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 Assembly 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, Riverside County 

GARY OVITT 

Supervisor, Fourth District 

San Bernardino County Representative 

JAN PERRY 

Councilmember, City of Los Angeles 

Cities Representative, Los Angeles 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 Angeles County, Eastern Region 

VACANT 

Governor’s Appointee 

DENNIS YATES 

Mayor, City of Chino 

Cities Representative, San 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 Supervisor Dean Saito, Mobile Source Strategies Manager 

David Coel, Program Supervisor Dipankar Sarkar, Program Supervisor 

Randall Pasek, Air Quality Specialist Paul Wuebben, Clean Fuels Officer 

 
Table 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 – DISTRICT 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 Control 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 Reduction.....................................................................................................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 Vehicles [VOC, NOx, PM]...............IV-B-2-11 

SCONRD-02 Deployment of On-Board Diagnostics (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 Reductions from Heavy-Duty Trucks 

Providing Freight Drayage Services [NOx, PM]......................................IV-B-2-23 
Final 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 from 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 STRATEGY 
Final 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 emissions 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 2015. To achieve the 

necessary reductions poses several challenges. The most significant challenge is the 

short timeframe to achieve the necessary reductions. This challenge can be partially 

overcome with early actions to affect mobile source cleanup through voluntary incentive 

programs such as the Carl Moyer Program. However, additional public funds are 

needed to accelerate such efforts. Regulatory actions to mandate mobile source cleanup 

are also needed beyond those identified by CARB to date. 

The District staff believes that a combination of regulatory actions 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 consider in achieving additional 

reductions. The rate of progress for NOx under the three policy options is shown in 

Figure 1. The first option is the District staff’s proposed additional control measures as 

a menu of selections to further reduce emissions from sources primarily under State and 

federal jurisdiction. The proposed additional 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 level 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 measures 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 short-term defined control measures plus 

additional reductions 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 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 standards 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 estimated $600 million per year is needed between 

2009 and 2014. Section 4 of this Appendix illustrates possible funding sources that have 
Final 2007 AQMP: District Staff’s Proposed Policy Options 

Appendix IV-B-2 to Supplement 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 comments and suggestions on appropriate funding 

sources.

Figure 1. NOx Rate-of-Progress 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 demonstration (i.e., 443 tons/day 

of remaining NOx emissions). CARB has identified 125 tons/day of NOx emission 

reductions from its proposed control strategy. An additional 71 tons/day of NOx 

emission reductions would be needed to demonstrate attainment. 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 matter, not to mention the potential adverse 

economic impacts on the region due to potential federal 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 MEASURES 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1 

 IV-B-2-3 

INTRODUCTION 

Based on CARB’s proposed mobile source control strategy, District staff refined its 

evaluation of the control measures recommended 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 presented in this appendix for ozone and PM2.5

attainment demonstrations are based upon a variety of control technologies that are 

commercially available and/or technologically feasible in the next several years. The 

focus of these measures includes accelerated retrofits or replacement of existing vehicles 

or equipment, acceleration of vehicle turnover through high-emitter identification 

programs, and greater use of cleaner fuels in the 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 plug-in hybrids, even 

further use of cleaner fuels (either alternative or new formulations of gasoline and diesel 

fuels), and additional emission reductions from aircraft engines. 

PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES 

Twelve additional control measures are proposed by the District staff for mobile sources 

and four long-term measures, which call for 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 reductions 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 Source Control Measures Categorized by 

Control Strategy 

On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures 

Number Title 

SCONRD-01 Accelerated Penetration of Advanced Technology Partial Zero-Emission 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 Equipment Fleet Modernization [VOC, NOx] 

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

SCOFFRD-03 Further Emission Reductions 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 Based 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 Reductions from Consumer Products [VOC] 

On-Road Mobile Source Control Measures 

The District staff is proposing four on-road mobile source control measures. The first 

two measures focus on on-road light- and medium-duty vehicles operating in the South 

Coast Air Basin. By 2014, it is estimated that about 12 million vehicles will be 

operating in the Basin. The first measure would implement programs to accelerate 

turnover of older light- and medium-duty vehicles to new vehicles certified to the 

advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicle (ATPZEV) exhaust emissions 

standard with an emphasis on an accelerated penetration of plug-in hybrid and other 

near-zero or zero vehicle technologies. The second control measure would seek greater 

deployment of advanced on-board diagnostics in light- and medium-duty vehicles. 

The remaining two measures focus on heavy-duty vehicles. The first of these measures 

seeks additional emission reductions from pre-2010 model year on-road heavy-duty 

vehicles through accelerated retrofit or replacement programs that would achieve at a 

minimum, 30 percent reduction in NOx depending 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 exhaust 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1 

 IV-B-2-5 

emissions standards. Lastly, 2007 to 2009 vehicles would 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 nature of the types of trucks 

performing freight drayage services at the marine ports, a separate control measure is 

proposed for this category of sources. The fourth control measure calls for on-road 

trucks that provide freight drayage services to implement the measure provided in the 

recently adopted San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan. 

Off-Road Mobile Source Control Measures 

The District staff is proposing six control measures that seek further emission reductions 

from off-road mobile sources and industrial equipment. Transportation sources such as 

aircraft, locomotives, and marine vessels are associated with anticipated economic 

growth not only in the Basin, but also nationwide. 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 beyond the emissions standard setting authority of the state 

and U.S. EPA. The first measure calls for the state to adopt tighter NOx fleet averages 

on construction and other mobile industrial equipment such that cleaner engines or 

retrofit devices would be deployed 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 distribution centers. The third measure calls for 

U.S. EPA to adopt new locomotive emissions standards and require the retrofit of 

existing locomotives to further reduce NOx and particulate emissions. The fourth 

control measure would require additional emission reductions 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 sulfur content of the gasoline formulation. This measure 

reflects the emissions benefits associated with a lower sulfur content in gasoline fuels 

and additional SOx and NOx emissions benefits associated with the lower 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 proposing four additional long-term or “black box” or “Section 

182(e)(5)” measures that would seek additional emissions reductions from on-road and 

off-road mobile sources and consumer products. These measures would not be 

implemented until after 2015 with 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 advancing near zero emissions technologies 

where possible and further retrofits or replacement of existing engines. In addition, an 

inspection and maintenance program is proposed for on-road heavy-duty vehicles. 

Lastly, there is a need for additional VOC emissions reductions that could be achieved in 

the consumer products sector by 2023. 

In addition to the proposed long term measures 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 program 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 commitment will be used to offset CARB’s ‘blackbox” commitment. Furthermore, permanent reductions in emission estimates due to 

improvement in inventory methodology are SIP creditable if the changes are approved 

by the AQMD Governing Board at its regularly scheduled public meetings. 

To facilitate the implementation of the proposed 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 description is a title, summary table, description of 

source category (including background and regulatory history), proposed method of 

control, estimated emission reductions, rule compliance, 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 “South 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1 

 IV-B-2-7 

Coast On-Road Mobile Sources.” The following 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 “Control of Emissions from...” indicate that the measure is 

regulating a new source category, not presently regulated by an existing source- specific 

District rule. Titles that state “Further Emission Reductions of” imply 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 summarizes the measure and is designed to identify 

the key components of the control measure. The table contains a brief explanation of the 

source category, control method, emission reductions, 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 basic information about the control measure 

such as the number of sources in the Basin, description of emission sources, and 

pollutants. 

The regulatory history contains information regarding existing regulatory control of the 

source category such as applicable 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 potential control options for an emission source 

to achieve emission reductions. If an expected performance for a control option is 

provided, it is intended for informational purposes only and should not be interpreted as 

the targeted overall control efficiency for the proposed control measure. To the extent 

feasible, the overall control efficiency for a control measure should take into account 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1 

 IV-B-2-8 

achievable controls in the field by various subcategories within the control measure. A 

more detailed type of this analysis is typically conducted during rulemaking, not in the 

planning stage. It has been the District's long standing policy 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 Control Measure Summary Table. The emissions 

data are based on the annual average inventory for all five criteria pollutants. The 

planning inventory adjusts the emissions by taking into consideration a source category’s 

seasonal variations. The emissions affecting ozone concentration (i.e., VOC and NOx) 

are presented under the Summer Planning Inventory. The emissions section of the 

summary table includes the 2002, 2014, and 2023 inventory. The 2014 and 2023 

emission projections reflect implementation of adopted rules. Based on the expected 

reductions associated with implementing the 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 development. As demonstrated in previous 

rulemaking, the District is always seeking 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 controls. The concept of 

weighted average acknowledges the fact that a control measure or rule consists of 

several subcategories, and the emission reduction potential for each subcategory is a 

function of proposed emission limitation and the associated emission inventory. 

Therefore, the use of control efficiency to estimate emission reductions does not 

represent a commitment by the District to require emission reductions uniformly across 

source categories. In addition, due to the current structure of emission inventory 

reporting system, a control measure may partially 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 rule development, the most current inventory 

will be used. However, for tracking rate-of-progress on the SIP emission reduction 

commitment, the approved AQMP inventory will be used. More specifically, emission 

reductions due to mandatory or voluntary, but enforceable, actions will be credited under 

SIP obligations. 

