Appx VII

Air Quality Management Plan

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Cleaning the air that we breathe...

®

AQMD

December 2012

TRAN

S

P

O

RTATION

AIR QUALITY

ENERGY

CLIMATE

2012

1-Hour Ozone

Attainment Demonstration
FINAL 2012 AQMP

APPENDIX VII

2012 1-HOUR OZONE

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

DECEMBER 2012
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

GOVERNING BOARD

CHAIRMAN: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D.

Speaker of the Assembly Appointee

VICE CHAIR: DENNIS YATES

Mayor, Chino

Cities of San Bernardino

MEMBERS:

MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH

Supervisor, Fifth District

County of Los Angeles

JOHN J. BENOIT

Supervisor, Fourth District

County of Riverside

MICHAEL A. CACCIOTTI

Mayor, South Pasadena

Cities of Los Angeles County/Eastern Region

JOSIE GONZALES

Supervisor, Fifth District

San Bernardino County Representative

RONALD O. LOVERIDGE

Mayor, City of Riverside

Cities Representative, Riverside County

JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph.D.

Governor's Appointee

JUDITH MITCHELL

Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates

Cities of Los Angeles County/Western Region

SHAWN NELSON

Supervisor, Fourth District

County of Orange

CLARK E. PARKER, Ph.D.

Senate Rules Appointee

JAN PERRY

Councilmember, Ninth District

City of Los Angeles

MIGUEL A. PULIDO

Mayor, Santa Ana

Cities of Orange County

EXECUTIVE OFFICER:

BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env.
CONTRIBUTORS

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Elaine Chang, DrPH

Deputy Executive Officer

Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources

Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E. Henry Hogo

Assistant Deputy Executive Officer Assistant Deputy Executive Officer

Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Science and Technology Advancement

Joseph Cassmassi Philip Fine, Ph.D.

Planning and Rules Manager Planning and Rules Manager

Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources Planning, Rule Development, & Area Sources

Authors

Barbara Baird - District Counsel

Sang-Mi Lee, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist

Victoria Moaveni – Senior Air Quality 

Engineer Steve Smith, Ph.D. – Program Supervisor

Contributors

Tom Chico – Program Supervisor

Shoreh Cohanim – Air Quality Specialist

Kevin Durkee – Senior Meteorologist

Kathy Hsaio – Program Supervisor

Susan Yan – Air Quality Specialist

Xinqiu Zhang, Ph.D. – Air Quality Specialist

Production

Arlene Martinez – Administrative Secretary
Table of Contents

SECTION 1 – INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope................................................................................. VII-1

Background ........................................................................................ VII-1

New Ozone Standard ............................................................................. VII-1

EPA Action on 2003 1-Hour Ozone SIP Revision ........................................... VII-2

Litigation Over EPA’s 2009 Action ............................................................ VII-2

EPA Proposed SIP Call .......................................................................... VII-2

SECTION 2 – OZONE AIR QUALITY IN THE BASIN

Introduction ....................................................................................... VII-4

Ozone Health Effects ............................................................................ VII-4

Ozone Episodes.................................................................................... VII-4

1-Hour Ozone Levels in the South Coast Air Basin ......................................... VII-5

Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................. VII-6

 Federal Ozone Standards ..................................................... VII-6

 Design Values and NAAQS Attainment Status ....................................... VII-7

 Air Quality Compared to Other U.S. Metropolitan Areas............................ VII-8

SECTION 3 – BASE YEAR AND FUTURE YEAR EMISSIONS

Introduction ....................................................................................... VII-11

Base Year and Future Year Emissions ......................................................... VII-11

SECTION 4 – 1-HOUR OZONE SIP CONTROL STRATEGY

Introduction ....................................................................................... VII-17

2007 SIP Control Measures Carried Forward for the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment

Demonstration .................................................................................... VII-17

Final 2012 AQMP Proposed 8-Hour Ozone Control Measures for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration....................................................................... VII-18

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control Measures ...... VII-20

 Section I. Linking Regional Transportation Planning to Air Quality Planning ... VII-21

 Section II. Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation control

 Measures .................................................................................... VII-21

 Section III. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis ........... VII-22

Proposed Ozone Control Measures ............................................................. VII-23

 Proposed Ozone Stationary Source Measures ......................................... VII-28

 Coating and Solvents ................................................................ VII-30

 Combustion Sources ................................................................. VII-32

 Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions ........................... VII-32
 Multiple Component Sources ...................................................... VII-33

 Incentive Programs .............................................................................. VII-35

 Educational Programs .......................................................................... VII-35

 Proposed Ozone Mobile Source Measures .................................................... VII-36

 On-Road Mobile Source Measures .......................................................... VII-39

 Off-Road Mobile Source Measures .......................................................... VII-40

 Actions to Deploy Advanced Control Technologies ..................................... VII-41

Overall Emission Reductions ............................................................................... VII-45

SECTION 5 – 1-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

Introduction.................................................................................................. VII-47

Background.................................................................................................. VII-47

Attainment Demonstration Structure: Deterministic vs. Tiered Relative 

Response Factor (RRF)...................................................................................... VII-48

Modeling Protocol.......................................................................................... VII-49

Modeling Emissions Inventory............................................................................ VII-51

Episode Selection and Design Values.................................................................... VII-51

Base-Year Ozone Model Performance Evaluation........................................................ VII-54

Attainment Demonstration.................................................................................... VII-63

Weight of Evidence............................................................................................. VII-74

Summary and Conclusions................................................................................... VII-82

SECTION 6 – ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .............................................. VII-84

Socioeconomic analysis .......................................................................... VII-86
SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-1

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The purpose of the 2012 1-hour ozone SIP revision is to provide an attainment 

demonstration to respond to the U.S. EPA’s published ―SIP call‖ proposal on 

September 19, 2012, finding the existing approved 1-hour ozone SIP substantially 

inadequate to provide for attainment of the revoked 1-hour ozone standard by the 

applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010. EPA’s proposed SIP call was in 

turn a response to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Association 

of Irritated Residents, et al, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al.,

686 F. 2d 668 (Amended January 12, 2012).

The only new information presented in this Appendix is the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration described in Section 5. The other sections of this appendix are largely 

summaries or replications of information presented in the main volume or other 

appendices of the Final 2012 AQMP. This information is repeated here to provide

context and completeness in support of the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. 

BACKGROUND

In 1979, EPA established a primary health-based national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over a 1-hour 

period. See 44 Fed. Reg. 8220 (February 9, 1979). The Clean Air Act, as amended in 

1990, classified areas that had not yet attained that standard, based on the severity of 

their ozone problem, ranging from Marginal to Extreme. Extreme Areas were 

provided the most time to attain the standard, until November 15, 2010. On 

November 6, 1991, EPA classified the South Coast Air Basin as ―Extreme‖ 

nonattainment. As required under the 1990 amendments to the CAA, in 1994 the 

District and CARB submitted a 1-hour ozone ―state implementation plan‖ (SIP) 

revision. In 1997, EPA approved the 1-hour ozone SIP for the South Coast. 62 Fed. 

Reg. 1150 (January 8, 1997). In 1997 and 1999, CARB submitted revisions to the 

1994 South Coast 1-hour ozone SIP, which EPA approved in 2000. 65 Fed. Reg. 

18903 (April 10, 2000). 

In 2004, CARB submitted the 2003 revisions to the 1-hour ozone SIP which included 

updated emissions inventories showing higher mobile source emissions than had 

previously been projected and a lower ―carrying capacity‖ than previously predicted, 

along with new commitments to achieve specified amounts of VOC and NOx 

reductions needed to attain by the applicable date. 73 Fed. Reg. 63408, 63410, 

63416 (October 24, 2008). 

NEW OZONE STANDARD

In the meantime, in 1997 EPA promulgated a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 

ppm to replace the 1-hour standard. 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997). EPA 

promulgated rules to implement that standard. The ―Phase 1‖ rule, promulgated on 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-2

April 30, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 23951) established anti-backsliding requirements that 

would continue to remain in effect even though the existing 1-hour standard was 

revoked effective June 2005. See 40 CFR §51.905(a)(1) and §51.900(f). An Extreme 

area was required to have a fully-approved attainment demonstration in effect. (Id.).

EPA ACTION ON 2003 1-HOUR OZONE SIP REVISION

In 2008, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) withdrew key components of 

its emission reduction commitments in the 2003 South Coast 1-hour ozone SIP. See 

73 Fed. Reg. at 63410-12. In 2009, EPA approved certain elements of the 2003 

South Coast 1-Hour Ozone SIP but disapproved the attainment demonstration, 

largely because CARB’s 2008 withdrawal of emission reduction commitments 

rendered the plan insufficient to demonstrate attainment. 74 Fed. Reg. 10176, 10181 

(March 10, 2009). EPA also concluded that this disapproval did not trigger a 

sanctions clock or a FIP (federal implementation plan) because the approved SIP 

already contained an approved 1-hour attainment demonstration meeting CAA 

requirements, which was all that was necessary regarding the revoked 1-hour 

standard. 74 Fed. Reg. at 10177, 10181.

LITIGATION OVER EPA’S 2009 ACTION

Several environmental and community groups petitioned for review of EPA’s action 

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 2, 2011, the Ninth Circuit ruled 

in favor of petitioners. As pertinent here, the Court held that EPA must promulgate a 

FIP or issue a SIP call where EPA disapproves a new attainment demonstration 

unless the Agency determines that the SIP as approved remains adequate to 

demonstrate attainment of the relevant NAAQS. On May 5, 2011, EPA petitioned for 

panel rehearing, and amicus briefs were filed in support of EPA by the District, 

CARB, and SCAG. On January 27, 2012, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for 

rehearing but modified its opinion to delete references to sanctions. The court 

remanded the case to EPA, stating that ―EPA should have ordered California to 

submit a revised attainment plan for the South Coast after it disapproved the 2003 

Attainment Plan‖. Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F. 3d. 668, 681 (9th

Cir., reprinted as amended January 27, 2012, further amended February 13, 2012.)

The Court also issued a ruling regarding transportation control measures for ozone 

under CAA §182(d)(1)(A), which is discussed in Appendix VIII of the Final 2012 

AQMP. 

EPA PROPOSED SIP CALL

On September 19, 2012, EPA published a proposed SIP call under Section 110(k)(5) 

of the CAA, based on a determination that the applicable implementation plan (here, 

the 1997/99 plan approved April 10, 2000) ―is substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the relevant NAAQS...‖ The proposed SIP call is based on evidence 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-3

submitted in the form of the 2003 South Coast 1-hour Ozone Plan that the 1997/1999 

plan was substantially inadequate to provide for attainment. That plan noted that ―this 

revision points to the urgent need for additional emission reductions (beyond those

incorporated in the 1997-99 Plan) to offset increased emissions estimates from 

mobile sources...‖ (See 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, pages ES-1 and ES-2.) 

