliance costs and to incentivize early reductions 

and advancement of clean technologies through emission credit banking provisions. 

This measure along with other existing regulatory flexibility programs such as 

District credit rules and the Air Quality Investment Program are essential to the 

successful introduction of the advanced control measures. The District will continue 

to develop incentive-based credit generation rules to provide technology 

advancement or early implementation of mobile, area, and stationary source emission 

reduction projects. Credit rules may be developed for use in RECLAIM, commandand-control programs, or for use by projects subject to New Source Review 

(Regulation XIII). The EIP will be considered in development of the rules to help 

facilitate CARB and EPA review and approval. 

In 2001, the District adopted six mobile and area source pilot credit generation rules: 

Rule 1612.1 – Mobile Source Credit Generation Pilot Program; Rule 1631 – Pilot 

Credit Generation Program for Marine Vessels; Rule 1632 – Pilot Credit Generation 

Program for Hotelling Operations; Rule 1633 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 17 

Truck/Trailer Refrigeration Units; Rule 1634 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for 

Truck Stops; and Rule 2507 – Pilot Credit Generation Program for Agricultural 

Pumps. NOx emission reductions generated from these pilot credit generation rules 

can be used in the RECLAIM program either directly or through the RECLAIM 

Reserve for the Mitigation Fee Program for power producing facilities or the Rule 

2020 AQIP for specific RECLAIM facilities. These pilot credit rules may be 

expanded to generate additional credits for short-term ERCs under REG XIII. 

Additional mobile source credit rules are anticipated to be developed within the next 

couple of years to provide additional compliance flexibility. 

District's Mobile Source Control Measures

In order to complement the proposed state and federal source control measures, the 

District is introducing three new control measures aimed at achieving additional 

emission reductions from off-road mobile sources, described below. The District will 

exercise its existing legal authority or seek additional authority to adopt and 

implement cost-effective mobile source controls. 

FSS-05 – MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL SOURCES (ALL 

POLLUTANTS): In order to achieve a fair share reduction commitment from 

federal sources, this new control measure proposes to implement a mitigation fee 

program which is to be adopted by U.S. EPA and the mitigation fee to be paid by 

federal sources through EPA rulemaking and/or U.S. EPA grants to the District. 

Federal sources include emission source categories such as aircraft, ocean-going 

vessels, trains, and pre-empted off-road equipment that are under the jurisdiction of 

U.S. EPA. These sources continue to represent a significant source of emissions in 

the Basin in the absence of adequate federal regulations. Under this control measure, 

the District will use the monies collected to implement strategies for both federal and 

non-federal sources to achieve equivalent reductions for SIP purposes. This program 

would potentially allow a fee to be paid in lieu of additional federal regulations. 

Projects funded by the Mitigation Fee Program for federal or other sources would be 

selected based on specific criteria, including but not limited to: quantifiable emission 

benefits, emission reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, and proximity to affected 

areas (e.g., environmental justice areas). These projects would have to be approved 

by District's Governing Board. 

FSS-06 - FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM IN-USE OFF-ROAD 

EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES (ALL POLLUTANTS): Although CARB and 

U.S. EPA have adopted stringent standards for new off-road engines, due to the slow 

engine turn-over rate, significant emissions remain from in-use engines manufactured 

many years ago. This control measure proposes that in the event that the CARB or 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 18 

U.S. EPA does not develop aggressive programs to reduce emissions from in-use offroad equipment and vehicle categories (e.g., construction and industrial equipment, 

recreational vehicles, utility equipment), the District would exercise its authority to 

develop regulations to retrofit existing engines or accelerate the engine turn-over 

rate. 

FSS-07 - EMISSION FEE PROGRAM FOR PORT-RELATED MOBILE 

SOURCES (ALL POLLUTANTS): As an alternative to establishing more stringent 

standards, this control measure proposes an emissions fee program for in-use portrelated mobile sources. Under this control measure, the District would establish an 

emission fee program for port-related vehicles and equipment, such as ships, trains, 

trucks, and off-road equipment, which would potentially apply to fleet operators of 

trucks and off-road equipment as well as railroads and shipping and trucking 

companies. The District will use the monies collected from the program to 

implement projects with a focus to achieve emission reductions from in-use on-road 

and off-road mobile sources. When developing this control measure, staff will 

consider setting emission limits as a companion option in lieu of assessing emission 

fees. 

In addition, District’s long-term control measure (LTM-ALL, under Group 8), 

transportation conformity budget backstop measure (TCB-01, under Group 9) and 

contingency control measures are provided in Appendix IV-A. 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS' (SCAG'S) 

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY AND CONTROL MEASURES 

Transportation plans within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) are statutorily required 

to conform with air quality plans in the region, as established by the 1990 Federal 

Clean Air Act and subsequently reinforced by the Intermodal Surface Transportation 

and Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21). 

The region must demonstrate that its transportation plans and programs conform to 

the mandate to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in a 

timely manner. The regulations governing the implementation of transportation 

projects within air basins designated as Extreme Non-Attainment Areas are stipulated 

in EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93) and also the 

Joint Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) regulations, "Planning Assistance and Standards," 23 CFR Part 450 and 49 

CFR Part 613. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 19 

The long-term transportation planning requirements for emission reductions from onroad mobile sources within the Basin are met by SCAG’s triennial Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP), with its 20 year planning horizon. The short-term 

implementation requirements of the Transportation Conformity Rule are met by 

SCAG’s biennial Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), the first 

two years of which are fiscally constrained and demonstrate timely implementation. 

The region is also required to identify a special class of transportation projects called 

Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), which are specified in the Federal Clean 

Air Act (Section 108 (f)(1)(A) – Transportation Control Measures) and also by 

EPA’s Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93). In the event that the 

region were to fall out of conformity, only those projects identified as TCMs would 

be allowed to go forward. However, once a project is identified as a TCM, certain 

special conditions and obligations arise. 

• Emission Reductions: The region must specify the emission reductions accruing 

from these TCM projects, and undertake both to implement these projects in a 

timely manner, and to demonstrate that the projects have, in deed, resulted in the 

emission reductions specified. In the event that a TCM category project is not 

implemented, for any reason, the region must substitute that project with an 

alternative that provides at least as much emission reduction as the original 

project. 

• Timely Implementation: Projects identified as TCMs must be tracked for 

implementation. In the event that a particular TCM category project is delayed 

or otherwise fails, the region undertakes to compensate the emission reduction 

losses by alternative means. 

• Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis: The region must 

demonstrate that it has considered all reasonably available control measures and 

that projects identified as TCMs have been chosen on the basis of such an 

analysis. 

In general, transportation control measures (TCMs) are those actions which provide 

emission reductions from on-road mobile sources, based on changes in the patterns 

and modes by which the regional transportation system is used. The various 

strategies being considered as part of the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 

are defined, collectively, as a single TCM, with specific interventions and strategies 

grouped into its following three components: 

• High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Interventions: These are interventions that 

attempt to shift the proportion of work trips made using single occupancy 

vehicles—the clearly preferred mode of travel within the Southern California 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 20 

region, constituting 90 % of all home-to-work trips, according to the 2000 US 

Census—by increasing the share of HOV ridership within the Region. HOV 

lanes are one example of such projects, where particular segments of heavily 

used freeways are designated for exclusive use by HOV vehicles, particularly 

during rush hour traffic. The purpose of such measures is to make car-pooling 

and ride-sharing practices more attractive to individuals who may otherwise 

prefer the convenience of a single occupancy vehicle commute trip. 

• Transit and Systems Management Interventions: These are interventions that 

rely primarily on the provision of facilities and infrastructure that incentivize an 

increase in the proportion of regional trips that make use of transit as a 

transportation mode. Such measures also promote the use of alternative modes 

of transportation—such as bicycle and pedestrian modes—and seek to 

incentivize increases in the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) or ridership 

(AVR) by facilitating van-pools, smart shuttles and other such strategies. 

• Information-based Transportation Interventions: These are interventions that 

rely primarily on the innovative provision of information in a manner that 

successfully influences the ways in which individuals use the regional 

transportation system. Typically, such measures seek to induce changes in trip 

behavior that beneficially influence the congestion and air pollution impacts of 

travel. One set of strategies attempt to increase the proportion of ride-sharing 

and car-pooling trips by providing information that makes it easier to match up 

people traveling to and from particular sets of origin and destination points. 

Another set of strategies attempts to shift the time-profile of demand—thus, 

transportation demand management (TDM)—by redistributing traffic flows 

from peak to off-peak hours. These strategies rely on providing single 

occupancy vehicle operators with realistic and near-real time estimates of 

congestion using internet-based information networks, in an effort to influence 

their decision to defer traveling to some later, less congested time of day. 

Transportation Control Measure Development

Over the past few decades, there have been remarkable improvements in the control 

of emissions from on-road vehicles. These have stemmed, in large measure, from 

improvements in the efficiency of internal combustion engines and also from 

dramatic improvements in the emission control technology installed on newer 

vehicles.1 However, trends assessed as part of the regional transportation planning 

process make it clear that the increase in vehicle emissions resulting from increases 

in the number of vehicles on the road and the number of vehicle miles they each are 

 

1

 Such measures are outside the definition of TCMs, which are discussed in more detail in 

Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 21 

driven, may rapidly overwhelm any future benefits from technology improvements. 

This becomes even more significant when taken together with the fact that the 

comparatively low-mileage sport utility vehicles (SUVs) currently constitute at least 

50% of all new vehicle sales As a result, it is imperative that the Region seek 

alternative and innovative ways to reduce transportation-related air pollution and 

environmental impacts. 

The TCMs specified in the 2001 RTP, as well as the projects listed for 

implementation in the first two years of the 2002 Regional Transportation 

Improvement Program (RTIP), were developed as part of an extensive and 

comprehensive decision making process that actively sought the input of key 

stakeholders throughout the Region. Various committees and task forces, made up of 

city and county elected officials, regulators, planners, and community-based groups, 

have worked to ensure that every viable measure that has the real potential of 

improving the Region’s progress toward attainment of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), receives due consideration. At the culmination of the 

process, SCAG’s Regional Council recommended that the transportation control 

measures and strategies proposed as part of the 2001 RTP, along with the investment 

commitments contained in the 2002 RTIP, be included as part of the Region’s air 

quality plans. These measures and recommendations have accordingly been moved 

forward for inclusion in the present document. 

Transportation Control Method Objectives

The central objective of the control methods outlined in the 2001 RTP, and now 

incorporated into the 2003 AQMP, is to increase (or, at least, maintain at current 

levels) the proportion of trips made using modes other than single occupancy 

vehicles. This remains the primary goal of the Region’s transportation control 

strategy, and HOV projects are an important component of such efforts. 

However, projects that reduce congestion and improve traffic flows, on freeways and 

on arterial roads, also have some role to play in mitigating the air quality impacts of 

transportation. The conventional argument has been that capacity-enhancing 

congestion relief projects improve air quality by moving vehicles from the higher 

polluting slow speeds to lower polluting higher speeds. This argument has been 

countered by the observation that, in cases where capacity is increased to relieve 

congestion, the act of increasing the supply itself generates an increase in demand. 

Thus efforts to relieve congestion also increase the total volume of traffic on the 

roads, within certain bounds. However, while the congestion relief benefits of 

capacity enhancing projects are certainly less than was previously thought, there are 

certainly measurable air quality and environmental benefits to projects that improve 

traffic flows. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 22 

Transit and Systems Management projects constitute a second core of the Region’s 

efforts to mitigate the air quality and environmental impacts of increases in traffic 

activity. These measures include conventional transit projects (bus, commuter rail, 

subway and shuttle services), non-motorized transit projects (supporting bicycle and 

pedestrian movement), and inter-modal facilities (park-and-ride lots, van-pool 

routes). The objective of these measures is to attract as many individuals as possible 

to non-single occupancy vehicle modes of transportation for peak and non-deferrable 

work trips. Also considered in this segment are improvements to goods movementrelated facilities that carry the potential to either separate freight-related traffic from 

commute-related traffic, or to otherwise expedite the transfer of goods across diverse 

modes to transportation. 

A third key element is the Region’s efforts to implement information-based measures 

that seek to change travel behavior in ways that mitigate the air quality and 

environmental impacts of transportation. Some examples of such measures are 

rideshare programs that seek to match up individuals traveling to and from specific 

destinations in a way that enables a number of people to share rides to work, rather 

than driving alone. Intelligent Transportation Systems use computerization, sensor 

technology embedded in road paving, signalization and ramp metering-types of 

interventions to modulate the flows of traffic in ways that improve flows and so 

reduce emissions. 

