# FINAL 2007 AQMP APPENDIX IV-B-2

DISTRICT STAFF’S PROPOSED POLICY OPTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT CARB’S CONTROL STRATEGY

JUNE 2007

### SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD

Chairman: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the A ssembly Appointee
Vice Chairman: S. ROY WILSON, Ed.D. Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County Representative

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative

BILL CAMPBELL Supervisor, Third District Orange County Representative

JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Ri verside County

GARY OVITT Supervisor, Fourth District San Bernardino County Representative

JAN PERRY Councilmember, City of Los Angeles Cities Representative, Los Ange les County, Western Region

MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, City of Santa Ana Cities Representative, Orange County

TONIA REYES URANGA Councilmember, City of Long Beach Cities Representative, Los Ange les County, Eastern Region

VACANT Governor’s Appointee

DENNIS YATES Mayor, City of Chino Cities Representative, Sa n Bernardino County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER:
BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.

### CONTRIBUTORS

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. Executive Officer

Elaine Chang, DrPH Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Chung S. Liu, D.Env. Deputy Executive Officer Science & Technology Advancement

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Henry Hogo Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Science & Technology Advancement

Authors Science & Technology Advancement Naveen Berry, Program Supervisor Zorik Pirveysian, Environmental Technology Assessment Manager Michael Bogdanoff, Program Su pervisor Dean Saito, Mobile Source Strategies Manager David Coel, Program Supervisor Dipankar Sarkar, Program Supervisor Randall Pasek, Air Quality Specialist Paul Wuebben, Clean Fuels OfficerTable of Contents

i 

### Table of Contents

SECTION 1 DISTRICT STAFF’S PROPOSED POLICY OPTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT CARB’S CONTROL STRATEGY
Introduction................................................................................................................... ............IV-B-2-1

SECTION 2 POLICY OPTION 1 – DISTRI CT STAFF’S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MOBILE SOURCE AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTROL MEASURES
Introduction................................................................................................................... ............IV-B-2-3 Proposed Additional Control Measures....................................................................................IV-B-2- 3
On-Road Mobile Source C ontrol Measures..................................................................IV-B-2-4
Off-Road Mobile Source Control Measures.................................................................IV-B-2-5
Cleaner Fuels Control Measures...................................................................................IV-B-2-5 Long-Term Control Measures.......................................................................................IV-B-2-6
Format of Control Measures ..................................................................................................... IV-B-2-6
Control Measure Number .............................................................................................IV-B-2-6
Title.......................................................................................................................... .....IV-B-2-7 Summary Table.............................................................................................................IV-B- 2-7 Description of Source Category....................................................................................IV-B-2-7 Proposed Method of Control.........................................................................................IV-B-2-7
Emissions Reduc tion.....................................................................................................IV-B-2- 8 Rule Compliance...........................................................................................................IV-B- 2-8
Test Methods.................................................................................................................IV -B-2-9
Cost Effectiveness.........................................................................................................IV-B -2-9 Implementing Agency...................................................................................................IV-B-2-9
References..................................................................................................................... IV-B-2-9

GROUP 1 ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
SCONRD-01 Accelerated Penetration of Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission and Zero Emission Vehi cles [VOC, NOx, PM]...............IV-B-2-11 SCONRD-02 Deployment of On-Board Di agnostics (Phase III) in Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles [ VOC, NOx, CO] ...............................................IV-B-2-15
SCONRD-03 Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles [NOx, PM].............................................................IV-B-2-19
SCONRD-04 Further Emissions Reduc tions from Heavy-Duty Trucks Providing Freight Drayage Serv ices [NOx, PM]......................................IV-B-2-23Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2

ii GROUP 2 OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES SCOFFRD-01 Construction/Industrial Equipment Fleet Modernization [VOC, NOx] ............................................................IV-B-2-27
SCOFFRD-02 Further Emission Reductions from Cargo Handling Equipment [NOx, PM] ...................................................IV-B-2-30
SCOFFRD-03 Further Emission Reductions fr om Locomotives [NOx, PM]..................IV-B-2-33
SCOFFRD-04 Emission Reductions from Airport Ground Support Equipment [VOC, NOx, PM]......................................................................................IV-B-2-38
SCOFFRD-05 Further Emission Reductions from Transport Refrigeration Units [NOx]........................................................IV-B-2-41
SCOFFRD-06 Accelerated Turnover and Catalyst Based Standards for Pleasure Craft [VOC, NOx, PM] ........................................................IV-B-2-43

GROUP 3 CLEANER FUELS CONTROL MEASURES
SCFUEL-01 Further Emission Reductions from Gasoline Fuels [NOX, SOX]............IV-B-2-47
SCFUEL-02 Further Emission Reductions from Diesel Fuels [NOX, PM] ..................IV-B-2-52

GROUP 4 LONG-TERM MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES
SC-LTM-01A Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Mobile Sources [NOX] .............................................................IV-B-2-57
SC-LTM-01B Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles [NOx].....................................................IV-B-2-60
SC-LTM-02 Further Emission Reductions from Off-Road Mobile Sources [NOX].............................................................IV-B-2-64
SC-LTM-03 Further Emission Reductions from Consumer Products [VOC]...............IV-B-2-68

SECTION 3 POLICY OPTION 2 – MOBILE SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO MEET RATE-OF-PROGRESS
Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........IV-B-2-73

SECTION 4 POLICY OPTION 3 – PUBLIC FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO ACHIEVE NEEDED ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........IV-B-2-75

## SECTION 1 DISTRICT STAFF’S PROPOSED POLICY OPTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT CARB’S CONTROL STRATEGYFinal 2007 AQMP: District Staff’s Proposed Policy Options Appendix IV-B-2 to Supplement CARB’s Control Strategy

IV-B-2-1 

### INTRODUCTION

Additional reductions in mobile source emi ssions beyond the reductions identified in CARB’s mobile source control strategy are needed in order for the South Coast Air Basin to attain the federal PM2.5 ambient air quality standard by 2 015. To achieve the necessary reductions poses several challenges. The most significant challenge is the short timeframe to achieve the necessary re ductions. This challe nge can be partially overcome with early actions to affect mobile source cleanu p through voluntary incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Progr am. However, additional public funds are needed to accelerate such efforts. Regulatory actions to mandate mobile source cleanup are also needed beyond those id entified by CARB to date.

The District staff believes that a combination of regulatory ac tions and public funding is the most effective means of achieving emission reductions. As such, the 2007 AQMP proposes three policy options for the decision makers to cons ider in achieving additional reductions. The rate of prog ress for NOx under the three policy options is shown in Figure 1. The first option is the District st aff’s proposed additiona l control measures as a menu of selections to further reduce emi ssions from sources primarily under State and federal jurisdiction. The proposed additio nal control measures represent a menu of measures that the State could implement and are intended to complement CARB’s mobile source control strategy with defined short-term and mid-term control measures needed for reaching attainment by 2015 and to meet legal requirements. The proposed additional control measures are also intended to highlight the le vel of stringency and reductions needed from State and federal sources for attainment. These measures can be modified or substitutes developed by the implementing agencies to achieve equivalent or greater reductions in the time frame needed for PM2.5 attainment. It should be noted that full implementation of the proposed meas ures will result in significant reductions in air toxic contaminants.

The second option is to have the state fulfill its NOx emission reduction obligations under the 2003 AQMP by 2010 for its shor t-term defined control measures plus additional reductions needed to meet the NOx emission target betw een 2010 and 2014. Under this option the state could include some of the proposed measures under the first option or other measures that the state identifies as part of the SIP public process.
The third option is based on the same rate of progress under Policy Option 1, but relies heavily on public funding assistance to achieve the needed NOx reductions via accelerated fleet turnover to post-2010 on-road emission stan dards or the cleanest offroad engine standards in effect today or after 2010. Under Policy Option 3, CARB or the District would assume the responsibility of implementing the incentive programs based on specific funding designated for this purpose. Based on the analysis performed for the Carl Moyer program, up to an estimat ed $600 million per year is needed between 2009 and 2014. S ection 4 of this Appendi x illustrates possible fund ing sources that haveFinal 2007 AQMP: District Staff’s Proposed Policy Options Appendix IV-B-2 to Supplemen t CARB’s Control Strategy

IV-B-2-2 

### been suggested in the past by various parties and the District staff has included these as a matter of perspective and is seeking comme nts and suggestions on appropriate funding

sources.

Figure 1. NOx Rate-of-Progre ss for the Three Policy Options

Relative to total emission reductions, each policy option would reach the same NOx emissions levels as identified in the PM2.5 attainment dem onstration (i.e., 443 tons/day of remaining NOx emissions). CARB has identified 125 tons/day of NOx emission reductions from its proposed control strate gy. An additional 71 tons/day of NOx emission reductions would be ne eded to demonstrate attain ment. As such, all three policy options would achieve the additional 71 tons/day of reductions, but through different implementation mechanisms and on different implementation schedules.
The District staff recognizes these are very difficult policy choices the Basin is facing, but not meeting the PM2.5 standard by 2015 is not an acceptable public policy in light of recent health studies on particulate matte r, not to mention the potential adverse economic impacts on the regi on due to potential federa l sanctions. The following sections further describe the three policy options.

## SECTION 2 POLICY OPTION 1 – DISTRICT STAFF’S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL MOBILE SOURCE AND CONSUMER PRODUCTS CONTROL MEASURESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-3 

### INTRODUCTION Based on CARB’s proposed mobile source c ontrol strategy, District staff refined its evaluation of the control measures recomme nded in the Draft AQMP. Depending on the mobile source sector and the proposed control approach, District staff analyzed the need to accelerate the penetration of cleaner engine technologies. This Section describes the District staff’s proposals for additional mobile source control measures to be included in the 2007 AQMP. Control measures presen ted in this appendix for ozone and PM 2.5 

### attainment demonstrations are based upon a variety of control technologies that are commercially available and/or te chnologically feasible in th e next several years. The focus of these measures includes accelerated re trofits or replacement of existing vehicles or equipment, acceleration of vehicle turn over through high-e mitter identification programs, and greater use of cleaner fuels in th e near-term. In the longer-term, in order to attain the federal ozone ambient air quality standard, there is a need to increase the penetration of near-zero and zero emissions vehicles such as pl ug-in hybrids, even further use of cleaner fuels (either alternativ e or new formulations of gasoline and diesel fuels), and additional emission reduc tions from aircraft engines.



### PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES Twelve additional control measures are propos ed by the District staf f for mobile sources and four long-term measures, which call fo r additional reductions from mobile sources and consumer products. The mobile source control measures call for greater emission reductions beyond the measures proposed by the state (as provided in Appendix IV-B-1) in order to achieve the necessary emission re ductions to demonstrate attainment of the fine particulate air quality standards by 2015 and the 8-hour ozone air quality standard by no later than 2023. A summary of the 16 control measures is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1 List of District Staff’ s Proposed Additional Mobile Sour ce Control Measures Categorized by Control Strategy

On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures

Number Title

SCONRD-01 Accelerated Penetration of Advanced T echnology Partial Zero-Emi ssion and Zero Emission Vehicles [VOC, NOx, PM] SCONRD-02 Deployment of On-Board Diagnostics (Phase III) in Light- and Medium-Duty Vehicles [VOC, NOx, PM]
SCONRD-03 Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles [NOx, PM]
SCONRD-04 Further Emissions Reductions from Heavy- Duty Trucks Providing Freight Drayage Services [NOx, PM]Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-4 

### TABLE 1 Concluded

Off-Road Mobile Source Control Measures

Number Title
SCOFFRD-01 Construction/Industrial Equi pment Fleet Modernization [VOC, NOx]

SCOFFRD-02 Further Emission Reductions from Cargo Handling Equipment [NOx, PM]

SCOFFRD-03 Further Emission Reduc tions from Locomotives [NOx, PM]

SCOFFRD-04 Further Emission Reductions from Airport Ground Support Equipment [NOx, PM]

SCOFFRD-05 Further Emission Reductions from Transport Refrigeration Units [NOx] SCOFFRD-06 Accelerated Turnover and Catalyst B ased Standards for Pleasure Craft [VOC, NOx, PM]

Cleaner Fuels Control Measures
SCFUEL-01 Further Emission Reductions from Gasoline Fuels [NOX, PM] SCFUEL-02 Further Emission Reductions from Diesel Fuels [NOX, PM] Long-Term Control Measures

SC-LTM-01A Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Mobile Sources [NOX] SC-LTM-01B Further Emission Reductions from On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles [NOx] SC-LTM-02 Further Emission Reductions from Off-Road Mobile Sources [NOx]

SC-LTM-03 Further Emission Reductio ns from Consumer Products [VOC]



### On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures The District staff is proposin g four on-road mobile source control measures. The first two measures focus on on-road light- and me dium-duty vehicles ope rating in the South Coast Air Basin. By 2014, it is estimated that about 12 million vehicles will be operating in the Basin. The first measur e would implement programs to accelerate turnover of older light- and me dium-duty vehicles to new vehicles certified to the advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicle (ATPZEV) exhaust emissions standard with an emphasis on an accelera ted penetration of pl ug-in hybrid and other near-zero or zero vehicle technologies. The second control measure would seek greater deployment of advanced on-b oard diagnostics in light- an d medium-duty vehicles.
The remaining two measures focus on heavy-dut y vehicles. The firs t of these measures seeks additional emission reductions from pre-2010 model year on-road heavy-duty vehicles through accelerated retrofit or repl acement programs that would achieve at a minimum, 30 percent reduction in NOx de pending on the age of the vehicle and 85 percent reduction in particulate matter. The measure would go beyond CARB’s proposal for heavy-duty vehicles to seek accelerated replacement or retrofit of pre-2006 model year on-road heavy-duty vehicles to meet 2010 on-road heavy-duty exhaustFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-5 

### emissions standards. Lastly , 2007 to 2009 vehicles woul d be retrofitted to reduce NOx emissions.
It is estimated that 38 percent of all of the on-road heavy-duty vehicle activities are associated with goods movement. Due to the unique na ture of the types of trucks performing freight drayage services at the ma rine ports, a separate control measure is proposed for this category of sources. Th e fourth control measure calls for on-road trucks that provide freight drayage services to implement the measure provided in the recently adopted San Pe dro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan.



### Off-Road Mobile Source Control Measures The District staff is proposing six control me asures that seek further emission reductions from off-road mobile sources an d industrial equipment. Tr ansportation sources such as aircraft, locomotives, and marine vessels are associated with anticipated economic growth not only in the Basin, but also na tionwide. These sources are principally regulated by the federal and state agencies. The state has provided proposed actions on these sources as discussed in Appendix IV-B -1. In addition, certain local actions can result in emission reductions be yond the emissions standard setting authority of the state and U.S. EPA. The first meas ure calls for the state to adop t tighter NOx fleet averages on construction and other mobi le industrial equipment such that cleaner engines or retrofit devices would be depl oyed as soon as possible. The second control measure calls for additional emission reductions from cargo handling equipment that operate at marine ports, rail yards, and warehouse distri bution centers. The third measure calls for U.S. EPA to adopt new loco motive emissions standards and require the retrofit of existing locomotives to further reduce NOx and particulate emissions. The fourth control measure would requir e additional emission reductio ns from aircraft ground support equipment. The fifth measure calls for additional reductions from transport refrigeration units. The sixth measure calls for accelerated turnover of pleasure craft.



### Cleaner Fuels Control Measures

In addition to the additional mobile source control measure proposals, two fuels related measures are proposed that could result in additional NOx, SOx, and PM emission reductions. The first measure reflects CARB’s efforts to mitigate the impacts of ethanol permeation. CARB staff is currently evaluating mechanisms to offset the greater use of ethanol in gasoline fuels. As part of this evaluation, CARB staff indicated that there are NOx disbenefits associated with greater use of oxygenates that must be offset. One approach is to lower the su lfur content of the gasoline formulation. This measure reflects the emissions benefits associated w ith a lower sulfur content in gasoline fuels and additional SOx and NOx emissions benefits a ssociated with the lowe r sulfur content. The second fuels related control measure calls for a 10 percent replacement of conventional diesel fuel with diesel fuel alternatives.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-6 

### Long-Term Control Measures The District staff is also pr oposing four additional long-term or “black box” or “Section 182(e)(5)” measures that wo uld seek additional emissions reductions from on-road and off-road mobile sources and consumer pr oducts. These meas ures would not be implemented until after 2015 wi th full implementation in the 2021 to 2023 timeframe. For on-road and off-road mobile sources, greater use of cleaner gasoline and alternative diesel fuels would be sought in addition to adva ncing near zero emissions technologies where possible and further retrofits or replacem ent of existing engines. In addition, an inspection and maintenance pr ogram is proposed for on-ro ad heavy-duty vehicles. Lastly, there is a need for ad ditional VOC emissions reductions that could be achieved in the consumer products sector by 2023.
In addition to the proposed long term m easures described above, reductions from the following programs can be used to fulfill, in part, the “black-box” commitment:

• NSR: Any excess reductions from the NSR progr am due to BACT or offset ratio beyond the AQMP assumptions; and



### • AQMD short-term measures: Any emission reductions achieved from these measures that are beyond the District’s SIP commitmen t will be used to offset CARB’s ‘blackbox” commitment. Furthermore, permanen t reductions in emission estimates due to improvement in inventory methodology are SI P creditable if the changes are approved by the AQMD Governing Board at its re gularly scheduled public meetings.

To facilitate the implementation of the propo sed black box measures, the District will continue to fund research and development to commercialize new advanced technologies through its Clean Fuels Program and through other research programs.



### FORMAT OF CONTROL MEASURES Included in each control measure descripti on is a title, summary ta ble, description of source category (including background and regulatory history), proposed method of control, estimated emission reductions, rule co mpliance, test methods, cost effectiveness, and references. The type of information that can be found under each of these subheadings is described below.