Rule Compliance 

This section was designed to satisfy requirements in the 1990 Clean Air Act in which 

EPA has indicated that it is necessary to have a discussion of rule compliance with each 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 1 

 IV-B-2-9 

control measure. This section discusses the recordkeeping and monitoring requirements 

envisioned for the control measure. In general, the District would continue to verify rule 

compliance through site inspections and submittal of compliance plans. 

Test Methods 

In addition to requiring recordkeeping and monitoring requirements, EPA has stated that 

“An enforceable regulation must also contain 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 used 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 information on costs and more accurate numbers of 

affected facilities becomes available, the cost effectiveness will be revised and analyzed 

in the socioeconomic assessment report of the 2007 AQMP. 

Implementing Agency 

This section identifies the agency(ies) responsible for implementing the control measure. 

Also included in this section is a description of any jurisdictional issues that may affect 

the control measure’s implementation. 

References 

This section identifies directly cited references, 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 intentionally left blank. 
GROUP 1 

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-01 

 IV-B-2-11 

ACCELERATED PENETRATION OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 

PARTIAL ZERO-EMISSION AND ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES 

[VOC, NOX, CO] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: GASOLINE- AND DIESEL-POWERED ON-ROAD VEHICLES WITH 

GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING UP TO 14,000 LBS

CONTROL METHODS: REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW VEHICLE SALES OF ADVANCED 

TECHNOLOGY PARTIAL ZERO EMISSIONS VEHICLES AND ZERO 

EMISSIONS VEHICLES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 178.5 50.1 29.3 

 VOC REDUCTION 0.5 2.1

 VOC REMAINING 49.6 27.1 

NOX INVENTORY 147.6 37.3 17.4 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.0 5.2

 NOX REMAINING 36.3 12.2 

CO INVENTORY 1631.9 495.6 259.1 

 CO REDUCTION 11.9 54.9

 CO REMAINING 483.7 204.2 

PLANNING INVENTORY

(SUMMER FOR VOC AND NOX;

WINTER FOR CO) 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 180.1 52.9 31.3 

 VOC REDUCTION 0.5 2.3

 VOC REMAINING 52.4 29.0 

NOX INVENTORY 140.8 35.6 16.6 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.0 5.0

 NOX REMAINING 34.6 11.6 

CO INVENTORY 1604.8 485.8 253.1 

 CO REDUCTION 11.7 53.7

 CO REMAINING 474.2 199.4 

CONTROL COST: TBD 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to seek emission reductions from existing passenger and 

medium duty vehicles through the use of advanced technology vehicles that would provide 

substantial improvements in emissions performance beyond currently available vehicle 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-01 

 IV-B-2-12 

technologies. This control measure would specifically facilitate the technological development 

and commercial deployment of vehicle platform(s) that satisfy normal consumer performance 

and drivability requirements with zero emissions capability approaching 100 percent of vehicle 

operational time. Control measure implementation would be primarily accomplished by new 

vehicle manufacturer production/sales requirements for vehicles providing these capabilities, 

such as hybrid-electric vehicles with extensive all electric driving range. In addition, control 

measure implementation could be augmented through the use of voluntary/incentive programs 

that would facilitate the commercial 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 affecting regional air quality. 

The intent of this control measure is to specifically mitigate impacts associated with passenger 

car emissions. 

Regulatory History 

To address California's acute air quality problems, the federal Clean Air Act granted California 

the unique authority to adopt and enforce rules 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 manufactured 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. Because 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 establishes various emission categories with 

associated emission requirements assigned to each category, and vehicle manufacturers have the 

flexibility to choose the appropriate emission category for each vehicle model intended for sale 

in California. Basically, this regulation achieves emission reductions by forcing vehicle 

manufacturers to gradually increase 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-Emission Vehicle regulation are partial-zero emission vehicles 

(PZEV), advanced technology zero-emission vehicles (ATPZEV), and zero-emission vehicles 

(ZEV). PZEVs must meet very stringent tailpipe emission limits, zero evaporative emissions, 

and enhanced durability requirements. An ATPZEV is a PZEV 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 the 2012 model-year. To meet this requirement, 

ATPZEVs would, at a minimum, meet an all electric driving range that would provide for the 

maximum feasible amount of zero-emission operational capability under normal driving 

conditions and may be equipped with plug-in recharging capability. 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 the purpose of increasing their all electric range 

and providing for plug-in recharging capability. 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 result of this control measure. 

Several automobile manufacturers have also announced plans to investigate the technology, 

with Daimler Chrysler currently developing a plug-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 facilitate the commercialization of plug-in hybrid 

technology and to spur conversion of existing hybrid vehicles to have plug-in capabilities. PlugIn Bay Area (PIBA), a local chapter 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 vehicles 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 the 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 require 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 produce the data needed to document emission 

levels. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

This proposed control measure will affect light-duty vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings 

up to 8,500 lbs. The current cost of the advanced batteries are high, but are 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 agreements with U.S. EPA, has the authority to set emission 

standards and certification requirements for vehicles sold in California. In addition, other 

incentives such as direct funding assistance or tax credits may be developed to accelerate 

vehicle turnover to the newer technologies. 

REFERENCES 

SCAQMD, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Forum & Technical Roundtable, See 

www.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 DIAGNOSTICS (PHASE III) IN 

LIGHT- AND MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES 

[VOC, NOX, CO] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: GASOLINE- AND DIESEL-POWERED LIGHT & MEDIUM-DUTY 

VEHICLES UP TO 14,000 LBS GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT

CONTROL METHODS: ON-BOARD DIAGNOSTICS III (COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEM 

IDENTIFYING EMISSIONS RELATED PROBLEM AND CONSUMER 

REQUIRED TO FIX DEFECT) 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 323.1 118.2 80.3 

 VOC REDUCTION 0.5 1.3

 VOC REMAINING 117.7 79.0 

NOX INVENTORY 366.3 129.7 72.5 

 NOX REDUCTION 3.3 6.1

 NOX REMAINING 126.4 66.5 

CO INVENTORY 3332.8 1186.1 691.6 

 CO REDUCTION 10.0 23.6

 CO REMAINING 1176.1 668.0 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 323.2 122.0 83.9 

 VOC REDUCTION 0.5 1.3

 VOC REMAINING 121.5 82.6 

NOX INVENTORY 350.1 124.4 69.7 

 NOX REDUCTION 3.2 5.8

 NOX REMAINING 121.2 63.9 

CO INVENTORY 3284.0 1164.6 676.7 

 CO REDUCTION 9.8 23.1

 CO REMAINING 1154.8 653.6 

CONTROL COST: COST SAVINGS (CAPITAL COSTS FOR OBD III COULD BE 

OFFSET WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED 

WITH SMOG CHECK TESTING) 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB, BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to implement a strategy that will achieve continuous 

compliance for light- and medium-duty vehicles with in-use emission standards known as smog 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-02 

 IV-B-2-16 

check cut-points. This program will be applicable to all light- and medium-duty vehicles 

subject to the on-board diagnostics (OBD) requirements. 

Background 

Light- and medium-duty vehicles are major contributors of air pollutants in the South Coast Air 

Basin. While vehicle miles traveled increased more 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 increasing miles they travel each day make them our single greatest 

source of smog forming emissions. While new vehicles in California may start out with very 

low emissions, improper maintenance or faulty 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 emission-related malfunctions. All 1996 and newer 

gasoline and alternate fuel passenger cars and trucks are required to have 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 vehicles. 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 emission performance. If a problem or malfunction is 

detected, the OBD II system illuminates a warning light 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 important information about the detected malfunction 

so that a repair technician can accurately find and fix the problem. 

Regulatory History 

On-Board Diagnostics I (OBD I) was California’s first OBD regulation which required 

manufacturers to monitor some of the emission 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 emission-related components and they were not 

calibrated to a specific level of emission performance. 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 small fraction of the fleet contributes a majority of 

the emissions for the vehicle source category and 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 regulations requiring that all light- and medium-duty 

vehicles manufactured after 2012 and previously subject to California OBD requirements be 

equipped with a telematics device. Such telematics 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 letter to the owner of the vehicle 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 shops 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 the cost of a biennial smog check test. 

Specifically, this measure proposes that CARB adopt regulations which require that all vehicles 

manufactured after 2012 be equipped with a telematics device such that 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 letter to the owner of the vehicle that a 

repair of said defect is required within an agreed to period of time. 

Beginning in MY 1996 and newer vehicles, all vehicles sold in California were equipped with 

on-board diagnostic capabilities having the ability to monitor virtually 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 via mail of the noted detected malfunction and be 

required to fix such malfunction within a stated period. 