Table 4-3 provides a list of transportation control measures (TCMs) selected from the 

first two years (fiscally constrained portion) of the 2002 Regional Transportation 

Improvement Program (RTIP), which, in turn, is based on the 2001 Regional 

Transportation Plan (RTP), and consistent with the 1994 and 1997/99 AQMP/SIPs. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 23 

TABLE 4-3 

Selected TCM Projects Programmed for Implementation through the 

2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) 

Project Description 

A. High Occupancy Vehicle Measures 

HOV projects, and their pricing alternatives 

 New HOV Lanes – Extensions and Additions to Existing Facilities

 New HOV Lanes – With New Facility Projects

 New HOV Lanes -- With Facility Improvement Projects

 HOV Bypasses, Connectors, and New Interchanges with Ramp Meters

 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes and Pricing Alternatives 

B. Transit and System Management Measures 

Bus, rail and shuttle transit expansion and improvements; park and ride lots and 

inter-modal transfer facilities; bicycle and pedestrian facilities; railroad 

consolidation programs such as the Alameda Corridor, grade separation projects, 

channelization, over-passes, underpasses; traffic signalization; intersection 

improvements 

Transit 

 Rail Track – New Lines 

 Rail Track – Capacity Expansion of Existing Lines 

 New Rolling Stock Acquisition -- Rail Cars and/or Locomotives 

 Express Busways – Bus Rapid Transit and Dedicated Bus Lanes 

 Buses – Fleet Expansion 

 Shuttles and Paratransit Vehicles – Fleet Expansion 

Intermodal Transfer Facilities 

 Rail Stations - New 

 Rail Stations - Expansion 

 Park & Ride Lots – New 

 Park & Ride Lots – Expansion

 Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities – New 

 Bus Stations & Transfer Facilities – Expansion 

Non-motorized Transportation Mode Facilities 

 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - New 

 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities - Expansion 

 Bicycle Facilities - New 

 Bicycle Facilities - Expansion 

 Pedestrian Facilities - New 

 Pedestrian Facilities - Expansion 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 24 

TABLE 4-3 (continued) 

Selected TCM Projects Programmed for Implementation through the 

2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) 

C. Information-based Transportation Strategies 

Programs that promote and popularize multi-modal commute strategies to 

maximize alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle commute trips; marketing and 

promoting the use of HOV lanes or rail lines to the general public; educating the 

public regarding cost, locations, accessibility and services available at Park and 

Ride lots; promote and market vanpool formation and incentive programs; 

promoting ride-matching services through the Internet and other means of making 

alternative travel option information more accessible to the general public; Urban 

Freeway System Management improvements; Smart Corridors System 

Management programs; Congestion Management Plan-based demand 

management strategies; county-/corridor-wide vanpool programs; seek money for 

transportation management associations (TMAs); and TDM demonstration 

programs/projects eligible for programming in the RTIP. 

 Marketing for Rideshare Services and Transit/TDM/Intermodal Services 

 Intelligent Transportation Systems/Control System Computerization 

 Telecommuting Programs/Satellite Work Centers 

 Real-time Rail, Transit, or Freeway Information Systems (changeable message 

signs) 

The measures contained in the 2001 RTP demonstrate an overall emission reduction 

for the region of 15.7 tons per day (tpd) of VOC, 7.8 tpd of NOx and 161.8 tpd of 

CO by the year 2010. Emission reductions from transportation control measures 

make up a subset of that total and provide emission reductions of 5 tpd of VOC, 1 tpd 

of NOx and 60 tpd of CO. 

STATE AND FEDERAL STATIONARY AND MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL 

MEASURES 

The 2003 AQMP includes the State's strategy for reducing emissions from sources 

that are primarily under State and federal jurisdiction, including mobile sources, fuels 

and the fueling infrastructure, and consumer products. 

The on-road motor sources category includes passenger cars, light-duty trucks, 

medium-duty vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles, and motorcycles. There are currently 

approximately 10 million vehicles in this category in the South Coast Air Basin. In 

1997, these vehicles traveled more than 296 million miles per day; they are projected 

to travel about 362 million miles per day by the year 2010. CARB and U.S. EPA 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 25 

have primary authority to reduce emissions from on-road mobile sources, through the 

adoption of emission standards and other related requirements. SCAG can contribute 

to this effort through the adoption of transportation control measures that reduce the 

use of on-road mobile sources. The District has limited authority to impose 

requirements to reduce emissions from these sources. However, the District has 

reduced emissions from this source category through its trip reduction requirements 

for large employers (Rule 2002), fleet rules, vehicle scrapping programs, and 

incentive programs. 

Off-road mobile sources refers to off-road vehicles and mobile non-vehicular 

equipment categories such as aircraft, trains, marine vessels, farm and construction 

equipment (e.g., bulldozers), industrial equipment (e.g., forklifts), and utility 

equipment (e.g., lawn mowers). The authority to develop and implement regulations 

for off-road mobile sources lies primarily with the U.S. EPA and CARB. The 

District has limited authority to adopt retrofit requirements for some off-road mobile 

sources. 

Technological breakthroughs over the past 30 years made significant emission 

reductions possible. Over the next decade, CARB expects to see even greater 

advances through the development, commercialization, and use of zero- and nearzero emission technologies as well as further development of clean and alternative 

fuels. These emerging technologies hold promise for several reasons: tailpipe, 

evaporative and fuel marketing emissions will be eliminated, emission control 

equipment deterioration or failure will be a thing of the past, toxic and greenhouse 

gas emissions will be substantially reduced, and emissions associated with the 

traditional fuels infrastructure will be significantly reduced. 

State Strategy 

CARB’s strategy for achieving additional emissions reductions from the mobile 

source emissions inventory can be grouped into five approaches: (a) set technologyforcing new engine standards; (b) reduce emissions from the in-use fleet; (c) require 

clean fuels, support alternative fuels, and reduce petroleum dependency; (d) work 

with U.S. EPA to reduce emissions from federal and State sources; and (e) pursue 

long-term advanced technologies measures. These five strategies would be 

implemented via the mobile source and fuels measures cited in this Section. 

Consumer products include products such as detergents, polishes, cosmetics, 

hairsprays, and disinfectants, that are used primarily by household and institutional 

consumers. Consumer products represent a significant source of VOC emissions in 

the Basin. Overall emissions from this category are determined both by the 

emissions characteristics of the types of products within the category, and by 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 26 

increases in product usage that are largely tied to population increases. Although 

existing regulations for consumer products have reduced projected 2010 emissions 

from this category, VOC emissions from this category are estimated to be about 108 

tons per day, or 17% of the total VOC inventory in the Basin. Under Health and 

Safety Code 41712, CARB has the authority and responsibility to achieve the 

maximum technologically and commercially feasible VOC emission reductions from 

consumer products. However, CARB is prohibited from eliminating a product type 

(e.g., mode of dispensing). 

a. Set Technology-Forcing New Engine Standards - Technology-forcing 

emission standards for new vehicles and engines have been at the heart of CARB’s 

mobile source control program. Progressively more stringent emission standards 

have helped spur improvements in combustion efficiency and advanced engine and 

after-treatment technology. For many mobile source categories, more stringent 

standards were adopted under the existing program, and will be phased-in between 

now and 2010. To achieve and maintain healthful air quality for California residents 

in the face of increased population, increased vehicle miles traveled, and increased 

equipment usage, the push toward zero emission technology is absolutely essential. 

Thus, CARB is proposing the next round of emission standards, which will be 

adopted during this decade and realize substantial emission benefits by 2020. 

CARB also believes that tighter national standards for new off-road equipment, 

harbor craft, ships, locomotives, and aircraft have the potential to be technically 

feasible and cost-effective. 

b. Reduce Emissions from the In-Use Fleet - Incentive-based programs using 

public funds have been successful in reducing emissions of VOC and NOx. Some 

incentive programs, for example the CARB’s Lower-Emission School Bus Program 

and the Carl Moyer Program, are also achieving particulate matter (PM) reductions. 

However, the implementation of incentive-based programs was never intended to 

relieve the private sector of its ultimate responsibility to reduce emissions from the 

existing vehicle fleet. Therefore, the CARB must now consider other options that 

require the aging vehicle and equipment fleet within California to reduce emissions 

and the associated impacts on our State’s air quality over the next ten years. 

Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles: Inspection and Maintenance (or Smog Check) 

programs help ensure that in-use vehicles stay clean as they age. The Bureau of 

Automotive Repair (BAR) has implemented a number of near-term improvements to 

the Smog Check program. Three additional improvements are reflected in the new 

State measures: 1) loaded-mode testing for gasoline trucks between 8,500 and less 

than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, 2) an evaporative emission control test to 

identify excess VOC emissions from leaks in the fuel system, and 3) increasing the 

percent of vehicles sent to Test-Only stations (implemented in December 2002). 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 27 

In addition, CARB is currently conducting a Pilot Program to test both light- and 

medium-duty vehicles to determine the most effective means of reducing in-use 

emissions from older vehicles. The results of the pilot program will be used to 

determine the feasibility of implementing light- and medium-duty vehicles parts 

replacement/repair programs. 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Equipment: The CARB must also focus its efforts on 

reducing emissions from in-use on- and off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicle and 

equipment fleets. While stringent new emission standards will result in significant 

reductions – this will only occur over time. The durability and performance 

reliability of the heavy-duty diesel engine means that each one remains in service for 

an extended period of time, typically 500,000 miles to a million or more miles, 

diluting the near-term emissions impact of standards targeting only new engines. For 

both on-road and off-road diesel engines, the CARB will be considering several 

strategies to reduce in-use emissions. Some examples of these strategies are fleet 

rules to reduce PM emissions, idling restrictions, and vapor recovery for cargo tanker 

fueling hoses. CARB also intends to implement a software upgrade program that 

specifically targets 1993 through 1998 model year on-road heavy-duty diesel 

engines. These software upgrades, developed by the engine manufacturers and 

available now, will significantly reduce excess NOx emissions during typical onhighway driving conditions. 

c. Require Clean Fuels, Support Alternative Fuels and Reduce Petroleum 

Dependency - Cleaner conventional and alternative fuels will reduce emissions and 

enable the new technology envisioned in this SIP. One proposed fuels measure 

would lower the maximum sulfur content allowed in diesel fuel to 15 ppm by 2006, 

and significantly reduce diesel PM levels for on-road and off-road vehicles 

statewide. Low sulfur diesel fuel would enable technologies, such as catalyzed 

diesel particulate filters and NOx adsorbers that could significantly reduce emissions 

from on- and off-road engines. Additional measures would control the sulfur in 

lubricating oil and set additive standards for diesel fuel to control engine deposits. 

While tighter fuel specifications can enable the next generation of vehicle and 

equipment technology, alternative fuels and alternative diesel fuels can reduce 

emissions in the near-term. There are several mobile source and fuels measures that 

provide for the use of alternative fuels or alternative diesel fuels to yield near-term 

emissions benefits. One sure way to reduce emissions from fuels is to use less of it. 

CARB will pursue approaches to reduce petroleum dependency, including looking at 

advanced technologies, alternative fuels and alternative diesel fuels, lowering travel 

demand, and reducing upstream emissions. 

d. Work with U.S. EPA to Reduce Emissions from Federal and State Sources - 

Adopted U.S. EPA regulations for interstate diesel trucks and off-road equipment, 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 28 

Figure II-4

Older Gasoline Powered Vehicle Contribution

Statewide Summer 2010

25

81 87

66

48

0

20

40

60

80

100

VMT ROGexh ROGevap NOx PM10

pre-1998 1998+ 

%

and the federal requirement for low-sulfur diesel fuel in 2006 for on-road trucks, are 

critical parts of the strategy to attain federal ambient air quality standards. Additional 

reductions from sources under federal jurisdiction will be needed if the South Coast 

is to attain the federal one-hour ozone standard. These reductions can best be 

achieved through the adoption of federal controls, regulations, or incentive programs. 

e. Pursue Long-Term Advanced Technologies Measures - 

Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles: 

There is a wide disparity in emissions 

between pre- and post-1998 light-duty 

vehicles. This variation is primarily due 

to the technological advancements in 

motor vehicle controls and vehicle 

design that occurred beginning in 1998, 

and the results of overall deterioration in 

the aging motor vehicle fleet. Figure II4 illustrates how older engines in the 

light-duty fleet contribute a 

disproportionate share of emissions 

relative to their population and usage. 

Other long-term advanced technology measures for light- and medium-duty vehicles 

include: 1) Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement (VAVR) – which requires 

funding, and 2) improvements to the Smog Check program – which would require 

legislative authority, including removing the rolling 30-year model year exemption 

(bring the old, high-polluting vehicles back into the program) and extending 

enhanced smog check to include all eligible vehicles registered in a nonattainment 

region subject to smog check. 

Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Equipment: For both on-road and off-road diesel engines, 

ongoing funding for incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Program and the 

Lower-Emission school bus program would introduce cleaner technology and reduce 

in-use emissions. Other long-term advanced technology measures include lower U.S. 

EPA emission standards for new off-road diesel equipment, tighter standards for new 

and remanufactured locomotive engines, additional marine reductions, including 

alternatives to dockside power and propulsion in/out of port and operational controls, 

and reduced emissions from vehicles traveling to and from airports. 

In addition to the proposed measures for mobile sources, the State element also 

contains specific measures to further reduce VOC emissions from previously 

unregulated consumer product categories or regulated categories for which further 

emission reductions are feasible. Mass-based or reactivity-based limits based on 

reformulation would be considered for these products. Additional measures are also 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 29 

proposed to reduce evaporative emissions associated with fuel storage, transport, and 

vehicle refueling. 

f. Summary - CARB's proposed strategy includes both defined (short-term) 

measures as well as long-term strategies. Table 4-4A is a list of CARB's proposed 

defined control measures with estimated emission reductions of 33 to 72 tons per day 

of VOC and 23 to 49 tons per day of NOx in 2010. If the Proposed 2003 State and 

Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan is approved by the 

State, CARB staff will propose the control measures listed in Table 4-4A for Board 

consideration by the dates shown. CARB also proposes a broad commitment to 

adopt these or other measures to achieve, at a minimum, the VOC and NOx emission 

reductions in tons per day in the South Coast in 2010 shown in Table 4-4B. These 

totals represent the mid-range of emission reductions expected from the defined State 

measures in Table 4-4A. CARB’s proposed long-term strategy is presented in the 

“Long-Term Control Strategy” section of this chapter. A detailed description of the 

control measures identified in Table 4-4A is provided in Appendix IV-B - Proposed 

2003 State and Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 30 

TABLE 4-4A 

Proposed State Defined (Short-Term) Control Measures 

(Emission reductions in tons per day in 2010) 

Control 

Measure # 

Expected Reductions1 

Title/Description (tons/day) 

VOC NOx 

LT/MED-DUTY-1 (CARB) Replace or Upgrade Emission Control Systems on 

Existing Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program. 

0-19 0-18 

LT/MED-DUTY-2 (BAR) Smog Check Improvements 5.6-5.8 8.0-8.4 

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-1 

(CARB) 

Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspections 

with Community-Based Inspections 

0-0.1 0 

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-2 

(CARB) 

Capture and Control Vapors from Gasoline Cargo 

Tankers 

4-5 0 

ON-RD HVY-DUTY-3 

(CARB) 

Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing 

Truck/Bus Fleet 

1.4-4.5 8-11 

OFF-RD CI-1 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing 

Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment Fleet 

(Compression Ignition Engines)-Retrofit Controls 

2.3-7.8 NQ 

OFF-RD CI-2 (CARB) Registration and Inspection Program for Existing 

Heavy-Duty Off-Road Equipment to Detect 

Excess Emissions (Compression Ignition Engines) 

NQ NQ 

OFF-RD LSI-1 (CARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road 

Gas Engines (Spark Ignited Engines 25 hp and 

Greater) 

0 0.8 

OFF-RD LSI-2 (CARB) Clean Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment 

Through Retrofit Controls (Spark-Ignition Engines 

25 hp and Greater) 

0.5-1.4 1.5-3.5 

OFF-RD LSI-3 (CARB) Require Zero-Emission Forklifts Where Feasible 

– Lift Capacity ≤ 8,000 Pounds 

0.3-0.6 1.4-2.8 

SMALL OFF-RD-1 (CARB) Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld 

Small Engines and Equipment (Spark Ignited 

Engines Under 25 hp such as Weed Trimmers, 

Leaf Blowers, and Chainsaws) 

1.9 0.2 

1

 Expected reductions are from the summer planning inventory for the South Coast Air Basin in 2010 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 31 

TABLE 4-4A (continued) 

Proposed State Short-Term Control Measures 

Control 

Measure # 

Expected Reductions1 

(tons/day) 

Title/Description 

VOC NOx 

SMALL OFF-RD-2 

(CARB) 

Set Lower Emission Standards for New NonHandheld Small Engines and Equipment (Spark 

Ignited Engines Under 25 hp such as 

Lawnmowers) 

6.6-7.7 0.6-1.9 

MARINE-1 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing 

Harbor Craft Fleet – Cleaner Engines and Fuels 

0.1 2.7 

MARINE-2 (CARB) Pursue Approaches to Reduce Land-Based 

Emissions at Ports – Alternative Fuels, Cleaner 

Engines, Retrofit Controls, Electrification, 

Education Programs, Operational Controls 

0.1 0.1 

FUEL-1 (CARB) Set Additives Standards for Diesel Fuel to Control 

Engine Deposits 

NQ NQ 

FUEL-2 (CARB) Set Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for 

Trucks/Buses, Off-Road Equipment, and 

Stationary Engines 

Enabling Enabling 

CONS-1 (CARB) Set New Consumer Products VOC Limits for 2006 2.3 0 

CONS-2(CARB) Set New Consumer Products VOC Limits for 

2008-2010 

8.5-15 0 

FVR-1 (CARB) Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from 

Aboveground Storage Tanks 

0-0.1 0 

FVR-2 (CARB) Recover Fuel Vapors from Gasoline Dispensing at 

Marinas 

0-0.1 0 

FVR-3 (CARB) Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline 

Dispenser Hoses 

0-0.7 0 

PEST-1 (DPR) Implement Existing Pesticide Strategy Baseline Baseline 

Subtotal of Potential Range of State Measures 33.6-72.2 23.3-49.4

1

 Expected reductions are from the summer planning inventory for the South Coast Air Basin in 2010 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 32 

TABLE 4-4B 

Proposed State Annual Adoption Commitments for Near-Term Measures 

2003 South Coast SIP1

(Emission reductions in tons per day in 2010) 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 

VOC 10 4 212 14 

NOx 11 5 212 0 

1 Expected reductions are based on summer planning inventory. 

2

 Includes BAR’s commitment to implement improvements to the Enhanced Smog Check 

Program. 

DISTRICT, STATE, AND FEDERAL LONG-TERM CONTROL STRATEGY 

(182(e)(5) MEASURES OR "BLACK BOX") 

In addition to the specific new short-term measures defined by the State, District, and 

SCAG, the ozone attainment demonstration will rely on long-term measures that 

anticipate the development of new control techniques or improvement of existing control 

technologies. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 182(e)(5) specifically authorizes 

the inclusion of such measures for extreme ozone nonattainment areas – these measures 

are often referred to as the “black box.” The size of the black box is based on the 

difference between the final attainment target (carrying capacity) for each pollutant and 

the emissions remaining after application of short-term control measures. 

Achieving the reductions ascribed to the black box by the 2010 attainment deadline will 

pose a tremendous challenge to the agencies, businesses, and residents of California. 

Based on the latest emission inventory and modeling analysis, the size of the black box 

for the 2003 AQMP is estimated to be 265 tons per day of VOC and 181 tons per day of 

NOx (which represents approximately 100 tons per day of additional VOC reductions 

beyond the 1997/99 ozone SIP target). 

The 2003 AQMP's long-term strategy is comprised of two components: 1) Tier I, which 

is based on the commitment to achieve additional reductions beyond the proposed shortterm measures based on District's preliminary technical evaluation; and 2) Tier II, which 

is based on the remaining long-term emission reductions needed for attainment 

demonstration. 

Two different scenarios are presented in Tables 4-5A and 4-5B for distributing the longterm reductions among agencies. Under Scenario 1, recommended by District staff, the 

1997/99 SIP commitments by agencies are used as a starting point to allocate the portion 

of Tier II long-term reductions needed. Since CARB/U.S. EPA have not met their 

commitments in the 1997/99 SIP (as of 2003), these agencies would be required to 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 33 

achieve the same level of remaining emissions by 2010 as contained in the current SIP. 

In addition, the remaining emission reductions needed for attainment are then 

apportioned to each agency based on the contribution of the remaining emissions within 

each agency's legal authority. 

Under Scenario 2, the long-term strategy recommended by CARB staff, all of the 

responsible agencies would focus on defining feasible measures to achieve the necessary 

emission reductions. CARB’s expectation is that each agency would pursue feasible, 

cost-effective measures for sources under its jurisdiction. CARB would take 

responsibility for assuring that measures are identified by 2007 to achieve the remaining 

emission reductions needed for attainment. 

Tables 4-5A and 4-5B provide the overall emission reductions (tons/day) associated with 

short-term/defined measures as well as long-term strategies by agency under Scenarios 1 

and 2. CARB staff suggests a single black box and a public process to identify feasible 

measures and the appropriate agency for adoption and implementation. District staff 

asserts that responsibility for achieving every ton of needed reductions should be 

assigned to each agency (CARB, U.S. EPA and the District) in this SIP. These views 

must be reconciled in the final South Coast SIP to facilitate acceptance by both the State 

and local governing boards. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 34 

Table 4-5A (Scenario 1) 

Emission Reductions from Short-Term and Long-Term Measures1

 

(2010, tons per day)

District CARB EPA 

 VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx 

Short-Term Measures 21.5 5 49 37 --- ---

Long-Term Measures: 

 Tier I 11 --- 47 --- ---

 Tier II 20 --- 187* 113* (18)* 68**

 Subtotal 31 --- 234* 113* (18)* 68**

Total Reductions by Agency 52.5 5 283* 150* (18)* 68**

Overall Reductions VOC= 336 and NOx= 223 

* If U.S. EPA achieves the anticipated 18 tons per day of VOC reductions from sources under federal 

jurisdiction, CARB's long-term reduction commitment will be reduced by this amount. 

** Reflects the anticipated emission reductions from sources under federal jurisdiction to be achieved 

by U.S. EPA. In the event that U.S. EPA does not achieve these reductions, the NOx carrying 

capacity will be increased by this amount under Option 2 of attainment strategy (i.e., excluding 

reductions from federal sources) which would still demonstrate attainment with the federal 1-hour 

ozone standard. 

Table 4-5B (Scenario 2) 

Emission Reductions from Short-Term and Long-Term Measures1 

(2010, tons per day) 

District CARB EPA 

 VOC NOx VOC NOx VOC NOx 

Short-Term Measures 21.5 5 49 37 --- --- 

Long-Term Measures* VOC = 265 and NOx = 181 

Overall Reductions VOC = 336 and NOx = 223 

* CARB proposes to take responsibility for assuring that measures are identified by 2007 to achieve 

these reductions to meet the primary carrying capacity of 310 tpd VOC and 530 tpd NOx. If the 

federal government does not agree to fulfill its described reduction responsibility, 68 tpd of these 

NOx emission reductions will be foregone and the NOx carrying capacity will be adjusted upward 

by 68 tpd. Since the federal VOC reductions must be achieved to attain, those 18 tpd VOC 

reductions will be retained in the long-term commitment. 

 

1 In addition to District, CARB, and U.S. EPA measures, the 2003 AQMP includes reductions from 

SCAG's 2001 RTP (i.e., 15.7 tons per day of VOC and 7.8 tons per day NOx) of which emissions 

reductions from transportation control measures are 5 tons per day of VOC and 1 ton per day of NOx 

emissions.
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 35 

SCENARIO 1 -- RECOMMENDED BY DISTRICT STAFF

District's Portion of Long-Term Strategy - After implementation of its proposed shortterm measures, the District would be exceeding its emission target in the 1997/99 SIP by 

about 65 tons per day of VOC; however, in view of the magnitude of the reductions 

required for attainment demonstration, the District staff is proposing long-term measures 

to achieve additional VOC reductions from stationary sources. The District's long-term 

strategy is also made up of Tier I and Tier II components. Under the Tier I long-term 

strategy, the reduction target is 11 tons per day of VOC with the actual reductions 

dependent on technology assessments to be performed as part of the rule development 

process. The Tier I long-term control measures have an adoption date between 2005 and 

2007 and implementation date between 2007 and 2009, and targets the source categories 

such as those in the following control measures: 

• CTS-10 – Miscellaneous Industrial Coatings and Solvent Operations (VOC) 

• FUG-05 – Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources (VOC) 

• PRC-07 – Industrial Process Operations (VOC) 

 

The reduction target for Tier II long-term strategy is 20 tons per day of VOC reductions 

in 2010. Any excess reductions achieved during implementation of the short-term 

commitment will be credited toward the Tier I long-term commitment. The Tier II longterm control strategy has an adoption date between 2006 and 2008 and implementation 

date between 2008 and 2010, and would target all stationary source categories for which 

feasible reductions can be identified. Furthermore, permanent reductions in emission 

estimates due to improvement in inventory methodology are SIP creditable if the changes 

are approved by the Governing Board at its regularly scheduled public meetings. The 

District's overall reduction target under the long-term strategy is 31 tons per day of VOC 

in 2010. The District's long-term strategy is described in Appendix IV-A (Control 

Measure LTM-ALL). 