### Control Measure Number Each control measure is identified by a control measure number such as “CM #2007SCONRD-04” located at the upper right hand corner of every page. “CM #” is the abbreviation for the “control measure number” and is immediately followed by the year of the AQMP revision.
The next five- to seven-letter designation represents the abbreviation for a source category or specific programs. For example, “SCONRD” is an abbreviation for “SouthFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-7 

### Coast On-Road Mobile Sources.” The fo llowing provides a description of the abbreviations for each of the measures.

• SCONRD On-Road Mobile Sources for the South Coast Air Basin

• SCOFFRD Off-Road Mobile Sources for the South Coast Air Basin

• SCFUEL Cleaner Fuels Measures for the South Coast Air Basin

• SC-LTM Long-Term Measures for the South Coast Air Basin



### Title

The title contains the control measure name and the major pollutant(s) controlled by the measure. Titles that state “C ontrol of Emissions from...” i ndicate that the measure is regulating a new source category, not presently regulated by an existing source- specific District rule. Titles that state “Further Em ission Reductions of” im ply that the measure could result in an amendment to an existing rule or acceleration of new technologies through incentive programs.


### Summary Table

Each measure contains a table that summarize s the measure and is designed to identify the key components of the control measure. Th e table contains a brief explanation of the source category, control method, emission re ductions, control costs, and implementing
agency. 

### Description of Source Category This section provides an overall description of the source category and the intent of the control measure. The source category is presented in two sections, background and regulatory history. The background has ba sic information about the control measure such as the number of sources in the Basi n, description of emission sources, and pollutants.
The regulatory history contains information regarding existing regul atory control of the source category such as applicab le state or federal rules or regulations and if the source category was identified in the 2003 or prior AQMPs.


### Proposed Method of Control The purpose of this section is to identify po tential control options for an emission source to achieve emission reductions. If an exp ected performance for a control option is provided, it is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as the targeted overall control e fficiency for the proposed cont rol measure. To the extent feasible, the overall control efficiency for a control measure should take into accountFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-8 

### achievable controls in the field by various su bcategories within the control measure. A more detailed type of this an alysis is typically conducted during rulemaking, not in the planning stage. It has been the District's long standing po licy not to exclude any control technology and to intentionally identify as many control options as possible to spur further technology development.



### Emissions Reduction

The emission reductions are estimates based on the baseline inventories prepared for the 2007 AQMP and are provided in the Contro l Measure Summary Table. The emissions data are based on the annual average invent ory for all five criteria pollutants. The planning inventory adjusts the emissions by ta king into considerati on a source category’s seasonal variations. The emissions affec ting ozone concentration (i.e., VOC and NO x 

### ) are presented under the Summer Planning Inve ntory. The emissions section of the summary table includes the 2002, 2014, a nd 2023 inventory. The 2014 and 2023 emission projections reflect implementation of adopted rules. Based on the expected reductions associated with implementing th e control measure, emission data are calculated for 2014 and 2023 assuming the implementation of the control measure in the absence of other competing control measures.

The emission reductions listed in the summary table represent the current best estimates, which are subject to change during rule deve lopment. As demonstrated in previous rulemaking, the District is always seeki ng maximum emission reductions when proven technically feasible and cost-effective. For emission accounting purposes, a weighted average control efficiency is calculated based on the targeted contro ls. The concept of weighted average acknowledges the fact that a control measure or rule consists of several subcategories, and the emission reduc tion potential for each subcategory is a function of proposed emission limitation a nd the associated emission inventory. Therefore, the use of control efficiency to estim ate emission reductions does not represent a commitment by the District to require emission reductions uniformly across source categories. In addition, due to th e current structure of emission inventory reporting system, a control measure may partia lly affect an inventory source category (e.g., certain size of equipment or certain level material usage). In this case, an impact factor is incorporated into the calculation of a control efficiency to account for the fraction of inventory affected. During the ru le development, the most current inventory will be used. However, for tracking rate -of-progress on the SI P emission reduction commitment, the approve d AQMP inventory will be used. More specifically, emission reductions due to mandatory or voluntary, bu t enforceable, actions will be credited under SIP obligations.


### Rule Compliance This section was designed to satisfy require ments in the 1990 Clean Air Act in which EPA has indicated that it is n ecessary to have a discussion of rule compliance with eachFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-9 

### control measure. This section discusses th e recordkeeping and monitoring requirements envisioned for the control measur e. In general, the District would continue to verify rule compliance through site inspections and submittal of compliance plans.



### Test Methods In addition to requirin g recordkeeping and monitoring re quirements, EPA has stated that “An enforceable regulation must also contai n test procedures in order to determine whether sources are in compliance.” This section of the control measure write-up identifies appropriate approved District, ARB, and EPA source test methods.



### Cost Effectiveness The Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method is us ed to calculate the cost-effectiveness of each control measure. As control measures undergo the rule making process, more detailed control costs will be developed.

The cost effectiveness values contained herein may overestimate actual levels because of a number of factors. As additional informat ion on costs and more accurate numbers of affected facilities becomes availa ble, the cost effectiveness will be revised and analyzed in the socioeconomi c assessment report of the 2007 AQMP.


### Implementing Agency This section identifies the agency(ies) respon sible for implementing the control measure. Also included in this section is a description of any jurisdic tional issues that may affect the control measure’s implementation.



### References This section identifies directly cited refere nces, or those references used for general background information.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1

IV-B-2-10 

### This page is inten tionally left blank.

## GROUP 1 ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-01

IV-B-2-11 

### ACCELERATED PENETR ATION OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY

PARTIAL ZERO-EMISSION AND ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES [VOC, NOX, CO]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : G ASOLINE

- AND D IESEL -P OWERED O N -R OAD V EHICLES WITH G ROSS V EHICLE W EIGHT R ATING U P TO 14,000 LBS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : R EQUIREMENTS FOR N EW V EHICLE S ALES OF A DVANCED T ECHNOLOGY P ARTIAL Z ERO E MISSIONS V EHICLES AND Z ERO E MISSIONS V EHICLES E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 178.5 50.1 29.3 VOC R EDUCTION 0.5 2.1 VOC R EMAINING 49.6 27.1

NO X I NVENTORY 147.6 37.3 17.4 NO X R EDUCTION 1.0 5.2 NO X R EMAINING 36.3 12.2

CO I NVENTORY 1631.9 495.6 259.1 CO R EDUCTION 11.9 54.9 CO R EMAINING 483.7 204.2

P LANNING I NVENTORY (S UMMER FOR VOC AND NO X ; W INTER FOR CO) 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 180.1 52.9 31.3 VOC R EDUCTION 0.5 2.3 VOC R EMAINING 52.4 29.0

NO X I NVENTORY 140.8 35.6 16.6 NO X R EDUCTION 1.0 5.0 NO X R EMAINING 34.6 11.6

CO I NVENTORY 1604.8 485.8 253.1 CO R EDUCTION 11.7 53.7 CO R EMAINING 474.2 199.4

C ONTROL C OST : TBD

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
The purpose of this control measure is to seek emission reductions fr om existing passenger and medium duty vehicles through the use of advan ced technology vehicles that would provide substantial improvements in emissions perf ormance beyond currently available vehicleFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-01

IV-B-2-12 technologies. This control measure would speci fically facilitate the t echnological development and commercial deployment of vehicle platform (s) that satisfy normal consumer performance and drivability requirements with zero emissi ons capability approachi ng 100 percent of vehicle operational time. Control measure implemen tation would be primarily accomplished by new vehicle manufacturer production/sales requiremen ts for vehicles providing these capabilities, such as hybrid-electric vehicles with extensive all electric driving range. In addition, control measure implementation could be augmented th rough the use of volunta ry/incentive programs that would facilitate the comme rcial deployment of conversion kits for existing hybrid-electric vehicles to increase their all- electric driving range.


### Background Emissions from passenger vehicles continue to represent a significant and increasing portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin, adversely affecti ng regional air quality. The intent of this control measure is to specif ically mitigate impacts as sociated with passenger car emissions.


### Regulatory History

To address California's acute ai r quality problems, the federal Clean Air Act granted California the unique authority to adopt and enforce rule s to control mobile source emissions within California. CARB is required to adopt State requirements that are as stringent or more stringent than federal requirements.

Significant strides have been made in reducing emissions from motor vehicles through CARB’s mobile source regulations that apply predominately to new vehicles. As a result, a “new” vehicle today is approximately 99% less polluting compared to a vehicle manufact ured a couple of decades ago. However, on-road and off-road mobile sources account for about 70 percent of ozone precursor emissions in the State. Becaus e of the large emissions contribution, requiring the use of advanced technology such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology capable of zero emission transportation is essential if clean air standards are to be realized, especially for in-use vehicles.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
CARB’s Low-Emission Vehicle regulation esta blishes various emi ssion categories with associated emission requirements assigned to each category, and vehicle manufacturers have the flexibility to choose the appropr iate emission category for each ve hicle model intended for sale in California. Basically, this regulation achieves emission reducti ons by forcing vehicle manufacturers to gradually incr ease the proportion of vehicles sold over time that have been certified to emission categories with the lowest emission requirements. The cleanest emission categories defined in the Low-Em ission Vehicle regulation are partial-zero emission vehicles (PZEV), advanced technology ze ro-emission vehicles (ATPZEV), and zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). PZEVs must meet very stringent tailp ipe emission limits, zero evaporative emissions, and enhanced durability requir ements. An ATPZEV is a P ZEV that includes components common to ZEVs—e.g., an advanced battery that is integral to the operation of the power train or an electric power train.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-01

IV-B-2-13 This control measure proposes to strengthen the production/sales requirement provision of CARB’s Low-Emission Vehicle Regulation, to require increased sales of ATPZEVs with nominal zero emissions miles beginning with th e 2012 model-year. To meet this requirement, ATPZEVs would, at a minimum, meet an all elec tric driving range that would provide for the maximum feasible amount of zero-emission operational capability under normal driving conditions and may be equipped wi th plug-in recharging capabil ity. This mandatory program could be supplemented with a voluntary program to be implemented by the District and/or CARB that would incentivize the development and deployment of conversion kits for existing ATPZEV certified hybrid-electric vehicles for th e purpose of increasing th eir all electric range and providing for plug-in recharging capabilit y. The goal for ATPZEV deployment in the District is 100,000 vehicles by the 2014/2015 timeframe and 1,000,000 vehicles by 2020. Cost impacts to consumers resulting from control measure implementation could be offset by tax credits; however, cost impacts would also be mitigated by overall improvements in fuel economy for ATPZEVs deployed as a resu lt of this control measure.

Several automobile manufacturers have also announced plans to investigate the technology, with Daimler Chrysler currently developing a pl ug-in capable Sprinter Van. In addition, the District is conducting a program to demonstrate 30 plug-in hybrid vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin. This demonstration will faci litate the commercializa tion of plug-in hybrid technology and to spur conversion of existing hybrid vehicles to ha ve plug-in capabilities. PlugIn Bay Area (PIBA), a local chapte r of the national Plug-In Partners effort, is demonstrating that a growing network of consumers are asking for production of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Members are demonstrating plug-in hybrid vehicl es by Energy CS and Daimler Chrysler.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Accelerated deployment of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles with enhanced all-electric range can result in significant emission reductions. If th e proposed control measure is fully implemented, estimated annual average emission reductions of VOC and NOx are 0.5 and 1.0 tons per day by 2014, and 2.1 and 5.2 tons per day by 2023.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS
The existing CARB certification and verification programs would be used to administer those portions of the control measure that would re quire CARB approval of plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles and retrofit kit designs. It is anticipated that existing certification and verification test procedures, coupled with DMV data, would pr oduce the data needed to document emission levels.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
This proposed control measure will affect light-dut y vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings up to 8,500 lbs. The current cost of the advanced batteries are high, but ar e expected to reduce significantly with enhanced manufacturing techniques and economies of scale.

The cost effectiveness of this control measure has not been estimated at this time.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-01

IV-B-2-14 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB, subject to existing agreem ents with U.S. EPA, has th e authority to set emission standards and certification require ments for vehicles sold in California. In addition, other incentives such as direct funding assistance or tax credits may be deve loped to accelerate vehicle turnover to the newer technologies.



### REFERENCES
SCAQMD, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehi cle Forum & Technical Roundtable, Seewww.aqmd.gov/tao/ConferencesWorkshops/PHEV_Forum-07-12-06/Plugin_Hybrid_Electric_Vehicle_Forum.htm

.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-02

IV-B-2-15 

### DEPLOYMENT OF ON-BOARD DI AGNOSTICS (PHASE III) IN LIGHT- AND MEDIUM -DUTY VEHICLES [VOC, NOX, CO]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : G ASOLINE

- AND D IESEL -P OWERED L IGHT & M EDIUM -D UTY V EHICLES U P T O 14,000 LBS G ROSS V EHICLE W EIGHT
C ONTROL M ETHODS : O N -B OARD D IAGNOSTICS III (C OMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEM
IDENTIFYING EMISSIONS RELATED PROBLEM AND CONSUMER REQUIRED TO FIX DEFECT ) E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 323.1 118.2 80.3 VOC R EDUCTION 0.5 1.3 VOC R EMAINING 117.7 79.0

NO X I NVENTORY 366.3 129.7 72.5 NO X R EDUCTION 3.3 6.1 NO X R EMAINING 126.4 66.5

CO I NVENTORY 3332.8 1186.1 691.6 CO R EDUCTION 10.0 23.6 CO R EMAINING 1176.1 668.0

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 323.2 122.0 83.9 VOC R EDUCTION 0.5 1.3 VOC R EMAINING 121.5 82.6

NO X I NVENTORY 350.1 124.4 69.7 NO X R EDUCTION 3.2 5.8 NO X R EMAINING 121.2 63.9

CO I NVENTORY 3284.0 1164.6 676.7 CO R EDUCTION 9.8 23.1 CO R EMAINING 1154.8 653.6

C ONTROL C OST : C OST S AVINGS (C APITAL C OSTS FOR OBD III C OULD B E O FFSET W ITH T HE E LIMINATION OF T HE C OSTS A SSOCIATED W ITH S MOG C HECK T ESTING )

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB, B UREAU OF A UTOMOTIVE R EPAIR 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
The purpose of this control measure is to im plement a strategy that will achieve continuous compliance for light- and medium-duty vehicles with in-use emission standards known as smogFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-02

IV-B-2-16 check cut-points. This program will be appli cable to all light- and medium-duty vehicles subject to the on-board diagnos tics (OBD) requirements.


### Background Light- and medium-duty vehicles are major contri butors of air pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin. While vehicle miles traveled increased mo re than 50% over the last 20 years, vehicle emissions have dropped by a factor of almost three due to increasingly stringent vehicle emission standards. Yet, the light and medium duty vehicle fleet continues to contribute more than a third of the Basin’s total emissions of ozone and particulate matter forming pollutants in part due to high emitting vehicles. Studies show that the highest emitting 10% of the light duty fleet contribute well over 50% of the fleet’s total emissions of ozone and particulate matter forming pollutants emphasizing the need to identify and repair these high emitting vehicles to ensure further emission reductions from the light duty vehicle fleet.

Even though new vehicles sold in California are the cleanest in the world, the millions of cars on the road and the ever increa sing miles they travel each da y make them our single greatest source of smog forming emissions. While new vehi cles in California may start out with very low emissions, improper maintenance or fau lty components can cause the vehicle emission levels to sharply increase. Studies estimate that approximately 50% of the total emissions from late-model vehicles are the result of emi ssion-related malfunctions. All 1996 and newer gasoline and alternate fuel passenger cars and truc ks are required to ha ve OBD II systems. OBD II is an acronym for On-Board Diagnostics II, the second generation of on board self-diagnostic equipment requirements for California vehicl es. On-board diagnostic capabilities are incorporated into the hardware and software of a vehicle’s on-board computer to monitor virtually every component that can affect emissi on performance. If a problem or malfunction is detected, the OBD II system illuminates a warning lig ht on the vehicle instrument panel to alert the driver. This warning light will typically display the phrase “Check Engine” or “Service Engine Soon.” The system will also store impor tant information about the detected malfunction so that a repair technician can accu rately find and fix the problem.


### Regulatory History
On-Board Diagnostics I (OBD I) was Califor nia’s first OBD regulation which required manufacturers to monitor some of the emissi on control components on vehicles. Required on all 1991 and newer vehicles, OBD I systems were not as effective as possible because they were limited to monitoring only a few of the emi ssion-related components and they were not calibrated to a specific level of emission perfor mance. OBD II was developed to address these shortcomings and make the system more user -friendly for service technicians.

With several recent studies concluding that a sma ll fraction of the fleet contributes a majority of the emissions for the vehicle source category a nd that repairs of such vehicles may not be lasting their full biennial two year cycle, this proposed control measure addresses such off-cycle excess emissions and ensure continuous compliance with smog check cutpoints.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-02

IV-B-2-17 

### PROPOSED METHODS OF CONTROL
The proposed control measure will include regulati ons requiring that all light- and medium-duty vehicles manufactured after 2012 and previously subject to Ca lifornia OBD requirements be equipped with a telematics device. Such telema tics devices, when connected to the vehicle’s computer controlled emission system, will notify a central dispatch when an emissions related defect has occurred and subsequently trigger a lette r to the owner of the ve hicle that a repair of said defect is required within an agreed to period of time.

For existing vehicles manufactured with OBD technology between MY1996 thru MY2012, vehicle owners will be required to install retrofit kits to include such telematics devices. Such kits will be installed by smog check repair sh ops phase in over time coinciding with their biennial smog test requirements. The cost of the retrofit program could be offset by the cost in subsequent years of not having to pay th e cost of a biennial smog check test.