However, many of those additional emission reduction commitments were withdrawn 

by CARB in 2008. EPA also notes that on December 30, 2011, EPA determined that 

the South Coast Air Basin had failed to attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the 

applicable date of November 15, 2010, thus triggering a fee program or equivalent 

under CAA §185. 76 Fed. Reg. 82133 (December 30, 2011). This determination 

provides further support for the present SIP call because it establishes that the 

approved SIP did not in fact lead to attainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable date. 

As a result, the state must submit an attainment demonstration for the South Coast for 

the 1-hour ozone standard showing attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no 

later than five years from the effective date of the final SIP call, unless the State can 

demonstrate a need for a later date, not to exceed 10 years beyond the effective date 

of the SIP call, considering the severity of the remaining nonattainment problem and 

the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. CAA §172(a)(2).

EPA’s proposed SIP call would give the State up to one year after the effective date 

of the SIP call to submit the revised attainment demonstration. The District intends to 

demonstrate that a period of the full 10 years allowed by law is needed to attain the 

1-hour standard. The District plans to submit the updated 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration as part of the 2012 AQMP. 
SECTION 2

OZONE AIR QUALITY IN THE BASIN
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-4

INTRODUCTION

The U.S EPA has designated the Basin as extreme nonattainment for the revoked 

federal 1-hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm. The Basin had the highest number of 

days exceeding the federal 1-hour ozone standard of any urban area nationwide in 

2011. The following information on 1-hour ozone air quality is taken from Chapter 2 

and Appendix II of the Final 2012 AQMP, and is repeated here for completeness. 

The 1-hour ozone air quality data is used to support the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration.

OZONE HEALTH EFFECTS

The adverse effects of ozone air pollution exposure on health have been studied for 

many years, as is documented by a significant body of peer-reviewed scientific 

research, including studies conducted in southern California which shows that even 

relatively low concentrations of ozone can significantly reduce lung function in 

normal healthy people.

Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with preexisting lung disease, 

such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease, are considered the most 

susceptible sub-groups to ozone effects. Short-term exposures to ozone at levels 

typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, 

reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation 

of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are 

associated with increased school absences and daily hospital admission rates. An 

increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple 

sports and live in high ozone communities.

Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the 

above-mentioned observed responses. Animal studies suggest that exposures to a 

combination of pollutants which include ozone may be more toxic than exposure to 

ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes observed after a single 

exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear 

to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes.

OZONE EPISODES

While the 1-hour ozone episode levels and the related health warnings still exist, they 

have been largely superseded by the more protective health warnings associated with 

the current 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 1-hour O3 episode warning levels include the 

state Health Advisory (0.15 ppm), Stage 1 (0.20 ppm), Stage 2 (0.35 ppm) and Stage 

3 (0.50 ppm). Only the lowest of these 1-hour episode thresholds, the state Health 

Advisory, was exceeded in 2011. The last 1-hour O3 Stage 1 episode occurred in 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-5

2003. The last Stage 2 episode occurred in 1988, and the last Stage 3 episode 

occurred in 1974.

1-HOUR OZONE LEVELS IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN

In 2011, the District regularly monitored ozone concentrations at 29 locations in the 

Basin and the Coachella Valley portion of the SSAB. All areas monitored measured 

1-hour average ozone levels well below the Stage 1 episode level, but the maximum 

concentrations measured in the Basin exceeded the health advisory level in San 

Bernardino County. The maximum ozone concentrations in the Los Angeles, 

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties all exceeded the former 1-hour federal 

standard in 2011; Orange County and the Coachella Valley did not exceed that 

standard. Maximum ozone concentrations in the SSAB areas monitored by the 

District were lower than in the Basin and were below the health advisory level. 

Table VII-2-1 shows maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations by air basin and county.

TABLE VII-2-1

2011 Maximum 1-Hour Average Ozone Concentrations by Basin and County

BASIN/COUNT

Y

MAXIMUM

1-HR

AVERAGE

(PPM)

PERCENT 

OF

FEDERAL

STANDARD

(0.12 PPM)

AREA

South Coast Air 

Basin

Los Angeles 0.144 115 Santa Clarita Valley

Orange 0.095 76 North Orange County

Riverside 0.133 106 Lake Elsinore

San Bernardino 0.160 128 Central San Bernardino 

Mountains

Salton Sea Air Basin

Riverside 0.124 99 Coachella Valley

The number of days exceeding the former federal 1-hour ozone standard in the Basin 

varies widely by area (Figure VII-2-1). The former 1-hour federal standard was not 

exceeded in areas along or near the coast in the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange, 

due in large part to the prevailing sea breeze which transports emissions inland 

before high ozone concentrations are reached. The standard was exceeded most 

frequently in the Central San Bernardino Mountains. Ozone exceedances also 

extended through San Bernardino and Riverside County valleys in the eastern Basin, 

as well as the northeast and northwest portions of Los Angeles County in the foothill 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-6

and valley areas. The Central San Bernardino Mountains area recorded the greatest 

number of exceedances of the former 1-hour federal standard (8 days). The 

Coachella Valley did not exceed the former 1-hour ozone standard in 2011. 

FIGURE VII-2-1

Number of Days in 2011 Exceeding the 1979 1-Hour Federal Ozone Standard

(1-hour average O3 > 0.12 ppm)

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Federal Ozone Standards

The federal government has adopted ambient air quality standards, which define the 

concentration below which long-term or short-term exposure to a pollutant is not 

expected to cause adverse effects to public health and welfare. The current and 

revoked federal ozone ambient air quality standards and the effect of ozone on health 

are summarized in Table VII-2-2. As noted above, the federal 1-hour ozone standard 

was revoked in favor of the 8-hour ozone standard in 1997. 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-7

TABLE VII-2-2

Federal Ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards and Health Effects

Federal 

Standard

(NAAQS) Relevant Health and Welfare Effects# 

Concentration,

Averaging Time

0.075 ppm, 8-Hour

(2008)

0.08 ppm 8-Hour

(1997)

0.12 ppm, 1-hour

(1979, revoked in 

1997)

(a) Pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema 

in humans and animals; (b) Risk to public health implied by 

alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in 

animals; (c) Increased mortality risk; (d) Risk to public health 

implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered 

pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures 

and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed 

humans; (e) Vegetation damage; (f) Property damage

ppm – parts per million by volume

Federal standards follow the design value form of the NAAQS

# More detailed health effect information can be found in the 2012 AQMP Appendix I or the U.S. 

EPA NAAQS documentation at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/

Design Values and NAAQS Attainment Status

In 2011, 1- hour ozone levels exceeded federal standard concentration levels at one 

or more of the routine monitoring stations in the Basin. As shown in Table VII-2-1, 

maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations of 0.160 ppm recorded in the Central San 

Bernardino Mountains area were 128 percent of the former 1-hour federal standard. 

However, an exceedance of the concentration level does not necessarily mean a 

violation of the NAAQS, given that the form of the standard must be considered. Air 

quality statistics can be presented in terms of maximum concentrations measured at 

monitoring stations or in air basins, as well as the number of days exceeding state or 

federal standards. 

Attainment of the NAAQS is measured with three-year design values that take into 

account the form of the federal standards and multi-year averages. For 1-hour O3, the 

form of the standard is the 4th highest measured 1-hour average concentration at each 

station over a three-year period. The overall design value for an air basin is the 

highest design value of all the stations in that basin. Figure VII-2-2 shows the trends 

in the 1-hour ozone design values and the annual Basin days exceeding the former 1-

hour ozone NAAQS over the past two decades. 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-8

FIGURE VII-2-2

South Coast Air Basin Trends in Ozone Design Value and Annual Basin Days Exceeding the 

Former 1-hour NAAQS

Air Quality Compared to Other U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Despite significant improvement, the Basin still has some of the worst air quality in 

the nation in terms of the number of days per year exceeding the revoked federal 1-

hour ozone standard. Figures VII-2-3 and VII-2-4 show maximum 1-hour ozone 

concentrations in 2011 for the Basin compared to other urban areas in the U.S. and 

California, respectively. It is important to note that maximum pollutant 

concentrations do not necessarily indicate potential NAAQS violations and 

subsequent nonattainment designations, as the design values that are used for 

attainment status are based on the form of the standard.

NAAQS

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Ozone Concentration (ppm)

Basin Days Exceeding

Basin Days Exceeding 1-hr NAAQS 1-hr Design Value
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-9

FIGURE VII-2-3

2011 South Coast Air Basin 1-hour Ozone Air Quality Compared to Other U.S. Metropolitan 

Areas (Maximum Pollutant Concentrations as Percentage of the Federal Standard)

FIGURE VII-2-4

2011 South Coast Air Basin 1-hour Ozone Air Quality Compared to Other California 

Metropolitan Areas (Maximum Pollutant Concentrations as Percentage of the Federal Standard)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

South Coast Houston 

Metropolitan

Phoenix New York Washington 

D.C.

Atlanta Chicago Philadelphia

Maximum Concentration (% Federal Standard)

1-hour Ozone by Metropolitan Area

Federal Standard

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

South Coast San Joaquin 

Valley

San Francisco 

Bay Area

Sacramento 

Valley

South Central 

Coast

San Diego

Maximum Concentration (% Federal Standard)

1-hour Ozone by Metropolitan Area
SECTION 3

BASE YEAR AND FUTURE YEAR EMISSIONS
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-11

INTRODUCTION

The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration is based on the latest emissions 

inventories for the base year (2008) and projected future years developed as part of 

the Final 2012 AQMP. For specific details and descriptions of inventory 

development methodology, please refer to Chapter 3 and Appendix III of the Final 

2012 AQMP. 

BASE YEAR AND FUTURE YEAR EMISSIONS 

Summaries of the summer planning inventory (ozone precursors) emissions that 

occurred in the Basin in the 2008 base year and that are projected for the 2022 

attainment year are provided in the Tables VII-3-1 and VII-3-2. Note that the 2008 

Base year inventory is identical to that in the Final 2012 AQMP (Chapter 3, 

Appendix III). Table VII-3-3 provides the complete 2022 summer planning 

emissions inventory by major source category in the South Coast Air Basin.
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-12

TABLE VII-3-1

Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2008 Base Year

Summer Planning Inventory (tpd1) *

SOURCE CATEGORY

SUMMER OZONE 

PRECURSORS

VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES

 Fuel Combustion 14 41

 Waste Disposal 12 2

 Cleaning and Surface Coatings 43 0

 Petroleum Production and 

Marketing

41 0

 Industrial Processes 19 0

 Solvent Evaporation

 Consumer Products 99 0

 Architectural Coatings 25 0

 Others 2 0

 Misc. Processes 9 20

 RECLAIM Sources 0 24

Total Stationary Sources 264 87

MOBILE SOURCES

 On-Road Vehicles 213 426

 Off-Road Vehicles 162 208

Total Mobile Sources 375 634

TOTAL 639 721

1 Values are rounded to nearest integer.

* Values represent inventory developed for Final 2012 AQMP.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-13

TABLE VII-3-2

Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2022 Baseline

Summer Planning Inventory (tpd1)