In order to achieve the District's long-term emission reduction commitments, several 

mechanisms will be used by District staff to identify and implement new control 

strategies. These mechanisms described in more detail in Appendix IV-A: Long-Term 

Control Measure (LTM-ALL) include, but are not limited to: 1) AQMP Advisory 

Technical Subcommittee; 2) Annual Technology Assessment Workshops; 3) Emissions 

Inventory Updates/Studies; 4) VOC Reactivity Studies; 5) Periodic BACT Evaluations. 

In addition to these mechanisms, advanced control technologies (mobile and stationary 

sources) and innovative control approaches (e.g., market incentive programs, localized 

controls), presented later in this Chapter, are also expected to play a major role in 

achieving the long-term reductions required for demonstrating attainment with the federal 

1-hour ozone standard. A brief description of the above mechanisms is provided here: 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 36 

(1) Technical Subcommittee of the AQMP Advisory Group 

Because of the significant emission reductions required for attainment 

demonstration, a Technical Subcommittee was established under the District’s 

AQMP Advisory Group in April 2003 to explore additional control technologies 

and innovative approaches to achieve further reductions beyond the defined 

control measures and reduce the size of the “black box”. A preliminary list of 

potential control strategies identified by this Subcommittee is included in the 

Section entitled, "Suggested Strategies by AQMP Advisory Technical 

Subcommittee" in this chapter. Additional control strategies will be further 

explored and developed through this Subcommittee in the future. Control 

strategies that involve mobile sources or consumer products will be further 

coordinated with CARB and U.S. EPA. To assist in identifying new control 

strategies, the Subcommittee may also be expanded to include additional technical 

experts on an as needed basis. 

(2) Annual Technology Assessment Workshops 

The District will conduct annual technology assessment workshops with 

participation from broader audience including consultants, technical experts, and 

other interested parties to identify the latest technology improvements and process 

changes which could lead to implementation of cost-effectiveness control 

strategies to further reduce VOC emissions. Potential control methods will 

include, but are not limited to near-zero or zero-VOC coating and solvent 

formulations and technologies (e.g., water-based, UV/EB technologies, powder 

coatings), add-on controls, improved inspections and maintenance programs, and 

process modifications. Manufacturing processes identified through the 

enforcement of stationary source rules such as Rule 442 – Usage of Solvents, will 

also be used to identify potential control strategies. 

(3) Emissions Inventory Updates/Studies 

 As part of the effort in identifying new source categories for potential controls, 

specific emission studies will be conducted to refine emission inventories. Any 

emission studies conducted that resulted in permanent emission reductions 

(relative to 2003 AQMP inventory) due to changes in inventory methodology or 

emission factor update, will be credited toward the District’s SIP commitment for 

long-term measures. These changes will be approved by the AQMD Governing 

Board at a public meeting to allow public review and comments. Also, studies 

conducted as part of implementing the annual Emissions Reporting (AER) 

Program (i.e., reviewing/auditing AERs filings from large facilities) will be used 

to identify any new emission reduction strategies voluntarily implemented by 

facilities (for reducing annual emission fees) which may exceed the limits under 

the District’s existing regulations. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 37 

(4) VOC Reactivity Studies 

 Studies conducted to evaluate the reactivity of VOC compounds such as those 

proposed under the District’s Three-Year Advanced Pollution Research Plan will 

provide a basis for establishing control strategies and pilot projects that substitute 

low-reactive VOCs for highly reactive VOCs. These studies will lend support to 

the possibility of using low-reactivity-based products for incorporation into future 

rule development for further VOC reductions. 

(5) Periodic BACT Evaluations 

BACT evaluations will be conducted periodically to identify new control 

strategies that may result from add-on controls or process changes for existing 

sources. 

New control measures identified through any of the above five mechanisms will be 

reported to the Governing Board in December of every year, as part of the District’s 

Annual Rule and Control Measure Forecast Report. This report will also provide a 

preliminary estimate of the expected emission reductions from each newly identified 

measure along with the proposed rule adoption calendar. Furthermore, in January of each 

year, District staff will provide a summary of the emission reductions achieved through 

adoption of the control measures by the Governing Board in the previous year(s) to track 

the performance of its SIP commitment. 

The District is committed to continue actively seeking cost-effective and technically 

feasible control measures. Once these measures are identified, they will be adopted and 

implemented as early as practicable while meeting all public notification requirements. 

The reductions achieved in aggregate would then be used to first satisfy the District's 

short-term commitment, if there is a shortfall, otherwise the District's long-term SIP 

commitment and any excess reductions achieved will be contributed to the State/federal 

long-term reduction goals. However, it bears repeating that all source categories should 

produce their fair share of cost-effective emission reductions. 

CARB's Portion of Long-Term Strategy - CARB's Tier I long-term reduction target is 

based on the CARB's proposed long-term measures contained in their State and Federal 

Element, dated January 2003. CARB’s Tier II long-term reduction target is assigned by 

the District staff following the methodology described in section, District, State and 

Federal Long-Term Control Strategy (182 (e)(5) Measures or “Black Box”). 

CARB will establish a formal process to examine the universe of source categories for 

which the State has jurisdiction to determine how additional reductions can be achieved 

to satisfy the remainder of the long-term commitment. The examination will also include 

approaches that require federal participation and implementation to meet reduction goals. 

Table 4-6 contains an initial list of possible approaches that CARB staff will pursue to 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 38 

identify suitable long-term measures. Beginning in 2004, CARB will also solicit written 

proposals for innovative control concepts from the public and conduct technical 

workshops to further explore promising ideas. CARB expects to identify the remaining 

measures needed to fulfill the long-term commitment in an expeditious manner, and 

commits to adopt such measures by the earliest feasible date and implement them prior to 

the beginning of the ozone season in 2010. 

TABLE 4-6 

Possible State Approaches for Long-Term Measures 

Light/Medium Duty 

Vehicles 

■ Provide incentives for voluntary passenger vehicle retirement 

Smog Check Explore program expansion to increase benefits, including: 

■ Expanded enhanced smog check 

■ Opt-in to test-only program 

■ Replace rolling 30-year exemption with exemption of pre-1974 vehicles 

On-Road Heavy 

Duty Vehicles 

■ Provide incentives for cleaner trucks and buses, including school buses 

Off-Road Vehicles ■ Provide incentives for cleaner off-road equipment 

Airports ■ Pursue approaches to reduce emissions from vehicles traveling to and 

from airports 

Locomotives ■ Pursue approaches to reduce emissions from in-use locomotives 

Diesel Engines 

■ Set toxics standard for existing stationary diesel fueled engines – over 

50 hp 

■ Set toxics standard for existing portable diesel engines 

■ Set toxics standard for new and existing small stationary diesel engines 

– under 50 hp 

■ Set toxics standard for diesel-fueled refrigeration units on trucks 

Fuels 

■ Set sulfur/ash content limits for diesel engine lubricating oils 

■ Support infrastructure for zero emission vehicles – electric, fuel cell, 

hydrogen 

Consumer Products 

■ Consider future consumer products regulations 

Incentives 

■ Establish clean air labeling program 

■ Continue Statewide energy conservation program 

■ Consider Statewide public education campaign for air quality 

Pesticides 

■ Explore approaches to further reduce volatile emissions from pesticides 

based on regional need 

SCENARIO 2 -- RECOMMENDED BY CARB's STAFF
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 39 

Under State law, the California Air Resources Board is designated as the State agency 

responsible for the preparation of the SIP required by the Clean Air Act and coordination 

of district activities necessary to comply with the federal Act. In this capacity, California 

is proposing to assume responsibility for assuring that by 2007 measures are identified to 

achieve the remaining emission reductions needed for attainment in the South Coast. 

California makes this commitment with the expectation that U.S. EPA will discharge its 

responsibilities under the Clean Air Act by undertaking rulemaking or other actions to 

achieve emission reductions that are determined to be appropriate for U.S. EPA and 

needed for attainment in the South Coast Air Basin. Furthermore, CARB expects that the 

District will continue to be an active partner in the technical and regulatory processes to 

identify and adopt the necessary long-term measures. 

CARB staff believes based on the best technical information available, that identifying 

new measures that will achieve attainment is particularly challenging for the South Coast 

given the level of control already in place and the additional defined measures in this 

plan. CARB and the District will continue to assess, on an on-going basis, emerging 

technologies, market incentive programs (e.g., public funding/demand side strategies), 

opportunities for pollution prevention, and the reasonable availability of other measures. 

Through this process, the specific measures needed for attainment will be identified no 

later than 2007, adopted by the earliest feasible date, and implemented prior to the ozone 

season in 2010. If the specific measures developed to satisfy the long-term obligation 

affect the on-road motor vehicle emissions budget, the District and CARB commit to 

submit the revised budget to U.S. EPA. 

CARB staff will work with the District, U.S. EPA, and the public to assess potential 

emission reduction concepts to meet the long-term commitments. All agencies will 

actively seek to identify additional cost-effective control strategies to achieve the 

maximum feasible reductions from all source categories. Special attention will be given 

to achieving reductions from in-use on-road and off-road mobile sources because of the 

extended life of these sources and their slow turn-over rate. This effort will rely heavily 

on input and feedback from interested stakeholders. The public’s participation will be 

important both in identifying potential emission reduction concepts and developing 

approaches to achieve those emission reductions in practice. The support of stakeholders 

in crafting ways to overcome implementation barriers and providing assistance to 

ultimately obtain the emission reductions will be a key component to meeting the longterm commitment. As new control strategies are identified, agencies would adopt 

regulations to implement these measures in the earliest practicable timeframe. 

Every type of emission source – mobile, stationary, and area – as well as new and 

existing -- will need to be evaluated to determine the remaining emissions in the 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 40 

attainment year, and the possibility for further emission reductions. Both new sources 

and sources already in place will be evaluated for potential emission reduction 

opportunities. 

Together with the interested public, the agencies will evaluate the opportunities to 

achieve all feasible emission reductions from regulatory programs as well as innovative 

approaches such as incentives, voluntary programs, episodic controls, and other actions. 

Part of this evaluation will include a discussion of which agency or agencies can most 

effectively obtain the emission reductions in practice. For sources such as airports, ports, 

and rail yards, the agencies will consider facility-based approaches to reduce overall 

emissions. For these types of sources, a comprehensive approach may be the most 

effective way to reduce emissions of ozone and fine particulate precursors, as well as 

address community health concerns. The agencies will also work with SCAG to identify 

how transportation decisions can support further emission reductions through direct 

funding of cleaner engine projects or through programs to reduce the rate of growth in 

vehicle travel. As strategies are defined throughout this process, the responsible agency 

will begin development as soon as practicable. 

The agencies will hold a technical forum and identify any new control measures that can 

help implement the long-term strategy. By 2007, the District and CARB will prepare a 

revision to the ozone SIP that: (1) reflects any modifications to the carrying capacity and 

(2) identifies the additional strategies needed to provide the remaining emissions 

reductions, including the specific measures, benefits, timing, and responsible agencies. 

This schedule would harmonize with development of SIPs to attain the federal eight-hour 

ozone standard and fine particulate matter standards in the post-2010 timeframe. 

The District is seeking public comment on which scenario (i.e., 1 or 2) provides the most 

appropriate approach. 

Federal Responsibility Under Long-Term Strategy - As established in the 1994 ozone 

SIP and reaffirmed in the 1999 SIP, the South Coast needs reductions from sources under 

the legal, or practical, control of the federal government to attain national air quality 

standards. These sources include vehicles registered outside California that travel within 

the State, preempted farm and construction equipment, locomotives, marine vessels and 

aircraft, as well as the fuels sold outside California for these engines. The federal Clean 

Air Act directs U.S. EPA to continue reducing mobile source emissions that cause or 

contribute to air pollution that endangers public health. 

U.S. EPA and CARB staffs have partnered effectively, sharing technical resources to 

develop new emission standards and other approaches to cut emissions from source 

categories under shared authority. For example, parallel regulations will reduce 

emissions from new 2007 heavy-duty trucks by 95 percent compared to 1998 levels, if 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 41 

fully implemented. The national emission standards for these vehicles are vital to 

reducing NOx and particulate emissions to meet health-based air quality standards and 

reduce the cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust. These benefits are reflected in the 

baseline inventory. 