Specifically, this measure proposes that CARB adopt regulations which requi re that all vehicles manufactured after 2012 be equipp ed with a telematics device such that when connected to the vehicle’s computer controlled emission system, w ill notify a central dispatch when an emissions related defect has occurred and subsequently tri gger a letter to the owner of the vehicle that a repair of said defect is required with in an agreed to period of time.

Beginning in MY 1996 and newer vehicles, all vehi cles sold in California were equipped with on-board diagnostic capabilities havi ng the ability to monitor virtua lly every component that can affect emission performance. In essence the on -board diagnosis system of a vehicle monitors the vehicles emissions on a real time basis and theoretically eliminates the need for biennial smog check tests. Consumers will be notified vi a mail of the noted detected malfunction and be required to fix such malfunction within a stated period.

In addition to the proposed regu latory action, th is measure proposes th at by 2020, all existing Model Year 1996 to 2012 vehicles equipped w ith OBD technologies be retrofitted with telematics devices. Specifically, beginning in 2012, Model Year 1996 through 2012 vehicles will be required to be retrofitted with telematic s devices at a rate of one million vehicles per year. The vehicles will be randomly selected e ach year. Such kits will be installed by smog check repair shops upon receipt of their DMV no tice requiring the installation of a telematics device at their next biannual smog check test. The co st of such retrofit kits is estimated to be between $100 to $150. Such costs could be offs et by forgoing the cost of smog check testing every other year at an estim ated cost of $65 per test.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Implementation of this measure w ould result in estimated annual average emission reductions of VOC and NOx are 0.5 and 3.3 tons per day by 2014, and 1.3 and 6.1 tons per day by 2023.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
This proposed control measure would result in a cost saving to consumers. Consumers participating in an OBD II program with telematics devices could potentially realize an overall cost savings if the State waived the cost of a biennial smog check test in lieu of the one timeFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-02

IV-B-2-18 estimated cost between $100 to $150 for a tran sponder unit to relay ma lfunction codes of the vehicle’s emission control system device to a central dispatch. Overall cost savings of the program could result in additional off cycle em ission reduction benefits to the existing smog check program.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
The implementing agencies would be the Bu reau of Automotive Re pair (BAR) under the Department of Consumer Affairs and the Californi a Air Resources Board. BAR will likely have to adopt regulations to incor porate such requirements.



### REFERENCES Department of Consumer Affairs/Bureau of Au tomotive Repair, Report to the Legislature – April 2004 Evaluation of the California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program, September, 2005.

Department of Consumer Affairs/Bureau of Automotive Repair, Technical Support Document for Evaluation of the California Enhanced Ve hicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program, June 2004

CARB, Proposed 2003 State and Federal Strategy for California SIP - Section II Mobile Sources, August 25, 2003

Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Se ction 19685, Enforcement of Malfunction and Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and S ubsequent Model-Year Passenger Cars, LightDuty Trucks, and Medium Duty Vehicles and Engines.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-03

IV-B-2-19 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES [NOX, PM]

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O N -R OAD H EAVY -D UTY D IESEL V EHICLES (14,001 LBS AND G REATER GVWR)

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATED R EPLACEMENT OF E XISTING H EAVY -D UTY V EHICLES W ITH V EHICLES M EETING 2010 S TANDARDS AND R ETROFITTING /R EPOWERING E XISTING H EAVY -D UTY V EHICLES TO A CHIEVE L OWER E MISSION L EVELS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 218.9 133.6 70.3 NO X R EDUCTION 35.7 8.2 NO X R EMAINING 97.9 62.1

PM10 I NVENTORY 9.8 5.7 3.0 PM10 R EDUCTION 4.0 0.4 PM10 R EMAINING 1.7 2.6

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 9.0 5.3 2.8 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 3.7 0.4 PM2.5 R EMAINING 1.6 2.4

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 219.1 134.0 70.8 NO X R EDUCTION 35.7 8.2 NO X R EMAINING 98.3 62.6

C ONTROL C OST : A PPROXIMATELY $15,000 PER TON OF POLLUTANT REDUCED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB AND SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Emissions from heavy-duty diesel mobile sour ces continue to represent a significant and increasing portion of the emissi ons inventory in the South Coas t Air Basin, adversely affecting regional air quality. The two primary pollutant s resulting from diesel fuel combustion are particulate matter (PM) and oxid es of nitrogen (NOx). PM ty pically constitutes the visible emissions from diesel engine exhaust, and it c ontains over 40 known cance r-causing substances. In 1998, California identifie d diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer. In March 2000, the SCAQM D issued a report entitled “The Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin.” Th is report concluded that about 70 percent of the carcinogenic risk associated with breathing ambi ent air can be attributed to diesel particulate emissions. Diesel engines also emit significant quantitie s of NOx, which is a precursor to ozone and secondary particulate matter formation. Add itional control on diesel engine emissions isFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-03

IV-B-2-20 essential for attainment of ozone and PM ambient air quality standards, as well as mitigating its toxic air quality impact.

The intent of this control measure is to s eek emission reductions from existing heavy-duty vehicles except for port related trucks with gr oss vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) greater than 14,000 lbs through an accelerated vehicle replaceme nt program with new 2010 and later model– year engines. In addition, for heavy-duty ve hicles not replaced with new models, existing vehicle engines would be repowered with co mmercially available engines meeting 2010 emission standards or modified with retrofit kits to achieve lowest possible emission levels.


### Regulatory History
The regulation of emissions from heavy-dut y diesel mobile emission sources is the responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Specifically, heavy- duty vehicle engine s are subject to specific emission standards pursuant to state and/ or federal requirements. Emission standards for new diesel engines powering heavy-duty vehicles were firs t established for the 1973 modelyear and have gradually increased in stringency over time. The most stringent set of heavy-duty engine emission standards has been esta blished by CARB and U.S. EPA for 2010 and subsequent model-years, wh ich includes a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NO x emission standard. Currently, heavy-duty diesel engine manufactur ers (OEMs) are investigating NO x control technologies to meet this NOx emission limit. For the mode l-years 2007 to 2009, the OEMs may phase in these technologies to meet a 1.2 g/bhp-hr NO x emission standard. For PM emissions, all new heavyduty engines must meet a 0.01 g/ bhp-hr exhaust emissions sta ndard beginning with the 2007 model-year. It is anticipated that currently developed diesel particulate trap technology would be used to comply with this PM emission standard.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

This control measure seeks additional emi ssion reductions from older, pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles beyond the emission reductions target ed in CARB’s proposed measure for heavy-duty vehicles. CARB’s proposed measure for heavy-dut y vehicles targets 30 pe rcent of the oldest, pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles and proposes to redu ce excess emissions due to deterioration of emissions control equipment. Additional emission reductions could be achi eved if an additional 15 percent of the oldest, pre-2010 he avy-duty vehicles are targeted.

CARB’s proposed control measure target of 30 percent of the oldest, pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles is equivalent to replacing or retrof itting pre-2001 model year he avy-duty vehicles with engines that meet 2010 heavy-duty exhaust emissi on standards. Targeting an additional 15 percent of the pre-2010 fleet is equivalent to replacing or retrofitting model year 2001 through 2004 with engines meeting 2010 emissions standa rds. The proposed ta rgeted fleet is one scenario for heavy-duty vehicles. However, during the rule development process specific implementation approaches will be developed and most likely, will cover all pre-2010 vehicles in some manner as the regulation is implemented out to the 2020 timeframe.

Another scenario is proposed fo r this control measure that coul d achieve equiva lent emission reductions to the additional 15 percent of th e targeted pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles. The scenario contains two elements: an expanded heavy-duty vehicle fleet modernization program and a NO x and PM control retrofit program for in-u se heavy-duty vehicles. This scenarioFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-03

IV-B-2-21 targets Model Years 2001 through 2009 heavy-duty vehicles that would be retrofitted or replaced at a rate of 15 percen t per year, to meet 2010 on-road heavy-duty em issions standards. The two elements are further discussed below.

Expanded Heavy-Duty Fleet Modernization This element calls for an accelerated moderni zation of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet through replacement or repower of 2001 to 2006 model-y ear heavy-duty vehicles with vehicles/engines meeting exhaust emissions standards of 0.2 g/ bhp-hr NOx and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM at a rate of about 7.5 percent per year beginning in 2011. Resources would be directed to the replacement of older “captive” fleets used for s hort to medium distance hauling.

NOx Control Retrofit Program This element calls for the retrofitting of 2001 to 2006 model-year heavy-dut y vehicles to reduce NOx and PM emissions by at least 30 percent an d 85 percent, respectively. In addition, all 2007 to 2009 model-year heavy-duty vehicles would be retrofitted by 2020 to reduce NOx emissions by 30 percent. Retrofitting would occur during the 2012 to 2020 time period at a rate of 7.5 percent per year. It is envisioned that curr ently verified retrofit technology and reasonable extensions of this technology would be sufficien t to achieve the implementation goals of this control measure.

In order to meet the 2010 heavy-duty engine PM and NOx emission standards of 0.01 g/bhp-hr and 0.2 g/bhp-hr, respectively, heavy-duty engine manufacturers are currently investigating a variety of emission control technologies. For PM emission reductions, diesel particulate traps are expected to be employed, since this tech nology has been commercially available for a number of years and it still appears to be th e best choice to reduce PM emissions to the 0.01 g/bhp-hr level for the post 2010 m odel year timeframe. For NOx em issions control, the use of exhaust gas recirculation, selective catalytic reduction using urea injection (SCR), lean NO x absorbers, and lean-NO x catalysts technologies are currently being investigated. Based on input from diesel-engine manufacturers, it appears th at urea based SCR technol ogies will most likely be utilized to meet the 2010 NOx emission standa rd. As such, an additional issue that would need to be addressed relative to the widespread use of SCR in the heavy-duty truck sector is ammonia slippage emissions. In particular, the challenging natu re of controlling on-highway heavy-duty engine NOx emissions using S CR under transient operating conditions could potentially lead to excess urea usage and subsequent ammonia emission generation under certain engine operating conditions. Ammonia emissions are a known precursor to PM formation in the basin as a secondary aerosol component.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The implementation of a heavy-duty vehicle em ission reductions program that incorporates vehicle replacement, repower, and retrofit stra tegies can result in significant emission reductions. If the proposed control measur e is fully implemented, estimated emission reductions of NOx and PM are 35.7 and 3.7 tons per day by 2014, and 8.2 and 0.4 tons per day by 2023.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-03

IV-B-2-22 

### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS
CARB, subject to existing agreements with U.S. EPA, has the authority to establish emission standards and certificati on requirements, and verify complia nce with these requirements, for vehicles and engines sold in California. In addition, CARB has the authority to establish requirements for the verification of retrofit kits th at would be used to modify heavy-duty diesel engines. Compliance with requirements of an incentive program(s) used to offset the costs of new heavy-duty vehicles, engines, or retrofit kits could be jointly or separately administered by SCAQMD or CARB.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
This proposed control measure will affect heavy- duty engine manufacturers, heavy-duty diesel truck owners, and heavy-duty di esel fleet operators. Costs of replacement engines vary depending on the specific model and vehicle applic ation, and an evaluati on would need to be conducted to determine the specific types of trucks and engine models that would be primarily affected by this control measure, as well as prioritizing vehicle a pplications on a costeffectiveness basis for engine or vehicle repla cement. Installation of the retrofit kit, both purchase price and labor, will cost an estimated $20,000 per truck. In addition, there will be an increase in operating costs due to either (1) a small increase in fuel consumption, or (2) a nominal cost for urea if SCR retrofits are used. These costs will need to be borne by the truck owners and operators. The cost effectiveness of this control measure is estimated to be approximately $15,000 per ton of pollutant reduced.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB would implement those portions of this control measure regarding the approval of new heavy-duty engines and heavy-duty engine retrofit kits. In addition, CARB, SCAQMD or U.S. EPA could jointly or separately implement incen tive programs that would help offset the costs associated with new truck purch ase, engine repower, and/or re trofit kit installation. In particular, there is a need to incentivize emission reductions from interstate trucks registered outside of California.



### REFERENCES
CARB, Staff Report for Public Hearing to Co nsider Amendments Adopting More Stringent Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Mode l Year New Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, September 7, 2001.

CARB, Summary of Adverse of Impacts of Diesel Particulat e Matter, July 2005.

SCAQMD, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure St udy in the South Coast Air Basin, March 2000.

CARB, Staff Report for Public Hearing to Co nsider Amendments Adopting More Stringent Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Mode l Year New Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, September 7, 2001.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-04

IV-B-2-23 

### FURTHER EMISSIONS REDUCTION S FROM HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS PROVIDING FREIGHT DRAYAGE SERVICES [NOx, PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : H EAVY -D UTY V EHICLES (33,000 AND G REATER GVWR)

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATED T RUCK R EPLACEMENT P ROGRAM WITH T RUCKS M EETING 2007 AND 2010 E XHAUST E MISSIONS S TANDARDS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 28.1 19.4 10.6 NO X R EDUCTION 11.4 0.0 NO X R EMAINING 8.0 10.6

PM10 I NVENTORY 1.6 0.89 0.42 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.03 0.0 PM10 R EMAINING 0.86 0.42

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 1.4 0.82 0.38 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.03 0.00 PM2.5 R EMAINING 0.79 0.38

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 28.1 19.5 10.7 NO X R EDUCTION 11.5 0.0 NO X R EMAINING 8.0 10.7

C ONTROL C OST : A PPROXIMATELY $19,200 PER TON OF POLLUTANT REDUCED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB, M ARINE P ORTS , SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background On-road heavy-duty diesel vehicle (truck) travel is an integral part of port operations moving containers from the port into the SoCAB and beyond. Almost all of these trucks are rated with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater than 33,00 0 pounds. It is not known exactly how many unique trucks service both Ports. During th e development of the San Pedro Bay Clean Air Action Plan, baseline emissions i nventory for both the Port of Los Angeles (2001 baseline) and the Port of Long Beach (2002 baseline), approxima tely 7,200 license plates of trucks visiting the Ports were analyzed which determined that th e average age of the port specific fleet was 12.9 years (MY 1990) compared to the 2001 statewide fleet age of 12.2 years (MY 1991) in the state of California’s emissions inventory model EMFAC2002. From the baseline emissions inventory data set, it was found that MY 1958 to 2002 trucks serviced the ports.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-04

IV-B-2-24 

### Regulatory History
The regulation of emissions from heavy-duty diesel mobile sources is the primary responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Specifi cally, heavy-duty truck engines are subject to specific emission standards pursuant to state and/ or federal requirements. The st andards, primarily affecting new units, vary in stringency and compliance da tes. Currently, hea vy-duty diesel engine manufacturers (OEMs) are developing NO x control technologies to meet a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NO x exhaust emissions standard. For the model years 2007 to 2010, the OEMs may phase in this technology to meet NO x emission standards and requireme nts. Beginning in 2007, all new heavy-duty engines must meet a 0.01 g/bhp- hr PM exhaust emissions standard.

Currently, both Ports are in the midst of updating their emissions inventory (EI) of port-related sources for 2005. As a part of this EI update, ex tensive truck visit/license plate information has been collected from seven terminals (three from POLA and four from POLB). To date, over one million (1,003,024) optical character recognition (OCR) truck visit data records have been received from the seven terminals and represen t a time range of 45 to 208 days of records. From this preliminary data set, there were 35,291 unique California regist ered trucks identified which had an average model year age of 1994. The trucks range in age from 1941 to 2006. Efforts are still under way to try to fill in data for the remainin g container terminals and estimate the entire 2005 record of truck calls for both Po rts. For now however, th is data represents the best data set available to analyze the tr ucks servicing the San Pedro Bay Ports.

In November 2006, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopted the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). One of the measures provided in the CAAP calls for the modernization of all on-road he avy-duty trucks providing drayage services at the Ports by the end of 2011. CARB is currently developing a stat ewide port truck regulation that calls for existing trucks to be retrofitted or replaced with newer trucks by 2014.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
This control measure proposes to implement th e heavy-duty truck measure provided in the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. To mitigate the costs impacts of this control measure, the Ports and AQMD would commit over $200 milli on over the next five years with a total investment from all funding sources of more th an $1.8 billion. These strategies are further discussed below.