SOURCE CATEGORY

SUMMER OZONE PRECURSORS

VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES

Fuel Combustion 14 27

Waste Disposal 14 2

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 55 0

Petroleum Production and Marketing 36 0

Industrial Processes 17 0

Solvent Evaporation

 Consumer Products 90 0

 Architectural Coatings 19 0

 Others 2 0

Misc. Processes 9 13

RECLAIM Sources 0 27

Total Stationary Sources 258 70

MOBILE SOURCES

On-Road Vehicles 73 135

Off-Road Vehicles 109 136

Total Mobile Sources 182 271

TOTAL 440 341

1 Values are rounded to nearest integer.
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-14

TABLE VII-3-3

2022 Baseline Summer Planning Emissions by Source Category

in the South Coast Air Basin (tpd)

CODE SOURCE CATEGORY VOC NOx CO

10 Electric Utilities 0.88 0.23 8.51

20 Cogeneration 0.05 0.01 0.41

30 Oil and Gas Production (Combustion) 0.12 0.81 0.64

40 Petroleum Refining (Combustion) 1.28 0.00 5.06

50 Manufacturing and Industrial 6.80 13.91 21.21

52 Food and Agricultural Processing 0.07 0.08 1.28

60 Service and Commercial 4.45 9.25 17.37

99 Other (Fuel Combustion) 0.31 3.09 2.90

Total Fuel Combustion 13.96 27.38 57.37

Waste Disposal

110 Sewage Treatment 0.05 0.01 0.02

120 Landfills 9.72 0.66 0.62

130 Incinerators 0.09 1.05 0.47

140 Soil Remediation 0.01 0.01 0.00

199 Other (Waste Disposal) 3.97 0.00 0.01

Total Waste Disposal 13.84 1.73 1.12

Cleaning and Surface Coatings

210 Laundering 0.17 0.00 0.00

220 Degreasing 14.94 0.00 0.00

230 Coatings and Related Process Solvents 31.91 0.01 0.02

240 Printing 2.23 0.00 0.00

250 Sealants & Adhesives 5.24 0.00 0.00

299 Other (Cleaning and Surface Coatings) 0.74 0.03 0.04

Total Cleaning and Surface Coatings 55.23 0.04 0.06

Petroleum Production and Marketing

310 Oil and Gas Production 1.57 0.10 0.08

320 Petroleum Refining 4.11 0.19 4.98

330 Petroleum Marketing 30.68 0.01 0.00

399 Other (Petroleum Production and Marketing) 0.02 0.01 0.00

Total Petroleum Production and Marketing 36.38 0.31 5.06

Industrial Processes

410 Chemical 9.80 0.00 0.21

420 Food and Agriculture 1.69 0.00 0.00

430 Mineral Processes 0.47 0.03 1.05

440 Metal Processes 0.18 0.04 0.25

450 Wood and Paper 0.19 0.00 0.00

460 Glass and Related Products 0.02 0.00 0.00

470 Electronics 0.00 0.00 0.00

499 Other (Industrial Processes) 5.07 0.04 0.30

Total Industrial Processes 17.42 0.11 1.81

Solvent Evaporation

510 Consumer Products 90.32 0.00 0.00

520 Architectural Coatings and Related Solvents 19.39 0.00 0.00

530 Pesticides/Fertilizers 1.00 0.00 0.00

540 Asphalt Paving/Roofing 1.49 0.00 0.00

Total Solvent Evaporation 112.20 0.00 0.00
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-15

TABLE VII-3-3 (Continued)

2022 Baseline Summer Planning Emissions by Source Category

in the South Coast Air Basin (tpd)

CODE SOURCE CATEGORY VOC NOx CO

Miscellaneous Processes

610 Residential Fuel Combustion 2.29 11.55 15.00

620 Farming Operations 2.19 0.00 0.00

630 Construction and Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00

640 Paved Road Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00

645 Unpaved Road and Travel Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00

650 Fugitive Windblown Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00

660 Fires 0.24 0.08 3.02

670 Waste Burning and Disposal 2.64 1.24 41.28

690 Cooking 1.98 0.00 0.00

699 Other (Miscellaneous Processes) 0.00 0.00 0.00

RECLAIM 27.23

Total Miscellaneous Processes 9.34 40.10 59.30

On-Road Motor Vehicles

710 Light Duty Passenger 19.63 13.36 199.00

722 Light Duty Trucks 1 (T1) 8.21 4.68 60.43

723 Light Duty Trucks 2 (T2) 11.27 8.33 100.70

724 Medium Duty Trucks (T3) 15.31 12.83 128.76

732 Light Heavy Duty Gas Trucks 1 (T4) 4.90 11.36 34.30

733 Light Heavy Duty Gas Trucks 2 (T5) 0.41 1.03 2.39

734 Medium Heavy Duty Gas Trucks (T6) 0.63 1.28 7.37

736 Heavy Heavy Duty Gas Trucks (HHD) 0.10 0.88 7.15

742 Light Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks 1 (T4) 0.40 10.47 3.28

743 Light Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks 2 (T5) 0.14 3.43 1.36

744 Medium Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks (T6) 0.49 6.55 2.33

746 Heavy Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks (HHD) 3.42 43.03 19.80

750 Motorcycles (MCY) 6.59 2.04 49.47

760 Heavy Duty Diesel Urban Buses 0.43 10.48 2.08

762 Heavy Duty Gas Urban Buses 0.30 0.62 3.05

771 School Buses - Gas 0.05 0.09 0.75

772 School Buses - Diesel 0.03 1.77 0.13

777 Other Buses - Gas 0.29 0.53 2.82

779 All Other Buses - Diesel 0.10 1.06 0.52

780 Motor Homes 0.07 1.00 1.07

Total On-Road Motor Vehicles 72.77 134.82 626.73

Other Mobile Sources

810 Aircraft 4.41 15.44 41.75

820 Trains 1.32 22.60 8.40

833 Ocean Going Vessels 3.09 32.93 5.48

835 Commercial Harbor Craft 1.05 9.30 7.31

840 Recreational Boats 35.18 8.22 159.73

850 Off-Road Recreational Vehicles 9.04 0.17 8.58

860 Commercial/Industrial Mobile Equipment 46.80 44.64 668.44

870 Farm Equipment 0.56 2.80 8.07

890 Fuel Storage and Handling 7.35 0.00 0.00

Total Other Mobile Sources 108.80 136.10 907.76
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-16

TABLE VII-3-3 (Concluded)

2022 Baseline Summer Planning Emissions by Source Category

in South Coast Air Basin (tpd)

[CO inventory changed from the previous annual average emissions inventory to the 

appropriate summer planning emissions inventory]

CODE SOURCE CATEGORY VOC NOx CO

Total Stationary and Area Sources 258.34 63.78 209.89

Total On-Road Vehicles 72.77 134.82 622.73

Total Other Mobile 108.80 136.10 707.37

Total 439.97 340.57 1659.23
SECTION 4

1-HOUR OZONE SIP CONTROL STRATEGY
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-17

INTRODUCTION

This section sets forth the proposed control strategy and implementation schedule to 

demonstrate attainment with the former 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 2022. Given the 

approximate alignment of the attainment dates, the control strategy for the 1-hour 

ozone standard is identical to the control strategy for the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone 

standard. The control strategy for the 8-hour ozone standard is described in the 2007 

AQMP with updates proposed in the Final 2012 AQMP. The following sections 

discuss the proposed control measures for attainment of the 1-hour ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that include:

 2007 8-hour ozone SIP control measures carried forward for the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration; and

 Proposed 8-hour ozone control measures from the Final 2012 AQMP (taken 

from Chapter 4 of the Final 2012 AQMP and repeated in this Section for 

completeness.)

2007 SIP CONTROL MEASURES CARRIED FORWARD FOR THE 1-

HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

As provided in Table 1-3 of the Final 2012 AQMP, the emission reduction 

commitments provided in the 2007 SIP have been met with the implementation of the 

majority of control measures identified in the 2007 SIP. For the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration, the proposed control strategy is the continued 

implementation of the 2007 SIP control strategy for the 8-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration. As such, seven mobile source control measures (four on-road mobile 

source measures and three off-road measures) are proposed to be carried forward. 

The seven mobile source control measures are listed in Table VII-4-1 along with the 

specific reference pages from the 2007 SIP. The emission reductions associated with 

each measure are also provided in Table VII-4-1. These are not new measures and 

the emissions reductions commitments for these measures have already been 

approved in U.S. EPA’s approval of the 2007 8-hour ozone SIP.
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-18

TABLE VII-4-1

List of 2007 SIP Mobile Source Control Measures Proposed to be 

Included in the 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

2007 SIP Mobile Source Control Measures

Title

2007 SIP Reference 

(released 

April 26, 2007)

Reduction (tpd) 

by 2022

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) -

Annual Inspection of Older Vehicles

Pgs. 90 & 

94

1.6 [VOC]

3.9 [NOx]

Smog Check Improvements (BAR) -

Annual Inspection of High Mileage Vehicles

Pgs. 90 & 

94

0.3 [VOC]

0.8 [NOx]

Smog Check for Motorcycles Pgs. 91 & 

95

1.2 [VOC]

0.4 [NOx]

Expanded Passenger Vehicle Retirement Program Pgs. 91 & 

100-101

0.4 [VOC]

0.3 [NOx]

Cleaner Main Ship Engines and Fuel - Main 

Engines

Pgs. 91 & 

107-110 6.2 [NOx]

Accelerated Intro. of Cleaner Line-Haul 

Locomotives

Pgs. 92 &

113-114 12.1 [NOx]

Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Expanded 

Emission Standards

Pgs. 92 &

123-124 3.6 [VOC]

Total 7.1 [VOC]

23.7 [NOx]

FINAL 2012 AQMP PROPOSED 8-HOUR OZONE CONTROL MEASURES

FOR THE 1-HOUR OZONE ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

As stated above, the control strategy for attainment of the 1997 federal 8-hour ozone 

standard is identical to the control strategy being proposed for attainment of the 

former 1-hour ozone standard. The proposed 8-hour ozone control measures 

identified in the Final 2012 AQMP are repeated below for completeness, and are 

taken directly from Chapter 4 of the Final 2012 AQMP. A more detailed description 

of each control measure is provided in Appendices IV-A and IV-B.

The Final 2012 AQMP is proposing a control strategy that includes emission 

reductions from both stationary and mobile sources. The proposed stationary source 

control measures in the Final 2012 AQMP are based on implementation of all 

feasible control measures through the application of available cleaner technologies, 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-19

best management practices, incentive programs, as well as development and 

implementation of zero- and near-zero technologies and control methods. The 

stationary source control measures presented in the Plan are proposed to further 

reduce emissions from both point sources (permitted facilities) and area sources 

(generally small and non-permitted in addition to smaller permitted sources with 

emissions less than the reporting threshold in the District’s Annual Emissions 

Reporting Program). The basic principles followed in developing the District’s 

stationary source control measures call for initiating programs or rule making 

activities for VOC and further NOx control strategies aiming at maximum reductions 

by the applicable timeframe to further implement the federal ozone standards.