In addition to the proposed regulatory action, this measure proposes that by 2020, all existing 

Model Year 1996 to 2012 vehicles equipped with OBD technologies be retrofitted with 

telematics devices. Specifically, beginning in 2012, Model Year 1996 through 2012 vehicles 

will be required to be retrofitted with telematics devices at a rate of one million vehicles per 

year. The vehicles will be randomly selected each year. Such kits will be installed by smog 

check repair shops upon receipt of their DMV notice requiring the installation of a telematics 

device at their next biannual smog check test. The cost of such retrofit kits is estimated to be 

between $100 to $150. Such costs could be offset by forgoing the cost of smog check testing 

every other year at an estimated cost of $65 per test. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 

Implementation of this measure would 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 time 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCONRD-02 

 IV-B-2-18 

estimated cost between $100 to $150 for a transponder unit to relay malfunction 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 emission reduction benefits to the existing smog 

check program. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

The implementing agencies would be the Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR) under the 

Department of Consumer Affairs and the California Air Resources Board. BAR will likely have 

to adopt regulations to incorporate such requirements. 

REFERENCES 

Department of Consumer Affairs/Bureau of Automotive 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 Vehicle 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, Section 19685, Enforcement of Malfunction and 

Diagnostic System Requirements for 2004 and Subsequent 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] 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY DIESEL VEHICLES (14,001 LBS AND 

GREATER GVWR) 

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATED REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HEAVY-DUTY 

VEHICLES WITH VEHICLES MEETING 2010 STANDARDS AND 

RETROFITTING/REPOWERING EXISTING HEAVY-DUTY 

VEHICLES TO ACHIEVE LOWER EMISSION LEVELS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 218.9 133.6 70.3 

 NOX REDUCTION 35.7 8.2

 NOX REMAINING 97.9 62.1 

PM10 INVENTORY 9.8 5.7 3.0 

 PM10 REDUCTION 4.0 0.4

 PM10 REMAINING 1.7 2.6 

PM2.5 INVENTORY 9.0 5.3 2.8 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION 3.7 0.4

 PM2.5 REMAINING 1.6 2.4 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 219.1 134.0 70.8 

 NOX REDUCTION 35.7 8.2

 NOX REMAINING 98.3 62.6 

CONTROL COST: APPROXIMATELY $15,000 PER TON OF POLLUTANT REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB AND SCAQMD 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Emissions from heavy-duty diesel mobile sources continue to represent a significant and 

increasing portion of the emissions inventory in the South Coast Air Basin, adversely affecting 

regional air quality. The two primary pollutants resulting from diesel fuel combustion are 

particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). PM typically constitutes the visible 

emissions from diesel engine exhaust, and it contains over 40 known cancer-causing substances. 

In 1998, California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to 

cause cancer. In March 2000, the SCAQMD issued a report entitled “The Multiple Air Toxic 

Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin.” This report concluded that about 70 percent of 

the carcinogenic risk associated with breathing ambient air can be attributed to diesel particulate 

emissions. Diesel engines also emit significant quantities of NOx, which is a precursor to ozone 

and secondary particulate matter formation. Additional control on diesel engine emissions is 
Final 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 seek emission reductions from existing heavy-duty 

vehicles except for port related trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) greater than 

14,000 lbs through an accelerated vehicle replacement program with new 2010 and later model–

year engines. In addition, for heavy-duty vehicles not replaced with new models, existing 

vehicle engines would be repowered with commercially 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-duty diesel mobile emission sources is the 

responsibility of CARB and U.S. EPA. Specifically, heavy-duty vehicle engines are subject to 

specific emission standards pursuant to state and/or federal requirements. Emission standards 

for new diesel engines powering heavy-duty vehicles were first 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 established by CARB and U.S. EPA for 2010 and 

subsequent model-years, which includes a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx emission standard. Currently, 

heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers (OEMs) are investigating NOx control technologies to 

meet this NOx emission limit. For the model-years 2007 to 2009, the OEMs may phase in these 

technologies to meet a 1.2 g/bhp-hr NOx emission standard. For PM emissions, all new heavyduty engines must meet a 0.01 g/bhp-hr exhaust emissions standard 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 emission reductions from older, pre-2010 heavy-duty 

vehicles beyond the emission reductions targeted in CARB’s proposed measure for heavy-duty 

vehicles. CARB’s proposed measure for heavy-duty vehicles targets 30 percent of the oldest, 

pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles and proposes to reduce excess emissions due to deterioration of 

emissions control equipment. Additional emission reductions could be achieved if an additional 

15 percent of the oldest, pre-2010 heavy-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 retrofitting pre-2001 model year heavy-duty vehicles with 

engines that meet 2010 heavy-duty exhaust emission 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 standards. The proposed targeted 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 for this control measure that could achieve equivalent emission 

reductions to the additional 15 percent of the targeted pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles. The 

scenario contains two elements: an expanded heavy-duty vehicle fleet modernization program 

and a NOx and PM control retrofit program for in-use heavy-duty vehicles. This scenario 
Final 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 percent per year, to meet 2010 on-road heavy-duty emissions standards. 

The two elements are further discussed below. 

Expanded Heavy-Duty Fleet Modernization 

This element calls for an accelerated modernization of the heavy-duty vehicle fleet through 

replacement or repower of 2001 to 2006 model-year 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 short to medium distance hauling. 

NOx Control Retrofit Program 

This element calls for the retrofitting of 2001 to 2006 model-year heavy-duty vehicles to reduce 

NOx and PM emissions by at least 30 percent and 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 currently verified retrofit technology and reasonable 

extensions of this technology would be sufficient 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 technology has been commercially available for a 

number of years and it still appears to be the best choice to reduce PM emissions to the 0.01 

g/bhp-hr level for the post 2010 model year timeframe. For NOx emissions control, the use of 

exhaust gas recirculation, selective catalytic reduction using urea injection (SCR), lean NOx

absorbers, and lean-NOx catalysts technologies are currently being investigated. Based on input 

from diesel-engine manufacturers, it appears that urea based SCR technologies will most likely 

be utilized to meet the 2010 NOx emission standard. 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 nature of controlling on-highway 

heavy-duty engine NOx emissions using SCR 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 emission reductions program that incorporates 

vehicle replacement, repower, and retrofit strategies can result in significant emission 

reductions. If the proposed control measure 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 certification requirements, and verify compliance 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 that 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 diesel fleet operators. Costs of replacement engines vary 

depending on the specific model and vehicle application, and an evaluation 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 applications on a costeffectiveness basis for engine or vehicle replacement. 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 incentive programs that would help offset the costs 

associated with new truck purchase, engine repower, and/or retrofit 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 Consider Amendments Adopting More Stringent 

Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Model Year New Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, 

September 7, 2001. 

CARB, Summary of Adverse of Impacts of Diesel Particulate Matter, July 2005. 

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

CARB, Staff Report for Public Hearing to Consider Amendments Adopting More Stringent 

Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Model 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 REDUCTIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY TRUCKS 

PROVIDING FREIGHT DRAYAGE SERVICES 

[NOx, PM] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES (33,000 AND GREATER GVWR) 

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATED TRUCK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM WITH 

TRUCKS MEETING 2007 AND 2010 EXHAUST EMISSIONS 

STANDARDS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 28.1 19.4 10.6 

 NOX REDUCTION 11.4 0.0

 NOX REMAINING 8.0 10.6 

PM10 INVENTORY 1.6 0.89 0.42 

 PM10 REDUCTION 0.03 0.0

 PM10 REMAINING 0.86 0.42 

PM2.5 INVENTORY 1.4 0.82 0.38 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION 0.03 0.00

 PM2.5 REMAINING 0.79 0.38 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 28.1 19.5 10.7 

 NOX REDUCTION 11.5 0.0

 NOX REMAINING 8.0 10.7 

CONTROL COST: APPROXIMATELY $19,200 PER TON OF POLLUTANT REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB, MARINE PORTS, 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 33,000 pounds. It is not known exactly how many 

unique trucks service both Ports. During the development of the San Pedro Bay Clean Air 

Action Plan, baseline emissions inventory for both the Port of Los Angeles (2001 baseline) and 

the Port of Long Beach (2002 baseline), approximately 7,200 license plates of trucks visiting the 

Ports were analyzed which determined that the 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. Specifically, heavy-duty truck engines are subject to specific emission 

standards pursuant to state and/or federal requirements. The standards, primarily affecting new 

units, vary in stringency and compliance dates. Currently, heavy-duty diesel engine 

manufacturers (OEMs) are developing NOx control technologies to meet a 0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx

exhaust emissions standard. For the model years 2007 to 2010, the OEMs may phase in this 

technology to meet NOx emission standards and requirements. 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, extensive 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 represent a time range of 45 to 208 days of records. 

From this preliminary data set, there were 35,291 unique California registered 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 remaining container terminals and estimate 

the entire 2005 record of truck calls for both Ports. For now however, this data represents the 

best data set available to analyze the trucks 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 heavy-duty trucks providing drayage services at the Ports by the 

end of 2011. CARB is currently developing a statewide 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 the 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 million over the next five years with a total 

investment from all funding sources of more than $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 with heavy-duty trucks powered by diesel engines meeting 2007 

emission standards and the remaining half powered by alternative-fueled engines meeting 2010 

emission standards. For 1993 through 2006 model-year trucks, 21 percent would be replaced 

with heavy-duty trucks powered by diesel engines meeting 2007 emission standards and an 

additional 21 percent would be replaced by heavy-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 engines meeting 2007 emission standards and the 

remaining 50 percent powered by alternative-fueled 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 specific 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 would 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 the implementation of a retrofit/repowered program 

can result in significant emission reductions. If the proposed 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 existing 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 control strategy for port trucks. The emissions 

reductions associated with this control measure and CARB’s targeted NOx emission reductions 

represent a total 10 tons per day of NOx reductions by 2014. 

RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS 

The existing CARB certification and verification programs would administer those portions of 

the control measure that would require CARB approval of engine models and retrofit kits, 

respectively. It is anticipated that existing certification and verification test procedures would be 

used to generate and document emission levels. 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, CARB, or the Ports. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost and cost-effectiveness of this measure 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. Additionally, 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 intentionally left blank. 
GROUP 2 

OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-01 

 IV-B-2-27 

CONSTRUCTION/INDUSTRIAL FLEET MODERNIZATION 

[VOC, NOx] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: OFF-ROAD CONSTRUCTION, INDUSTRIAL ENGINES AND 

TRANSPORTATION REFRIGERATION UNTIS 

CONTROL METHODS: ESTABLISH MORE STRINGENT FLEET AVERAGE 

REQUIREMENTS TO REPLACE OR RETROFIT OLDER ENGINES 

WITH NEW, CLEANER ENGINES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 23.5 13.4 8.2 

 VOC REDUCTION 3.6 1.7

 VOC REMAINING 9.8 6.5 

NOX INVENTORY 158.9 97.3 47.2 

 NOX REDUCTION 18.5 22.2

 NOX REMAINING 78.8 25.0 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 23.3 13.3 8.1 

 VOC REDUCTION 3.6 1.7

 VOC REMAINING 9.7 6.4 

NOX INVENTORY 157.5 96.4 46.8 

 NOX REDUCTION 18.3 22.0

 NOX REMAINING 78.1 24.8 

CONTROL COST:

APPROXIMATELY $2 BILLION THROUGH 2023 WITH A COST 

EFFECTIVENESS RANGING BETWEEN $13,000 TO $15,000 PER 

TON OF NOX + VOC CONTROLLED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

The purpose of this control measure is to promote faster turn-over of older in-use construction 

and industrial diesel engines. 

Background 

Off-road heavy-duty construction and industrial equipment account for 19% and 6.9% of the 

total NOx 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 Reduction Plan CARB is focusing on off-road fleet 

rules reducing primarily PM and secondarily NOx emissions through retrofits controls, engine 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-01 

 IV-B-2-28 

repowers, and equipment replacement. While CARB 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 September 1996, CARB, U.S. EPA, and the diesel 

engine manufacturers signed a statement of principles, which called for a cooperative effort to 

reduce NOx, 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-Road Equipment In-Use Rule which is expected to 

be adopted early 2007, which will reduce PM emissions by close to 90% and NOx by close to 

20% through retrofit controls, engine repowers, and equipment replacement. CARB has 

proposed that off-road equipment fleets meet a declining fleet average emissions level or 

alternatively turnover 10 percent of the existing fleet to new Tier 3 models. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

New off-road diesel engines are required to meet Tier 2 or Tier 3 emission standards ranging 

between 6.0 and 2.6 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.6 and 0.15 g/bhp-hr PM. To comply with these 

standards, newer off-road diesel engines are equipped with modern and better technologies 

resulting in 72 % less NOx or PM than the pre-1988 engines, and will potentially emit 85% less 

NOx 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 resulting in 90 to 99% control of emissions. 

This measure calls for more stringent NOx fleet average requirements beginning in the 2014 

time frame than that proposed by CARB. Essentially, 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 engines or better (including engines meeting on-road standards for categories 

where it is feasible). Reductions expected would be equivalent to those that would be achieved 

by replacing pre-Tier 2 engines with 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 achieved by replacing Tier 2 

engines with Tier 4 engines or better and retrofitting Tier 3 engines with NOx and PM controls 

that achieve at least 80% and 85% respectively (reductions are determined by assuming 50% of 

the engines meet the 2010 on-road engine emission levels, and 50% meet the Tier 4 engine 

emission levels). Currently there are CARB verified control technologies that achieve 80% 

NOx control and 85% PM control on some off-road 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 diesel engines that meet on-road exhaust emission 
Final 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 standards is feasible, and as 

engine technology improves more off-road engines 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 NOx, 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 measure is expected to be approximately $750 million by 

2014. This is based on estimated costs for repowering all Tier 1 equipment 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 when 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 better 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 this control measure, a financial support program, 

similar to the Carl Moyer Program, may be necessary. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND ISSUES 

CARB has the authority to require retrofit or replacement of in-use off-road engines. In 

addition, this control measure could be implemented through incentive programs. 

REFERENCES 

1. CARB Presentation: Diesel Off-Road Equipment Rule Working Group Meeting: New 

Regulatory Concepts and Inventory Updates, July 21, 2006. 

2. CARB, Proposed Regulation for, 12/4/2006 draft 
Final AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-02 

 IV-B-2-30 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT 

[ALL POLLUTANTS] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT OPERATING USED TO MOVE FREIGHT 

CONTAINERS

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATED REPLACEMENT/RETROFIT PROGRAM

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 4.6 3.6 1.8 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.1 0.5

 NOX REMAINING 2.5 1.3 

PM10 INVENTORY 0.2 0.10 0.10 

 PM10 REDUCTION 0.03 0.03

 PM10 REMAINING 0.07 0.07 

PM2.5 INVENTORY 0.2 0.10 0.10 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION 0.03 0.03

 PM2.5 REMAINING 0.07 0.07 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 

NOX INVENTORY 4.6 3.6 1.8 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.1 0.5

 NOX REMAINING 2.5 1.3 

CONTROL COST: TBD 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

Emissions from goods movement related mobile sources (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 affecting 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 equipment operated at marine ports, intermodal 

freight facilities, and warehouse 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 compliance with progressively more stringent standards for hydrocarbon, 

CO, NOx, and PM. Tier 4 standards for non-road diesel powered equipment complement the 
Final 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 advanced 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 smaller 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 regulation calls for the replacement or retrofit of 

existing engines with engines that use Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Beginning 

January 1, 2007 the regulation will require that newly purchased, leased, or rented CHE be 

equipped with either a 2007 or later on-road engine, a Tier 4 off-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 cargo handling equipment with the cleanest 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 current 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 Air Action Plan, primarily non-yard tractors. The 

San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) includes a strategy which accelerates the 

implementation of CARB’s rule requirements through 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-road engine standards (for port tenants with 

lease openings by 2011). This measure incorporates the reductions associated 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 existing cargo handling equipment with the cleanest 

engines or implementation of commercially available NOx and PM retrofit technologies⎯diesel 

oxidation catalyst, emulsified diesel fuel, and combination of NOx reduction catalysts with 

particulate traps⎯for cargo handling equipment. A variety of commercially available NOx

emission control technologies can reduce emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and 

medium-duty vehicles to very low levels, and yield significant emission reductions from buses, 

trucks, and heavy-duty highway vehicles. The same retrofit technologies and cleaner alternative 

diesel fuels have been verified by CARB, and are increasingly being used to reduce NOx and 

PM emissions from in-use off-road heavy-duty diesel equipment. These technologies are 

capable of reducing NOx emissions by at least 25%, and include diesel oxidation catalysts, 

combination of NOx reduction catalyst with particulate traps, and emulsified diesel fuels. 

Recent technological advancements in flywheel design have been demonstrated on a rubber tire 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCOFFRD-02 

 IV-B-2-32 

gantry crane that resulted in about a 30 percent reduction in NOx emissions. In addition, 

electrification is a feasible control option for 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 table at the beginning of this 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 matter emissions by 2014). Additional emission 

reductions would occur with an accelerated replacement of existing yard tractors with the 

cleanest on-road engines, beyond the requirements of the existing state regulation. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

The cost and cost effectiveness will vary depending on the type of control technologies 

implemented. The cost-effectiveness has 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 will require terminal operators to acquire the 

cleanest cargo handling equipment. 

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 #2007SCOFFRD-03 

 IV-B-2-33 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM LOCOMOTIVES 

[NOX, PM] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES (ALL CLASSES) 

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATED REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING LOCOMOTIVE 

ENGINES MEETING TIER 3 OR CLEANER EXHAUST 

STANDARDS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 33.8 18.3 22.6 

 NOX REDUCTION 14.3 10.5

 NOX REMAINING 4.0 12.1 

PM10 INVENTORY 0.8 0.8 0.8 

 PM10 REDUCTION 0.6 0.4

 PM10 REMAINING 0.2 0.4 

PM2.5 INVENTORY 0.8 0.7 0.8 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION 0.6 0.4

 PM2.5 REMAINING 0.1 0.4 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 33.8 18.3 22.6 

 NOX REDUCTION 14.3 10.5

 NOX REMAINING 4.0 12.1 

CONTROL COST: THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS CONTROL MEASURE WILL 

VARY DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT. 