Port Truck Modernization This strategy proposes the replacement/repower of older heavy-duty diesel trucks with alternative fuel trucks and clean diesel trucks . By 2012, half of all pre-1993 model-year heavyduty trucks would be replaced w ith heavy-duty trucks powered by diesel engines meeting 2007 emission standards and the remaining half power ed by alternative-fueled engines meeting 2010 emission standards. For 1993 through 2006 model- year trucks, 21 percen t would be replaced with heavy-duty trucks powered by diesel engines meeting 2007 emission standards and an additional 21 percent would be replaced by hea vy-duty trucks powered by alternative-fueled engines meeting 2010 emission standards. By 2012, 50 percent of pre-2007 model-year heavyduty trucks would be powered by diesel e ngines meeting 2007 emission standards and the remaining 50 percent powered by alternative-fuel ed engines meeting 2010 emission standards.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-04

IV-B-2-25 NOx Retrofit Control Program The strategy proposes to achieve sp ecific penetration targets for the use of current diesel retrofit technologies on existing heavy-duty trucks servicing the Ports. By 2012, the targets consist of retrofitting 58 percent of 1993 to 2003 model-year heavy-duty trucks for 85 percent and 30 percent PM and NOx reductions, respectively. In addition, the 1993 to 1998 model-year heavyduty trucks affected by this strategy woul d undergo chip reflash for additional emission reductions.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The accelerated deployment of newer-lower-emitting heavy-duty trucks powered by diesel fuel and alternative fuels, in combination with th e implementation of a re trofit/repowered program can result in significant emi ssion reductions. If the propos ed control measure is fully implemented, estimated emission reductions of NOx and PM are 11.4 and 0.03 tons per day by 2014. The proposed control measure focuses on exis ting trucks servicing the ports. As such, there are no additional reductions beyond 2014. CARB has accounted for 2 tons per day of NOx emissions reductions from their proposed c ontrol strategy for port trucks. The emissions reductions associated with this control measur e and CARB’s targeted NOx emission reductions represent a total 10 tons pe r day of NOx reductions by 2014.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS
The existing CARB certification and verification programs would administ er those portions of the control measure that would require CARB a pproval of engine models and retrofit kits, respectively. It is anticipated that existing certif ication and verification te st procedures would be used to generate and document emission levels. Compliance with requirements of an incentive program(s) used to offset the cost s of new heavy-duty vehicles, engi nes, or retrofit kits could be jointly or separately administered by SCAQMD, CARB, or the Ports.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost and cost-effectiveness of this measur e is estimated to be approximately $19,200 per ton of pollutant reduced. The current state Carl Moyer fleet modernization program provides up to 80 percent of the cost of the replacement vehicle. Additiona lly, affected operators may access the historical Carl Moyer program, which provides for a $14,300/ton funding assistance.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB, Marine Ports, SCAQMD



### REFERENCES

CARB. Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California (April 2006)

Final San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (November 2006).Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-04

IV-B-2-26 

### This page is inten tionally left blank.

## GROUP 2 OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-01

IV-B-2-27 

### CONSTRUCTION/INDUSTRIAL FLEET MODERNIZATION [VOC, NOx]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O FF -R OAD C ONSTRUCTION , I NDUSTRIAL E NGINES AND
TRANSPORTATION REFRIGERATION UNTIS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : E STABLISH M ORE S TRINGENT F LEET A VERAGE R EQUIREMENTS TO R EPLACE OR R ETROFIT O LDER E NGINES
WITH N EW , C LEANER E NGINES E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 23.5 13.4 8.2 VOC R EDUCTION 3.6 1.7 VOC R EMAINING 9.8 6.5

NO X I NVENTORY 158.9 97.3 47.2 NO X R EDUCTION 18.5 22.2 NO X R EMAINING 78.8 25.0

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 23.3 13.3 8.1 VOC R EDUCTION 3.6 1.7 VOC R EMAINING 9.7 6.4

NO X I NVENTORY 157.5 96.4 46.8 NO X R EDUCTION 18.3 22.0 NO X R EMAINING 78.1 24.8

C ONTROL C OST : A PPROXIMATELY $2 BILLION THROUGH 2023 WITH A COST
EFFECTIVENESS RANGING BETWEEN $13,000 TO $15,000 PER
TON OF NO X + VOC CONTROLLED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
The purpose of this control measure is to promot e faster turn-over of ol der in-use construction and industrial diesel engines.


### Background Off-road heavy-duty construction and industria l equipment account for 19% and 6.9% of the total NO x and PM emissions, respectively, in 2014. However, these equipment emissions are projected to steadily increase over other mobile sources. At least 60% of today’s heavy-duty construction equipment fleets were manufactured before 1988, with higher levels of emissions than later models. Through its Diesel Risk Re duction Plan CARB is focusing on off-road fleet rules reducing primarily PM and secondarily NOx emissions thr ough retrofits controls, engineFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-01

IV-B-2-28 repowers, and equipment replacement. While CA RB expects to see close to 90% reduction of PM by 2020, NOx reductions will be substantially less – approximately 20%.


### Regulatory History
The Federal Clean Air Act prohibits states from setting emission standards for new engines used in construction and farming equipment less than 175 horsepower. Diesel engines greater than 175 horsepower are regulated by CARB. In Sept ember 1996, CARB, U.S. EPA, and the diesel engine manufacturers signed a statement of prin ciples, which called for a cooperative effort to reduce NO x , VOC, and PM emissions by more than 60%. In August 1998, U.S. EPA adopted new emission standards pertaining to off-road diesel engines. Subsequently, in January 2000 and in December 2004, CARB adopted amendments to existing California emission standards to harmonize with the federal requirement. These amendments included a tiered approach starting from 1996 for Tier 1 to 2011-2014 for Tier 4.

CARB is in the process of developing an Off-Ro ad Equipment In-Use Rule which is expected to be adopted early 2007, which will reduce PM em issions by close to 90% and NOx by close to 20% through retrofit controls, engine repower s, and equipment replacement. CARB has proposed that off-road equipment fleets meet a declining fleet average emissions level or alternatively turnover 10 pe rcent of the existing fleet to new Tier 3 models.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
New off-road diesel engines are required to me et Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards ranging between 6.0 and 2.6 g/bhp-hr NO x and 0.6 and 0.15 g/bhp-hr PM. To comply with these standards, newer off-road diesel engines ar e equipped with modern and better technologies resulting in 72 % less NO x or PM than the pre-1988 engines, and will potentially emit 85% less NO x in 2007. While substantially improved over the pre-Tier 0 and Tier 0 emission rates the new off-road standards remain significantly higher than the same model year on-road engines. On-road engine standards for the year 2010 will meet emission levels 10 to 100 times cleaner than the oldest off-road engines resu lting in 90 to 99% control of emissions.

This measure calls for more stringent NOx fl eet average requirements beginning in the 2014 time frame than that proposed by CARB. E ssentially, this measure proposes that CARB proposed NOx fleet average for 2018, be moved up to 2014. This would have an effect of accelerating fleet turnover and engine re-powering to ensure that most pre-Tier 2 engines are replaced by Tier 3 engine s or better (including engines meetin g on-road standard s for categories where it is feasible). Reductions expected would be equivalent to those that would be achieved by replacing pre-Tier 2 engines w ith Tier 3 engines or better (assume 25% of the engines can meet 2010 on-road emission standards and 75% will meet Tier 3 standards) by 2014. 2020 emission reductions are estimated as equivalent to what would be achiev ed by replacing Tier 2 engines with Tier 4 engines or better and retrofitting Tier 3 e ngines with NOx and PM controls that achieve at least 80% and 85% respectivel y (reductions are determined by assuming 50% of the engines meet the 2010 on-road engine emissi on levels, and 50% meet the Tier 4 engine emission levels). Currently th ere are CARB verified control technologies that achieve 80% NOx control and 85% PM control on some off-ro ad engines and it is expected that the technology will improve to include many of the off -road diesel engine categories. In addition, some off-road equipment are operating with dies el engines that meet on-road exhaust emissionFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-01

IV-B-2-29 standards (e.g., yard hostlers). Many other off -road equipment categories may operate in a manner where the use of engines or retrofits meeting on-road st andards is feasible, and as engine technology improves more off-road engine s will meet the on-road emission standards.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Emission reductions beyond those anticipated from the proposed CARB In-use Off-road Diesel Vehicles regulation are estimated to be 18.5 tons/day (tpd) for NO x , and 3.6 tpd for VOC in 2014, and 22.2 tpd for NOx and 1.7 tpd for VOC in 2023.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost associated with this control measur e is expected to be approximately $750 million by 2014. This is based on estimated co sts for repowering all Tier 1 e quipment to Tier 3 or better by 2014 and represents the high end of the range. It is expected that retrofit technology will play an important role at a much lower cost wh en the technology becomes verified in the near future. In 2020, the costs are expected to be approximately $1.3 billion and are estimated based on repowering all Tier 2 engines to Tier 4 or be tter and retrofitting all Tier 3 engines. These costs correspond to a cost effectiveness of approximately $13,000 to $15,000 per ton of NOx and VOC controlled. To offset the cost of th is control measure, a financial support program, similar to the Carl Moyer Program, may be necessary.



### IMPLEMENTING AGEN CY AND ISSUES CARB has the authority to require retrofit or replacement of in -use off-road engines. In addition, this control measure could be im plemented through incentive programs.



### REFERENCES
1. CARB Presentation: Diesel Off-Road E quipment Rule Working Group Meeting: New Regulatory Concepts and Inve ntory Updates, July 21, 2006. 2. CARB, Proposed Regulation for, 12/4/2006 draftFinal AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-02

IV-B-2-30 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT [ALL POLLUTANTS]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O FF -R OAD E QUIPMENT O PERATING U SED TO M OVE F REIGHT C ONTAINERS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATED R EPLACEMENT /R ETROFIT P ROGRAM E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 4.6 3.6 1.8 NO X R EDUCTION 1.1 0.5 NO X R EMAINING 2.5 1.3

PM10 I NVENTORY 0.2 0.10 0.10 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.03 0.03 PM10 R EMAINING 0.07 0.07

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 0.2 0.10 0.10 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.03 0.03 PM2.5 R EMAINING 0.07 0.07

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY NO X I NVENTORY 4.6 3.6 1.8 NO X R EDUCTION 1.1 0.5 NO X R EMAINING 2.5 1.3

C ONTROL C OST : TBD

I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Emissions from goods movement related mobile sour ces (e.g., ships, trains, trucks, and off-road equipment) continue to represent a significant and increasing portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin, adversely affect ing not only the local port area, but also the regional air quality of the Basin. The purpose of this control measure is to implement programs to further reduce emissions from cargo handling e quipment operated at marine ports, intermodal freight facilities, and wa rehouse distribution centers.


### Regulatory History

The U.S. EPA’s and CARB’s Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, and Tier 4 emissions standards for non-road diesel engines require complian ce with progressively more stri ngent standards for hydrocarbon, CO, NOx, and PM. Tier 4 standards for non-road diesel powered equipment complement theFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-02

IV-B-2-31 latest 2007 and later on-road heavy-duty engine standards requiring 90 percent reduction in NOx and PM when compared against the current level. To meet these standards, engine manufacturers will produce new engines with a dvanced emissions control technologies similar to those already expected for on-road heavy- duty diesel vehicles. These standards for new engines will be phased in starting with smalle r engines in 2008 until all but the very largest diesel engine meet NOx and PM standards in 2015.

In December 2005, CARB adopted a regulation to reduce emissions from CHE such as yard tractors and forklifts starting in 2007. The regu lation calls for the replacement or retrofit of existing engines with engines that use Best Available Control Technol ogy (BACT). Beginning January 1, 2007 the regulation will require that newly purchased, leased, or rented CHE be equipped with either a 2007 or la ter on-road engine, a Tier 4 o ff-road engine or the cleanest verified diesel PM emissions control system which reduces PM by 90% and NOx by at least 70% for yard tractors. For non-yard tractors cargo handling equipment currently verified technologies reduce PM by 85%.

In November 2006, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopted the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP). One of the measures provided in the CAAP calls for terminal operators to use car go handling equipment with the cl eanest engines meeting 2007 on-road heavy-duty engine emission standards or Tier 4 off-road engine standards.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

This measure calls for CARB to amend its curre nt regulations on cargo handling equipment to include those categories of equipment not currently covered under the existing regulation but are identified in the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Ai r Action Plan, primarily non-yard tractors. The San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (C AAP) includes a strategy which accelerates the implementation of CARB’s rule requirements th rough lease requirements or other mechanisms. The CAAP measure provides an additional 15% NOx and 19% PM reductions by 2011 beyond CARB’s regulation based on the replacement of existing cargo handling equipment with equipment meeting Tier IV off-road or 2007 on-ro ad engine standards (f or port tenants with lease openings by 2011). This measure incorporates the reductions associat ed with this strategy and projects these reductions to be about 30% by 2014 based on the continuation of this strategy beyond 2011.

This measure would require replacement of exis ting cargo handling equipment with the cleanest engines or implementation of commercially available NO x and PM retrofit technologies

⎯ diesel oxidation catalyst, emulsified dies el fuel, and combination of NO x reduction catalysts with particulate traps

⎯ for cargo handling equipment. A vari ety of commercially available NO x emission control technologies can reduce emissi ons from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles to very low levels, and yi eld significant emission reductions from buses, trucks, and heavy-duty highw ay vehicles. The same retrofit t echnologies and cleaner alternative diesel fuels have been veri fied by CARB, and are increasi ngly being used to reduce NO x and PM emissions from in-use off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment. These technologies are capable of reducing NO x emissions by at least 25%, and in clude diesel oxidation catalysts, combination of NO x reduction catalyst with particulate trap s, and emulsified diesel fuels. Recent technological advancements in flywheel de sign have been demonstrated on a rubber tireFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-02

IV-B-2-32 gantry crane that resulted in about a 30 perc ent reduction in NOx emissions. In addition, electrification is a feasible control option fo r a variety of these types of equipment. Implementation of this measure would require the replacement or retrofit of cargo handling equipment, particularly non-yard tractors.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The estimated emission reductions shown in the tabl e at the beginning of th is section reflect the reductions achieved through the implementation of this measure only for non- yard tractors (i.e., 30 percent reduction in NOx and particulate ma tter emissions by 2014). Additional emission reductions would occur with an accelerated re placement of existing yard tractors with the cleanest on-road engines, beyond the require ments of the existing state regulation.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
The cost and cost effectiveness will vary de pending on the type of control technologies implemented. The cost-effectiveness ha s not been estimated at this time.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB has the authority to adopt regulations for this category of equipment. In addition, the marine ports through their leasing authority w ill require terminal operators to acquire the cleanest cargo handling equipment.



### REFERENCES

CARB. Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports a nd Goods Movement in California (April 2006)

Final San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (November 2006).Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-03

IV-B-2-33 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCT IONS FROM LOCOMOTIVES [NOX, PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : L OCOMOTIVE E NGINES (A LL C LASSES )

C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATED R EPLACEMENT OF E XISTING L OCOMOTIVE E NGINES M EETING T IER 3 OR C LEANER E XHAUST S TANDARDS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 33.8 18.3 22.6 NO X R EDUCTION 14.3 10.5 NO X R EMAINING 4.0 12.1

PM10 I NVENTORY 0.8 0.8 0.8 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.6 0.4 PM10 R EMAINING 0.2 0.4

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 0.8 0.7 0.8 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.6 0.4 PM2.5 R EMAINING 0.1 0.4

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 33.8 18.3 22.6 NO X R EDUCTION 14.3 10.5 NO X R EMAINING 4.0 12.1

C ONTROL C OST : T HE C OST -E FFECTIVENESS OF T HIS C ONTROL M EASURE W ILL V ARY D EPENDING ON THE T YPE OF C ONTROL E QUIPMENT

. T HE A VERAGE C OST -E FFECTIVENESS IS E STIMATED T O B E A ROUND $5,100/ TON

. I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : U.S. EPA 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Diesel-electric locomotives have a large diesel engine (main traction engine) for generating electric power which in turn dr ives electric motors in each axle. Modern line-haul or freight locomotives have 4400-horsepower diesel engines with six drive axles. Passenger locomotives have similar engines with about 3800 horsepower and four drive axles. Switch locomotives are smaller, and usually older, four-axle locomotives, with 1200-2500 horsepower engines. EPA emission standards affect 1973-2001 locomotives upon engine rebuild and new 2002 and later locomotives. Locomotives remain in commercial service from 25 to 40 years.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-03

IV-B-2-34 

### Regulatory History
In December 1997, the U.S. EPA published emission standards for diesel locomotives. These standards included Tier-0 standards for 1973- 2001 uncontrolled locomotives upon rebuilding of their diesel engines; more stringent Tie r-1 standards for new 2002-2004 locomotives; and modestly stringent Tier-2 sta ndards for 2005 and newer locomotives . However, these standards did not match the stringency of adopted emission standards for on-road di esel engines. As a result, in June 2004, the U.S. EPA announced it intended to adopt more stringent Tier-3 standards for new diesel locomotives, possibl y starting with 2011 models. The U.S. EPA indicated that the new locomo tive standards would consider emission control technologies proposed for heavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles , including selective cat alytic reduction (SCR), diesel particulate filters (DPFs), and lean-NOx absorber technology.

Beside the federal emission requirements for locomotives, CARB has signed two agreements with the two Class-1 railroads operating in Cali fornia, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) and Union Pacific Railroad (UP). The first agreement, the South Coast Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), was signed in 1998. Among other features, it commits these railroads to meeting Tier-2 NOx standards, on average, starting in 2010 with their locomotives operating in the South Coast Air Basin. The second CARB agreement, the Rail Yard Agreement, was published in 2005. It calls upon th ese railroads to reduce diesel emissions in and around rail yards in California including a statewide locomotive idling limitation program, increase use of low-sulfur diesel for locomotives fueled in Ca lifornia, and a visible- emissions detection and repair program. The District has also adopted a rule which requires the railroads to reduce unnecessary idling, but the rule is currently in litigation.

In April 2006, CARB adopted the Emission Reducti on Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in California (GMERP). This plan proposes severa l control measures including a call for U.S. EPA to adopt Tier-3 locomotive emission standa rds which would reduce Tier-2 NOx and PM by 90 percent starting with 2011 locomotiv es. California fleet penetra tion of Tier-3 locomotives is projected for 40 percent in 2015 and 90 pe rcent in 2020. Another measure includes remanufacturing Tier-2 locomotives to Tier-2.5 standards with a 25-percent NOx reduction and 60-percent PM reduction over Tier-2 standards. Finally, one measure proposes the replacement of all switch locomotives in California by hybrids by 2010.

In November 2006, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach adopted the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. One of the measures in th e Plan calls for switchers operating at the ports to be 90 percent cleaner than current Tie r-2 standards by 2011. In addition, line-haul locomotives entering the ports must be Tier-3 equivalent by 2014.