The mobile source strategy includes actions seeking further emission reductions from 

both on-road and off-road mobile sources, such as accelerated penetration of zeroand near-zero emission vehicles and early retirement of older vehicles. In addition, 

the mobile source strategy includes research and development of advanced control 

technologies from various mobile sources. Some of the proposed actions need to be 

implemented by several agencies that currently have the statutory authority to 

implement such measures. 

For each control measure, the District will seek to achieve the maximum reduction 

potential that is technically feasible and cost-effective. Significant challenges remain 

in meeting the federal ozone standards. Ozone reduction strategies and programs 

need to be continued and accelerated to ensure that the air basin will meet the 1-hour 

ozone standards by 2022. Proposed measures to reduce ozone include emission 

reductions from coatings, consumer products, and RECLAIM facilities as well as 

early transitions to cleaner technologies.

To ultimately achieve the ozone ambient air quality standards, significant additional 

emissions reductions will be necessary from a variety of sources, including those 

primarily under the jurisdiction of CARB (e.g., on-road motor vehicles, off-road 

equipment, and consumer products) and U.S. EPA (e.g., aircraft, ships, trains, and 

pre-empted off-road equipment). Without an adequate and fair-share level of 

reductions from all sources, the emission reduction burden would unfairly be shifted 

to sources that have already been doing their part for clean air. Moreover, the 

District will continue to use its available regulatory authority to further control 

mobile source emissions where federal or State actions do not meet regional needs.

Overall, the Final 2012 AQMP includes 16 stationary and 17 mobile source measures

for ozone. The following two sections discuss the control measures as outlined 

below: 

 SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control 

Measures (see Appendix IV-C for detailed descriptions of the regional 

transportation strategy and control measures)
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-20

 Proposed Ozone measures (see Appendix IV-A for detailed descriptions of the 

District’s stationary source control measures and Appendix IV-B for detailed 

descriptions of the District’s mobile source measures)

For District’s SIP emission reduction commitments, overall emission reductions and 

implementation, please refer to Chapter 4 of the Final 2012 AQMP. 

SCAG’s REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY AND 

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO) for Southern California, is mandated to comply with 

federal and state transportation and air quality regulations. Federal transportation law 

authorizes federal funding for highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface 

transportation programs. The federal CAA establishes air quality standards and 

planning requirements for various criteria air pollutants.

Transportation conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) to ensure that 

federally supported highway and transit project activities ―conform to‖ the purpose of 

the SIP. Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated non-attainment, 

and those re-designated to attainment after 1990 (―maintenance areas‖ with plans 

developed under CAA Section 175[A]) for the specific transportation-related criteria

pollutants. Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation activities 

will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the relevant NAAQS. The transportation conformity regulation is 

found in 40 CFR Part 93.

Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 40460, SCAG has the 

responsibility of preparing and approving the portions of the AQMP relating to 

regional demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing, 

employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies. The District 

combines its portion of the Plan with those prepared by SCAG.

The transportation strategy and transportation control measures (TCMs), included as 

part of the Final 2012 AQMP and SIP for the South Coast Air Basin, are based on 

SCAG’s adopted 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities 

Strategy (RTP/SCS) and 2011 Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). 

This was developed in consultation with federal, state and local transportation and air 

quality planning agencies and other stakeholders. 

The Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control Measures portion 

of the 2012 AQMP/SIP consists of the following three related sections.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-21

Section I. Linking Regional Transportation Planning to Air Quality Planning 

As required by federal and state laws, SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the 

regional transportation plan, program, and projects are supportive of the goals and 

objectives of AQMPs/SIPs. SCAG is also required to develop demographic 

projections and a regional transportation strategy and control measures for the 

AQMPs/SIPs.

The RTP/SCS, updated every four years, is a long-range regional transportation plan 

that provides a vision for transportation investments throughout the SCAG Region. 

The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS also integrates land use and transportation planning to 

achieve regional greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets set by ARB pursuant to 

SB375.

SCAG also develops the biennial FTIP. The FTIP is a multimodal program of capital 

improvement projects to be implemented over a six year period. The FTIP 

implements the programs and projects in the RTP/SCS.

Section II. Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control 

Measures

The SCAG Region faces daunting mobility, air quality, and transportation funding 

challenges. Under the guidance of the goals and objectives adopted by SCAG’s 

Regional Council, the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS was developed to provide a blueprint to 

integrate land use and transportation strategies to help achieve a coordinated and 

balanced regional transportation system. The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS represents the 

culmination of more than two years of work involving dozens of public agencies, 191 

cities, hundreds of local, county, regional and state officials, the business community, 

environmental groups, as well as various nonprofit organizations. The 2012-2035 

RTP/SCS was formally adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on April 4, 2012.

The 2012-2035 RTP/SCS contains a host of improvements to every component of the 

regional multimodal transportation system including: 

 Active transportation (non-motorized transportation, such as biking and 

walking)

 Transportation demand management (TDM)

 Transportation system management (TSM)

 Transit

 Passenger and high-speed rail

 Goods movement

 Aviation and airport ground access

 Highways

 Arterials
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-22

 Operations and maintenance

Included within these transportation system improvements are TCM projects that 

reduce vehicle use or change traffic flow or congestion conditions. TCMs include 

the following three main categories of transportation improvement projects and 

programs:

 High occupancy vehicle (HOV) measures,

 Transit and systems management measures, and

 Information-based transportation strategies.

New to this cycle of the RTP is the inclusion of the SCS as required by SB 375. The 

primary goal of the SCS is to provide a vision for future growth in Southern 

California that will decrease per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. 

However, the strategies contained in the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS will produce benefits 

for the region far beyond simply reducing GHG emissions. The SCS integrates the 

transportation network and related strategies with an overall land use pattern that 

responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and 

transportation demands. The regional vision of the SCS maximizes current voluntary 

local efforts that support the goals of SB 375. The SCS focuses the majority of new 

housing and job growth in high-quality transit areas and other opportunity areas on 

existing main streets, in downtowns, and commercial corridors, resulting in an 

improved jobs-housing balance and more opportunity for transit-oriented 

development. In addition, SCAG is a strategic partner in a regional effort to 

accelerate fleet conversion to near-zero and zero-emission transportation 

technologies, including planning for the expansion of alternative-fuel infrastructure 

to accommodate the anticipated increase in alternative fueled vehicles.

Section III. Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) Analysis for 

Transportation Control Measures

As required by the CAA, a RACM analysis must be included as part of the overall 

control strategy in the AQMP/SIP to ensure that all potential control measures are 

evaluated for implementation and that justification is provided for those measures 

that are not implemented. Appendix IV-C contains the RACM TCM component for 

the Final 2012 AQMP control strategy. In accordance with U.S. EPA procedures, 

this analysis considers TCMs in the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS, measures identified by the 

CAA, and relevant measures adopted in other non-attainment areas of the country. 

Based on this comprehensive review, it is determined that the TCMs being 

implemented in the Basin are inclusive of all TCM RACM. None of the candidate 

measures reviewed and determined to be infeasible meets the criteria for RACM 

implementation.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-23

The emission benefits associated with the RTP/SCS are reflected in the 2012 AQMP 

projected emissions. For a detailed discussion of the regional transportation strategy, 

refer to Appendix IV-C: Regional Transportation Strategy and Control Measures.

PROPOSED OZONE CONTROL MEASURES

The 2007 State Implementation Plan for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS contains 

commitments for emission reductions that rely on advancement of technologies, as 

authorized under Section 182(e)(5) of the federal Clean Air Act. These measures, 

which have come to be known as the ―black box,‖ account for a substantial portion of 

the NOx emission reductions needed to attain the federal ozone standards – over 200 

tons/day. Attaining these standards will require substantial reductions in emissions 

of NOx well beyond reductions resulting from current rules, programs, and 

commercially available technologies. The 8-hour ozone measures included in the 

Final 2012 AQMP as an implementation update for the 8-hour ozone plan are also 

being submitted as the control strategy for the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration.

Mobile sources emit over 80 percent of regional NOx and therefore must be the 

largest part of the solution. On-road truck categories are projected to comprise the 

single largest contributor to regional NOx. Other equipment involved in goods 

movement, such as marine vessels, locomotives and aircraft, are also substantial NOx 

sources. 

Since NOx emissions from most significant sources are already controlled by over 

90%, attainment of the ozone standards will require broad deployment of zero and 

near zero

1

emission technologies. On-land transportation sources such as trucks, 

locomotives and cargo handling equipment have technological potential to achieve 

zero- and near-zero emission levels. Current and potential technologies include 

hybrid-electric, hybrid with all electric range, battery-electric, and hydrogen fuel cell 

on-road vehicle technologies. New types of hybrids could also serve long-term needs 

while providing additional fuel diversity. These could include, for example, natural 

gas-electric hybrid technologies for on-road and other applications, particularly if 

coupled with improved after-treatment technologies. Equipment powered solely by 

alternative fuels such as natural gas may also play a long-term role in some 

applications, if those applications are found to pose technological barriers to 

 

1 The term ―near zero emissions‖ refers to emissions approaching zero and will be delineated for individual source 

categories through the process of developing and implementing the Air Quality Management Plan/State 

Implementation Plan. Based on current analyses, on-land transportation sources will need to achieve zero 

emissions where possible, and otherwise will need to be substantially below adopted emission standards —

including standards with future effective dates. Near zero emissions technologies can help meet this need, 

particularly if they support a path toward zero emissions (e.g. electric/fossil fuel hybrids with all- electric range).
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-24

achieving zero or near-zero emissions. Even in such applications, however, 

substantial additional emission reductions will be needed through development of 

new, advanced after-treatment technologies. In addition, alternative fuels will likely 

play a transitional near-term role. Alternative fuels such as natural gas have 

historically helped the region make progress toward attaining air quality standards, 

and -- while not achieving zero or near-zero NOx emission levels -- they are 

generally cleaner than conventional fuels. Given the region’s need to attain air 

quality standards in a few short years, alternative fueled engines will continue to play 

a role. Finally, we emphasize that air quality regulatory agencies have traditionally

set policies and requirements that are performance based and technology and fuel 

neutral -- a policy that the District intends to continue. In short, all technologies and 

fuels should be able to compete on an equal footing to meet environmental needs.

While there has been much progress in developing and deploying transportation 

technologies with zero- and near-zero emissions (particularly for light-duty vehicles 

and passenger transit), additional technology development, demonstration and 

commercialization will be required prior to broad deployment in freight and other 

applications. This section describes a path to evaluate, develop, demonstrate, fund 

and deploy such technologies for land-based transportation sources. It also proposes 

near-term measures to accelerate fleet turnover to the lowest emission units, and 

require deployment of zero-emission technologies where most feasible. 

The District staff believes that a combination of regulatory actions and public 

funding is the most effective means of achieving these emission reductions. 

Voluntary incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Program can help to accelerate 

turnover to the cleanest commercially available equipment. A majority of the on-road 

and off-road measures proposed are based on existing funding programs 

implemented by the District or the California Air Resources Board. However, 

several of the existing funding programs will sunset in the 2014 – 2015 timeframe. 