Agencies at all levels must deliver combined new reductions of about 330 tons per day of 

VOC and about 220 tons per day of NOx to reach the ozone attainment targets in the 

South Coast by 2010. This plan identifies control measures that the District, SCAG, and 

CARB will develop to achieve significant emission reductions, as well as a broad longterm strategy. However, California alone cannot do it all. The sheer magnitude of the 

additional reductions required to attain necessitates that federal government agencies 

with authority to control air pollution share responsibility for reaching attainment targets. 

To support attainment of the federal one-hour ozone standard (and more protective new 

federal standards) in the South Coast, California believes that the federal government has 

a responsibility to further reduce emissions in proportion to the contribution from sources 

under its jurisdiction to the degree feasible. Federal government action is essential to 

reach the attainment targets which will require reducing emissions across all sources 

contributing to the problem. 

a. Emissions Contribution 

Based on projected 2010 emissions with existing control requirements, sources under 

federal jurisdiction will contribute one-third of total NOx emissions which form ozone 

and about half of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on peak days in the South Coast Air 

Basin. These sources also emit VOC although in smaller proportion. As California State 

and local agencies continue to make commitments and adopt new measures, the relative 

contribution of emissions (especially NOx) from sources under federal control will grow 

larger. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 42 

2010 NOx Emissions = 764 Tons/Day

District

11%

CARB

56%

EPA

33%

Figure 1 

Projected NOx Emissions by Agency 

(South Coast Air Basin, 2010, Summer Planning Inventory) 

Ozone-forming emissions from most sources are declining over time due to the 

effectiveness of adopted controls, despite continued population and travel growth. But 

net emissions from marine and aircraft categories are rising. Between 2000 and 2010, the 

total NOx emissions from marine vessels are projected to increase 25 percent, with 

aircraft emissions rising over 30 percent, because the effects of activity growth are 

greater than the benefits of current controls. In contrast, total NOx emissions will drop 

by 60 percent for passenger vehicles and 30 percent for trucks over the same period. 

Marine and aircraft emissions continue to grow dramatically by 2020 without new 

strategies. 

b. Federal Actions to Meet Emission Reduction Targets 

U.S. EPA and CARB staffs continue to coordinate on future rulemaking, including three 

ongoing efforts. First, U.S. EPA proposed more stringent emission standards for new 

off-road diesel equipment based on the transfer of emission control technology for onroad engines. The benefits will be critical in the post-2010 timeframe to both offset 

growth and make progress toward the new, more stringent federal standards. Second, 

U.S. EPA has also proposed phasing in the use of low sulfur diesel fuel in off-road 

applications nationwide. This will enable the use of more sophisticated control 

technology on off-road diesel engines. Third, U.S. EPA is working in parallel with 

California to develop on-board diagnostics and to strengthen manufacturers’ in-use 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 43 

testing to ensure that new heavy-duty trucks and buses maintain expected emission levels 

throughout their useful lives. 

CARB and the District expect that U.S. EPA and other federal agencies will secure 

further reductions, consistent with the emissions contribution from federal sources. The 

plan relies on the federal government to achieve an additional 68 tons per day of NOx 

reductions, as well as 18 tons per day of ROG reductions, in South Coast Air Basin by 

2010. These totals include the benefits of the three parallel measures described above. 

Like State and local SIP measures, we anticipate that the federal government may 

consider a mix of regulatory programs, incentives, or other agreements to achieve 

reductions. 

As part of the State’s own long-term strategy, CARB identified possible federal emission 

reduction approaches. Accordingly, CARB staff included in its own document concepts 

that the federal government could consider, indicated in Table 4-7. Long-term strategies 

for new engines in locomotives, ocean-going ships, harborcraft, and commercial and nontactical military aircraft are feasible and effective means to cut emissions and will be 

critical to make progress toward all of the national air quality standards. Because of the 

extended life of these engines, we believe the long-term strategy will need to rely heavily 

on programs to replace existing engines with cleaner models or to add emission control 

equipment. Given the volume of equipment in operation and the public health impact of 

the emissions, it is important that U.S. EPA and its federal partners take early action in 

this regard. 

TABLE 4-7 

Concepts for Federal Action 

On-Board Diagnostics For New Truck/Bus Fleet And In-Use Testing For Existing Truck/Bus Fleet 

Lower Emission Standards for New Off-Road Compression Ignition Engines 

Low-Sulfur Standards for Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses and Off-Road Equipment, and Stationary 

Engines 

More Stringent Emission Standards for New Harbor Craft and Ocean-Going Ships 

Clean Up The Existing Ocean-Going Ship Fleet Through Approaches Such As Cleaner Fuels, 

Incentives For Cleaner Ships, Smoke (Opacity) Limits 

Reduce Emissions from Jet Aircraft Through Approaches Such As More Stringent Engine Standards, 

Retrofit Controls, Cleaner Fuel, and Applying Standards to Non-Tactical Military Aircraft 

More Stringent Emission Standards for New and Remanufactured Locomotive Engines 

Incentives to Accelerate Clean Up of Existing Diesel Engines 

CARB intends to continue working with the U.S. EPA and other federal agencies on both 

near-term activities and the long-term strategy. However, the State does not yet have 

assurance that the federal government will achieve the emissions targets in the needed 

timeframe. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 44 

To avoid a transportation conformity lapse, local and State agencies need to adopt this 

SIP revision, and U.S. EPA must find that the transportation conformity emissions 

budgets are adequate, by spring 2004. To preclude the possibility of transportation 

penalties, a backstop provision is proposed in the Plan to be triggered if U.S. EPA does 

not accept the primary control strategy that includes local, State, and federal elements. 

Two options for attainment demonstration of the federal 1-hour ozone standard are 

provided in this Plan. The impact of the 2003 AQMP's proposed control strategy 

(including emission reductions from federal sources), referred to as Option 1, as well as 

the backstop provision (excluding reductions from federal sources), referred to as Option 

2, on attainment demonstration are presented in Chapter 5. 

The primary control strategy provides the greatest protection for public health and the 

best foundation for meeting upcoming federal ozone and particulate matter standards. 

(NOx is the dominant contributor to fine particulate levels and a critical component in 8-

hour ozone air quality in the Basin.) However, a high priority should be placed on 

achieving the federal PM2.5 air quality standard which requires aggressive action at this 

time to demonstrate attainment by the 2014 federal target. The backstop strategy would 

be equally effective for meeting the first ozone attainment milestone, the federal one-hour 

standard. However, it would not provide the NOx emission reductions that will be 

critical in the longer term to attain the new federal eight-hour ozone and PM2.5 

standards. It is vital for the federal government to join the State and local agencies in 

taking early action to address the serious public health consequences of particulate 

pollution as we design our strategy to meet the federal one-hour ozone standard. 

Suggested Strategies from AQMP Advisory Technical Subcommittee 

The Technical Subcommittee of the AQMP Advisory Group was established in April 

2003 to identify new control strategies that could be implemented to achieve the longterm emission reduction requirements (i.e., “black box”). The membership of the 

Subcommittee is comprised of staff from District, CARB, and SCAG as well as 

representatives from the environmental community, industry and local government, but 

would be extended to include other technical experts and entrepreneurs. The following 

is a list of strategies which have been suggested by this Subcommittee thus far as well as 

other strategies suggested during the comment period. These suggestions will continue to 

be further evaluated by agency staff following the adoption of 2003 AQMP. 

Accelerate Penetration and Use of Existing Technologies 

Instead of relying on the development of new technologies for achieving “black box” 

reductions, existing technologies should be relied upon to the greatest extent possible. 

Examples include retrofit of on-road trucks and off-road vehicles and equipment with 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 45 

existing technologies (e.g., diesel particulate filters, 3-way catalysts, and/or diesel 

oxidation catalysts), low- or zero-emission ground support equipment at airports, and 

low-emission switcher locomotives. This accelerated penetration of existing 

technologies through mandatory requirements would result in emission reductions 

occurring earlier instead of waiting for further development or commercialization of new 

technologies. Agency responsibility, funding, and feasibility are among the issues that 

need to be further evaluated for these control strategies. 

Demand-Side Strategies 

Demand-side strategies use differential pricing as a mechanism to influence consumer 

choice when purchasing or operating a product. Examples include charging higher fees 

for registering or purchasing a higher-emitting vehicle or a consumer product. Another 

example may include charging higher user fees for recreational boats for access to water 

ways unless their engines meet a low-emission standard. Charging a vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) or emission-based fee for higher mileage and higher emitting vehicles, 

respectively, is another example. A pilot project could be considered as a way of 

initiating and evaluating this type of strategy. A task force will be convened to further 

explore and evaluate demand-side strategies. These strategies could also be considered 

for large VOC sources (in lieu of Control Measure MSC-08) by establishing a facility cap 

(e.g., based on 80% to 90% of peak level operation) and requiring them to pay a fee if 

these thresholds are exceeded. To improve public acceptance, these programs can be 

designed to be revenue-neutral and minimize the socioeconomic impacts on low-income 

residents of the Basin. 

Accelerated Retirement of Older High-Emitting Vehicles 

Older high-emitting vehicles contribute to a significant portion of emissions in the Basin. 

While funding and social considerations are key issues relative to accelerating the 

retirement of higher emitting vehicles, removal of this emission source would be an 

extremely effective method of reaching clean air goals. Buyback or similar programs 

could be considered to accelerate the retirement of these vehicles to achieve the 

maximum reduction feasible. One suggested mechanism is for CARB to adopt a 

regulatory program to require vehicle manufacturers to retire gross-polluting vehicles in 

order to sell new vehicles in the state. 

Clean Communities Concept 

In contrast to demand-side strategies, the clean communities concept influences 

consumer choice by offering incentives to promote changes in purchasing habits. 

Examples of incentives include purchase vouchers for low-emitting products and energy 

rate reductions for energy efficiency improvements. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 46 

Smog Check Improvements 

Improvement in the current Smog Check Program by requiring annual testing for highmileage vehicles or gross polluters is expected to provide significant reductions from 

existing on-road mobile sources. In addition, a voluntary Smog Check program could be 

implemented using remote sensing stations where vehicles could periodically drive by, be 

tested, and subsequently be repaired, if necessary. 

Remove Disincentives on Voluntary Measures 

Stationary source operators may often be hesitant about making modifications or 

improvements to their permitted sources due to the potential impact on their facilities 

from District Rules 201, 203, and Regulation XIII. These rules require a permit change 

or new source review for modifications that increase or decrease emissions. 

Recommendation was made to consider removing impediments potentially created by 

District rules and regulations in order to achieve reductions from voluntary measures 

implemented by facilities for SIP purposes. 

Expand Fleet Rules to Private Fleets 

Currently, the District fleet rules apply to public agency fleets or fleets which are 

contracted through public agencies. This recommendation calls for the District to expand 

the fleet rules to private fleets such as utility companies, cable operators, and delivery 

services. 

Modify Stationary Source Monitoring Requirements 

In lieu of conducting more rigorous annual source testing of permitted stationary sources, 

this recommendation would allow more frequent monitoring using hand-held devices to 

evaluate rule compliance by facilities. This assumes that more frequent monitoring using 

less rigorous techniques strengthens compliance by allowing operators to make 

adjustments to lower emissions on equipment more often than on an annual basis, which 

is considered costly and unnecessary. Equipment types which could benefit from such an 

approach include boilers and ICEs. 

Add Flexibility to Current Programs 

This recommendation seeks to add more flexibility to existing stationary source rules by 

allowing sources to mitigate their emissions by reducing emissions from other lesscontrolled or uncontrolled sources in lieu of complying with more costly controls under 

the existing framework. A three-step process could be set up to implement this strategy. 

Step one would identify specific source categories and facilities or sources that would be 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 47 

subject to additional controls under any portion of this AQMP. Step two would include 

an identification of superior and more cost-effective strategies for one or more existing 

sources whose emissions occur within or otherwise impact the Basin. The final step 

would be to craft regulations which would offer facilities the flexibility to select from a 

menu of control options to comply with their emission reduction obligations as identified 

in the AQMP. The purpose of this program is to achieve emission reductions and 

environmental improvement in a less costly and more efficient manner and, through 

compliance flexibility, to minimize the economic and job-related impacts of the Plan and 

potentially to reduce the size of the black box. 

During the next several months, the District will undertake a collaborative multistakeholder process to consider whether to implement this approach as a pilot program 

for the refineries in the Basin. Based on the results of this process, the District may 

consider adoption of a pilot program. An appropriate environmental review would be 

performed prior to adoption of any pilot program. If such a program is adopted, then 

upon achieving at least the equivalent reductions, the pilot program would subsume the 

2003 AQMP measures addressing refinery emissions including FUG-05, CMB-07, MSC04, MSC-07, MSC-08, PRC-07, and LTM-ALL to the extent they are applicable to the 

refining industry. Accordingly, if the pilot program is implemented, refineries meeting 

the reduction commitments would no longer be subject to specific short-term measures or 

long-term strategies in the 2003 AQMP. The implementation of this pilot program does 

not preclude future adjustments to the overall reduction targets established for this source 

category if warranted by attainment demonstrations in future SIP revisions. 