U.S. EPA has adopted a series of non-road-eng ine emission standards beginning with Tier-1 standards with 1996 engines and culminating with Tier-4 standards beginning in 2014. These standards also vary by maximum power rating of these essentially portable engines. Compliance with Tier-4 interim standards is required starting in 2011 and will necessitate the use of DPFs. Full Tier-4 standards start in 2014 and will require the use of both DPF’s and NOx after-treatment, most likely SCR. N on-propulsion engines used on locomotives are required to be emission-controlled non-road engines.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-03

IV-B-2-35 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
The GMERP proposes a 40-percent penetration of Tier-3 locomotives in California by 2015. This measure proposes that all locomotives operating in the Basin by 2014 have Tier-3- equivalent emissions, either new Tier-3 locomotiv es or older Tier-2 locomotives retrofitted with aftertreatment systems to reduce NOx and PM by 90 percent. The proposal is consistent with the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. In addition, the region has been discussing the potential for building near-zero or zero-emissi on advanced transportation systems such as maglev or linear induction syst ems. These systems would offset a large portion of the locomotive activity in the Basin and would repr esent an alternative me ans of achieving the emission reductions associated with this measure.

CONTROL TECHNOL OGY AVAILABILITY Three technologies are currently available for controlling locomotive diesel engines: SCR, DPFs and DOCs.

SCR has been used for many years on large stati onary engines for NOx control. Locomotives are propelled by engines similar to such stationa ry engines. By increasing the ruggedness and durability of the current SCR systems, NOx emissi ons can be reduced by at least 85 percent. In addition, SCR reduces PM by about 50 percent in a locomotive environment. Besides the special catalytic converter, these systems inject ammonia into the exhaust stream to enable the SCR catalyst to reduce NOx to nitrogen and wate r. For mobile applications, urea solution, which breaks down to form ammonia in the exhaust, is used because it is safer than ammonia in terms of maintenance and accident scenarios.

DPFs have been introduced in recent years on heavy-duty on-road trucks and buses for PM control and will be used on all 2007 model heavy-duty engines. Also, retrofit DPFs have been verified by CARB for 1994 and newer diesel engines up to 500 horsepower. DPFs generally reduce PM by at least 85 percent. Hug Engin eering of Switzerland has recently developed and introduced a DPF system for switch locomotives with four-cycle engines. The American Association of Railroads (AAR) is also demons trating these DPFs on switch locomotives with EMD two-cycle engines. Switch locomotives spe nd much time idling and generally have cooler diesel exhaust which does not self-initiate rege neration of the collected soot. As such, DPF systems on switch locomotives use a fuel-fired burne r to assist in regeneration of collected PM. However, line-haul locomotives frequently have high exhaust temperatures which can facilitate such regeneration without burners.

Combination SCR-DPF systems are being develope d and verified for on-road trucks and are expected to become commercially available within the next one to two years. Such systems would be compatible with the smaller diesel engines of hybrid switch locomotives. A minimum control efficiency of 85 percent is expected for both NOx and PM.

In recent years, DOCs have been introduced on certain heavy-duty on-road diesel engines. These DOCs oxidize a portion of the PM in the e xhaust stream, usually by at least 30 percent. Recently, EPA has demonstrated retrofit DOCs on a line-haul loco motive. Such DOCs require that higher exhaust temperatures be achieved in order to burn-off collected soot from idling. DOCs, without burners or other technology, are not appropriate for switch locomotives due to low exhaust temperatures and extended idling.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-03

IV-B-2-36 CONTROL TECHNOL OGY APPLICABILITY

Tier-3 Locomotive Penetration CARB is proposing in the GMER P a 40-percent penetration rate of Tier-3 locomotives in California in 2015. CARB’s proposal could be enhanced through the retrofitting of Tier-2 locomotives with DPF and SCR technology to bring them to Tier-3 emission levels. Essentially by 2010, all locomotives being operated by BNSF and UP in the Basin will be Tier-2 due to the 1998 MOU. DPF technology is now being investig ated by the US locomotive manufacturers, has been used on locomotives in Europe, and is being demonstrated on switch locomotives here in the U.S. This technology on a full-size locomotive has not been publicly demonstrated in the U.S., but such commercial DPF systems do exist in Europe. With regard to SCR systems, such a system demonstration on a full-size Metr olink locomotive will be conducted in 2007.

Hybrid Switch Locomotives with Tier-4 Controls Hybrid-electric and multi-engine hybrid locomotives use smaller diesel engines to provide either battery or traction power. As such, these engi nes run at nearly full power and have hightemperature exhaust. Such operation is compa tible with SCR and DPF systems. There are truck-engine-sized SCR and DPF combinations in the process of being verified by CARB, and these are expected to become comm ercially available in the next one to two years. Such aftertreatment systems would be applicable to th ese locomotives and will provide maximum NOx and PM control.

The replacement of conventional switch locomotives with hybrid sw itchers results in the use of EPA non-road engines to generate electric pow er. Depending upon the rated horsepower this will result in a mix of Tier-2, Tier-3, and Ti er-4 Interim standard engines on these hybrid locomotives by 2014. All such engines should be retrofitted with after- treatment DPF and SCR systems to bring them in compliance with Tie r-4 non-road engine emissions. Such retrofit systems are in the process of being verified by CARB for on-road truck engines similar in power and will facilitate lowe ring these non-road engines to Tier-4 emission levels.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Full implementation of the proposed control m easure would result in a 14.3 tons/day reduction in NOx and 0.6 tons/day reduction in particulat e matter emissions by 2014. Further reductions are achieved by 2023 with greater pe netration of retrofits as de scribed above. Other actions such as advanced cargo transportation system s that have near-zero to zero-emissions may provide emission reduction equi valency to this measure.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

It is estimated that the additional cost for SCR and a DPF on new line-haul locomotives would cost about $200,000 to install. The annualized co st for such a unit would be approximately $42,000. This includes a 10 year housing life, a 5 year DPF and SCR element life and $8,000 per year for urea. The estimated cost to equip existing smaller switcher locomotives with diesel oxidation catalyst devices is about $50,000. The estimated cost to equip existing locomotives with a DPF is about $150,000 per locomotive.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-03

IV-B-2-37 

### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
U.S. EPA has the legal authority to adopt emissi on standards for locomotives. In addition, the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have author ity as landlords to impose certain conditions on leases and other contractual arrangemen ts, potentially including port-wide conditions.



### REFERENCES

CARB. Emissions Reduction Plan for Ports a nd Goods Movement in California (April 2006)

Miratech, Inc., Personal Co mmunications. (August 2006)

Final San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (November 2006).Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-04

IV-B-2-38 

### EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT [VOC, NOx, PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : A IRPORT G ROUND S UPPORT E QUIPMENT
C ONTROL M ETHODS : R EQUIRE ADDITIONAL FLEET ZEV MANDATES AND STRICTER
FLEET AVERAGE EMISSION STANDARDS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 1.0 0.5 0.4 VOC R EDUCTION 0.3 0.3 VOC R EMAINING 0.2 0.1

NO X I NVENTORY 2.8 1.2 2.1 NO X R EDUCTION 0.8 1.6 NO X R EMAINING 0.4 0.5

PM10 I NVENTORY >0.1 >0.1 >0.1 PM10 R EDUCTION >0.1 >0.1 PM10 R EMAINING >0.1 >0.1



### PM 2.5 I NVENTORY >0.1 >0.1 >0.1 

### PM 2.5 R EDUCTION >0.1 >0.1 

### PM 2.5 R EMAINING >0.1 >0.1

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 0.9 0.5 0.4 VOC R EDUCTION 0.3 0.3 VOC R EMAINING 0.2 0.1

NO X I NVENTORY 2.6 1.1 0.9 NO X R EDUCTION 0.7 0.6 NO X R EMAINING 0.4 0.3

C ONTROL C OST : $1,200 PER T ON
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Require additional electrificat ion of airport ground support e quipment (GSE) through fleet zero emission requirements and lower VOC + NOx fleet average emissions limits applicable to spark-ignited equipment.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-04

IV-B-2-39 

### Background GSE perform a variety of functions at airports including, but not limite d to starting aircraft, transporting fuel and cargo, lo ading cargo, transporting passengers , baggage handling, etc. The types of equipment include, but are not limited to: air starts, air conditioners, belt loaders, fuel trucks, service trucks, and aircraft tow tractors. GSE is critical to the efficient functioning of airports. A study indicates that there were an estimated 2,065 GSE in the Basin in 1995. According to CARB’s estimate, there are 3,600 GSE in various categories in the South Coast Air Basin.


### Regulatory History
In November 2002, CARB and the airlines exec uted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to implement programs and cleaner technologies to reduce emissions from GSE. The MOU includes 17 airlines at Los Angeles International Airport, Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport, Ontario Airport, Long Beach Airport, and John Wayne Airport. The MOU includes the electrification of existing and new GSE by using zero emission vehicles (ZEV) by 2010. Specifically, the MOU established a 30% and 45% ZEV target for exis ting and new GSE fleet, respectively, and a fleet average emission ra te for VOC and NOx combined. The MOU is voluntary in nature since it doe s not assure emission reducti ons by 2010 without a backstop measure. However, as of this date, the MOU is no longer in effect since the airline industry walked away from the agreement. In 2006, CA RB adopted a regulation for large spark-ignited (LSI) equipment including ground support equipmen t which required GSE to meet a 30% ZEV target and fleet average emission rate (2.6 g/bhp-hr VOC and NOx).



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
In 2014 and 2020, consistent with the original M OU requirement, an additional 15% of GSE in the South Coast Air Basin could be electrifie d by charging on-board battery packs using grid power and some categories of GS E can potentially be powered us ing electrical hookups to grid power. Combined with the LSI regulation, this requirement will achieve the MOU’s overall 45% ZEV target. In addition, since the LSI fleet-w ide average for GSE is less stringent than the one required for other LSI categories (e.g., forklifts ), this measure proposes that emissions from the remaining GSE fleet can be reduced by lo wering the combined VOC + NOx emissions to 1.0 g/bhp-hr (2006 LSI VOC + NOx emission limit is 2.6 g/bhp-hr).



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Implementation of this measure will result in about 0.8 and 0.3 tons per day of NOx and VOC reductions from aircraft ground support equipment in 2014.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness is estimated to be around $1,200 per ton based on the categories of ground service equipment to be electrified.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
This proposed strategy can be implemented by CARB.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-04

IV-B-2-40 

### REFERENCES

November 2002 CARB South Coast Ground S upport Service Equipment Memorandum of Understanding.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-05

IV-B-2-41 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS [NOX]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : T RANSPORT R EFRIGERATION U NITS
C ONTROL M ETHODS : PROMULGATE MORE STINGENT EXHAUST AND O PERATIONS
STANDARDS , AND ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 7.2 9.3 10.1 NO X R EDUCTION 1.1 5.3 NO X R EMAINING 8.2 4.8

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 7.1 9.2 10.0 NO X R EDUCTION 1.1 5.3 NO X R EMAINING 8.1 4.7

C ONTROL C OST : A PPROXIMATELY $10,000 PER TON
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
The purpose of this control measure is to reduce NOx emissions through retrofits and electrification.


### Background A transport refrigeration unit (TRU) is a sma ll diesel engine (7-36 hp) powered unit where either the engine powers the refrigeration unit directly or powers a ge nerator that in turn supplies electrical power to the refrigeration unit. There will be approximately 25,000 TRUs operating in the South Coast Air Basin on insu lated semi-trailers, tr ucks vans, shipping containers and railcars in 2014. By 2020 the num ber of TRU is expected to grow to 35,000. NOx Emissions are estimated at 9 tons/day in both 2014 and 2020.


### Regulatory History
In August 1998, U.S. EPA adopted new emission standa rds pertaining to off-ro ad diesel engines. Subsequently, in January 2000 and in Decembe r 2004, CARB adopted amendments to existing California emission standards to harmonize with the federal requirement. These amendments include a tiered approach starting from 1996 for Tier 1 to 2008-2012 for Tier 4. New TRU engines must meet the EPA off-road diesel engine exhaust limits. In addition to the EPA new engine emissions requirements, CARB has promul gated regulations in 2004 that require in-use PM emission limits for TRU engines as we ll as accelerated turnover requirements.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-05

IV-B-2-42 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
Implementation of a program of regulation and in centives to further incr ease the fleet turnover and either replace or re trofit TRU engines that achieve 80% NOx control is proposed. It is assumed that the fleet average is equivalent to approximately 10% of the fleet being retrofitted by 2014 and 75% of the fleet is retrofitted by 2020 w ith NOx controls achieving 80% control. SCR NOx control technology exists for the off-road diesel engine that can achieve upwards of 80% control, and has been verified for larger e ngines. It is expected that the technology will achieve similar reductions for th e smaller TRU size category.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Emission reductions of 1.1 tons/day of NOx in 2014 and 5.3 tons/day of NOx in 2023 will be achieved.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The ARB in their rule development for in-use o ff-road diesel equipment has estimated that the cost impacts will be approximately $10,000 per ton of NOx reduced. SCAQMD staff expects that the costs associated with th is control strategy will be similar. To offset the cost of this control measure, a financial s upport program, similar to th e Carl Moyer Program, may be
necessary.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB has the legal authority to require acceler ated engine and equipment retrofit programs. This strategy may need to be implemented with incentive programs.



### REFERENCES
CARB staff report – Ini tial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rule Making, “Airborne Toxic Control Measure for In-use Diesel Fueled Tr ansport Refrigeration Units (TRU), and TRU Generator Sets, and Facilities Wh ere TRUs Operate, October 28, 2003.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-06

IV-B-2-43 

### ACCELERATED TURNOVER AND CATALYST BASED STANDARDS FOR PLEASURE CRAFT [VOC, NOx, PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : P LEASURE C RAFT
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATE T URNOVER OF P LEASURE C RAFT F LEET TO
MEET MOST STRINGENT EXISTING STANDARD BY 2014 AND M EET N EW M ORE S TRINGENT S TANDARDS IN 2021 E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 35.5 21.6 17.4 VOC R EDUCTION 3.1 11.8 VOC R EMAINING 18.5 5.6

NO X I NVENTORY 6.7 9.7 10.1 NO X R EDUCTION 1.1 6.8 NO X R EMAINING 8.6 3.3

PM10 I NVENTORY 2.2 3.8 6.0 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.8 5.3 PM10 R EMAINING 3.0 0.7

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 1.6 2.9 4.5 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.6 4.0 PM2.5 R EMAINING 2.3 0.5

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 57.7 34.9 28.2 VOC R EDUCTION 5.1 19.2 VOC R EMAINING 29.8 9.0

NO X I NVENTORY 10.5 15.3 16.0 NO X R EDUCTION 1.7 10.7 NO X R EMAINING 13.6 5.3

C ONTROL C OST : A PPROXIMATELY $525 MILLION THROUGH 2020 AT A COST
EFFECTIVENESS RANGE BETWEEN $850 TO $2,500 PER TON OF (VOC+NO X +20 X PM2.5) CONTROLLED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
The purpose of this control measure is to promote faster turnover of the pleasure craft fleet and development of more stringent catalyst based standards for pleasure craft.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-06

IV-B-2-44 

### Background

It is estimated that curren tly there are 250,000 two-stroke gasoline engines and 115,000 fourstroke gasoline engines in the Basin that are used for recreational marine activities. The emission inventory for the exhaust emissions in the Basin from the two- and four-stroke gasoline engines is about 35 tons/day of VOC and 15 tons/day of NOx in 2014 and 29 and 16 tons/day for VOC and NOx respectively in 2023. The purpose of this control measure is to increase the turnover of existing two-stroke carbureted gasoline engines and older 4 stroke engines to significantly cleaner e ngines, and develop more stringent catalyst based standards for all pleasure craft gasoline categories.


### Regulatory History
The regulation of emissions from mobile sour ces is primarily accomplished through CARB and U.S. EPA regulations. EPA’s 40CFR Part 91, Cont rol of Emissions from Marine Spark Ignition Engines, requires all spark ign ited outboard marine engines to meet certain hydrocarbon and NO x emissions standards starting with model y ear 1998. Also, CARB’s Title 13 requires all pleasure craft spark ignited engine s to meet certain hydrocarbon and NO x emission standards. These standards are implemented in phases with the last phases to be completed in 2008 or 2009. Personal water craft and outboard motors will be required to meet an average emission of approximately 17 g/kw-hr of NOx +VOC. Inboard and stern driv e engines will be required to meet a standard of 5 g/kw-hr. The standards will result in engines bei ng up to 10 times cleaner than the oldest engines in the fleet. Howeve r, the emission standards remain far above the standards for other spark igni ted engine categories. For example, CARB’s most recent regulation for Large Spark Ignited (LSI) engine s requires engines to soon meet a 0.8 g/kw-hr emission standard (10 to 20 times lower than the most stringen t pleasure craft standards) and states that with advanced tec hnology even lower levels are ach ievable. While the duty cycle and operational environment (in or on the water) pr ovide different challenge s than those for land based spark ignited engines in achieving the lowest emission levels, there certainly appears to be opportunity for additional reductions through furthe r engine modifications and the addition of exhaust catalysts.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL CARB would implement programs to accelerate reti rement or retrofit approximately 20% more than would be achieved with natu ral turnover of the pl easure craft engines not meeting the most stringent emission standards by 2014, and (2) de velop new emission sta ndards and regulations that ensure that the entire pleasure craf t fleet meet the new standards by 2020.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION If through an accelerated retireme nt or retrofit program approximately 20% more than would be achieved through natural turnover of the personal water craft and outboard motors meet the 17 gm/kw-hr standard and inboard and stern driv e engines meet the 5 g/kW-hr standard by 2014, the reductions are estimated at 3.1 tons/day VOC , 1.1 ton/day NOx, and 0.6 tons/day of PM2.5. Developing and implementing more stringent standa rds (assumed to be 5 g/kW-hr for personal water craft and outboard motors and 0.5 g/kw-hr for inboard and stern drive engines based on better catalyst and engine perf ormance) and increasing natural turnover so that the entire pleasure craft fleet to meet these standards by 2023 would result in VOC reduction ofFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-06

IV-B-2-45 approximately 11.8 tons/day, NOx reductions of 6.8 tons/day, and PM2.5 reductions of 4.0 tons/day.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
Analysis of the costs associated with accelerated fleet turnover (i.e. replac ement of older engines with the cleanest engines) show the cost of this measure in 2014 at approximately $52 million and is based on an average incentive of $1,000 for plea sure craft owners to scrap their old vessel and purchase a newer cleaner one. The cost effectivene ss of the measure in 2014 will be close to $850 per ton of (NOx+VOC+20xPM2.5) controlled. CARB, during its development of the most recent LSI regulation, calculated that the averag e additional cost of modifying the engine and adding a catalyst to meet more stringent standa rds would be approximately $600. Assuming this is the additional cost of a new pleasure craft meeting the proposed new more stringent standards and allowing for up to an average of $600 to incen tivize the needed enhanced turnover so that all pleasure craft would meet the new more stringent standards by 2023 results in a cost of approximately $525 million. The cost effectiven ess of this measure would be about $2,500 per ton of (VOC+NOx+20xPM2.5) controlled in 2023.