Continued funding beyond 2015 will be needed to reduce the emissions associated 

with the black box. Developing, demonstrating and deploying new technologies will 

require public/private partnerships and, in some cases, regulatory actions. 

The measures described in this section are a relatively small down payment on the 

total emission reductions needed to attain the 8-hour and 1-hour NAAQS for ozone. 

The measures proposed in this section and further discussed in Appendix IV-A and 

IV-B are feasible steps that must commence in the near-term to establish a path 

toward a broader transition to the technologies that will be needed to attain federal air 

quality standards. Between now and 2015, the additional measures needed to attain 

the ozone NAAQS will be fleshed out in greater detail as required under the federal 

Clean Air Act as part of the next AQMP revision. Given the magnitude of needed 

emission reductions, and the time remaining until attainment deadlines, it is 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-25

important that progress and momentum to identify, develop, and deploy needed 

technologies be sustained and accelerated. 

The District staff recognizes these are very difficult policy choices the Basin is 

facing. Transitioning over the next 10 to 20 years to cleaner transportation 

technologies will involve major costs and effects on the economy. However, 

adopting sufficient plan measures to attain the ozone air quality standards by the 

applicable dates is required by federal law and therefore, failing to do so is not an 

acceptable public policy. Such failure would also risk adverse health consequences 

highlighted in recent health studies, not to mention the potential adverse economic 

impacts on the region due to potential federal sanctions. The following sections 

summarize the ozone measures. More detailed discussions are provided in Appendix 

IV-A and IV-B.

Clean Air Act Section 182(e)(5)

The District’s 1-hour ozone SIP submittal relies in part on the ability to use advanced 

technology measures as authorized under Clean Air Act § 182(e)(5). EPA has 

already approved the reliance on § 182(e)(5) in the South Coast 8-hour ozone plan. 

77 Fed. Reg. 12674, 12693 (Mar. 1, 2012). The present 1-hour ozone SIP submittal 

includes a number of ozone measures which reduce reliance on § 182(e)(5). Under 

the plain language of the Clean Air Act, the District may rely on § 182(e)(5) 

measures, as long as the reductions to be obtained from them are not needed for the 

first ten years after November 15, 1990. 42 U.S.C. § 7511a(e)(5)(B). The District’s 

initial 1-hour ozone plan complied with this requirement, and EPA approved the 

§ 182(e)(5) measures in 1995. 62 Fed. Reg. 1150, 1178 (Jan. 8, 1997), citing 60 Fed. 

Reg. 43379 (Aug. 21, 1995).

Since the present 1-hour SIP submission does not rely on § 182(e)(5) for emission 

reductions prior to November 15, 2000, it complies with § 182(e)(5). There is no 

textual or policy basis for concluding that § 182(e)(5) is not available. Because the 

present SIP submission addresses 1-hour ozone, there is no textual basis for deviation 

from the plain language of the Clean Air Act: Section 182(e)(5) is available for 

reductions needed after November 15, 2000. Nor is there any policy basis to do so. 

The Clean Air Act clearly authorizes EPA to grant up to 10 years to attain the 

standard. Therefore, under § 182(e)(5), contingency measures would need to be in 

place which attain the needed reductions by three years before the attainment 

deadline. This provides adequate assurance that the § 182(e)(5) measure, or the 

contingency measures, will be implemented in time to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard.

The fact that EPA has interpreted § 182(e)(5) somewhat differently in the context of 

the 8-hour ozone standard is irrelevant here. EPA was required to deviate from the 

literal language of the Clean Air Act in the case of the 8-hour ozone standard because 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-26

it did not literally apply. However, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA may not 

simply ignore Subpart 2 (relative to 1-hour ozone) as to do so produced unreasonable 

results (e.g., Los Angeles needing to attain the more stringent 8-hour standard at least 

as quickly as it attained the less stringent 1-hour standard.) Whitman v. American 

Trucking. 531 U.S. 457, 486 (2001). As a result, EPA was required to ―interpret‖ 

Subpart 2. In contrast, when considering the 1-hour ozone standard, the plain 

language of § 182(e)(5) applies, leaving no room for interpretation. Certainly 

nothing in § 179(d), dealing with plan submittals on failure to attain, remotely 

suggests that the plain language of § 182(e)(5) is no longer applicable. That being 

the case, EPA is not authorized to ―interpret away‖ the provisions of § 182(e)(5). 

Even if the language were ambiguous, there is no policy reason to interpret it to 

prohibit reliance on § 182(e)(5).

As noted above, EPA has already approved the District’s reliance on § 182(e)(5) for 

the 8-hour standard. It would make no sense to prohibit reliance on § 182(e)(5) for a 

standard that has been revoked. The District has already established in the 2007 

AQMP and the 2012 1-hour ozone submittal that it is impossible to attain the 

standards without § 182(e)(5) measures, and all reasonable or feasibly available 

measures have been identified and scheduled for adoption. To say the District must 

attain a revoked standard, which EPA repeatedly described as not necessary to 

protect public health, (69 Fed. Reg. 23951, 23971, 23976 (April 30, 2004)), without 

reliance on measures undisputedly available for the existing, more health protective 

8-hour standard, produces absurd results. Any such conclusion must be rejected. See 

e.g., Logan v. United States, 522 U.S. 23, 26 (2007); United States v. X-Citement 

Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 69 (1994). 

Finally, EPA must consider the fact that for 8 years, all parties believed an attainment 

demonstration for the 1-hour standard was not required.

EPA stated in revoking the standard: ―attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS would no 

longer be a goal....‖ 69 Fed. Reg. 23951 23970 (Apr. 30, 2004). EPA explained that 

it is not appropriate to ―mandate states to perform an attainment demonstration for a 

NAAQS that is not needed to protect public health.‖ 69 Fed. Reg. 23951, 23976. In 

disapproving the AQMD’s 2003 attainment demonstration because it relied on 

withdrawn CARB measures, EPA explained that states no longer needed to attain the 

1-hour standard. Responding to a comment that EPA must assure a viable path to 

attainment, EPA said: ―...EPA’s responsibility at the present time is to ensure that 

states adopt viable paths toward attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS, rather than the 

revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS....‖ 74 Fed. Reg. 10176, 10179 (Mar. 10, 2009).

Only when the AIR case became final was this position rejected. (Jan. 27, 2012.) 

Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 686 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2012). That being the 

case, it would be unreasonable to say the District must now attain that standard 

without relying on future technology advancements, as authorized by § 182(e)(5). 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-27

Had it been clear when EPA revoked the standard that the District would still have to 

attain it, CARB may not have withdrawn the 2003 AQMP measures. The region may 

have been closer to attainment of the 1-hour standard by now. Absent the ability to 

rely on § 182(e)(5), District would have no choice but to seek to amend the Clean Air 

Act to eliminate such obligations relative to revoked standards.

Contingency Measures

CAA section 182(e)(5) authorizes EPA to ―approve provisions of an implementation 

plan for an Extreme Area which anticipate development of new control techniques or 

improvement of existing control techniques, and an attainment demonstration based 

on such provisions,‖ if the State meets certain criteria. Such plan provisions may 

include enforceable commitments to submit, at a later date, contingency measures for 

failure to attain under CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to the contingency 

measures to be implemented if the anticipated technologies approved under section 

182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. These contingency measures must be 

submitted no later than three years before proposed implementation of the plan 

provisions and approved or disapproved by EPA in accordance with CAA section 

110. 

CARB and the District have satisfied the criteria in section 182(e)(5) for reliance on 

the new technology provision as part of the attainment demonstration in the South 

Coast 8-Hour ozone SIP and in this 1-hour ozone SIP. Based on the State’s 

anticipated development of these new technologies, CARB has submitted an 

enforceable commitment to submit, no later than 2020, additional contingency 

measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) that meet the requirements for attainment 

contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in addition to contingency 

measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term measures approved pursuant 

to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions. CARB Resolution 11–22, 

July 2011 and see letter dated November 18, 2011 from James Goldstene, CARB, to 

Jared Blumenfeld, EPA. Similarly, when submitting this 1-hour ozone 

demonstration to EPA, CARB is expected to submit enforceable commitments no 

later than 2019 (no later than three years prior to the attainment year of 2022), 

additional contingency measures under CAA section 182(e)(5) that meet the 

requirements for attainment contingency measures in CAA section 172(c)(9), in 

addition to contingency measures to be implemented if the anticipated long-term 

measures approved pursuant to section 182(e)(5) do not achieve planned reductions

need for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. 

RACT/RACM

The CAA, Section 172(c)(1), sets the overall framework for the Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) analysis. The CAA requires the nonattainment 

air districts to:
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-28

“provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available control technology (RACT)) and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary ambient air quality standards.”

The U.S. EPA recommends that nonattainment air districts first identify the emission 

reduction programs that have already been implemented at the federal level, and by 

other states and local air districts. Next, the U.S. EPA recommends the air districts to 

examine additional RACM/RACTs adopted for other nonattainment areas to attain 

the ambient air quality standards as expeditiously as practicable. The RACT/RACM 

analysis for the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration can be found in Attachment 4

of this Appendix.

Proposed Ozone Stationary Source Measures

The proposed stationary source implementation measures are designed to assist in the 

attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard. These measures will also assist in attaining 

the 1-hour standard. The measures target a number of source categories including 

Coatings and Solvents (CTS), Combustion Sources (CMB), Petroleum Operations 

and Fugitive VOC Emissions (FUG), Multiple Component Sources (MCS), Incentive 

Programs (INC) and Educational Programs (EDU). There are 16 stationary source 

measures with the majority anticipated to be adopted in the next 2 – 3 years and 

implemented after 2015. These measures include two incentive programs and one 

educational measure.

There are two measures that were continued from the 2007 AQMP. The remaining

14 control measures are new ideas or revised previous measures (e.g., further 

reductions from an existing rule).