Educational Programs 

Educational programs on the emission impacts of energy efficiency measures can provide 

reductions from voluntary actions. The District could establish estimates on the expected 

emission reductions from increasing the energy efficiency from permitted equipment 

such as by performing regular tune-ups on stationary boilers. 

Control of Emissions from Port Operations 

A number of suggestions were received relative to controlling emissions from port 

operations. Some of these control strategies overlap with other suggestions listed above. 

The suggestions specific to ports include: 

- Electric power at berths (“cold ironing”) 

- Electrification of diesel powered cranes 

- Yard tractor fleet rule 

- Diesel truck retrofit programs (e.g., diesel oxidation catalysts, particulate 

traps) 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 48 

- Use of low sulfur diesel for ships calling at ports 

 “Emission Bubbles” at Ports and Airports 

The concept of an “emissions bubble” is similar to that of the District’s RECLAIM 

program. The concept involves including all emission sources at ports and at airports in 

“emissions bubbles” under which annual allocations of emissions must be reduced at a 

certain percentage. Some of the potential implementation issues associated with an 

“emissions bubble” program which need to be further evaluated include, but are not 

limited to, 1) establishing baselines, 2) District’s legal authority over federal sources, 3) 

extent of ports or airports authority over their tenants, and 4) annual emission reduction 

targets. Such a program would, however, provide flexibility to ports and airports in 

selecting and implementing the most cost-effective control strategies to achieve their 

overall emission reduction targets. 

Consumer Products 

The District should seek to obtain legal authority to regulate consumer products in the 

Basin and achieve further reductions from this category. 

Advanced Technologies 

The long-term strategy will require an aggressive development and commercialization of 

advanced mobile source control technologies. In addition, significant penetration of new 

and advanced technologies into in-use applications is critical if the additional reductions 

are to be realized by 2010. 

Some of the advanced technologies and innovative control approaches which can be 

relied on to achieve the additional emission reductions, needed for attainment 

demonstration, are briefly described below. 

Fuel Cells /Advanced Battery Technologies

Fuel cells are electrochemical devices that convert hydrogen and oxygen directly into 

electricity and water with little or no pollutant emissions. Most fuel cell systems use 

ambient air as the oxygen source, and the hydrogen fuel is either provided directly to the 

fuel cell or produced first from a fossil fuel (e.g. natural gas or methanol). The process of 

producing hydrogen from a fossil fuel is termed “reforming” and can be done external to 

the fuel cell or internally within the stack, such as with the high temperature molten 

carbonate fuel cells. Fuel cells are similar to batteries in that both offer zero or near-zero 

emissions, high efficiency, responsive power, few moving parts, and low noise. A 

battery, however, is an energy storage device and can only provide power until its 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 49 

reservoir of stored chemical reactants is spent, at which point it must be recharged. Fuel 

cells, on the other hand, are energy conversion devices which can provide power as long 

as the fuel and oxidant are provided. Although fuel cells have been around for decades, 

the major hurdles affecting their commercialization are their high cost of production, fuel 

flexibility, fueling infrastructure (for mobile applications), and reliability and durability. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) adopted the Freedom Car Program in January 

2002 to accelerate the introduction and commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. 

Additionally, the TAO program has played a leading role toward addressing these issues 

and expediting the commercialization of fuel cells for both mobile and stationary 

applications. For example, the SCAQMD is contributing resources to support both the 

California Fuel Cell Partnership (“Partnership”) and the California Stationary Fuel Cell 

Collaborative (“Collaborative”). The goals of both statewide initiatives are to advance 

the deployment and commercialization of fuel cell technologies for clean air and 

efficiency benefits engendered by the technology. Both the Partnership and the 

Collaborative seek to form alliances between government agencies and industry to the 

benefit of California residents. 

In addition, the District has been proactive in establishing demonstration projects for the 

advancement of stationary fuel cells in California. In 2001, the SCAQMD Governing 

Board awarded a contract to demonstrate ten, 5kW, solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems 

for residential use in the Basin. A similar residential fuel cell project employing 5kW 

proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells is also being considered in order to compare 

the different technologies head-to-head in actual use, in order to assess relative costs, 

reliability, durability, ease-of-use, etc. In 2002, the Governing Board also approved the 

release of a Request for Proposals for a larger-scale industrial fuel cell demonstration 

project. The goal of this project is to deploy multiple 200-250 kW fuel cell units in 

industrial/commercial applications to capitalize on the heat recovery potential of these 

higher temperature fuel cell technologies. Demonstrating fuel cells in these industrial 

settings, where high efficiency and economical operation are demanded, will provide 

excellent opportunities to identify optimum performance scenarios. The major fuel cell 

technologies proposed include SOFC, PEM, molten carbonate, and phosphoric acid fuel 

cells. These data can then be used by other industries to select the most appropriate fuel 

cell technology for deployment. 

Another project anticipated by the SCAQMD is the development and demonstration of an 

integrated hydrogen production, storage, and fuel cell power facility to be located at the 

Diamond Bar headquarters. Hydrogen will be produced renewably using an electrolyzer 

powered by an upgraded solar array; the hydrogen will then be used for fueling internal 

combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, as well as fueling an ICE 

generator and PEM fuel cell for backup and premium power. This demonstration project 

will exemplify the required technology integration for a near-zero emission hydrogen 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 50 

economy. The engineering, operational, and economical integration scenarios will be 

addressed to provide data for key decision makers. All of these types of projects will 

help assess the different fuel cell technologies in realistic situations and advance the 

commercialization of truly viable products. 

Electric & Hybrid-Electric Heavy Duty Vehicles 

Hybrid electric systems can vary significantly in their design configurations as well as 

components. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) can be either parallel or serial systems. 

Engines of various sizes can either drive a generator to charge the batteries or provide 

power directly to the wheels or both. The batteries can provide primary power to the 

traction drive motor or supplement the internal combustion engine (ICE). Some HEV 

designs can plug in to recharge the batteries, operate battery-only for several miles with 

the engine coming on just as needed to sustain the batteries. This type of “plug-in” 

battery dominant HEV can make extended trips by refueling quickly with gasoline or 

other fuel. 

The major automobile manufacturers are actively developing hybrid-electric vehicles 

with the objective of meeting the CARB LEV II regulations, which provide mechanisms 

for technologies other than battery electric and hydrogen fuel cells to earn ZEV credits. 

Hybrid electric vehicles are vehicles with drivetrains that integrate a small internal 

combustion engine or fuel cell alternator/generator, battery pack, and electric drive 

motors. Battery fuel cell hybrids are another potential technology being mentioned by 

battery experts as a way of reducing costs and enhancing performance of fuel cell 

vehicles. 

Innovative approaches to HEV systems are also under development that could improve 

performance, fuel efficiency, and reduce emissions relative to the first HEVs 

commercially introduced. Innovations that may be considered for demonstration include: 

advancements in the auxiliary power unit, either ICE or other heat engine, especially 

using alternative fuels including natural gas and hydrogen; battery-dominant hybrid 

systems utilizing off-peak re-charging; and non-conventional light-duty and mediumduty HEVs including delivery vans, shuttles, and other medium-duty vehicles. 

The District has been involved in the development and demonstration of energy storage 

systems for electric and hybrid-electric vehicles, mainly lead acid and nickel-cadmium 

battery packs. Over the past few years, additional technology consisting of nickel sodium 

chloride and lithium manganese batteries have shown robust performance, especially in 

heavy-duty uses. During this time period, other technology manufacturers have further 

developed other energy storage devices, including ultracapacitors, flywheels and 

hydraulic systems. Flywheel systems can draw electrical energy from internal 

combustion engines, microturbines, and regenerative braking systems, store the energy in 

kinetic form, and are capable of releasing the energy to provide electric power. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 51 

Hydraulic energy storage systems are available in various forms. Typically, these 

systems can store retardation energy and provide this energy as a secondary source of 

propulsion, especially during acceleration. Both energy storage systems can be 

retrofitted into existing platforms to significantly increase fuel economy, especially in 

medium- and heavy-duty vehicles with frequent stopping in urban environments. 

Marine Vessels and Portside Equipment

Marine vessels and portside equipment, which primarily run on diesel fuel, contribute a 

significant portion of NOx, PM10, greenhouse gas and toxic emissions particularly in 

coastal regions and in and around shipping ports. However, implementation of the costeffective District and CARB programs has resulted in significant emission reductions 

through incentive programs such as RECLAIM Executive Order Emissions Mitigation, 

RECLAIM AQIP, Rule 2202 AQIP, Carl Moyer, and State Emissions Mitigation 

programs. The primary emission reduction technologies that have been employed so far 

are engine repowering and engine remanufacturing to achieve lower emission limits. 

Currently, the California Maritime Air Quality Technical Working Group, which is 

comprised of the CARB, U.S. EPA, District, and industry, is exploring promising retrofit 

technologies to be used on marine vessels. The working group is also working on a 

marine vessel demonstration project to: 1) identify technologies that are capable of 

reducing NOx, PM10, and greenhouse gases; 2) identify and demonstrate emission 

measurement systems capable of accurately measuring pollutant emissions in ship 

exhaust streams; 3) install the most promising technology on an in-use vessel for 

demonstration under real world conditions; and 4) establish the emission reduction 

potential in different modes of operation. After conducting an in-depth survey, the 

following technologies have been identified as promising candidates: diesel fuel 

conditioners, organo-metallic combustion catalysts, catalytic vapor injection, 

humidification of intake air, selective catalytic reduction with urea and ammonia 

injection, emission capture and exhaust reduction catalytic separation units, ceramic 

coatings, water emulsified fuels, alternative fuels, intake air fumigation with temperature 

control, and fuel injection optimization with high pressure injection. These technologies 

have a wide range of cost effectiveness, and can reduce up to 90% of NOx and PM 

emissions. 

Twin speed marine transmissions can reduce engine speed and hence fuel use and 

emissions without significantly affecting vessel speed. This technology is applicable to 

vessels such as crew, supply, pilot, fishing, and recreational boats and possibly barge 

towing tug boats. While twin speed transmissions are commercially available for certain 

horsepower ranges and duty cycles, virtually all recreational and commercial vessels in 

the District use single speed transmissions. The second gear can achieve nearly the same 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 52 

top end vessel speed as a single speed transmission at substantially lower engine RPM 

and fuel consumption (25% to 30%). Unless the propeller speed is governed (limited), 

the use of twin speed transmission could result in a substantial increase in vessel fuel 

consumption. Experimental data indicates that if the propeller speed can be regulated in 

second gear, it is probable that a twin speed transmission could reduce emissions of all 

pollutants up to 40% without a significant sacrifice in vessel performance. The District is 

considering executing a pilot demonstration project using this technology. 

For portside equipment, the new technologies that are currently being studied and 

verified are diesel oxidation catalysts (DOCs) and PM traps. These control devices are 

being studied on yard hostlers, yard tractors, and other off-road equipment. The DOCs 

have the potential to reduce VOC emissions by up to 40% and the PM traps can reduce 

PM emissions by up to 90%. CARB is in the process of verifying DOCs and PM traps 

for off-road applications. Emission reductions can also be achieved by using alternative 

fuels. The District is currently involved in yard hostler DOC and water-emulsified diesel 

projects. 

Advanced Engine and Aftertreatment Technologies

Heavy-duty engine technologies are under development to meet the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx

standard for 2007 models. These include more powerful electronics for precision engine 

control, improved air handling (variable geometry turbochargers), exhaust gas 

recirculation (EGR), and after-treatment systems (particulate traps, oxidation catalysts, 

lean NOx catalysts, selective catalyst reduction, SCR). For natural gas engines, 

additional technologies include humidity compensation, stoichiometric combustion, 

three-way catalysts (TWC) and electronically controlled engine valves (“throttleless” 

engine). These technologies will enable heavy-duty engines to operate with very low 

emissions while retaining good performance and acceptable fuel economy. Once these 

technologies are adopted on new engines and vehicles, they have the capability to 

achieve even lower emissions as the technologies mature. Future emission performance 

includes reduced deterioration, possible ULEV- or SULEV-type emissions (0.05 g/bhphr NOx or lower), zero toxics, and better fuel economy. 