### IMPLEMENTING AGEN CY AND ISSUES
CARB has the legal authority to require in-u se retrofit controls and accelerated engine replacement programs. This strategy can be implemented as a pha sed, command-and-control regulation, complimented with market incentive programs.



### REFERENCES

1. Emissions from Two Outboard Engines Oper ating on Reformulated Gasoline Containing MTBE; Peter A. Gable, U.S. EPA, and Steven M. Pyle, U.S. EPA 2. 40 CFR Part 91 3. CARB, Title 13 4. CARB, Staff Report: New Emission Standards, Fl eet Requirements, and Test Procedures for Forklifts and Other Industrial Equipment, March 3, 2006.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-06

IV-B-2-46 

### This page is inten tionally left blank.

## GROUP 3 CLEANER FUELS CONTROL MEASURESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-01

IV-B-2-47 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM GASOLINE FUELS [NOX, SOX]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O N

- AND O FF -R OAD M OBILE S OURCE C ATEGORIES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : L OWER S ULFUR C ONTENT IN G ASOLINE F UELS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 402.9 149.5 92.6 NO X R EDUCTION 6.0 3.7 NO X R EMAINING 143.5 88.9

SO X I NVENTORY 2,5 2.0 2.2 SO X R EDUCTION 1.4 1.5 SO X R EMAINING 0.6 0.7

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 389.2 9.2 95.5 NO X R EDUCTION 1.1 3.8 NO X R EMAINING 8.1 91.6

C ONTROL C OST : $10,041/ TON I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background Automotive exhaust and evaporative emissions are very sensitive to the quality of fuel being combusted, as well as the sophistication of emission control hardware. CARB has adopted Phase 3 reformulated gasoline (RFG 3) specifications for gasoline which set limits on fuel sulfur, vapor pressure, benzene, aromatics, distillation temperature, and other parameters [1]. The Alliance of Auto Manufacturers has proposed a World Fuel Charter which recommends that tighter gasoline specifications be adopted. In 2006, the Alliance proposed specifications which were tighter than RFG3 caps for sulfur, am ong other parameters related to exhaust and evaporative emissions; the Alli ance also recommended that the specification be amended to include a new Distillation Index criterion to address drivability i ssues. Based in part on this Charter, this control measure would establish tig hter specifications compared to current Phase 3 gasoline requirements.


### Regulatory History
CARB initially updated its RFG3 requirements in December 1999 to accommodate the blending of ethanol into gasoline and to delay the final de adline for the phase-out of methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). Major amendments including a prohibition of the use of MTBE in gasolineFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-01

IV-B-2-48 starting December 31, 2002 (§ 2262.6) , establishment of the Phase 3 RFG standards (§ 2262), and establishment of a Phase 3 CaRFG Predic tive Model [§ 2265(a)] were adopted June 16, 2000. Other amendments made numerous changes, including establishing specifications for denatured ethanol intended for blending into gasoline, establishi ng a CARBOB model and downstream CARBOB cap limits, making other ch anges regarding ble nding ethanol into gasoline, and establishing a mechanism for a sma ll refiner to offset excess emissions from small refiner producing Phase 3 RFG.

At the April 24, 2002 CARB workshop on RFG3, the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers presented information on the potential for enhancements to current gasoline specifications [2]. They noted that the European Union is moving aggressively to adopt stricter sulfur standards, and that an opportunity exists to leve rage international efforts to enhanc e gasoline fuel quality beyond those reflected in RFG3. The Allian ce proposed that stricter standards be pursued on an expedited basis. CARB has recently issued a draft updated ve rsion of the Predictive Model used to qualify California gasoline formulations, and expects to finalize this model by th e end of the year.

CARB is currently developing approaches to mitigate the ethanol permeation affects and to allow greater use of ethanol in gasoline fuels. The proposal includes lowe ring the current sulfur content limit from 30 ppm to 20 ppm to offset NOx disbenefits associated with the increased use of oxygenates. At the January 26, 2007 ARB fuel s workshop, the Auto Alliance proposed that the sulfur level be reduced further, down to 10 ppm, to provide additional opportunities to reduce emissions concurrent with higher fuel e fficiency. Specifically, auto manufacturers consider such lower sulfur fuel to have a major enabling effect in helping to optimize and commercialize direct injection gaso line technology. The emissions benefits associated with the proposed lower sulfur content limit has not been included in the AQMP. In addition, more stringent sulfur content lim its can result in additional NOx emissions reductions.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

This measure calls on CARB to adopt a sulfur content limit (i.e., “cap”) of 10 ppm for future gasoline fuels, which in practical terms is nearly equivalent to a 5 ppm “flat limit”. Sulfur levels in gasoline have been consistently show n to have a significant adverse effect on in-use emissions, although this effect diminishes at lower sulfur levels. The Alliance of Auto Manufacturers has stated that tig hter specifications should be adopted for “markets with additional advanced requirements for emi ssion controls, to enable sophisticated NO x aftertreatment technologies.” [3] Data compiled by the Alliance demonstrates that further emission reductions are possible with cleaner gasoline speci fications. In Europe and Japan, starting in 2009, the sulfur requirements for gasoline drop to 10 ppm.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The implementation of a lower sulfur content limit can result in significant emission reductions. If the proposed control measure is fully implemented, estimated emission reductions of NOx and SOx are 6 and 1.4 tons per day by 2014, and 3.7 and 1.5 tons per day by 2023.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-01

IV-B-2-49 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS
The cost of refinery upgrades to accommodate the proposed clean er gasoline specifications is estimated to be much lower than the control costs imposed when RFG 2 was introduced in 1996. Cost estimates before RFG2 modifications we re made ranged from 6 to 11¢ per gallon, while actual costs were found to be much lower, appr oximately 4¢ per gallon. Refinery modifications for the proposed cleaner gasoline could includ e added hydrotreating, broader fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) naptha processing and other desulf urization technology which is readily available to refiners on a commercial basis. In some cases , refiners may be able to increase the severity of processing using existing equipment th rough higher catalyst loadings and operating pressures. Such steps could be expected to require more frequent equipment maintenance and catalyst changes. The Energy Information Admi nistration estimates that the marginal capital cost of new desulfurization capacity is approx imately 1.1 ¢ per gallon. Staff estimates that approximately 50% of refineries will require additional desulfurization capacity, while the remainder will be able to expand the severity an d residence time of existing capacity. A 15 year project life was assumed in this analysis. By comparison, the long term AQMP control measure for gasoline calls on more se vere refining modifications involving addition al refining modifications, such as C4 and C5 alkylate production, to accommodate a zero summertime ethanol specification, at least for the South Coast Air Basin, co mmencing after 2017 or earlier if feasible. Although a zero ethanol fuel specifi cation would completely eliminate the excess permeation emissions resulting from the switch from Phase II to Phase III gasoline as called for in SB 989, the proposed short term control measur e focuses on sulfur reduction alone; it is recognized that there are near term infrastructu re constraints, market pressures and greenhouse gas policy objectives which underlie current plans to continue a nd possibly expand the degree of ethanol blending in gasoline. On balance, a first order estimate of the cost of the proposed short-term cleaner gasoline contro l measure is shown in Table 1.

The cost burden for reformulating gasoline will fall disproportionately on lower income gasoline purchasers, and those with higher fuel consumption rates, such as SUV owners. The magnitude of these cost increases would not likely be greater than 1% of operating costs for the vehicle. Furthermore, the full cost impacts of these proposed cleaner gasoline specifications are expected to diminish significantly once the capit al costs of refinery m odification are recovered after the first four years.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-01

IV-B-2-50 Table 1. Assumptions Used to Estimate the Cost of 10 ppm Sulfur Content Gasoline Fuel

Statewide gallons 15,700,000,000 Desulfurization capital cost per gallon 0.01 Gallons requiring new de-S capacity 7,850,000,000 Desulfurization capital cost 78,500,000 Cost components for Increased utilization of existing capacity : a) enhanced catalyst loading, cost per gallon 0.002 b) catalyst replacement frequency, cost per gallon 0.003
c) increased maintenance due to higher pressures, cost per gallon 0.002 Total incremental desulfurization cost from expanded capacity changes, per gallon 0.007
Gallons requiring incremental S capacity expansion 7,850,000,000
Total incremental desulfurization cost from expanded capacity changes 54,950,000 Capital costs : a) New capacity 78,500,000 b) Increased severity with existing equipment 15,700,000 Total Capital Cost 94,200,000 Internal Discount Rate (internal cost of funds) 4.0% Project Life, years 15 Capital Recovery Factor 0.09 Annualized Capital Cost 8,478,000 Annual Maintenance Cost 39,250,000 Total Statewide Annualized Cost 47,728,000 Wholesale price per gallon increase .003 NOx reduction, tpd 4.51 SOx reduction, tpd 1.35 Total Reduction, tpd 5.86 Total Reduction, tons per year 2,139 South Coast portion of Annualized Cost (45% of state fuel use) 21,477,600 Cost per ton reduced $10,041



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB has the authority to establish stricter gasoline specifications.



### REFERENCES

1. California Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250-2273.5 As of May 1, 2003, http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gas oline/050103rfg3regheader.doc 2. Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, “CARFG 3 – Unfinished Business”, CARB Workshop, April 24, 2002, http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/ gasoline/meeting/2002/042402AAMPrstn.pdfFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-01

IV-B-2-51 3. Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, World Wide Fuel Charter, issued jointly with European Auto Manufacturers Association, Engine Manuf acturers Association, and the Japan Auto Manufacturers Association, December, 2002. h ttp://www.autoalliance.org/fuel_charter.htm 4. UOP, The Role of the Merox Process in an Er a of Ultra Low Sulfur Transportation Fuels, EMEA Catalyst Technology Conf erence, March 3 + 4, 2004, , http://www.uop.com/objects/emea%20the% 20role%20of%20ultra%20low.pdf 5. Energy Information Administration, 1993, http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/pdf/featur e/lidder2.pdf , pg. 11.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02

IV-B-2-52 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIO NS FROM DIESEL FUELS [NOX, PM]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O FF -R OAD M OBILE S OURCE C ATEGORIES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : D ISPLACEMENT OF C ONVENTIONAL D IESEL F UELS WITH D IESEL F UEL A LTERNATIVES E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 462.3 288.8 160.3 NO X R EDUCTION 6.4 7.1 NO X R EMAINING 282.4 153.2

PM10 I NVENTORY 23.6 12.8 5.9 PM10 R EDUCTION 0.6 0.6 PM10 R EMAINING 12.2 5.3

PM2.5 I NVENTORY 21.7 11.8 5.4 PM2.5 R EDUCTION 0.6 0.5 PM2.5 R EMAINING 11.2 4.9

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 465.3 290.9 162.2 NO X R EDUCTION 6.4 7.1 NO X R EMAINING 284.5 155.1

C ONTROL C OST : $10,468/ TON OF NO X AND PM R EDUCED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB, SCAQMD 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background CARB has adopted minimum specifications for diesel fuel. These specifi cations currently allow alternative formulations which are equivalent to a base formulation with a maximum of 10% aromatic content. However, in practice, such a fuel specification is not actually provided by refiners, who chose to offer hi gher aromatic-containing diesel fu el through their exercise of ARB’s discretion to authorize alterna tive “equivalent” formulations. The specifications proposed here refl ect a different approach to regu lating diesel fuel. There are two aspects to this proposed measure. In the ag gregate, the goal of this measure is to displace 10% of conventional diesel by 2014 through a combin ation of actions that could include greater use of diesel fuel alternatives such as CNG, LNG, di-methyl ether (DME), propane, and Fisher Tropsch diesel (i.e. gas-to-liquids or GTL). A combination of user and supplier incentives would be implemented to achieve the displaceme nt of conventional diesel fuel with some combination of the listed diesel alternatives. The overall objective of this measure is to contribute to the achievement of a additional em ission reductions from diesel fuel use.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02

IV-B-2-53 

### Regulatory History
After CARB adopted its aromatic content requir ements for on-road diesel fuel, in 2003 they adopted more stringent requirements which redu ced sulfur levels from 500 ppm to 15 ppm. Other diesel fuel modifications have been made more recently, including the addition of lubricity requirements to address concerns of pipeline operators. Current CARB diesel requirements allow the use of alternative formul ations which can greatly exceed the nominal 10% aromatic limit, as refiners are allowed th e flexibility to refine diesel fuel up to 21% aromatic content.

More recently, California has been evaluating ways to reduce petroleum dependence. The California Energy Commission (CEC) AB2076 Repor t envisions that by 2020, 20 percent of the conventional fuel usage could be displaced with a lternatives such as natu ral gas, gas-to-liquids, and other diesel fuel alternatives. In January 2007, the Governor announced a vision to have greater use of alternative fuels and lower carbon fuels.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
This measure calls on CARB to develop new re gulations requiring the use of diesel fuel alternatives as a blending agent or to reformul ate current diesel fuels to achieve equivalent emissions reduction benefits. In addition, incentive programs need to be developed to ensure that at least 10% of current volume of conve ntional diesel fuel – approximately 0.27 billion gallons statewide annually – would be displaced with diesel alternatives. Incentives of approximately 15¢ per gallon or eq uivalent are estimated to be needed to achieve full market saturation of these cleaner formulations, based on CEC incremental cost estimates performed as part of their AB 2076 Petroleum Displacement pro ceeding analysis. As a result, approximately 300 million gallons of the California diesel fu el pool (or possibly less, depending on refiner optimization) would be diverted to diesel fuel alternatives.

While this measure calls for the use of a wide vari ety of diesel fuel altern atives, it is expected that the largest portion of this diverted demand would be met through the use of gas-to-liquid (GTL or Fischer-Tropsch) diesel, which has zero sulfur, <1% aromatics, and cetane > 70. Sasol, the world’s largest producer of Fischer-Tr opsch GTL fuels, estimates that a natural gas reserve of 20 trillion cubic feet (TCF) could supply the entire Ca lifornia diesel market with GTL for 30 years, and that uncommitted global stra nded gas reserves exceed 2,000 TCF. The CEC estimates that the average long-term wholesale incremental cost from GTL diesel would be approximately 10¢ per gallon higher than conven tional diesel fuel prices, while additional controls on diesel fuel could lo wer this to approximately 7¢ per gallon over reformulated diesel over the longer term. In orde r to achieve the high penetration rates assumed in this measure, retail incentives in the ra nge of 15¢ per gallon are projected as necessary.

GTL makes a high quality diesel blen d component as well as a neat fuel option; similar to DME, it contains no sulfur or aromatic compounds. Th e miscibility of GTL wi th conventional diesel helps ensure the cost-effectiveness of the propos ed regulation. The misc ibility of DME with propane can also help rationa lize the economics of its applic ation to higher-volume niche propane markets with centralized fueling.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02

IV-B-2-54 

### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
Based on the penetration rate of di esel fuel alternatives for the current diesel fuel, 6.4 tons/day of NOx and 0.6 tons/day of particulate matter emission reductions are expected by 2014 and 7.1 and 0.5 tons/day of NOx and part iculate matter, respectively, by 2023.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
During the initial stages of diesel alternativ e commercialization, the substitution of GTL, DME and other options is likely to commercialized first at specified card -lock and other fleet operations. Improved cetane requirements will tend to improve diesel engine operational efficiency slightly. A first order estimate of the cost effectivenes s of proposed cleaner alternative diesel formulation is shown below:

Statewide diesel annual demand, gallons 2,700,000,000 10% portion as GTL or equivalent 270,000,000 cost per gallon of GTL or equivalent $0.15 Cost for 10% portion as GTL or eq. 40,500,000 South Coast portion of state diesel demand 40% Annualized cost in South Coast $16,200,000 Emission reductions of NOx, SOx & PM, tpd 4.24 Annual Emission Reductions, NOx SOx and PM 1,548 Cost per ton $10,468

There will be some degree of stranded capital investment designed to accommodate the unique blending and transport requirements of DME dur ing the early years of its introduction. However, these costs are a relatively small portion of the total cost s of compliance. Furthermore, future on-road heavy-duty engines certified to run on DME and/or GTL diesel are expected to have lower risks of in-use emission compliance issues, as these fuels are inherently cleaner than conventional diesel fuel as define d under current CARB regulations and used as the basis for U.S. EPA and CARB on-road heavy-duty engine certification.