Table VII-4-2 provides a list of the District’s ozone measures for stationary sources 

along with the anticipated adoption date, implementation date and emission 

reduction. 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-29

TABLE VII-4-2

List of the District’s Adoption/Implementation Dates and Estimated Emission Reductions 

from Ozone Measures for Stationary Sources

NUMBER TITLE ADOPTION IMPLEMENTATION 

PERIOD

REDUCTION 

(TPD)

CTS-01 Further VOC Reductions from 

Architectural Coatings (R1113) [VOC]

2015 - 2016 2018 – 2020 2-4

CTS-02 Further Emission Reduction from 

Miscellaneous Coatings, Adhesives, 

Solvents and Lubricants [VOC]

2013 - 2016 1-2

CTS-03 Further VOC Reductions from Mold 

Release Products [VOC]

2014 2016 0.8 – 2

CTS-04 Further VOC Reductions from 

Consumer Products [VOC]

2013 - 2015 2018 N/Aa

CMB-01 Further NOx Reductions from 

RECLAIM [NOx]

2015 2017 – 2020 3-5

b

CMB-02 NOx Reductions from Biogas Flares 

[NOx]

2015 Beginning 2017 Pendingc

CMB-03 Reductions from Commercial Space 

Heating [NOx]

Phase I – 2014 

(Tech 

Assessment)

Phase II -

2016

Beginning 2018 0.18 by 2023

0.6 (total) 

FUG-01 VOC Reductions from Vacuum Trucks 

[VOC]

2014 2016 1d

FUG-02 Emission Reduction from LPG Transfer 

and Dispensing [VOC] – Phase II

2015 2017 1-2

FUG-03 Further Reductions from Fugitive VOC 

Emissions [VOC]

2015 -2016 2017-2018 1-2

MCS-01 Application of All Feasible Measures 

Assessment [All Pollutants]

Ongoing Ongoing TBDe

MCS-02 Further Emission Reductions from 

Greenwaste Processing (Chipping and 

Grinding Operations not associated with 

composting) [VOC]

2015 2016 1

d

MCS-03 

(formerly 

MCS-06)

Improved Start-up, Shutdown and 

Turnaround Procedures [All Pollutants]

Phase I – 2012 

(Tech 

Assessment)

Phase II -

TBD

Phase I – 2013

 (Tech Assessment)

Phase II – TBD

TBDe
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-30

TABLE VII-4-2 (concluded)

List of the District’s Adoption/Implementation Dates and Estimated Emission Reductions 

from Ozone Measures for Stationary Sources

NUMBER TITLE ADOPTION IMPLEMENTATION 

PERIOD

REDUCTION 

(TPD)

INC-01 Economic Incentive Programs to Adopt 

Zero and Near-Zero Technologies [NOx]

2014 Within 12 months after 

funding availability

TBDe

INC-02 Expedited Permitting and CEQA 

Preparation Facilitating the 

Manufacturing of Zero and Near-Zero 

Technologies [All Pollutants]

2014-2015 Beginning 2015 N/Aa

EDU-01

(formerly 

MCS-02, 

MCS-03)

Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions 

from Education, Outreach and Incentives 

[All Pollutants]

Ongoing Ongoing N/Aa

a. N/A are reductions that cannot be quantified due to the nature of the measure (e.g., outreach, incentive 

programs) or if the measure is designed to ensure reductions that have been assumed to occur will in fact occur.

b. CMB-01 will target a cumulative 3-5 TPD of NOx emission reductions, including any CMB-01 PM2.5 

contingency measure emission reductions.

c. Pending because emission reductions will be provided prior to the Final.

d. Reductions submitted in SIP once emission inventories are included in the SIP.

e. TBD are reductions to be determined once the inventory and control approach are identified.

The following text provides a brief description of the proposed ozone stationary 

source control measures and is taken directly from Chapter 4 of the Final 2012 

AQMP.

Coatings and Solvents

The category of coatings and solvents is primarily targeted at reducing VOC 

emissions from these VOC-containing products. This category includes four 

proposed control measures that are based on additional emission reductions from 

architectural coatings; miscellaneous coatings, solvents, adhesives and lubricants; 

mold release products; and consumer products with low vapor pressure used by 

commercial and institutional facilities regulated by CARB.

CTS-01 – FURTHER VOC REDUCTIONS FROM ARCHITECTURAL 

COATINGS: The District adopted Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings, in 1977 and 

it has since undergone numerous amendments. This proposed control measure seeks 

to reduce the VOC emissions from large volume coating categories such as flat, nonflat and primer, sealer, undercoaters (PSU) and from phasing out the currently 

exempt use of high-VOC architectural coatings sold in one liter containers or smaller. 

Additional emission reductions could be achieved from the application of 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-31

architectural coatings by use of application techniques with greater transfer 

efficiency. Such transfer efficiency improvements could be achieved through the use 

of a laser paint targeting system, which has been shown to improve transfer 

efficiency on average by 30% over equipment not using a targeting system, 

depending on the size, shape and configuration of the substrate. The proposal is 

anticipated to be accomplished with a multi-phase adoption and implementation 

schedule.

CTS-02 – FURTHER VOC REDUCTIONS FROM MISCELLANEOUS 

COATINGS, ADHESIVES, SOLVENTS, AND LUBRICANTS: This control 

measure seeks VOC emission reductions by focusing on select coating, adhesive, 

solvent and lubricant categories by further limiting the allowable VOC content in 

formulations. Examples of the categories to be considered include but are not limited 

to, coatings used in certain aerospace applications; adhesives used in a variety of 

sealing applications; solvents for graffiti abatement activities; and lubricants used as 

metalworking fluids to reduce heat and friction to prolong life of the tool, improve 

product quality and carry away debris. Reductions would be achieved by lowering 

the VOC content of the coatings, adhesives and lubricants. For solvents, reductions 

could be achieved with the use of alternative low-VOC products or non-VOC 

product/equipment at industrial facilities. The proposal is anticipated to be 

accomplished with a multi-phase adoption and implementation schedule.

CTS-03 – FURTHER VOC REDUCTION FROM MOLD RELEASE 

PRODUCTS: Metal, fiberglass, composite and plastic products are often 

manufactured using molds which form the product into a particular configuration. 

Mold release agents are used to ensure that the parts, as they are made, can be 

released easily and quickly from the molds. These agents often contain VOC solvent 

carriers and may also contain toxic components like toluene and xylene. Mold release 

products are also used for concrete stamping operations to keep the mold from 

adhering to the fresh concrete. Residential and commercial concrete stamping is a 

rapidly growing industry, and overall VOC emissions are estimated to be significant. 

This control measure seeks to reduce emissions from mold release products on metal, 

fiberglass, composite and plastic products, as well as concrete stamping operations, 

by requiring the use of low-VOC mold release products.

CTS-04 - FURTHER VOC REDUCTION FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS: 

This measure seeks to revise the exemption for low vapor pressure solvents in 

CARB’s consumer products regulation, which exempts low vapor pressure volatile 

organic compounds (LVP-VOC) from counting towards the compliance obligation 

for consumer product VOC limits. Recent testing conducted by the District on 

institutional cleaners found that traditionally formulated consumer products may 

contain significant amounts of LVP-VOC solvents. In some cases, such as certain 

multipurpose solvents, the products were 100 percent LVP-VOC solvents. Further 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-32

testing indicated that many of the LVP-VOC solvents evaporate nearly as quickly as 

the traditional solvents they were meant to replace and have Maximum Incremental 

Reactivity (MIR) values well above the threshold considered to be non-reactive, 

currently based on ethane. Therefore, an evaluation of the continued need for use of 

LVP-VOC solvents in certain categories is warranted.

Combustion Sources

This category includes three proposed measures for stationary combustion 

equipment. There is one control measure that further reduces NOx emissions from 

RECLAIM facilities. A second proposed measure seeks a reduction from biogas 

flares, and a third proposed control measure seeks to reduce NOx emissions from 

commercial space heaters. 

CMB-01 – FURTHER NOX REDUCTIONS FROM RECLAIM: This proposed 

control measure will seek cumulative reductions of 3-5 tpd of NOx allocations by the 

year 2020, via implementation of periodic BARCT evaluation as required under the 

state law. If triggered, the PM2.5 contingency measure provision of CMB-01 would 

achieve 2-3 tpd of NOx allocation reductions in 2015, with the remaining 1-2 tpd 

implemented in the 2017-2020 timeframe. If the contingency measure is not 

triggered, then the entire 3-5 tpd of NOx reductions will be implemented in 2017-

2020 timeframe. The control measure has the ability to produce co-benefits in the 

reduction of PM2.5 and ozone. 

CMB-02 – NOX REDUCTIONS FROM BIOGAS FLARES: There are no sourcespecific rules regulating NOx emissions from biogas flares. Flare NOx emissions are 

regulated through new source review and BACT. This control measure proposes 

that, consistent with the all feasible measures measure, older biogas flares be 

gradually replaced with flares that meet current BACT. Strategies that minimize 

flaring and associated emissions can also be considered as alternative control options. 

CMB-03 – REDUCTIONS FROM COMMERCIAL SPACE HEATING: This 

control measure applies to natural gas-fired commercial space heaters used for 

comfort heating. District Rule 1111 - NOx Emissions from Natural Gas-Fired Fan 

Type Central Furnaces, regulates space heaters with input rates less than 175,000 

Btu/hr. This measure proposes to establish a NOx emission limit for new space 

heaters for commercial applications, which can be achieved through the use of lowNOx burners or other technologies. 

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions

This category pertains primarily to operations and materials associated with the 

petroleum, chemical, and other industries. Within this category, there is one 

proposed control measure targeting fugitive VOC emissions with improved leak 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-33

detection and repair. Other proposed measures include reductions from vacuum 

truck venting, and propane transfer and dispensing. 

FUG-01 – VOC REDUCTIONS FROM VACUUM TRUCKS: This control 

measure seeks to reduce emissions from the venting of vacuum trucks. Emissions 

from such operations can be further reduced through the utilization of control 

technologies, including but not limited to, carbon adsorption systems, internal 

combustion engines, thermal oxidizers, refrigerated condensers and liquid scrubbers. 

Additionally, implementation of a leak detection and repair (LDAR) program may 

further reduce fugitive emissions.

FUG-02 - EMISSION REDUCTION FROM LPG TRANSFER AND 

DISPENSING: The District recently adopted Rule 1177 - Liquefied Petroleum Gas 

(LPG) Transfer and Dispensing (June 2012). The rule requires use of low-emission 

fixed liquid level gauges or equivalent alternatives during filling of LPG-containing 

tanks and cylinders, use of low-emission connectors, routine leak checks and repairs 

of LPG transfer and dispensing equipment. The purpose of this control measure is to 

reduce fugitive VOC emissions associated with the transfer and dispensing of LPG 

by expanding rule applicability to include LPG transfer and dispensing at currently 

exempted facilities such as refineries, marine terminals, natural gas processing plants 

and pipeline transfer stations, as well as facilities that conduct fill-by-weight 

techniques.

FUG-03 – FURTHER REDUCTIONS FROM FUGITIVE VOC EMISSIONS: 

This control measure seeks to broaden the applicability of improved leak detection 

and repair (LDAR) programs to remove additional fugitive VOC emissions. Areas 

for further study may include, but are not limited to, Rule 1142 - Marine Vessel Tank 

Operations, and wastewater separators. This control measure would explore the 

opportunity of incorporating a recently developed advanced optical gas imaging 

technology to detect leaks (Smart LDAR) to more easily identify and repair leaks in a 

manner that is less time consuming and labor intensive. Additionally, vapor recovery 

systems are currently required to be 95% control efficient. In an effort to further 

reduce emissions from these operations, this control measure would explore 

opportunities and the feasibility of further improving the collection/control efficiency 

of existing control systems resulting in additional VOC reductions.

Multiple Component Sources

There are a total of three stationary source measures proposed in this category. The 

first measure seeks reductions of all feasible measures after such an assessment is 

made. Another measure seeks further emission reductions from greenwaste 

processing, which is chipping and grinding not associated with composting. The 

third measure seeks to minimize emissions during equipment startup and shutdown 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-34

and to reduce emissions by applying the state requirement of all feasible control 

measures.