THE AVERAGE COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS ESTIMATED TO BE 

AROUND $5,100/TON. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: 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 drives 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 Tier-1 standards for new 2002-2004 locomotives; and 

modestly stringent Tier-2 standards for 2005 and newer locomotives. However, these standards 

did not match the stringency of adopted emission standards for on-road diesel 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, possibly starting with 2011 models. The U.S. EPA 

indicated that the new locomotive standards would consider emission control technologies 

proposed for heavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles, including selective catalytic 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 California, 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 these 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 California, 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 Reduction Plan for Ports and Goods Movement in 

California (GMERP). This plan proposes several control measures including a call for U.S. 

EPA to adopt Tier-3 locomotive emission standards which would reduce Tier-2 NOx and PM by 

90 percent starting with 2011 locomotives. California fleet penetration of Tier-3 locomotives is 

projected for 40 percent in 2015 and 90 percent 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 the Plan calls for switchers operating at the ports 

to be 90 percent cleaner than current Tier-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-engine 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. Non-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 locomotives 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-emission advanced transportation systems such as 

maglev or linear induction systems. These systems would offset a large portion of the 

locomotive activity in the Basin and would represent an alternative means of achieving the 

emission reductions associated with this measure. 

CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AVAILABILITY 

Three technologies are currently available for controlling locomotive diesel engines: SCR, 

DPFs and DOCs. 

SCR has been used for many years on large stationary engines for NOx control. Locomotives 

are propelled by engines similar to such stationary engines. By increasing the ruggedness and 

durability of the current SCR systems, NOx emissions 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 water. 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 Engineering 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 demonstrating these DPFs on switch locomotives with 

EMD two-cycle engines. Switch locomotives spend much time idling and generally have cooler 

diesel exhaust which does not self-initiate regeneration of the collected soot. As such, DPF 

systems on switch locomotives use a fuel-fired burner 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 developed 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 exhaust stream, usually by at least 30 percent. 

Recently, EPA has demonstrated retrofit DOCs on a line-haul locomotive. 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 TECHNOLOGY APPLICABILITY 

Tier-3 Locomotive Penetration

CARB is proposing in the GMERP 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 investigated 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 Metrolink 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 engines run at nearly full power and have hightemperature exhaust. Such operation is compatible 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 commercially available in the next one to two years. Such aftertreatment systems would be applicable to these locomotives and will provide maximum NOx 

and PM control. 

The replacement of conventional switch locomotives with hybrid switchers results in the use of 

EPA non-road engines to generate electric power. Depending upon the rated horsepower this 

will result in a mix of Tier-2, Tier-3, and Tier-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 Tier-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 lowering these non-road engines to Tier-4 emission levels. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

Full implementation of the proposed control measure would result in a 14.3 tons/day reduction 

in NOx and 0.6 tons/day reduction in particulate matter emissions by 2014. Further reductions 

are achieved by 2023 with greater penetration of retrofits as described above. Other actions 

such as advanced cargo transportation systems that have near-zero to zero-emissions may 

provide emission reduction equivalency 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 cost 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 emission standards for locomotives. In addition, the 

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have authority as landlords to impose certain conditions 

on leases and other contractual arrangements, potentially including port-wide conditions. 

REFERENCES 

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

Miratech, Inc., Personal Communications. (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 

SOURCE CATEGORY: AIRPORT GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

CONTROL METHODS: REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FLEET ZEV MANDATES AND STRICTER 

FLEET AVERAGE EMISSION STANDARDS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 1.0 0.5 0.4 

 VOC REDUCTION 0.3 0.3

 VOC REMAINING 0.2 0.1 

NOX INVENTORY 2.8 1.2 2.1 

 NOX REDUCTION 0.8 1.6

 NOX REMAINING 0.4 0.5 

PM10 INVENTORY >0.1 >0.1 >0.1 

 PM10 REDUCTION >0.1 >0.1

 PM10 REMAINING >0.1 >0.1 

PM2.5 INVENTORY >0.1 >0.1 >0.1 

PM2.5 REDUCTION >0.1 >0.1

PM2.5 REMAINING >0.1 >0.1 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 0.9 0.5 0.4 

 VOC REDUCTION 0.3 0.3

 VOC REMAINING 0.2 0.1 

NOX INVENTORY 2.6 1.1 0.9 

 NOX REDUCTION 0.7 0.6

 NOX REMAINING 0.4 0.3 

CONTROL COST: $1,200 PER TON

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Require additional electrification of airport ground support equipment (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 limited to starting aircraft, 

transporting fuel and cargo, loading 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 executed 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 existing and new GSE fleet, 

respectively, and a fleet average emission rate for VOC and NOx combined. The MOU is 

voluntary in nature since it does not assure emission reductions 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, CARB adopted a regulation for large spark-ignited 

(LSI) equipment including ground support equipment 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 MOU requirement, an additional 15% of GSE in 

the South Coast Air Basin could be electrified by charging on-board battery packs using grid 

power and some categories of GSE can potentially be powered using 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-wide 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 lowering 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 Support 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 

SOURCE CATEGORY: TRANSPORT REFRIGERATION UNITS 

CONTROL METHODS: PROMULGATE MORE STINGENT EXHAUST AND OPERATIONS 

STANDARDS, AND ACCELERATE FLEET TURNOVER

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 7.2 9.3 10.1 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.1 5.3

 NOX REMAINING 8.2 4.8 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 7.1 9.2 10.0 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.1 5.3

 NOX REMAINING 8.1 4.7 

CONTROL COST: APPROXIMATELY $10,000 PER TON

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: 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 small diesel engine (7-36 hp) powered unit where 

either the engine powers the refrigeration unit directly or powers a generator 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 insulated semi-trailers, trucks vans, shipping 

containers and railcars in 2014. By 2020 the number 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 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 

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 promulgated regulations in 2004 that require in-use 

PM emission limits for TRU engines as well 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 incentives to further increase the fleet turnover 

and either replace or retrofit 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 with 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 engines. It is expected that the technology will 

achieve similar reductions for the 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 off-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 this control strategy will be similar. To offset the cost of this 

control measure, a financial support program, similar to the Carl Moyer Program, may be 

necessary. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

CARB has the legal authority to require accelerated engine and equipment retrofit programs. 

This strategy may need to be implemented with incentive programs. 

REFERENCES 

CARB staff report – Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rule Making, “Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure for In-use Diesel Fueled Transport Refrigeration Units (TRU), and TRU 

Generator Sets, and Facilities Where 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 

SOURCE CATEGORY: PLEASURE CRAFT

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATE TURNOVER OF PLEASURE CRAFT FLEET TO 

MEET MOST STRINGENT EXISTING STANDARD BY 2014 AND 

MEET NEW MORE STRINGENT STANDARDS IN 2021 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 35.5 21.6 17.4 

 VOC REDUCTION 3.1 11.8

 VOC REMAINING 18.5 5.6 

NOX INVENTORY 6.7 9.7 10.1 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.1 6.8

 NOX REMAINING 8.6 3.3 

PM10 INVENTORY 2.2 3.8 6.0 

 PM10 REDUCTION 0.8 5.3

 PM10 REMAINING 3.0 0.7 

PM2.5 INVENTORY 1.6 2.9 4.5 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION 0.6 4.0

 PM2.5 REMAINING 2.3 0.5 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 57.7 34.9 28.2 

 VOC REDUCTION 5.1 19.2

 VOC REMAINING 29.8 9.0 

NOX INVENTORY 10.5 15.3 16.0 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.7 10.7

 NOX REMAINING 13.6 5.3 

CONTROL COST: APPROXIMATELY $525 MILLION THROUGH 2020 AT A COST 

EFFECTIVENESS RANGE BETWEEN $850 TO $2,500 PER TON OF 

(VOC+NOX+20XPM2.5) CONTROLLED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: 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 currently 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 engines, and develop more stringent catalyst based standards for 

all pleasure craft gasoline categories. 

Regulatory History 

The regulation of emissions from mobile sources is primarily accomplished through CARB and 

U.S. EPA regulations. EPA’s 40CFR Part 91, Control of Emissions from Marine Spark Ignition 

Engines, requires all spark ignited outboard marine engines to meet certain hydrocarbon and 

NOx emissions standards starting with model year 1998. Also, CARB’s Title 13 requires all 

pleasure craft spark ignited engines to meet certain hydrocarbon and NOx 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 drive engines will be required to 

meet a standard of 5 g/kw-hr. The standards will result in engines being up to 10 times cleaner 

than the oldest engines in the fleet. However, the emission standards remain far above the 

standards for other spark ignited engine categories. For example, CARB’s most recent 

regulation for Large Spark Ignited (LSI) engines requires engines to soon meet a 0.8 g/kw-hr 

emission standard (10 to 20 times lower than the most stringent pleasure craft standards) and 

states that with advanced technology even lower levels are achievable. While the duty cycle 

and operational environment (in or on the water) provide different challenges than those for land 

based spark ignited engines in achieving the lowest emission levels, there certainly appears to be 

opportunity for additional reductions through further engine modifications and the addition of 

exhaust catalysts. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

CARB would implement programs to accelerate retirement or retrofit approximately 20% more 

than would be achieved with natural turnover of the pleasure craft engines not meeting the most 

stringent emission standards by 2014, and (2) develop new emission standards and regulations 

that ensure that the entire pleasure craft fleet meet the new standards by 2020. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

If through an accelerated retirement 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 drive 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 standards (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 performance) and increasing natural turnover so that the entire 

pleasure craft fleet to meet these standards by 2023 would result in VOC reduction of 
Final 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. replacement 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 pleasure craft owners to scrap their old vessel 

and purchase a newer cleaner one. The cost effectiveness 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 average additional cost of modifying the engine and 

adding a catalyst to meet more stringent standards 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 incentivize 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 effectiveness of this measure would be about $2,500 per 

ton of (VOC+NOx+20xPM2.5) controlled in 2023. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND ISSUES 

CARB has the legal authority to require in-use retrofit controls and accelerated engine 

replacement programs. This strategy can be implemented as a phased, command-and-control 

regulation, complimented with market incentive programs. 