There are also reasonable concerns about additional market isolation for California diesel. However, the fungibility of this proposed dies el, including the miscibility of GTL diesel (sometimes referred to as Fisher-Tropsch Dies el) with the current di stribution system, helps reduce the incremental cost of this proposal.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
CARB has the authority to establish stricter dies el specifications that would allow for blending of conventional diesel fuel with diesel fuel altern atives. Current refinery capabilities vary in the degree of modifications necessary to accom modate these proposed standards. The implementation date needs to reflect the reasonable time requirements for refiner capital modifications to their facilities. Because the di esel specified in this proposal is inherently fungible in pipelines, logistic constraints which inhibit produc t exchange agreements are not expected.

The lead time for full implementation of these speci fications is expected to be approximately 4- 5 years after CARB adoption.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02

IV-B-2-55 

### REFERENCES

1. ARB Reformulated Di esel Fact Sheet (Original issued in August, 1993)

2. ARB Reformulated Di esel Fact Sheet Updated October 6, 2000

3. Diesel Fuel Effects on Locomo tive Exhaust Emissions, SWRI, 2000

4. Summary of Diesel Fuel Alternative Formulation Certificates, 1992 through 2001

5. Durbin, T.D, et. al., Evaluation of the Effect s of Alternative Diesel Fuel Formulation on Exhaust Emission Rates and Reactivit y, Final Report, CE-CERT, April 1999.

6. Sasol Limited, “Gas to Liquids – Global Pros pects”, Pat Davies, to Deutche Bank Oil & Gas Conference, September 2003

7. CEC, AB 2076, Petroleum Displacement Repor t, Appendix B, Staff Paper on Option 2I, Fischer Tropsch Diesel

8. Rudolf Maly, DaimlerChrysler, “Effects of GTL Diesel Fuels on Emissions and Engine Performance”, 10 th Diesel Engine Emissions Reducti on Conference, Coronado, California, September, 2004.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02

IV-B-2-56 

### This page is inten tionally left blank.

## GROUP 4 LONG-TERM MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURESFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01A

IV-B-2-57 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES [NOX]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O N -R OAD M OBILE S OURCE C ATEGORIES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATED F LEET T URN -O VER , R ETROFITS , E NGINE S TANDARDS ; A DVANCED C ARGO T RANSPORTATION S YSTEMS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 630.0 292.2 164.1 NO X R EDUCTION 67.9 NO X R EMAINING 96.2

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 612.9 286.8 161.3 NO X R EDUCTION 68.2 NO X R EMAINING 93.1

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background The emission sources targeted under this control measure include on-road mobile sources such as passenger cars and light-, medi um-, and heavy-duty vehicles. The objective of this long-term control measure is to achieve further NOx reductions from these vehicles beyond those achieved through CARB’s and AQMD’s proposed short-term st rategies in order to attain the federal 8- hour ozone standard by 2023. These reductions are expected to be achieved through implementation of new and advanced control te chnologies as well as improvement of existing control technologies. Control techniques requiri ng substantial levels of committed funding for implementation would also fall under this category of long-term measures.


### Regulatory History
CARB and U.S. EPA have adopted a number of re gulations affecting on-road mobile sources. For the most part, these regulations have establ ished new engine standards or fuel requirements for various source categories. However, additional regulations and programs need to be developed to accelerate the turn-over and modernizat ion of existing vehicles in order to achieve the level of reductions needed for attainment.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01A

IV-B-2-58 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
This control measure proposes to achieve furt her NOx reductions from on-road mobile source categories beyond the reductions achieved from the short-term measures through 1) accelerated turn-over of high-emitting vehicles and penetrat ion of ATPZEVs and ZEVs; 2) modernization of heavy-duty vehicles through replacements or re trofits; 3) more stringent fuel specifications and use of diesel alternatives; and 4) advanced near-zero and zero emitting cargo transportation systems.
The following table provides a potential listing of advanced technologies and innovative control approaches for achieving long-term reductions from on-road mobile sources.



### TABLE 1 Possible Long-Term Control Measures for On-Road Mobile Sources

Light and Med. Duty Vehicles ■ Extensive retirement of high-emitting vehi cles and accelerated penetration of ATPZEVs and ZEVs Heavy Duty Vehicles ■ Expanded modernization and retrofit of heavy-duty trucks and buses

■ Advanced Near-Zero and Zero Emitti ng Cargo Transportation Technologies
Fuels ■ More stringent gasoline and diesel sp ecifications; Extensive use of diesel alternatives Non-Polluting Energy ■ Accelerated use of renewable energy and development of hydrogen technology and infrastructure
AB32 Implementation ■ Concurrent criteria pollutant reduction technologies

For light-duty vehicles, an extensive retirement and replacement of high-emitting vehicles would be required through either mandatory or incentive-based progr ams. Furthermore, achieving further reductions from this source ca tegory will require an even more accelerated penetration of ATPZEVs (and ZEVs) beyond the 1 million target in 2020 currently proposed under short-term measures and could be as high as 4 to 5 million in 2020.

For heavy duty vehicles, a more extensive modern ization program could be instituted to require the replacement of the remaining trucks not m eeting the 2010 model year standard in 2020 after implementation of short-term measures. Reform ulation of gasoline and diesel fuels coupled with requirements for greater use of diesel alternatives (e.g., gas-to-liquid, al ternative fuels, etc.) would also provide an opportunity for additional long-term NOx, VOC, and PM reductions from on-road mobile sources.

Advanced cargo transportation tech nologies such as Maglev and other types of linear induction motor technologies could also be used to tr ansport containers to and from ports thereby significantly reducing emissions fr om heavy-duty trucks. Such al ternative electric propulsion systems would have the added benefit of reduc ing congestion and reliance on fossil fuels. Accelerated development and implementation of these advanced technologies would provide a tremendous opportunity for achieving the emission reductions needed for ozone attainment. Finally, the accelerated use of renewable energy and implementation of AB32 strategies provideFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01A

IV-B-2-59 the potential for achieving long-term emission re ductions. Implementation of the long-term measures will require signifi cant technology development and co mmercialization as well as considerable amount of funding.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The emission reduction target for this measure is 68 tons of NOx by 2023.



### RULE COMPLIANCEAN D TEST METHODS
Compliance for this control measure would be primarily based on CA RB’s regulation(s) and incentive-based programs affecting existing on-road mobile sources.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined for this control measure and would depend on the type of source category a nd control strategy selected.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE
CARB has the authority to regulate emissions for the majority of the targeted sources. U.S. EPA has the authority to adopt airc raft engine standards. The Di strict will work closely with CARB and U.S. EPA in developing and implem enting these strategies. The following table outlines the proposed implementation schedule a nd associated milestones. Implementation of these control strategies and technologies woul d require continued re search, development, demonstration, commercialization, and funding.

Table 2 

### Implementation Milestones/Schedule

Category Proposed Strategy Tech Assessment Strategy Development

& Funding Rule Adoption Rule Implementation

PCs, LDTs, MDTs Accelerated Retirement; Penetration of ATPZEVs 2008-2009 2009-2010 2011 2015-2023

HeavyDuty Vehicles Expanded Fleet Modernization 2008-2009 2009-2010 2011 2015-2023

HeavyDuty Vehicles Advanced Cargo Transportation Technologies 2009-2012 2012-2013 2014 2018-2023

Fuels Reformulated Fuels; Diesel Alternatives 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010 2010-2023Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01B

IV-B-2-60 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES [NOX]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : H EAVY -D UTY V EHICLES (14,001 AND G REATER GVWR)

C ONTROL M ETHODS : I NSPECTION AND M AINTENANCE P ROGRAM FOR H EAVY -D UTY V EHICLES U SING V ISUAL I NSPECTIONS AND O N -B OARD D IAGNOSTICS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY * NO X R EDUCTION * NO X R EMAINING *

PM10 I NVENTORY * PM10 R EDUCTION * PM10 R EMAINING *

PM2.5 I NVENTORY * PM2.5 R EDUCTION * PM2.5 R EMAINING *

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY NO X I NVENTORY * NO X R EDUCTION * NO X R EMAINING *

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED
I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB AND B UREAU OF A UTOMOTIVE R EPAIR

* The emission reductions associated with this measure are part of th e total on-road emission reductions provided in SC-LTM-01A. 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Heavy duty vehicles are defined as on-road vehicles weighing more than 14,000 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR), and are used in a variety of applications such as large trucks and school buses. Heavy-duty vehi cles are powered with either otto-cycle (spark-ignited) or diesel-cycle (compression ignition) engines. Diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles are the primary choice for transport of goods and materi al throughout the United States. Currently, about 190,000 heavy-duty vehicles operate in th e SCAQMD, and this number is projected to increase to 240,000 by 2020. The oxides of nitrog en (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from heavy-duty vehicles are of great concern. For example, the in-use heavy-duty diesel truck fleet currently contributes approx imately 28 percent and 16 percent to the total statewide mobile source NO x and PM emissions inventory, respectively.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01B

IV-B-2-61 

### Background Emissions from motor vehicles are generally lowest when they are new and progressively increase as the vehicles age and accumulate mil eage. The causes of these emissions increases are numerous, but can be broadl y categorized in terms of nor mal deterioration of properly functioning on-board emission control system components, malfunctioning emission control system components due to design flaws and/or lack of prope r maintenance, or tampered emission control system components. In re cognition that potential substantial emission reductions could be generated by programs that w ould regularly emission test in-use vehicles, smog check programs have been established to sy stematically inspect and emission test in-use vehicles for the purpose of identifying and repair ing vehicles with malfunctioning and tampered emission control system components.

In California, the Smog Check program was first established in 1982, and it includes all gasoline-powered passenge r cars and trucks up to 10,000 lbs GVWR to be inspected at various times (typically biennially) th roughout the vehicle life. Unlike the established Smog Check program for light-duty passenger ve hicles and trucks, there has b een no similar program adopted in California to periodically ch eck emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. It should be noted, however, that two programs have been implem ented by CARB that begin to address the problem of excess emissions coming from heavy-dut y vehicles. The first program is the HeavyDuty Vehicle Inspection Program, which requires heavy-duty trucks and buses to be inspected for tampering and excessive smoke through the use of a snap-idle test to determine compliance with tailpipe opacity requirements, with inspections/e mission testing c onducted at random roadside checkpoints and border crossings. The second program is the Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, which requires diesel vehi cle and bus fleet owners to conduct annual inspections of their vehicles and repair those vehicles w ith excessive smoke emissions.


### Regulatory History
In recognition of the on-road h eavy-duty vehicle fleet’s signifi cant contribution to ozone and particulate matter formation in the South Coas t Air Basin and its cont ribution to toxic air contaminants, much more stringent NO x and PM standards have b een adopted for new heavyduty engines. In 2004, the NO x emission standard was reduced by over 60 percent and PM emissions standard by over 80 percent compared to the emission standa rds of 1990. Complying with the 2004 standard required improved engi ne designs and emissi on control technologies, such as exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR.

In 2007, the NO x standard was effectively reduced by 50 percent and the PM standard reduced by another 90 percent compared to the 2004 standards. Complying with the 2007 NOx and PM standards will require additional emission cont rol system improvements including the use of more advanced EGR strategies. The most a dvanced engine designs, coupled with exhaust aftertreatment will be needed to comply with 2010 emission standards, primarily driven by the 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx emission standard, representing an additional 83 percent reduction in NOx compared to the 2007 standard.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01B

IV-B-2-62 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL

This measure would call on the State of Calif ornia to develop an expanded inspection and maintenance (I/M) program for heavy-duty dies el trucks by 2015. Sp ecifically, the current smoke inspection program should be expanded to include (1) a visual un der-the-hood inspection of the emission control devices, (2) an electroni c check of the truck’s on-board computer, and (3) use of remote sensing technology to asse ss in-use heavy-duty diesel truck emissions.

As mentioned previously, CARB currently has th e authority to conduct roadside inspections of heavy-duty diesel trucks for the purpose of dete rmining compliance with tampering and tailpipe opacity requirements. With the advent an d requirement of on-board-diagnostic (OBD) instrumentation for heavy-duty diesel engines be ginning in 2010, a program can be developed to periodically monitor the operati ng parameters of the engine a nd the resultant emissions. The implementation of an expanded I/M programs for in-use heavy-duty vehicles is particularly needed in order to track the expected increa sed rates of emissions deterioration caused by tampering and malmaintenance of exhaust aftert reatment devices and other emission control components expected to be used in 2007 and later model-year diesel-powered heavy-duty vehicles. In addition, an expanded I/M program would help avoid a situation identified several years ago where heavy-duty diesel engines were identified with NOx defeat devices for the purposes of fuel savings at the e xpense of excess pollution. In an effort to address this situation the United States Environmental Protection Ag ency and the California Air Resources Board entered into a consent decree agreement with e ngine manufacturers in 1998. One requirement of this agreement was a not-to-exceed (NTE) com ponent for 1998 and later model year engines. The NTE limits have been introduced as an additio nal instrument to make sure that heavy-duty engine emissions are controlled over the full range of speed and load combinations commonly experienced in use. This proposed control m easure would have CARB develop NTE limits for heavy duty diesel engines prior to the 1998 model year to ensure in-use emissions are kept in check for such engines not covered by the prior c onsent decree order. As an additional tool to monitor compliance with N TE limits, these proposed cont rol measures call for the implementation of a remote sensing program for purposes of measuring in-use emissions from heavy-duty trucks.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION

The emission reductions associated with this control measure depend on program design and require further study. It is expe cted that these emission reducti ons would be similar to those achieved under the current Inspection and Main tenance Program applicable to light- and medium-duty vehicles.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS
As more heavy-duty diesel engine trucks beco me equipped with on-board diagnostic devices, the opportunity exists to develop a program requi ring the periodic check of these devices to facilitate the identification and repair of malfunctioning heavy-duty engine emission control systems. Similar to the check of a light-duty vehicle OBD system, it is anticipated that test technicians in an expanded heavy-duty vehi cle I/M program would check for an illuminated MIL light and/or connect a dia gnostic tool into the heavy-duty vehicle’s OBD system for the purpose of downloading fault codes and related information that w ould assist the technician inFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01B

IV-B-2-63 identifying emission control system malfunctions . For older existing heavy-duty vehicles not equipped with OBD technology, a remote sensing component should be developed in order to identify vehicles with potentia lly excessive emissions for NO x and particulate matter.

Establishment of NTE test procedures for 1998 and older heavy-duty diesel engines could be similar to those test procedur es established for 1998 and newe r heavy-duty diesel engines.



### COST EFFECTIVENESS

Overall cost-effectiveness values for this cont rol measure would require additional study. As a guide, the cost-effectiveness value for the cu rrent Inspection and Maintenance Program is estimated to be approximately $5,000 per ton of pollution (ROG + NOx) reduced. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the combined CARB Heavy-Duty Vehicle Inspection program and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program is estimat ed to be approximately $2,000 per ton of pollution (hydrocarbons + NOx + PM) reduced. It is expected that the cost-effectiveness for this control measure would result in similar values.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
The implementing agency would be the California Air Resources Board and the Bureau of Automotive Repair. These agencies currently implement the Inspection and Maintenance Program for light- and medium-duty vehicles.



### REFERENCES

CARB, Staff Report for Public Hearing to Co nsider Amendments Adopting More Stringent Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Mode l Year New Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, September 7, 2001.

Department of Consumer Affairs/Bureau of Au tomotive Repair – Report to the Legislature – April 2004 Evaluation of the California Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (Smog Check) Program, September, 2005.

SCAQMD, Support Information for SCAQMD Attachment 2A Recommended Control Strategies for the State and Federal Sources, and SCAQMD Attachment 2B Suggested Control Concepts for the State and Federal Element - 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, August 2003.

CARB Staff Report for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Sm oke Inspection Program and Periodic Smoke Inspection Program, October 1997.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-02

IV-B-2-64 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES [NOX]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : O FF -R OAD M OBILE S OURCE C ATEGORIES
C ONTROL M ETHODS : A CCELERATED F LEET T URN -O VER , R ETROFITS , E NGINE S TANDARDS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 373.3 285.0 267.9 NO X R EDUCTION 115.6 NO X R EMAINING 152.3

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 NO X I NVENTORY 379.1 292.3 275.3 NO X R EDUCTION 116.3 NO X R EMAINING 159.0

C ONTROL C OST : N OT D ETERMINED I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB, U.S. EPA 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY Background The emission sources targeted under this control measure include off-road mobile sources such as off-road diesel equipment (e.g., constructi on and industrial equi pment), marine vessels, trains, pleasure craft, and aircraft. The objective of this long-term contro l measure is to achieve further NOx reductions from off-road mobile sources beyond those achieved through CARB’s and AQMD’s proposed short-term stra tegies in order to attain the federal 8- hour ozone standard by 2023. These reductions are ex pected to be achieved thr ough implementation of new and advanced control technologies as well as improve ment of existing control technologies. Control techniques requiring substantial levels of committed funding for implementation would also fall under this category of long-term measures.


### Regulatory History
CARB and U.S. EPA have adopted a number of re gulations affecting off-road mobile sources. For the most part, these regulations have establ ished new engine standards or fuel requirements for various source categories. However, additional regulations and programs need to be developed to accelerate the turn-ove r and retrofit of existing vehicles and equipment in order to achieve the level of reducti ons needed for attainment.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-02

IV-B-2-65 

### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
This control measure proposes to achieve furthe r NOx reductions from various off-road mobile source categories beyond the redu ctions achieved from the shor t-term measures through 1) accelerated turn-over of existing equipment and vehicles and replacement with new equipment meeting the new engine standards; 2) retrofit of existing vehicles and equipment with add-on controls such as SCR; and 3) develop ne w engine standards (e.g., aircraft, ships).

The following table provides a potential listing of advanced technologies and innovative control approaches for achieving long-term reductions from off-road mobile sources.