MCS-01 – APPLICATION OF ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES ASSESSMENT:

This control measure is to address the state law requirement for all feasible measures 

for ozone. Existing rules and regulations for pollutants such as VOC, NOx, SOx and 

PM reflect current best available retrofit control technology (BARCT). However, 

BARCT continually evolves as new technology becomes available that is feasible 

and cost-effective. Through this proposed control measure, the District would 

commit to the adoption and implementation of the new retrofit control technology 

standards. Finally, staff will review actions taken by other air districts for 

applicability in our region.

MCS-02 - FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM GREENWASTE 

PROCESSING (CHIPPING AND GRINDING NOT ASSOCIATED WITH 

COMPOSTING): Chipped or ground greenwaste and/or wood waste has a potential 

to emit VOCs when being stockpiled or land-applied for various purposes. Chipping 

and grinding is a process to mechanically reduce the size of greenwaste and wood 

waste. The District rules currently establish best management practices (BMPs) for 

greenwaste composting and related operations under Rule 1133.1 – Chipping and 

Grinding Activities, and Rule 1133.3 – Greenwaste Composting Operations. During 

rule development, stakeholders raised the need to develop a holistic approach to 

identifying and accounting for emissions from all greenwaste streams and reducing 

potential emissions from greenwaste material handling operations at chipping and 

grinding facilities and other related facilities, and not just the ones associated with 

composting operations. This control measure would seek to establish additional Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for handling processed or unprocessed greenwaste 

material by greenwaste processors, haulers, and operators who inappropriately 

stockpile material or directly apply the material to land. The implementation of the 

control measure would be in two phases. First, the existing database would be 

reviewed to refine the greenwaste material inventory, and second, staff would 

potentially develop a rule to incorporate technically feasible and cost-effective BMPs 

or controls.

MCS-03 - IMPROVED START-UP, SHUTDOWN AND TURNAROUND 

PROCEDURES: This proposed control measure seeks to reduce emissions during 

equipment startup, shutdown, and turnaround. Opportunities for further reducing 

emissions from start-up, shut-down and turnaround activities potentially may exist at 

refineries as well as other industries. Examples of possible areas for improvement 

may include best management practices, better engineering and equipment design, 

diverting or eliminating process streams that are vented to flares, and installation of 

redundant equipment to increase operational reliability. This measure will be 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-35

implemented through a two-phase effort to first collect/refine emissions and related 

data and then, based on the data collected, assess viable controls, if appropriate.

Incentive Programs

There are two proposed incentive programs within this category. The first program 

seeks to provide incentives for new and existing facilities to install and operate clean, 

more-efficient combustion equipment beyond what is currently required. The second 

program provides expedited permitting processing and development of applicable 

CEQA documentation if a company manufactures zero or near-zero emission 

technology.

INC-01: ECONOMIC INCENTIVE PROGRAMS TO ADOPT ZERO AND 

NEAR-ZERO TECHNOLOGIES: The primary objective of this measure is to 

develop programs that promote and encourage adoption and installation of cleaner, 

more-efficient combustion equipment with a focus on zero and near-zero 

technologies, such as boilers, water heaters and commercial space heating, through 

economic incentive programs, subject to the availability of public funding. 

Incentives may include grants for new purchases of equipment as well as loan 

programs in areas where long-term cost savings from increased efficiency are 

achieved.

INC-02: EXPEDITED PERMITTING AND CEQA PREPARATION 

FACILITATING THE MANUFACTURING OF ZERO AND NEAR-ZERO 

TECHNOLOGIES: This proposed measure is aimed at providing incentives for 

companies to manufacture zero and near-zero emission technologies locally, thus 

populating the market, potentially lowering the purchase cost, and increasing 

demand. With availability and usage of such technologies, air quality benefits will 

be achieved. This proposed measure focuses on two elements: 1) process the 

required air permit(s) in an expedited procedure; and 2) prioritize the preparation, 

circulation and certification of the applicable CEQA document. A stakeholder 

process will be initiated to design the program and collaborate with other existing 

District or local programs.

Educational Programs

There is one proposed educational program within this category. 

EDU-01: FURTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM 

EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND INCENTIVES: This proposed control measure 

seeks to provide educational outreach and incentives for consumers to contribute to 

clean air efforts. Examples include the usage of energy efficient products, new 

lighting technology, ―super compliant‖ coatings, tree planting, and the use of lighter 

colored roofing and paving materials which reduce energy usage by lowering the 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-36

ambient temperature. In addition, this proposed measure intends to increase the 

effectiveness of energy conservation programs through public education and 

awareness as to the environmental effects and benefits from conservation. Finally, 

educational and incentive tools to be used include comparison of energy usage and 

efficiency, social media, public/private partnerships.

Proposed Ozone Mobile Source Measures

Depending on the mobile source sector and the proposed control approach, District 

staff analyzed the need to accelerate the penetration of cleaner engine technologies. 

The proposed ozone measures are based upon a variety of control technologies that 

are commercially available and/or technologically feasible to implement 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 voluntary vehicle retirement 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 and deployment of near-zero and 

zero-emission vehicles such as plug-in hybrids, battery-electric, and fuel cells, even 

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

and diesel fuels), and additional emission reductions from locomotive and aircraft 

engines. 

Ten measures are proposed as actions to reduce mobile source emissions and seven 

additional measures are proposed to accelerate the development and deployment of 

near-zero and zero-emission technologies for goods movement related sources and 

off-road equipment. The measures call for greater emission reductions through 

accelerated turnover of older vehicles to the cleanest vehicles currently available and 

increased penetration of commercially-available near-zero and zero-emission 

technologies through existing incentives programs. 

Drawing upon the recent draft ―Vision for Clean Air: A Framework for Air Quality 

and Climate Planning‖ (or Vision), a document produced jointly between the District 

staff, the California Air Resources Board, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District, seven measures are proposed to further the development of zeroand near-zero emission technologies for on-road and off-road mobile sources. The 

draft Vision document discusses the need to accelerate deployment of the cleanest 

combustion technologies and zero- and near-zero emission technologies earlier to 

meet federal ambient air quality standards and long-term climate goals. The 

document provides actions for several key transportation sectors and off-road 

equipment. 

Partial-zero and zero-emission technologies are rapidly being introduced into the onroad light- and medium-duty vehicle categories in large part due to the CARB Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV) and the Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regulations. In 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-37

addition, next-generation electric hybrid trucks are being commercialized for lightheavy and medium-heavy heavy-duty on-road vehicles. However, additional 

research and demonstration are needed to commercialize zero- and near-zero 

emission technologies for the heavier heavy-duty vehicles (with gross vehicle weight 

ratings greater than 26,000 lbs.). 

For many of the off-road mobile sources such as locomotives, cargo handling 

equipment, commercial harbor craft, and off-road equipment, some form of ―all zeroemission range‖ is feasible to demonstrate and implement beginning in the latter part 

of this decade. For other sectors such as marine vessels and aircraft, the development 

of cleaner combustion technologies beyond existing emission standards will be 

needed. The Vision document provides a broad discussion of the potential zero- and 

near-zero technologies or cleaner combustion technologies that could be 

demonstrated in the near-term. The potential technologies are discussed further in 

each of the ―ADV‖ measures. A summary of the 17 measures is provided in Table 

VII-4-4.

TABLE VII-4-4

List of Adoption/Implementation Dates and Estimated Emission Reductions 

from Ozone Measures for Mobile Sources

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES

Number Title Adoption Implementation 

Period

Implementing 

Agency

Reduction 

(tpd) by 

2023

ONRD-01 Accelerated Penetration of 

Partial Zero-Emission and ZeroEmission Vehicles [VOC, NOx, 

PM]

N/A Ongoing CARB, 

SCAQMD

TBD a

ONRD-02 Accelerated Retirement of Older 

Light- and Medium-Duty 

Vehicles [VOC, NOx, PM]

N/A Ongoing CARB, Bureau 

of Automotive 

Repair, 

SCAQMD

TBD a

ONRD-03 Accelerated Penetration of 

Partial Zero-Emission and ZeroEmission Light-Heavy- and 

Medium-Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

[NOx, PM]

N/A Ongoing CARB, 

SCAQMD

TBD a

ONRD-04 Accelerated Retirement of Older 

On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

[NOx, PM]

2014 2015-2023 CARB, 

SCAQMD

TBD a,b

ONRD-05 Further Emission Reductions 

from Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

Serving Near-Dock Railyards 

[NOx, PM]

2014 2015-2020 CARB 0.75 [NOx]

0.025 

[PM2.5]
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-38

TABLE VII-4-4 (continued)

List of Adoption/Implementation Dates and Estimated Emission Reductions 

from Ozone Measures for Mobile Sources

OFF-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES

OFFRD01Extension of the SOON 

Provision for 

Construction/Industrial 

Equipment [NOx]

N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 7.5

OFFRD02Further Emission Reductions 

from Freight Locomotives [NOx, 

PM]

Ongoing 2015 – 2023 CARB, U.S. 

EPA, San Pedro 

Bay Ports

12.7 

[NOx]c

0.32 

[PM2.5] c

OFFRD03Further Emission Reductions 

from Passenger Locomotives 

[NOx, PM]

Ongoing Beginning 2014-

2023

SoCal Regional 

Rail Authority

3.0 [NOx] d

0.06 

[PM2.5] d

OFFRD04Further Emission Reductions 

from Ocean-Going Marine 

Vessels While at Berth [NOx, 

SOx, PM]

2014 Ongoing San Pedro Bay 

Ports, CARB, 

SCAQMD

TBD a

OFFRD05Emission Reductions from 

Ocean-Going Marine Vessels 

[NOx]

N/A Ongoing San Pedro Bay 

Ports, CARB, 

U.S. EPA

TBD a
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-39

TABLE VII-4-4 (concluded)

List of Adoption/Implementation Dates and Estimated Emission Reductions 

from Ozone Measures for Mobile Sources

ADVANCED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES

Number Title Adoption Implementation 

Period

Implementing 

Agency

Reduction 

(tpd) by 

2023

ADV-01 Actions for the Deployment of 

Zero- and Near-Zero Emission 

On-Road Heavy-Duty Vehicles 

[NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, San 

Pedro Bay Ports, 

CARB, U.S. 

EPA

TBD e

ADV-02 Actions for the Deployment of 

Zero- and Near-Zero Emission 

Locomotives [NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, San 

Pedro Bay Ports, 

CARB, U.S. 

EPA

TBD e

ADV-03 Actions for the Deployment of 

Zero- and Near-Zero Emission 

Cargo Handling Equipment 

[NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, San 

Pedro Bay Ports, 

CARB, U.S. 

EPA

TBD e

ADV-04 Actions for the Deployment of 

Cleaner Commercial Harborcraft 

[NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, San 

Pedro Bay Ports, 

CARB, U.S. 

EPA

TBD e

ADV-05 Actions for the Deployment of 

Cleaner Ocean-Going Marine 

Vessels [NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, San 

Pedro Bay Ports, 

CARB, U.S. 

EPA

TBD e

ADV-06 Actions for the Deployment of 

Cleaner Off-Road Equipment 

[NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, 

CARB, U.S. 