REFERENCES 

1. Emissions from Two Outboard Engines Operating 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, Fleet 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 intentionally left blank. 
GROUP 3 

CLEANER FUELS CONTROL MEASURES 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-01 

 IV-B-2-47 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

GASOLINE FUELS 

[NOX, SOX] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ON- AND OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES

CONTROL METHODS: LOWER SULFUR CONTENT IN GASOLINE FUELS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 402.9 149.5 92.6 

 NOX REDUCTION 6.0 3.7

 NOX REMAINING 143.5 88.9 

SOX INVENTORY 2,5 2.0 2.2 

 SOX REDUCTION 1.4 1.5

 SOX REMAINING 0.6 0.7 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 389.2 9.2 95.5 

 NOX REDUCTION 1.1 3.8

 NOX REMAINING 8.1 91.6 

CONTROL COST: $10,041/TON

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: 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 (RFG3) 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, among other parameters related to exhaust and 

evaporative emissions; the Alliance also recommended that the specification be amended to 

include a new Distillation Index criterion to address drivability issues. Based in part on this 

Charter, this control measure would establish tighter 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 deadline for the phase-out of methyl tertiary-butyl 

ether (MTBE). Major amendments including a prohibition of the use of MTBE in gasoline 
Final 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 Predictive Model [§ 2265(a)] were adopted June 16, 

2000. Other amendments made numerous changes, including establishing specifications for 

denatured ethanol intended for blending into gasoline, establishing a CARBOB model and 

downstream CARBOB cap limits, making other changes regarding blending ethanol into 

gasoline, and establishing a mechanism for a small 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 leverage international efforts to enhance gasoline fuel quality beyond those 

reflected in RFG3. The Alliance proposed that stricter standards be pursued on an expedited 

basis. CARB has recently issued a draft updated version of the Predictive Model used to qualify 

California gasoline formulations, and expects to finalize this model by the 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 lowering 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 fuels 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 efficiency. Specifically, auto manufacturers 

consider such lower sulfur fuel to have a major enabling effect in helping to optimize and 

commercialize direct injection gasoline 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 limits 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 shown 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 tighter specifications should be adopted for “markets with 

additional advanced requirements for emission controls, to enable sophisticated NOx aftertreatment technologies.” [3] Data compiled by the Alliance demonstrates that further emission 

reductions are possible with cleaner gasoline specifications. 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 cleaner 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 were made ranged from 6 to 11¢ per gallon, while 

actual costs were found to be much lower, approximately 4¢ per gallon. Refinery modifications 

for the proposed cleaner gasoline could include added hydrotreating, broader fluid catalytic 

cracker (FCC) naptha processing and other desulfurization 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 through higher catalyst loadings and operating 

pressures. Such steps could be expected to require more frequent equipment maintenance and 

catalyst changes. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the marginal capital 

cost of new desulfurization capacity is approximately 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 and 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 severe refining modifications involving additional refining 

modifications, such as C4 and C5 alkylate production, to accommodate a zero summertime 

ethanol specification, at least for the South Coast Air Basin, commencing after 2017 or earlier if 

feasible. Although a zero ethanol fuel specification 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 measure focuses on sulfur reduction alone; it is 

recognized that there are near term infrastructure constraints, market pressures and greenhouse 

gas policy objectives which underlie current plans to continue and 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 control 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 capital costs of refinery modification 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/gasoline/050103rfg3regheader.doc 

2. Alliance of Auto Manufacturers, “CARFG3 – Unfinished Business”, CARB Workshop, 

April 24, 2002, http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/gasoline/meeting/2002/042402AAMPrstn.pdf 
Final 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 Manufacturers Association, and the Japan Auto 

Manufacturers Association, December, 2002. http://www.autoalliance.org/fuel_charter.htm 

4. UOP, The Role of the Merox Process in an Era of Ultra Low Sulfur Transportation Fuels, 

EMEA Catalyst Technology Conference, 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/feature/lidder2.pdf , pg. 11. 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02 

 IV-B-2-52 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM DIESEL FUELS 

[NOX, PM] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES

CONTROL METHODS: DISPLACEMENT OF CONVENTIONAL DIESEL FUELS WITH 

DIESEL FUEL ALTERNATIVES

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 462.3 288.8 160.3 

 NOX REDUCTION 6.4 7.1

 NOX REMAINING 282.4 153.2 

PM10 INVENTORY 23.6 12.8 5.9 

 PM10 REDUCTION 0.6 0.6

 PM10 REMAINING 12.2 5.3 

PM2.5 INVENTORY 21.7 11.8 5.4 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION 0.6 0.5

 PM2.5 REMAINING 11.2 4.9 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 465.3 290.9 162.2 

 NOX REDUCTION 6.4 7.1

 NOX REMAINING 284.5 155.1 

CONTROL COST: $10,468/TON OF NOX AND PM REDUCED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB, SCAQMD

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

Background 

CARB has adopted minimum specifications for diesel fuel. These specifications 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 higher aromatic-containing diesel fuel through their exercise of 

ARB’s discretion to authorize alternative “equivalent” formulations. 

The specifications proposed here reflect a different approach to regulating diesel fuel. There are 

two aspects to this proposed measure. In the aggregate, the goal of this measure is to displace 

10% of conventional diesel by 2014 through a combination 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 displacement 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 emission 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 requirements for on-road diesel fuel, in 2003 they 

adopted more stringent requirements which reduced 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 formulations which can greatly exceed the nominal 

10% aromatic limit, as refiners are allowed the 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 Report envisions that by 2020, 20 percent of the 

conventional fuel usage could be displaced with alternatives such as natural 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 regulations requiring the use of diesel fuel 

alternatives as a blending agent or to reformulate 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 conventional diesel fuel – approximately 0.27 billion 

gallons statewide annually – would be displaced with diesel alternatives. Incentives of 

approximately 15¢ per gallon or equivalent 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 proceeding analysis. As a result, approximately 

300 million gallons of the California diesel fuel 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 variety of diesel fuel alternatives, 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-Tropsch GTL fuels, estimates that a natural gas 

reserve of 20 trillion cubic feet (TCF) could supply the entire California diesel market with GTL 

for 30 years, and that uncommitted global stranded 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 conventional diesel fuel prices, while additional 

controls on diesel fuel could lower this to approximately 7¢ per gallon over reformulated diesel 

over the longer term. In order to achieve the high penetration rates assumed in this measure, 

retail incentives in the range of 15¢ per gallon are projected as necessary. 

GTL makes a high quality diesel blend component as well as a neat fuel option; similar to DME, 

it contains no sulfur or aromatic compounds. The miscibility of GTL with conventional diesel 

helps ensure the cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation. The miscibility of DME with 

propane can also help rationalize the economics of its application 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 diesel 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 particulate matter, respectively, by 2023. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

During the initial stages of diesel alternative 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 effectiveness 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 during the early years of its introduction. 

However, these costs are a relatively small portion of the total costs 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 defined 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 diesel, including the miscibility of GTL diesel 

(sometimes referred to as Fisher-Tropsch Diesel) with the current distribution system, helps 

reduce the incremental cost of this proposal. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY 

CARB has the authority to establish stricter diesel specifications that would allow for blending 

of conventional diesel fuel with diesel fuel alternatives. Current refinery capabilities vary in the 

degree of modifications necessary to accommodate these proposed standards. The 

implementation date needs to reflect the reasonable time requirements for refiner capital 

modifications to their facilities. Because the diesel specified in this proposal is inherently 

fungible in pipelines, logistic constraints which inhibit product exchange agreements are not 

expected. 

The lead time for full implementation of these specifications 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 Diesel Fact Sheet (Original issued in August, 1993) 

2. ARB Reformulated Diesel Fact Sheet Updated October 6, 2000 

3. Diesel Fuel Effects on Locomotive Exhaust Emissions, SWRI, 2000 

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

5. Durbin, T.D, et. al., Evaluation of the Effects of Alternative Diesel Fuel Formulation on 

Exhaust Emission Rates and Reactivity, Final Report, CE-CERT, April 1999. 