### TABLE 1 Possible Long-Term Control Measur es for Off-Road Mobile Sources

Off-Road Diesel Vehicles ■ Expanded modernization and re trofit of off-road equipment

Fuels ■ More stringent gasoline and diesel specifications; Extensive use of diesel alternatives
Marine Vessels ■ More stringent emission standards and programs for new and existing ocean-going vessels and harbor craft
Locomotives ■ Advanced Near Zero and Zero Car go Transportation Technologies (e.g., linear induction motor technologies, automated rail vehicles)
Pleasure Craft ■ Accelerated replacement and retrofit of high-emitting engines

Aircraft ■ More stringent emission requirements fo r jet aircraft (engine standards, clean fuels, operational controls, retrofit controls)

For off-road heavy diesel equipment, opportunitie s would still exist to achieve additional longterm reductions by requiring that all of these equipment meet Tier 4 off-road engine standards and better through replacements or retrofits by 2023. Within this timeframe, retrofit technologies are expected to be developed pr oviding 90% and higher NOx reduction benefits for Tier 2, Tier 3, and even Tier 4 engines. Re formulation of gasoline a nd diesel fuels coupled with requirements for using dies el alternatives (e.g., CNG, LNG, gas-to-liquid) would also provide an opportunity for additional long-term NOx, VOC, and PM reductions from off-road mobile sources.

Advanced cargo transportation tech nologies such as Maglev and other types of linear induction motor technologies could also be used to tr ansport containers to and from ports thereby significantly reducing emissions from locomotives. Such alternative electric propulsion systems would have the added benefit of reducing conges tion and reliance on foss il fuels. Accelerated development and implementation of these advan ced technologies woul d provide a tremendous opportunity for achieving the emission re ductions needed for ozone attainment.

Further emission reductions from ocean-going vessels beyond those considered under CARB’s goods movement plan could also be achieved through a more expanded main engine retrofitFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-02

IV-B-2-66 program (i.e., SCR or equivalent technologies) wh ich would target all vessels calling on the San Pedro Bay ports (i.e., including those making non-frequent or le ss frequent calls) to achieve higher levels of NOx reductions fr om existing vessels. CARB or the Ports have the ability to adopt and implement such programs.

Accelerated replacement of existing pleasure craft with new models meeting the most stringent engine standards and application of potential re trofit technologies provides another strategy for achieving long-term reductions. In addition, aircraft emissions could be further reduced through strategies such as lower engine emission sta ndards, reformulation of jet fuel, operational controls (e.g., reduced idling) and installation of re trofit kits which would require extensive technology development.

Implementation of these measures will requ ire significant technology development and commercialization as well as c onsiderable amount of funding.



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The emission reduction target for this measure is 116 tons of NOx by 2023.



### RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS
Compliance for this control measure would be primarily based on CA RB’s regulation(s) and incentive-based programs affecting existing off-ro ad mobile sources. In addition, U.S. EPA could adopt regulations for new and existing s ources under its jurisdiction such as aircraft, trains, and ships:



### COST EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness has not yet been determined for this control measure and would depend on the type of source category a nd control strategy selected.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE
CARB has the authority to regulate emissions for the majority of the targeted sources. U.S. EPA has the authority to adopt airc raft engine standards. The Di strict will work closely with CARB and U.S. EPA in developing and implem enting these strategies. The following table outlines the proposed implementation schedule a nd associated milestones. Implementation of these control strategies and technologies woul d require continued re search, development, demonstration, commercialization, and funding.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-02

IV-B-2-67 Table 2 

### Implementation Milestones/Schedule

Category Proposed Strategy Tech Assessment Strategy Development

& Funding Rule Adoption Rule Implementation

OGVs (main engines) SCR or Equivalent Technologies (90%+) 2008-2010 2009-2011 2012 2015-2023

Off-Road Diesel Equipment Tier 4 & Level 3+ Retrofits (90% +) 2008-2010 2009-2011 2012 2015-2023

Trains Advanced Cargo Transportation Technologies 2009-2012 2012-2013 2014 2018-2023

Pleasure Craft Accelerated Turn-over; Retrofit Technologies 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010 2010-2023

Aircraft New Engine Standards; Operational Controls; Fuel Reformulation 2008-2010 2010-2011 2012 2015-2023Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-03

IV-B-2-68 

### FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS [VOC]

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY

S OURCE C ATEGORY : CONSUMER PRODUCT
C ONTROL M ETHOD : R EQUIRE U LTRA L OW VOC P RODUCTS
T HIS CONTROL MEASURE WILL SEEK ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS
FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS BY TRANSFERRING LOW

- AND
ULTRA

- LOW VOC STATIONARY SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO
CONSUMER PRODUCTS E MISSIONS (T ONS /D AY ):
A NNUAL A VERAGE 2002 2014 2023 VOC I NVENTORY 110.4 102.6 109.5 VOC R EDUCTION 20.0 VOC R EMAINING 89.5

S UMMER P LANNING I NVENTORY VOC I NVENTORY 110.4 102.6 109.5 VOC R EDUCTION 20.0 VOC R EMAINING 89.5

C ONTROL C OST : T HE COST

- EFFECTIVENESS OF EMI SSION REDUCTIONS FROM
ADHESIVES AND CLEAN

- UP SOLVENTS WERE ESTIMATED AT
LESS THAN $1,000 PER TON AND LESS THAN $2,000 PER TON , RESPECTIVELY FOR STATIONAR Y SOURCE APPLICATIONS

. O THER CONSUMER PRODUCT CATEGORIES WERE ESTIMATED
AT LESS THAN $5,000 PER TON

. R EFORMULATION OF
CONSUMER PRODUCTS MAY IMPACT MANUFACTURERS BY
INCREASING THEIR PRODUCTION COSTS

. T HE INCREMENTAL
COSTS WOULD BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS THROUGH
INCREASED PRICES FOR AFFECTED CONSUMER PRODUCTS

. I MPLEMENTING A GENCY : CARB 

### DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
A consumer product is defined as a chemically formulated product used by household and institutional consumers. Consumer products incl ude, but are not limited to, detergents, cleaning compounds, polishes, floor finishes, cosmetics, personal care products such as antiperspirants and hairsprays, disinfectants, and sanitizers. Despite the implementation of short-term control measure proposed by CARB, consumer products w ould still remain a significant source of VOC emissions in the Basin contributing to the form ation of both ozone and particulate matter. Particularly, additional long-term reductions are necessary from this source category for attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard by 2023.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-03

IV-B-2-69 

### Background Consumer Products are currently the second largest source category of VOC emissions following the light- and medium-duty vehicle source category but will surpass this category by 2014. VOC emissions from this source categor y are estimated at 107.1 and 112.1 tons per day in 2014 and 2020, respectively. Short-term contro l measures in the 2003 AQMP were expected to reduce these emissions by up to 17 tons per day of VOC in 2010. This measure has yet to be fully implemented by CARB. However, emissions from this source ca tegory can be further reduced by transferring low-VOC technology developed for stationary sources.


### Regulatory History
CARB has primary authority over consumer produc ts and has taken several regulatory actions over the past several years to reduce the VOC emissions form consumer products. Since 1989, CARB has adopted five regulati ons affecting consumer products. The regulations have been amended several times and contain a total of 200 emission limits affecting 82 categories. While the 1994 SIP and the 1997 AQMP had an emission reduction commitment of 89 tons per day and 77 tons per day, respectively, for the S outh Coast Air Basin (Basin) in 2010, CARB has scaled back its 2014 emission reduction commitment to 9 tons per day of VOC for the 2007 draft AQMP. Although CARB has adopted CONS 1 from the 2003 Plan, CONS2 has yet to by fully developed and implemented.



### PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL
This measure proposes to implement low-VOC t echnologies developed fo r stationary sources into categories with similar uses in consumer products. In a ddition, the use of lower reactive VOC compounds could offer the potential fo r achieving equivalent reductions.

SCAQMD’s aggressive stationary source regulatory program has resulted in the development of remarkably less polluting coa ting, adhesive and solvent t echnologies with exceptional performance characteristics. This proposed st rategy seeks further emission reductions from consumer products by transferring the low-VOC t echnology developed for stationary sources to comply with rules in Regulation XI, such as Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, Rule 1168 – Adhesives, Rule 1122 – Solvent Degreaser s and others to cate gories of consumer products used in simila r applications. These technologies include adva nces in aqueous, lowVOC and non-VOC (exempt) cleanup solvents, a dhesive and coating technologies. This approach is most suitable for cross-over products used in both stationary source applications and as consumer products. The following is a listi ng of some categories from consumer products that have the potential for significan t emission reductions (50% - 75%):

• Paint Thinner – carryover technology from Rule 1171. Low- and zero-VOC technology available and effective for cl ean-up operations can replace high-VOC (> 700 g/l) counterparts (non-arc hitectural pa int thinners)

• Paint Stripper – carryover technology from Rule 1124 – Aerospace Operations. Waterborne strippers (VOC < 200 g/l) commonly used.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-03

IV-B-2-70 • Brake Cleaners – carryover technology from Rule 1171. Low- and zero-VOC technology available, with aerosol clean ers using CO2 or N2 as alternative propellants to hexane and other VOCs.

• Multi-Purpose Cleaning - carryover technology from Rule 1171. Low- and zeroVOC technology available

• General Purpose Cleaning - carryover te chnology from Rule 1171. Low- and zeroVOC technology available

• Carburetor/Choke Cleaners - carryover te chnology from Rule 1171. Low- and zeroVOC technology available

• Contact Adhesive – carryover tec hnology from Rule 1168 – Adhesives

• Construction and Panel Adhesives - carryover technology from Rule 1168 – Adhesives

• Lubricants (Total of four Consumer Produc ts Categories) – Wate rborne and synthetic lubricants available and in use

• Hairspray – Non-VOC propellant and de livery by pump readily available

There is currently significant discrepancy in the level of stringency between stationary source and consumer products regulations that is not warranted in many cases. For instance, there are cleaners which when used in industrial/commercia l applications and subj ect to Rule 1171 have to meet a VOC limit of 25 g/l, bu t when sold as a consumer produc t the same cleaner must meet a 45 percent by weight VOC limit (equivalent to approximately 400 g/l assuming an average cleaner density of 7.5 lb/gal). The cleaners meeting the Rule 1171 VOC limit the use of lowand non-VOC alternatives based on exempt solven ts (e.g. acetone). These products are subject to highly demanding performance standards dict ated by a highly competitive market and many of the technologies are direct ly applicable to consumer products. Consistency between industrial applications and consumer products can also assi st rule effectiveness of existing source-specific rules.

Consumer products can come in di fferent product forms such as aerosol, gel, liquid or solid. Current state law prohibits CARB from regulating so as to eliminate a product form. If the current state legislation can be modified, emissions from consumer products can be further reduced by phasing out certain product forms wh ere low-VOC alternatives are available. Functioning equivalent, yet low-emitting pr oducts, do exist in many instances.

Although this measure focuses on certain cate gories of consumer products with a large inventory, the lower-VOC technology can be furt her implemented into other smaller emission categories found within Consumer Products. In addition, the use of lower reactive VOC compounds could offer the potential fo r achieving equivalent reductions



### EMISSIONS REDUCTION
The emission reductions from this long-term meas ure are estimated at 20 tons per day of VOC by 2023.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-03

IV-B-2-71 

### COST EFFECTIVENESS

The cost-effectiveness of emissi on reductions from adhesives and clean-up solvents were estimated at less than $1,000 pe r ton and less than $2,000 per ton, respectively for stationary source applications. CARB estimated the cost-e ffectiveness of recent VOC emission reductions from consumer product categories at less th an $5,000 per ton. Their estimates included nonrecurring costs including research and development and capital equipment purchases as well as recurring raw material costs. Reformulation of consumer products may impact manufacturers by increasing their production costs. The incr emental costs would be passed on to consumers through increased prices for affected consumer produc ts. This strategy is not expected to impact competitiveness of California business compared with those outside of California because all companies that sell these products in California would have to meet the proposed requirements.



### IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/SCHEDULE
CARB has primary authority over consumer produc ts and would be responsible for regulating these categories where possible or implementi ng this strategy. As an alternative to CARB implementing this strategy, the AQMD would regul ate these categories where possible or seek additional authority under the Health and Safety Code or request CARB to delegate its authority over consumer products to the AQMD. If the current state legisla tion can be modified, emissions from consumer products can be furthe r reduced by setting the lowest achievable VOC limits (or equivalent reductions) regardless of product types. The im plementation schedule and associated rulemaking activities are outlined below:

Table 2 

### Implementation Milestones/Schedule

Category Proposed Strategy Tech Assessment Strategy Development Rule Adoption Rule Implementation

Consumer Products Reformulation; Product Replacement 2008-2010 2009-2010 2011 2015-2023



### REFERENCES

1. CARB, California Consumer Products Regulati on, Title 17 California Code of Regulations, Sections 94508, 94509, and 94513. 2. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amende d Rule 1168 – Adhesives and Sealant Applications, October 2003 3. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amende d Rule 1168 – Adhesives and Sealant Applications, January 2005 4. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, August 1996Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-03

IV-B-2-72 5. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, September 1999 6. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, August 2003 7. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Ru le 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, May 2005 8. Institute for Research & Techni cal Assistance, Draft Report, Assessment, Development, and Demonstration of Low- VOC Cleaning Systems for South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1171, June 2003 9. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1122 – Solvent Degreaser, October 2004 10. CARB, Proposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol Coatings Regul ation, September 29, 2006

## SECTION 3 MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL OPTION 2 – MOBILESOURCE EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO MEET RATE-OFPROGRESSFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 2

IV-B-2-73 

### INTRODUCTION Under this option the state would fulfill it s NOx emission reducti on obligations under the 2003 AQMP by 2010. An additional 208 tons per day would be needed to meet the NOx emission target between 2010 and 2014. Under this option the state could include some of the proposed measures under the firs t option or other measures that the state identifies as part of the SIP public process. The rate of progre ss for NOx under Policy Option 2 is shown in Figure 1 (Section 1).
As shown in Figure 1, the proj ected 2010 base year emissions for NOx is estimated to be at 775 tons/day. When the state submitted the 2003 AQMP to the U.S. EPA, the State provided as its obligation to reduce NOx emi ssions by 156 tons/day in order to meet the 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard by 2010. Based on the state’s actions since the submittal of the 2003 AQMP, 32 tons/d ay of NOx emission re ductions have been achieved, leaving another 124 tons/day to be achieved by 2010 . After 2010, an additional 208 tons/days of NO x emission reductions are n eeded to meet the federal PM2.5 ambient air quality standard by 2014.
The state may choose to meet the 2010 ob ligation through a co mbination of the remaining commitments under the 2003 AQMP (s hown in Table 1-3 of the AQMP Main document), its proposed control strategy plus the measures provided under Option 1, or any other measures the state ma y identify. In add ition, the state woul d need to identify additional reductions to be implemented by 2014 to meet the NOx emissions reduction levels needed to attain the federal PM2.5 am bient air quality standard. Again, this can be any set of measures the state identifies fo r this option, which could be a combination of its proposed control strategy, measures identified under Option 1, or any other measure not identified at this time.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 2

IV-B-2-74 

### This page is inten tionally left blank.

## SECTION 4 POLICY OPTION 3 – PUBLIC FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO ACHIEVE NEEDED ADDITIONAL EMISSION REDUCTIONSFinal 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 3

IV-B-2-75 

### INTRODUCTION The third option is based on the same rate of progress under Policy Option 1, but relies heavily on public funding assistance to achieve the needed NOx reductions via accelerated fleet turnover to post-2010 on-road emission stan dards or the cleanest offroad engine standards in effect today or af ter 2010. This would include funding for the replacement of on-road heavy-duty vehicles, o ff-road mobile equipment, pleasure craft, and off-road vehicles.
Under Policy Option 3, CARB or the Distri ct would assume the responsibility of implementing the incentive programs based on specific funding levels designated for this purpose. Based on the analysis performed for the Carl Moyer program, up to an estimated $600 million per yea r, which represents funding over a five year period, is needed between 2009 an d 2014. In addition, signifi cant funding would be made available beginning in mid-2 008 through 2014. The total public funding estimated to achieve the additional NOx emis sion reductions of 71 tons/day as id entified in Table 2- 11, is about $3 billion base d on the current Carl Moye r Program cost-effectiveness criteria of $14,300/ton with a 10-year project life. This is a conservative estimate since many of the projects would be more cost-effe ctive than the $14,300/ton criteria.

The total public funding need ed of about $600 m illion per year would need to begin in mid-2008. Table 2 illustrates funding sources that have been suggested in the past by various parties and the District staff has incl uded these as a matter of perspective and is seeking comments and suggestions on approp riate funding source s. Currently, the District receives about $55 million per yea r, which a significant portion has been allocated by the District Governing Board to accelerate vehicle turnover including urban buses, school buses, and agricultural equipm ent. In addition, the Mobile Source Emissions Reduction Review Committee (MSR C) allocates a significant amount of funds to cleaner vehicles. The MSRC is cu rrently allocating fundin g assistance for onroad engines meeting 2010 emissions standa rds and replacement of off-road equipment with current commercially available Tier 3 engi nes. In order to implement this option, additional funding must be iden tified within the next year and a half. Fu nding proposals such as marine port user fees , surplus fuel tax, or other mechanisms such as port tariff fees (which would facilitate cleanup of goods movement re lated sources) are examples of funds that could be made available to cover the implementation of this option.Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 3

IV-B-2-76 TABLE 2 Example List of Past Suggested F unding Sources by Various Parties*

Potential Funding Sources Potential Funding Levels Carl Moyer Program ~$35 - $50 million/yr MSRC Program ~ $8 - $10 million/yr Marine Port User Fee Proposals ~$250 million/yr 1-cent Increase in Fuel Tax ~$70 - $80 million/yr * Sources listed in Table 2 are pr ovided for discussion purposes only