Emission control strategies for gasoline-, CNG-, and LPG-powered engines generally 

involve combination of sequential multi-port fuel injection, one or two heated oxygen 

sensors, three-way catalytic converters, engine control modules, and EGR systems. 

Public agencies and private industry continue to direct considerable efforts to developing 

strategies that allow an effective use of natural gas as a cleaner-burning alternative to 

conventional fuel in automotive service. These efforts have resulted in many options 

available for improving natural gas engine technology and efficiency, and developing 

exhaust aftertreatment devices to achieve higher reduction of criteria and toxic pollutant 

emissions. One such effort is to optimize or reformulate existing oxidation catalyst and 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 53 

develop catalyzed particulate traps to further reduce criteria and toxic pollutant 

emissions, especially carbonyl (formaldehyde and acetaldehyde) and PM emissions. 

NOx and PM emissions from diesel-powered on- and off-road engines are higher than 

those powered by natural gas because oxidation catalysts are the only applicable add-on 

control device for diesel engine exhaust. With the advent of gas-to-liquid, low-sulfur 

diesel fuels, and other advanced liquid fuels, many emission control technologies that 

may not otherwise be possible with conventional diesel fuel are now being developed and 

tested for use in diesel engines. These technologies include lean-NOx and diesel 

oxidation catalytic converters, NOx adsorbers, thermal and catalyzed particulate filters, 

fuel-borne catalyst, selective catalytic reduction system, and non-thermal plasma 

discharge system. Many demonstration programs are now showing that PM emissions 

from diesel engines can be significantly reduced with particulate traps. 

The reduction in heavy-duty emissions can be multiplied by incorporating these engines 

into hybrid vehicles. Such vehicles use two propulsion schemes: a low-emission engine 

and auxiliary propulsion such as an electric drive system or a mechanical pump and 

pressure storage system. In addition to propelling the vehicle, the auxiliary systems are 

used to store energy normally lost during braking and re-use this energy to propel the 

vehicle, reducing both emissions and fuel consumption. With new heavy-duty engine 

technologies, natural gas hybrid vehicles have the capacity to achieve near-zero 

emissions, as low as fuel cell vehicles with onboard fuel reformers. 

Renewable Power Generation Technologies

Renewable power generation technologies such as solar and wind electric power 

generation technologies may also play a role in future long-term attainment 

demonstration strategies. The District will evaluate the application of renewable power 

generation technologies through market incentive programs in order to achieve additional 

emission reductions (e.g., area source credit rule). Future market incentive programs will 

focus on renewable power generation technologies used in residential and commercial 

applications. 

The District’s Technology Advancement Office is currently participating in a pilot solar 

thermal air conditioning project. The technology which is supported by this project 

involves the use of solar energy to provide air conditioning for commercial buildings. 

The project seeks to demonstrate the viability of using solar driven absorption chillers 

(which use heat from an array of solar collectors to produce chilled water) to air 

condition buildings. 

Other possible strategies for increasing the penetration of renewable power generating 

technologies include encouraging solar and wind turbine use where applicable. 

Examples of possible renewable energy applications include powering electric motors 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 54 

used to run agricultural pumps with wind energy and utilizing solar panels in the 

residential and commercial sectors. The AQMD has provided incentive money to 

convert diesel powered agricultural pumps to electric motors. The eastern portion of the 

district may have sufficient wind resources such that these electric motors could be costeffectively driven by wind energy. 

For the last few years, there have been substantial incentives available from California 

Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission to install solar panels on 

private residential rooftops. These incentives have been heavily utilized by the 

commercial sector, but those for the residential sector remain substantially unused, due to 

lack of awareness by the public. While LADWP is vigorously advertising the availability 

of their incentives, other energy providers have done less in this regard. The AQMD can 

possibly promote and, depending on the availability of funds, leverage the incentives for 

rooftop solar panels currently available from other public agencies. 

Advanced Low-VOC Technologies

VOC emissions from stationary sources result primarily from the use of VOC containing 

materials such as coatings, inks, adhesives and cleaning solvents. The VOC-containing 

materials are used in a wide variety of industries which include: manufacturing and 

coating of metal, wood, plastic, and other products; printing operations such as 

lithography, flexography, screen printing, gravure and letterpress; cleaning operations at 

repair and maintenance facilities; and numerous industries where adhesives are used. 

Some of the advanced low-VOC alternative technologies developed by the industry 

include: waterborne technologies, radiation-curing technologies, and high solids and 

powder coating technologies. 

Waterborne Technology 

One way of eliminating VOC emissions is to replace solvent-based products with 

waterborne products. Ordinarily, resins were originally solids that were dissolved in the 

solvents. Upon drying, the solvent evaporates and leaves behind the pigment and resin to 

form the dried film. With waterborne products, the resins are dissolved in water, but they 

must dry to a non-water soluble film upon the substrate. Waterborne products also 

contain some VOCs, which work as a coalescent, provide resin stability, and help achieve 

certain desirable properties for application. Waterborne technology is quite advanced in 

most chemistry types, with recent research being done to minimize the amount of solvent 

or to attempt to switch to the non-HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant) solvents. 

The drying properties of waterborne products are more sensitive to ambient temperature 

and humidity characteristics, as compared to their solvent-based counterparts. The newer 

resin chemistries and formulations offer many advantages, which include lower VOC 

emissions, reduced fire hazards, increased worker safety, lower odor, ease of application, 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 55 

and easy cleanup. Waterborne technology has been successfully used in automotive 

refinish, industrial maintenance, architectural and marine coatings; flexographic, screen 

and gravure printing; and adhesives. Overall performance studies completed to date 

indicate equivalent or superior performance compared to their higher-VOC counterparts. 

Radiation-Curing Technologies

Radiation-curing products are liquids with low viscosity that are 100 percent solids. The 

main difference between traditional solvent-based products and radiation-curing products 

is the curing mechanism. Radiation-curing products do not dry in the sense of losing 

solvents to the atmosphere as is the case with solvent-based products. Instead, when 

radiation-curing products are exposed to radiation, a polymerization reaction starts which 

converts the liquid to a hard, tough, cured solid film in a fraction of a second. This 

process typically results in significantly lower VOC emissions compared to solvent-based 

products. The most common radiations used to cure the products are ultraviolet light 

(UV) and electron beam (EB). The UV-curing products need a chemical called 

photoinitiator, which initiates the polymerization (curing) process when exposed to UVlight. The EB-cured products do not contain photoinitiators and are cured when the 

electrons generated with the EB equipment react directly with monomers and polymers in 

the liquid product. 

Due to almost instant curing of these products, the concept of drying time is eliminated 

which allows any post-application operation to commence immediately or in-line. Other 

advantages include the attainment of very high gloss levels, reduction of VOC emissions 

and solvent odors, and reduced energy consumption. UV and EB-curing products can be 

used on virtually all substrates, from metal and wood to glass and plastic. Applications 

of UV and EB-curing products are numerous and proliferating rapidly. Examples 

include: paper, furniture, automotive components, no-wax flooring, credit cards, 

packaging, lottery tickets, golf balls, eye glass lenses, CDs, baseball bats, beer cans and 

hundred of other items. However, these technologies have registered significant progress 

toward alleviating previous limitations in technology for field applications. UV 

applications are also making headway in automotive field repair, and efforts are 

underway for applying this technology for aerospace and military field uses. 

High Solids Technology

Another way of reducing VOC emissions is to replace conventional low solids products 

with higher solids products, thus reducing VOC content. This requires product 

formulators to increase the solid content, while maintaining the important application and 

performance characteristics. The characteristics of higher and low solids products are 

significantly different. This makes the development of high-performance, higher solids 

products a more difficult formulating task than simply replacing the amount of solvent 

used in low solids products. A higher solids content increases the viscosity and, in some 

cases, the surface tension, as well as affecting application and performance properties. 

While these increases can be minimized by the utilization of lower molecular weight 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 56 

polymers, they can be further reduced by the incorporation of a good solvent system into 

the formulation. The combination of reducing the molecular weight of the polymer and 

employing a balanced solvent system has contributed to the successful development of 

many of the commercial higher solids products in use today. 

Powder Coating Technology

Powder coating is a 100 percent solid coating with virtually no VOC emissions. In a 

powder coating application process, dry paint particles are supplied to a spray gun where 

particles acquire electrostatic charge. The charged particles are sprayed and attracted to a 

grounded object and form a uniform layer of powder coating on its surface. The coating 

is then cured by applying heat. 

Some of the benefits of this technology are: solvent-free systems, reduced fire risk and 

associated insurance costs, reduced waste disposal cost, good solvent and chemical 

resistance, flexibility and impact resistance. Due to these benefits, powder coatings have 

become popular with OEM baked coating markets, especially in the decorative market. 

This system also has limited application for field finishing. 

Innovative Control Approaches 

Because of the significant level of reductions needed for attainment demonstration, 

innovative control approaches need to be explored which can be implemented in 

conjunction with advanced emission control technologies. Three innovative approaches 

including market incentive programs, reactivity-based controls, localized controls, and 

public awareness and education programs are briefly discussed here. 

Market Incentive Programs

Since the adoption of the 1997/1999 SIP, the District has adopted several market 

incentive programs designed to offer stationary sources short-term compliance flexibility 

while at the same time incentivizing the introduction of low-emission mobile and area 

source technologies. In 2001, five pilot credit generation mobile and area source rules 

were adopted to allow generation of mobile source emission reduction credits (MSERCs) 

and area source credits (ASCs) that could be used as RECLAIM trading credits in the 

RECLAIM compliance program. A sixth pilot credit generation rule was adopted in 

2002. The District has used collected monies from the Executive Order (EO) RECLAIM 

Mitigation Fee Program for power producing facilities to maximize the funding for low 

emission mobile and area source projects through the pilot credit generation programs. 

In turn, these programs have allowed RECLAIM sources to obtain short-term compliance 

with their RECLAIM allocations while long-term solutions to meeting their allocations 

are sought. Credit generated under these programs cannot be used past a specific year 

which in most cases is 2006; however, one rule has a 2010 deadline. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 57 

Market incentive programs can continue to play a key role in the development and 

penetration of low-emission technologies. These programs can be expanded by 

maximizing the funding sources (e.g., private funding) to provide monies to purchase 

low-emission technologies. Expansion of these programs will continue to provide shortterm flexibility for stationary sources while also producing creditable emission reductions 

after emission reduction credits can no longer be used (i.e., 2006 - 2010). Thus, any 

emission reductions still occurring after the rule’s specific deadlines may be credited 

toward the current and future SIP commitments. 

Reactivity-Based Controls

Over the past two decades, regulations for coating and solvents have primarily focused 

on lowering the VOC content which has significantly reduced the VOC emissions from 

these categories. Reformulation of high-VOC compounds to low-VOC alternatives has 

resulted in substantial reductions in VOC emissions and improvement of ambient air 

quality. However, different chemicals used in coatings and solvents would exhibit 

different reactivity rates in forming ozone in the atmosphere. Therefore, because of the 

need to achieve additional VOC reductions for ozone attainment demonstration, 

reformulation based on lower reactive compounds need to be evaluated and considered in 

future rulemakings for coatings and solvents in order to provide a viable compliance 

option. Further study would also be required to evaluate the reactivity of different 

compounds under various meteorological conditions. 

Localized Controls

To complement the AQMP's overall control strategies, localized controls may also be 

considered to achieve reductions from specific areas which contribute to the exceedance 

of ambient air quality standards. In instances where the exceedances of the air quality 

standards are attributed only to emissions from a specific geographical area, it would be 

infeasible to develop region-wide regulations for the purpose of attaining the standard in 

a local area. For example, it appears that local PM10 sources in the eastern portion of the 

Basin are primarily responsible for the exceedance of PM10 air quality in that area. 

Therefore, it might be more feasible and cost-effective to develop localized controls to 

achieve the necessary reduction rather than subject the entire Basin to regulations which 

would not benefit the attainment in the local area. As the District nears the attainment 

dates for federal air quality standards, localized controls may offer a more viable 

approach in meeting these standards. 

Public Awareness and Education Programs

The concept of public awareness and education programs is to educate consumers and 

select stationary sources about the lower-emitting product and process alternatives. The 

District instituted a pilot program in 2001 to increase public awareness of the availability 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 58 

of low emission motor vehicles. AQMD staff worked with vehicle dealers in Los 

Angeles County to place window stickers on new vehicles with emissions information 

geared to the general public. The AQMD is in the process of reinstituting this program 

and expanding it to other areas of the district. 

A possible method to implement a similar concept relative to consumers products would 

be through a certification program for manufacturers. Manufacturers of consumer 

products that meet or exceed a specified emission limit would be eligible for a label 

certified by CARB or the AQMD that indicates that their product contains low or zero 

VOCs and is environmentally friendly. 