6. Sasol Limited, “Gas to Liquids – Global Prospects”, Pat Davies, to Deutche Bank Oil & Gas 

Conference, September 2003 

7. CEC, AB 2076, Petroleum Displacement Report, Appendix B, Staff Paper on Option 2I, 

Fischer Tropsch Diesel 

8. Rudolf Maly, DaimlerChrysler, “Effects of GTL Diesel Fuels on Emissions and Engine 

Performance”, 10th Diesel Engine Emissions Reduction Conference, Coronado, California, 

September, 2004. 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SCFUEL-02 

 IV-B-2-56 

This page is intentionally left blank. 
GROUP 4 

LONG-TERM MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES 
Final 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 

SOURCE CATEGORY: ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATED FLEET TURN-OVER, RETROFITS, ENGINE 

STANDARDS; ADVANCED CARGO TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 630.0 292.2 164.1 

 NOX REDUCTION 67.9

 NOX REMAINING 96.2 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 612.9 286.8 161.3 

 NOX REDUCTION 68.2

 NOX REMAINING 93.1 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: 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-, medium-, 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 strategies 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 technologies as well as improvement 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 regulations affecting on-road mobile sources. 

For the most part, these regulations have established 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 modernization 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 further 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 penetration of ATPZEVs and ZEVs; 2) modernization 

of heavy-duty vehicles through replacements or retrofits; 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 vehicles 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 Emitting Cargo Transportation Technologies 

Fuels ■ More stringent gasoline and diesel specifications; 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 programs. Furthermore, 

achieving further reductions from this source category 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 modernization program could be instituted to require 

the replacement of the remaining trucks not meeting the 2010 model year standard in 2020 after 

implementation of short-term measures. Reformulation of gasoline and diesel fuels coupled 

with requirements for greater use of diesel alternatives (e.g., gas-to-liquid, alternative fuels, etc.) 

would also provide an opportunity for additional long-term NOx, VOC, and PM reductions from 

on-road mobile sources. 

Advanced cargo transportation technologies such as Maglev and other types of linear induction 

motor technologies could also be used to transport containers to and from ports thereby 

significantly reducing emissions from heavy-duty trucks. Such alternative electric propulsion 

systems would have the added benefit of reducing 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 provide 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-01A 

 IV-B-2-59 

the potential for achieving long-term emission reductions. Implementation of the long-term 

measures will require significant technology development and commercialization as well as 

considerable amount of funding. 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

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

RULE COMPLIANCEAND TEST METHODS 

Compliance for this control measure would be primarily based on CARB’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 and 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 aircraft engine standards. The District will work closely with 

CARB and U.S. EPA in developing and implementing these strategies. The following table 

outlines the proposed implementation schedule and associated milestones. Implementation of 

these control strategies and technologies would require continued research, 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 2010-2023 
Final 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 

SOURCE CATEGORY: HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES (14,001 AND GREATER GVWR) 

CONTROL METHODS: INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FOR HEAVY-DUTY 

VEHICLES USING VISUAL INSPECTIONS AND ON-BOARD 

DIAGNOSTICS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY * 

 NOX REDUCTION *

 NOX REMAINING * 

PM10 INVENTORY * 

 PM10 REDUCTION *

 PM10 REMAINING * 

PM2.5 INVENTORY * 

 PM2.5 REDUCTION *

 PM2.5 REMAINING * 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 

NOX INVENTORY * 

 NOX REDUCTION *

 NOX REMAINING * 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB AND BUREAU OF AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR

* The emission reductions associated with this measure are part of the 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 vehicles 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 material throughout the United States. Currently, 

about 190,000 heavy-duty vehicles operate in the SCAQMD, and this number is projected to 

increase to 240,000 by 2020. The oxides of nitrogen (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 approximately 28 percent and 16 percent to the total 

statewide mobile source NOx 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 mileage. The causes of these emissions increases 

are numerous, but can be broadly categorized in terms of normal deterioration of properly 

functioning on-board emission control system components, malfunctioning emission control 

system components due to design flaws and/or lack of proper maintenance, or tampered 

emission control system components. In recognition that potential substantial emission 

reductions could be generated by programs that would regularly emission test in-use vehicles, 

smog check programs have been established to systematically inspect and emission test in-use 

vehicles for the purpose of identifying and repairing 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 passenger cars and trucks up to 10,000 lbs GVWR to be inspected at various 

times (typically biennially) throughout the vehicle life. Unlike the established Smog Check 

program for light-duty passenger vehicles and trucks, there has been no similar program adopted 

in California to periodically check emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. It should be noted, 

however, that two programs have been implemented by CARB that begin to address the 

problem of excess emissions coming from heavy-duty 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/emission testing conducted at random 

roadside checkpoints and border crossings. The second program is the Periodic Smoke 

Inspection Program, which requires diesel vehicle and bus fleet owners to conduct annual 

inspections of their vehicles and repair those vehicles with excessive smoke emissions. 

Regulatory History 

In recognition of the on-road heavy-duty vehicle fleet’s significant contribution to ozone and 

particulate matter formation in the South Coast Air Basin and its contribution to toxic air 

contaminants, much more stringent NOx and PM standards have been adopted for new heavyduty engines. In 2004, the NOx emission standard was reduced by over 60 percent and PM 

emissions standard by over 80 percent compared to the emission standards of 1990. Complying 

with the 2004 standard required improved engine designs and emission control technologies, 

such as exhaust gas recirculation, or EGR. 

In 2007, the NOx 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 control system improvements including the use of 

more advanced EGR strategies. The most advanced 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 California to develop an expanded inspection and 

maintenance (I/M) program for heavy-duty diesel trucks by 2015. Specifically, the current 

smoke inspection program should be expanded to include (1) a visual under-the-hood inspection 

of the emission control devices, (2) an electronic check of the truck’s on-board computer, and 

(3) use of remote sensing technology to assess in-use heavy-duty diesel truck emissions. 

As mentioned previously, CARB currently has the authority to conduct roadside inspections of 

heavy-duty diesel trucks for the purpose of determining compliance with tampering and tailpipe 

opacity requirements. With the advent and requirement of on-board-diagnostic (OBD) 

instrumentation for heavy-duty diesel engines beginning in 2010, a program can be developed to 

periodically monitor the operating parameters of the engine and 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 increased rates of emissions deterioration caused by 

tampering and malmaintenance of exhaust aftertreatment 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 expense of excess pollution. In an effort to address this situation 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board 

entered into a consent decree agreement with engine manufacturers in 1998. One requirement of 

this agreement was a not-to-exceed (NTE) component for 1998 and later model year engines. 

The NTE limits have been introduced as an additional 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 measure 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 consent decree order. As an additional tool to 

monitor compliance with NTE limits, these proposed control 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 expected that these emission reductions would be similar to those 

achieved under the current Inspection and Maintenance Program applicable to light- and 

medium-duty vehicles. 

RULE COMPLIANCE AND TEST METHODS 

As more heavy-duty diesel engine trucks become equipped with on-board diagnostic devices, 

the opportunity exists to develop a program requiring 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 vehicle I/M program would check for an illuminated 

MIL light and/or connect a diagnostic tool into the heavy-duty vehicle’s OBD system for the 

purpose of downloading fault codes and related information that would assist the technician in 
Final 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 potentially excessive emissions for NOx and particulate matter. 

Establishment of NTE test procedures for 1998 and older heavy-duty diesel engines could be 

similar to those test procedures established for 1998 and newer heavy-duty diesel engines. 

COST EFFECTIVENESS 

Overall cost-effectiveness values for this control measure would require additional study. As a 

guide, the cost-effectiveness value for the current 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 estimated 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 Consider Amendments Adopting More Stringent 

Emission Standards for 2007 and Subsequent Model Year New Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines, 

September 7, 2001. 

Department of Consumer Affairs/Bureau of Automotive 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 Smoke 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 

SOURCE CATEGORY: OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCE CATEGORIES

CONTROL METHODS: ACCELERATED FLEET TURN-OVER, RETROFITS, ENGINE 

STANDARDS

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 373.3 285.0 267.9 

 NOX REDUCTION 115.6

 NOX REMAINING 152.3 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 2002 2014 2023 

NOX INVENTORY 379.1 292.3 275.3 

 NOX REDUCTION 116.3

 NOX REMAINING 159.0 

CONTROL COST: NOT DETERMINED

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: 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., construction and industrial equipment), marine vessels, 

trains, pleasure craft, and aircraft. The objective of this long-term control measure is to achieve 

further NOx reductions from off-road mobile sources beyond those achieved through CARB’s 

and AQMD’s proposed short-term strategies 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 technologies as well as improvement 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 regulations affecting off-road mobile sources. 

For the most part, these regulations have established 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 retrofit of existing vehicles and equipment in order to 

achieve the level of reductions 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 further NOx reductions from various off-road mobile 

source categories beyond the reductions achieved from the short-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 new 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 Measures for Off-Road Mobile Sources 

Off-Road Diesel 

Vehicles 

■ Expanded modernization and retrofit 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 Cargo 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 for jet aircraft (engine standards, 

clean fuels, operational controls, retrofit controls) 

For off-road heavy diesel equipment, opportunities 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 providing 90% and higher NOx reduction benefits for 

Tier 2, Tier 3, and even Tier 4 engines. Reformulation of gasoline and diesel fuels coupled 

with requirements for using diesel 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 technologies such as Maglev and other types of linear induction 

motor technologies could also be used to transport containers to and from ports thereby 

significantly reducing emissions from locomotives. Such alternative electric propulsion systems 

would have the added benefit of reducing 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. 

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 retrofit 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-02 

 IV-B-2-66 

program (i.e., SCR or equivalent technologies) which would target all vessels calling on the San 

Pedro Bay ports (i.e., including those making non-frequent or less frequent calls) to achieve 

higher levels of NOx reductions from 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 retrofit technologies provides another strategy for 

achieving long-term reductions. In addition, aircraft emissions could be further reduced through 

strategies such as lower engine emission standards, reformulation of jet fuel, operational 

controls (e.g., reduced idling) and installation of retrofit kits which would require extensive 

technology development. 

Implementation of these measures will require significant technology development and 

commercialization as well as considerable 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 CARB’s regulation(s) and 

incentive-based programs affecting existing off-road mobile sources. In addition, U.S. EPA 

could adopt regulations for new and existing sources 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 and 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 aircraft engine standards. The District will work closely with 

CARB and U.S. EPA in developing and implementing these strategies. The following table 

outlines the proposed implementation schedule and associated milestones. Implementation of 

these control strategies and technologies would require continued research, 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 2015-2023 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 CM #2007SC-LTM-03 

 IV-B-2-68 

FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

[VOC] 

CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY 

SOURCE CATEGORY: CONSUMER PRODUCT

CONTROL METHOD:

REQUIRE ULTRA LOW VOC PRODUCTS

THIS CONTROL MEASURE WILL SEEK ADDITIONAL REDUCTIONS 

FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS BY TRANSFERRING LOW- AND 

ULTRA-LOW VOC STATIONARY SOURCE TECHNOLOGIES TO 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

EMISSIONS (TONS/DAY): 

ANNUAL AVERAGE 2002 2014 2023 

VOC INVENTORY 110.4 102.6 109.5 

 VOC REDUCTION 20.0

 VOC REMAINING 89.5 

SUMMER PLANNING 

INVENTORY 

VOC INVENTORY 110.4 102.6 109.5 

 VOC REDUCTION 20.0

 VOC REMAINING 89.5 

CONTROL COST: THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EMISSION 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 STATIONARY SOURCE APPLICATIONS. 

OTHER CONSUMER PRODUCT CATEGORIES WERE ESTIMATED 

AT LESS THAN $5,000 PER TON. REFORMULATION OF 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS MAY IMPACT MANUFACTURERS BY 

INCREASING THEIR PRODUCTION COSTS. THE INCREMENTAL 

COSTS WOULD BE PASSED ON TO CONSUMERS THROUGH 

INCREASED PRICES FOR AFFECTED CONSUMER PRODUCTS. 

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: CARB 

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 

A consumer product is defined as a chemically formulated product used by household and 

institutional consumers. Consumer products include, 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 would still remain a significant source of VOC 

emissions in the Basin contributing to the formation 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 category are estimated at 107.1 and 112.1 tons per day 

in 2014 and 2020, respectively. Short-term control 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 category can be further 

reduced by transferring low-VOC technology developed for stationary sources. 

Regulatory History 

CARB has primary authority over consumer products 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 regulations 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 South 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 CONS1 from the 2003 Plan, CONS2 has yet to by 

fully developed and implemented. 

PROPOSED METHOD OF CONTROL 

This measure proposes to implement low-VOC technologies developed for stationary sources 

into categories with similar uses in consumer products. In addition, the use of lower reactive 

VOC compounds could offer the potential for achieving equivalent reductions. 

SCAQMD’s aggressive stationary source regulatory program has resulted in the development of 

remarkably less polluting coating, adhesive and solvent technologies with exceptional 

performance characteristics. This proposed strategy seeks further emission reductions from 

consumer products by transferring the low-VOC technology developed for stationary sources to 

comply with rules in Regulation XI, such as Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, Rule 

1168 – Adhesives, Rule 1122 – Solvent Degreasers and others to categories of consumer 

products used in similar applications. These technologies include advances in aqueous, lowVOC and non-VOC (exempt) cleanup solvents, adhesive 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 listing of some categories from consumer products 

that have the potential for significant emission reductions (50% - 75%): 

• Paint Thinner – carryover technology from Rule 1171. Low- and zero-VOC 

technology available and effective for clean-up operations can replace high-VOC (> 

700 g/l) counterparts (non-architectural paint 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 cleaners 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 technology from Rule 1171. Low- and zeroVOC technology available 

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

• Contact Adhesive – carryover technology from Rule 1168 – Adhesives 

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

Adhesives 

• Lubricants (Total of four Consumer Products Categories) – Waterborne and synthetic 

lubricants available and in use 

• Hairspray – Non-VOC propellant and delivery 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/commercial applications and subject to Rule 1171 have 

to meet a VOC limit of 25 g/l, but when sold as a consumer product 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 solvents (e.g. acetone). These products are subject 

to highly demanding performance standards dictated by a highly competitive market and many 

of the technologies are directly applicable to consumer products. Consistency between 

industrial applications and consumer products can also assist rule effectiveness of existing 

source-specific rules. 

Consumer products can come in different 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 where low-VOC alternatives are available. 

Functioning equivalent, yet low-emitting products, do exist in many instances. 

Although this measure focuses on certain categories of consumer products with a large 

inventory, the lower-VOC technology can be further implemented into other smaller emission 

categories found within Consumer Products. In addition, the use of lower reactive VOC 

compounds could offer the potential for achieving equivalent reductions 

EMISSIONS REDUCTION 

The emission reductions from this long-term measure 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 emission 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 stationary 

source applications. CARB estimated the cost-effectiveness of recent VOC emission reductions 

from consumer product categories at less than $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 incremental costs would be passed on to consumers 

through increased prices for affected consumer products. 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 products and would be responsible for regulating 

these categories where possible or implementing this strategy. As an alternative to CARB 

implementing this strategy, the AQMD would regulate 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 legislation can be modified, 

emissions from consumer products can be further reduced by setting the lowest achievable VOC 

limits (or equivalent reductions) regardless of product types. The implementation 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 Regulation, Title 17 California Code of Regulations, 

Sections 94508, 94509, and 94513. 

2. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1168 – Adhesives and Sealant 

Applications, October 2003 

3. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1168 – Adhesives and Sealant 

Applications, January 2005 

4. SCAQMD, Staff Report, Proposed Amended Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, 

August 1996 
Final 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 Rule 1171 – Solvent Cleaning Operations, May 

2005 

8. Institute for Research & Technical 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 Regulation, September 29, 2006 
SECTION 3 

MOBILE SOURCE CONTROL OPTION 2 – MOBILE 

SOURCE EMISSION REDUCTIONS TO MEET RATE-OFPROGRESS 
Final 2007 AQMP: Appendix IV-B-2 Policy Option 2 

 IV-B-2-73 

INTRODUCTION 

Under this option the state would fulfill its NOx emission reduction 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 first option or other measures that the state 

identifies as part of the SIP public process. The rate of progress for NOx under Policy 

Option 2 is shown in Figure 1 (Section 1). 

As shown in Figure 1, the projected 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 emissions 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/day of NOx emission reductions have been 

achieved, leaving another 124 tons/day to be achieved by 2010. After 2010, an 

additional 208 tons/days of NOx emission reductions are needed to meet the federal 

PM2.5 ambient air quality standard by 2014. 

The state may choose to meet the 2010 obligation through a combination of the 

remaining commitments under the 2003 AQMP (shown 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 may identify. In addition, the state would need to identify 

additional reductions to be implemented by 2014 to meet the NOx emissions reduction 

levels needed to attain the federal PM2.5 ambient air quality standard. Again, this can 

be any set of measures the state identifies for 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 intentionally left blank. 
SECTION 4 

POLICY OPTION 3 – PUBLIC FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO 

ACHIEVE NEEDED ADDITIONAL EMISSION 

REDUCTIONS 
Final 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 standards or the cleanest offroad engine standards in effect today or after 2010. This would include funding for the 

replacement of on-road heavy-duty vehicles, off-road mobile equipment, pleasure craft, 

and off-road vehicles. 

Under Policy Option 3, CARB or the District 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 year, which represents funding over a five year period, is 

needed between 2009 and 2014. In addition, significant funding would be made 

available beginning in mid-2008 through 2014. The total public funding estimated to 

achieve the additional NOx emission reductions of 71 tons/day as identified in Table 2-

11, is about $3 billion based on the current Carl Moyer 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-effective than the $14,300/ton criteria. 

The total public funding needed of about $600 million 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 included these as a matter of perspective and is 

seeking comments and suggestions on appropriate funding sources. Currently, the 

District receives about $55 million per year, which a significant portion has been 

allocated by the District Governing Board to accelerate vehicle turnover including urban 

buses, school buses, and agricultural equipment. In addition, the Mobile Source 

Emissions Reduction Review Committee (MSRC) allocates a significant amount of 

funds to cleaner vehicles. The MSRC is currently allocating funding assistance for onroad engines meeting 2010 emissions standards and replacement of off-road equipment 

with current commercially available Tier 3 engines. In order to implement this option, 

additional funding must be identified within the next year and a half. Funding 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 related 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 Funding 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 provided for discussion purposes only