For stationary sources, a series of public awareness programs could be established to 

educate facilities about control methods that would reduce emissions at their facility or 

business. Public awareness and education programs could include, but are not limited, to 

educational brochures, videos, articles, and workshops. 

District's SIP Emission Commitment 

The SIP commitment of the 2003 AQMP is structured into two components: 

reductions from adopted rules and reductions from the 2003 AQMP control 

measures. Taken together, these reductions are relied upon to demonstrate 

expeditious progress and attainment of the federal PM10 and 1-hour ozone standards. 

The following sections first describe the methodology for SIP emission reduction 

calculations and the creditable SIP reductions, then describe what procedures will be 

followed to ensure fulfillment of the commitment. 

SIP Emission Reduction Tracking

For purposes of tracking progress in emission reductions, the baseline emissions for 

the year 2010 planning inventory (summer planning for ozone) in the 2003 AQMP 

will be used, regardless of any subsequent new inventory information that reflects 

more recent knowledge. This is to ensure that the same “currency” is used in 

measuring progress as was used in designing the AQMP. This will provide a fair and 

equitable measurement of progress. Therefore, whether progress is measured by 

emission reductions or remaining emissions for a source category makes no 

difference. However, current emission inventory information at the time of rule 

development will continue to be used for calculating reductions, and assessing costeffectiveness and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed rule. Therefore, for future 

rulemaking activity, both the current and AQMP inventories will be reported. 

Any non-mandatory emission reductions achieved beyond the existing District 

regulations are creditable only if they are also SIP-enforceable. Therefore, in certain 

instances, the District may have to adopt regulations to reflect the existing industry 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 59 

practices in order to claim SIP reduction credit with the understanding that there may 

not be additional reductions beyond what has already occurred. Exceptions can be 

made where reductions are real, quantifiable, surplus to the 2003 AQMP baseline 

inventories, and enforceable through other state and/or federal regulations. Also, any 

emissions inventory revisions, which have gone through a peer review and public 

review process, can also be SIP creditable. 

Reductions from Adopted Rules

A number of control measures contained in the 1997 AQMP and the 1999 SIP 

Revision have been adopted as rules. These adopted rules and their projected 

emission reductions become assumptions in developing AQMP’s future year 

inventories. Although they are not part of the control strategy in the 2003 AQMP, 

continued implementation of those rules is essential in achieving the clean air goal 

and maintaining the attainment demonstration. Table 1-2 of Chapter 1 lists the rules 

adopted by the District since the adoption of the 1997/1999 SIP and their expected 

emission reductions. As indicated in this table, the emission reductions achieved 

through adopted rules exceeds the District’s SIP commitment by 44.5 tons per of 

VOC in 2010 for control measures adopted. 

Reductions from District’s Stationary Source Control Measures 

For purposes of implementing an approved SIP, the District is committed to adopt 

and implement control measures that will achieve, in aggregate, emission reductions 

specified in Table 4-8A (near-term reductions) and Table 4-8B (long-term 

reductions). Emission reductions achieved in excess of the amount committed to in a 

given year can be applied to the emission reduction commitments of subsequent 

years. The District is committed to adopt the control measures in Table 4-1 unless 

these measures or a portion thereof are found infeasible and other substitute measures 

that can achieve equivalent reductions in the same adoption/implementation 

timeframes are adopted. Findings of infeasibility will be made at a regularly 

scheduled meeting of the District Board with proper public notification. For 

purposes of SIP commitment, infeasibility means that the proposed control 

technology is not reasonably likely to be available by the implementation date in 

question, or achievement of the emission reductions by that date is not cost-effective. 

The District acknowledges that this commitment is enforceable under Section 304(f) 

of the federal Clean Air Act. 

Adoption and Implementation of District’s Stationary Source Control Measures 

(Table 4-1) – In response to concerns raised by the regulated community that costly 

controls may be required to meet the SIP obligations, the District establishes a 

threshold of $13,500 per ton of VOC reduction for tiered levels of analysis. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 60 

Specifically, proposed rules with an average cost-effectiveness above the threshold 

will trigger a more rigorous average cost-effectiveness, incremental costeffectiveness, and socioeconomic impact analysis. A public review and decision 

process will be instituted to seek lower cost alternatives. In addition, the District 

staff, with input from stakeholders, will attempt to develop viable control alternatives 

within the industry source categories that a rule is intended to regulate. If it is 

determined that control alternatives within the industry source category are not 

feasible, staff will perform an evaluation of the control measure as described in the 

next paragraph. Viable alternatives shall be reviewed by the District Governing 

Board at a public meeting no less than 90 days prior to rule adoption and direction 

given back to staff for further analysis. During this review process, incremental costeffectiveness scenarios and methodology will be specified, and industry-specific 

affordability issues will be identified as well as possible alternative control measures. 

The District Governing Board may adopt the original or an alternative that is 

consistent with state and federal law. In addition, staff shall include in all set hearing 

items a notification that proposed rules do or do not exceed the cost threshold. 

Adoption and Implementation of Alternative/Substitute Measures – Under the 

2003 AQMP, the District will be allowed to substitute District’s stationary source 

measures in Table 4-1 with other measures, provided the overall equivalent emission 

reductions by adoption and implementation dates in Tables 4-8A and 4-8B are 

maintained and the applicable measure in Table 4-1 is infeasible. In order to provide 

meaningful public participation, when new control concepts are introduced for rule 

development, the District is committed to provide advanced public notification 

beyond its regulatory requirements (i.e., through its Rule Forecast Report). The 

District will also report quantitatively on AQMP’s implementation progress annually 

at its regularly scheduled Board meetings. Included in the reports will be any new 

control measures being proposed or measures, or portions thereof, that have been 

found to be infeasible and the basis of such finding. In addition, in the beginning of 

the year, any significant emission reduction related rules to be considered would be 

listed in the Board’s Rule Forecast Report. Upon finding of a new feasible control 

measure, rule development will be completed no later than 12 months from the 

adoption date of the control measure substituted, and implementation of the new 

measure will occur no later than 2 years from the final implementation date of the 

measure substituted. The existing rule development outreach efforts such as public 

workshops, stakeholder working group meetings or public consultation meetings will 

continue to solicit public input. In addition, if additional technical analysis, including 

source testing, indicates that actual emissions are less than previously estimated, the 

reductions would then be creditable toward SIP commitments. In order for reductions 

from improved emission calculation methodologies to be SIP creditable, a public 

review process will also be instituted to solicit comments and make appropriate 

revisions, if necessary. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 61 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 62 

TABLE 4-8A 

Near-Term VOC, PM10, NOx and SOx Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQM

 to be Achieved Through Rule Adoption and Implementation 

-2010 Planning Inventory- 

(Tons/Day) 

VOC PM10 NOx 

Year Based on Adoption 

Date 

Based on 

Implementation 

Datea

Based on 

Adoption 

Date 

Based on 

Implementation 

Datea

Based on 

Adoption 

Date 

Based on 

Implementation 

Datea

Based on 

Adoption 

Date 

2002 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- 2003 16.9 0.6 0.5 --- --- --- --- 2004 2.0 --- 1.7 --- 3.0 --- 2.1 2005 2.0 --- --- 0.16 2.1 --- --- 2006 --- 4.8 --- 0.86 --- --- --- 2007 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 2.1 --- 2008 --- 12.1 --- 0.66 --- --- --- 2009 --- --- --- 0.16 --- --- --- 2010 --- 2.0 --- 0.16 --- 3.0 --- 

Total 21.5 b 21.5 b 2.2 2.2 5.1 5.1 2.1 

a Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple implementation dates. b An additional 16 tons of reductions associated with implementation of Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Opera

technology assessments in 2003 and 2004 prior to implementation in 2005 and are not included in this value
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 63 

TABLE 4-8B 

Long-Term VOC Emission Reductions Commitment by SCAQMD to be Achieved 

Through Rule Adoption and Implementation 

-2010 Planning Inventory- 

(Tons/Day) 

VOC 

Year Based on Adoption Date Based on 

Implementation Datea

2005 4.0 --- 

2006 10.0 --- 

2007 10.0 3.0 

2008 7.0 10.0 

2009 --- 11.0 

2010 --- 7.0 

Total 31.0 31.0 

a

 Represents the final, full implementation date; typically a rule contains multiple 

 implementation dates. 

OVERALL EMISSION REDUCTIONS 

A summary of emission reductions available by the years 2006 and 2010 for the proposed 

control measures is provided in Tables 4-9 through 4-12. These reductions reflect the 

emission reductions associated with implementation of control measures under local, 

state, and federal jurisdiction. Emission reductions represent the difference between the 

projected baseline and the remaining emissions. For 2006, Table 4-9 identifies projected 

reductions based on the annual average inventory for all criteria pollutants (VOC, NOx, 

CO, SOx, and PM10). It represents the level of emission reductions needed to achieve 

the federal PM10 standards. For 2010, Tables 4-10 through 4-12 identify projected 

reductions based on the summer planning inventory for VOC and NOx emissions, the 

winter planning inventory for CO and NOx emissions, and the annual average inventory 

for criteria pollutants. Emission reductions by 2010 illustrate the extent of controls 

needed for achieving the federal ozone standard. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 64 

TABLE 4-9 

Emission Reductions for 2006 Based on 

Average Annual Emissions Inventory (tons per day) 

Sources VOC NOx CO SOx PM10

Year 2006 Baseline 698 949 3,973 60 293

Baseline Adjustments1 (4) (8) (30) 0 0

Emission Reductions: 

District's Control Measures 2 12 0 1 2 1

CARB's Control Measures3 0 0 0 0 0

SCAG's Transportation 

Control Measures 

8 7 89 0 1

Total Reductions (All Measures) 20 7 90 2 2

2006 Remaining Emissions 674 934 3,853 58 291

1

 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see Appendix 

V - Attachment 4 for details). () denotes reductions. 

2 Includes District's short-term control measures. 

3

 No reductions are claimed from CARB's short-term control measures in 2006. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 65 

TABLE 4-10 

Emission Reductions for 2010 Based on 

Summer Planning Inventory (tons per day) 

Sources VOC NOx 

Year 2010 Baseline 659 764 

Baseline Adjustments 1

(2) (6) 

Emission Reductions: 

District's Control Measures 22 5 

CARB's Control Measures 2 49 37 

SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and 

Control Measures 

16 8 

Long-Term Measures 265 181 

Total Reductions (All Measures) 352 231 

2010 Remaining Emissions 3 310 530 

1

 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see 

Appendix V - Attachment 6 for details). () denotes reductions. 

2 Includes CARB's short-term control measures. 

3 Includes emissions added for the purpose of set-aside tracking (5 t/d VOC, 3 t/d NOx). 

See Appendix III. 
Final 2003 AQMP 

4 - 66 

TABLE 4-11 

Emission Reductions for 2010 Based on 

Winter Planning Inventory (tons per day) 

Sources CO NOx 

Year 2010 Baseline 3,314 818 

Baseline Adjustments 1

(20) (7) 

Emission Reductions: 

District's Control Measures 1 5 

CARB's Control Measures 2 265 39 

SCAG's Regional Transportation Strategy and 

Control Measures 

162 10 

Long-Term Measures 5 191 

Total Reductions (All Measures) 433 245 

2010 Remaining Emissions 3 2,862 569 

1

 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see 

Appendix V - Attachment 6 for details). () denotes reductions. 

2

 Includes CARB's short-term control measures. 

3 Includes emissions added for the purpose of set-aside tracking (0.5 t/d CO, 3 t/d NOx). 

See Appendix III. 
Chapter 4 AQMP Control Strategy 

4 - 67 

TABLE 4-12 

Emission Reductions for 2010 Based on 

Average Annual Emissions Inventory (tons per day) 

Sources VOC NOx CO SOx PM10

Year 2010 Baseline 630 780 3,358 60 301

Baseline Adjustments1 (3) (7) (20) 0 0

Emission Reductions: 

District's Control Measures 20 5 2 2 2

CARB's Control Measures2 48 38 271 0 0

SCAG's Regional 

Transportation Strategy and 

Control Measures 

17 9 165 0 1

Long-Term Measures 251 181 7 0 0 

Total Reductions (All Measures) 336 233 445 2 3

2010 Remaining Emissions3 296 543 2,894 59 299

1 Baseline adjustments reflect additional revisions made to the baseline inventory (see Appendix 

V - Attachment 5 for details). () denotes reductions. 

2

 Includes CARB's short-term control measures. 

3

 Includes emissions added for the purpose of set-aside tracking (5 t/d VOC, 3 t/d NOx, 0.5 t/d 

CO, 1 t/d SOx, 1 t/d PM10). See Appendix III.