EPA

TBD e

ADV-07 Actions for the Deployment of 

Cleaner Aircraft Engines [NOx]

N/A 2012 and on SCAQMD, 

CARB, FAA, 

U.S. EPA

TBD e

a. Emission reductions will be determined after projects are identified and implemented.

b. Reductions achieved locally in Mira Loma region.

c. Emission reductions provided are updated from the 2007 SIP values reflecting a revised future year 

base emission levels. The reductions are not included in the 2012 AQMP SIP submittal

d. Submitted into the SIP once technically feasible and cost effective options are confirmed.

e. Emission reduction will be quantified after projects are demonstrated.

On-Road Mobile Source Measures

Five on-road mobile source control measures are proposed. The first two measures 

focus on on-road light- and medium-duty vehicles operating in the South Coast Air 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-40

Basin. By 2023, it is estimated that about 12 million vehicles will be operating in the 

Basin. The first measure would implement programs to accelerate the penetration 

and deployment of partial zero-emission and zero-emission vehicles in the light- and 

medium-duty vehicles categories. The second control measure would seek to 

accelerate retirement of older gasoline and diesel powered vehicles up to 8,500 gross 

vehicle weight (GVW). These vehicles include passenger cars, sports utility 

vehicles, vans, and light duty pick-up trucks. 

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

measures seeks additional emission reductions from the early deployment of partial 

zero-emission and zero-emission light- and medium-heavy-duty vehicles with gross 

vehicle weights between 8,501 pounds to 26,000 pounds. The second control 

measure for heavy-duty vehicles seeks additional emissions reductions from older, 

pre-2010 heavy-duty vehicles beyond the emission reductions targeted in CARB’s 

Truck and Bus Regulation. Additional emission reductions could be achieved if an 

additional percentage of the oldest, pre-2010 heavy duty vehicles not subject to the 

Truck and Bus Regulation are targeted. The fifth on-road measure seeks emission 

reductions at near-dock railyards through the deployment of zero-emission heavyduty vehicles. District staff is recommending a minimum funding level of $85 

million per year for incentives to implement on-road mobile source measures.

Off-Road Mobile Source Measures

Five control measures that seek further emission reductions from off-road mobile 

sources and industrial equipment are proposed. 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 federal and state agencies. 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 continuation of the Surplus Off-Road OptIn for NOx (SOON) provision of the statewide In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fleet 

Regulation beyond 2014. The SOON provision implemented to-date has realized 

additional NOx reductions beyond the statewide regulation. The second and third 

measures call for additional emission reductions from freight and passenger 

locomotives. The fourth measure seeks additional emission reductions from oceangoing vessels while at berth. The fifth measure recognizes the efforts that the Ports 

of Los Angeles and Long Beach are implementing to incentivize Tier 2 and Tier 3 

ocean-going vessels to call at the ports. District staff is recommending a minimum 

funding level of $30 million per year for incentives to implement off-road mobile 

source measures.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-41

Actions to Deploy Advanced Control Technologies

Seven additional measures are proposed to deploy the cleanest control technologies 

as early as possible and to foster the development and deployment of near-zero and 

zero-emission technologies. Many of these actions have already begun. However, 

additional research and development will be needed that will lead to commercial 

deployment of control technologies that achieve emission levels below current 

adopted emission standards. Other near-zero and zero-emission technologies that are 

commercially available will require infrastructure development to facilitate their 

deployment. 

The term ―near-zero‖ technology is not defined in these actions. The term’s specific 

meaning could depend on the source category and feasible technologies. The actions 

needed to deploy zero-emission technologies, ―near-zero‖ emission technologies, and 

the next generation of cleaner combustion engines will be discussed in the 

development of the proposed measures and future AQMPs. To initiate the 

development of cleaner engines (either through in-cylinder or after-treatment controls 

or in combination with hybrid systems that lead to further criteria pollutant emission 

reductions), District staff is proposing that optional NOx standards be adopted. 

Having such optional standards will facilitate the early development of cleaner 

technologies and assist to deploy these technologies as soon as possible. They would 

be set by the level of emission reductions commercially achievable in the near-term. 

Several of the technologies to achieve emission levels lower than current standards, 

or zero-emission levels, are currently available and are potentially transferrable to 

various vehicle vocations and in-use applications. However, further research and 

demonstration are needed for many of these technologies to evaluate their 

performance prior to commercialization. Each measure contains a timeline for 

actions to bring about the zero-emission or cleaner technologies.

The District staff, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, California Air Resources Board, 

California Energy Commission, engine manufacturers, advanced engine control 

developers, and electric hybrid systems developers have been discussing potential 

technologies to further reduce engine exhaust emissions or eliminate exhaust 

emissions entirely. Public forums such as technology symposiums will be used to 

solicit public input on technology development as part of the proposed actions.

The following text provides a brief description of the District staff’s proposed mobile 

source measures: 

ONRD-01 – ACCELERATED PENETRATION OF PARTIAL ZEROEMISSION AND ZERO EMISSION VEHICLES: This measure proposes to 

continue incentives for the purchase of zero-emission vehicles and hybrid vehicles 

with a portion of their operation in an ―all electric range‖ mode. The state Clean 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-42

Vehicle Rebate Pilot (CVRP) program is proposed to continue from 2015 to 2023 

with a proposed funding for up to $5,000 per vehicle. The proposed measure seeks 

to provide funding assistance for up to 1,000 zero-emission or partial-zero emission 

vehicles per year.

ONRD-02 – ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF OLDER LIGHT- AND 

MEDIUM-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure calls for promoting the 

permanent retirement of older eligible vehicles through financial incentives currently 

offered through local funding incentive programs and the AB 118 Enhanced Fleet 

Modernization Program (EFMP). The proposed measure seeks to retire up to 2,000 

older light- and medium-duty vehicles (up to 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight) per 

year. Funding incentives of up to $2,500 per vehicle are proposed for the scrapping 

of the vehicle, which may include a replacement voucher for a newer or new vehicle.

ONRD-03 – ACCELERATED PENETRATION OF PARTIAL ZEROEMISSION AND ZERO-EMISSION LIGHT-HEAVY- AND MEDIUMHEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: The objective of the proposed action is to accelerate 

the introduction of advanced hybrid and zero-emission technologies for Class 4 

through 6 heavy-duty vehicles. The state is currently implementing a Hybrid Vehicle 

Incentives Project (HVIP) program to promote zero-emission and hybrid heavy-duty 

vehicles. The proposed measure seeks to continue the program from 2015 to 2023 to 

deploy up to 1,000 zero- and partial-zero emission vehicles per year with up to 

$25,000 funding assistance per vehicle. Zero-emission vehicles and hybrid vehicles 

with a portion of their operation in an ―all electric range‖ mode would be given the 

highest priority. 

ONRD-04 – ACCELERATED RETIREMENT OF OLDER ON-ROAD 

HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: This proposed measure seeks to replace up to 1,000 

heavy-duty vehicles per year with newer or new vehicles that at a minimum, meet the 

2010 on-road heavy-duty NOx exhaust emissions standard of 0.2 g/bhp-hr. Given 

that exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard occur in the Mira Loma 

region, priority will be placed on replacing older diesel trucks that operate primarily 

at the warehouse and distribution centers located in the Mira Loma area. Funding 

assistance of up to $35,000 per vehicle is proposed and the level of funding will 

depend upon the NOx emissions certification level of the replacement vehicle. In 

addition, a provision similar to the Surplus Off-Road Option for NOx (SOON) 

provision of the statewide In-Use Off-Road Fleet Vehicle Regulation will be sought 

to ensure that additional NOx emission reduction benefits are achieved.

ONRD-05 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM HEAVY-DUTY 

VEHICLES SERVING NEAR-DOCK RAILYARDS: This proposed control 

measure calls for a requirement that any cargo container moved between the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach to the nearby railyards (the Intermodal Container 

Transfer Facility and the proposed Southern California International Gateway) be 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-43

with zero-emission technologies. The measure would be fully implemented by 2020 

through the deployment of zero-emission trucks or any alternative zero-emission 

container movement system such as a fixed guideway system. The measure calls for 

CARB to either adopt a new regulation or amend an existing regulation to require 

such deployment by 2020. To the extent the measure can feasibly be extended 

beyond near-dock railyards, this would be considered for adoption by CARB.

OFFRD-01 – EXTENSION OF THE SOON PROVISION FOR 

CONSTRUCTION/INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT: This measure seeks to 

continue the Surplus Off-Road Option for NOx (SOON) provision of the statewide 

In-Use Off-Road Fleet Vehicle Regulation beyond 2014 through the 2023 timeframe. 

In order to implement the SOON program in this timeframe, funding of up to $30 

million per year would be sought to help fund the repower or replacement of older 

Tier 0 and Tier 1 equipment, with reductions that are considered surplus to the 

statewide regulation with Tier 4 or cleaner engines.

OFFRD-02 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM FREIGHT 

LOCOMOTIVES: The proposed control measure is to meet the commitment in the 

2007 SIP for the accelerated use of Tier 4 locomotives in the South Coast Air Basin. 

The measure calls for CARB to seek further emission reductions from freight 

locomotives through enforceable mechanisms within its authority to achieve 95 

percent or greater introduction of Tier 4 locomotives by 2023.

OFFRD-03 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM PASSENGER 

LOCOMOTIVES: This measure recognizes the recent actions by the Southern 

California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA or Metrolink) to consider replacement 

of their existing Tier 0 passenger locomotives with Tier 4 locomotives. The SCRRA 

adopted a plan that contains a schedule to replace their older existing passenger 

locomotives with Tier 4 locomotives by 2017. More recently, SCRRA released a 

Request for Quotes on the cost of new or newly manufactured passenger locomotives 

with locomotive engines that meet Tier 4 emission levels.

OFFRD-04 – FURTHER EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM OCEAN-GOING 

MARINE VESSELS WHILE AT BERTH: This measure seeks additional 

emission reductions from ocean-going marine vessels while at berth. The actions 

would affect ocean-going vessels that are not subject to the statewide Shorepower 

Regulation or vessel calls that are considered surplus to the statewide regulation. The 

measure seeks at a minimum to have an additional 25 percent of vessel calls beyond 

the statewide regulation to deploy shorepower technologies or alternative forms of 

emissions reduction as early as possible. Such actions could be implemented through 

additional incentives programs or through the San Pedro Bay Ports as part of the 

implementation of the Ports Clean Air Action Plan.
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-44

OFFRD-05 – EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM OCEAN-GOING MARINE 

VESSELS: This measure recognizes the recent actions at the Ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach to initiate an incentives program for cleaner ocean-going vessels to 

call at the ports. The program has been initiated as part of the San Pedro Bay Ports 

Clean Air Action Plan. The program will provide financial incentives for cleaner 

Tier 2 and Tier 3 ocean-going vessels to call at the ports. This measure also 

recognizes the need to monitor progress under such programs and augment them as 

necessary to ensure sufficient results. The program will be monitored on annual 

basis and, if necessary, any adjustments to the program will be made.

ADV-01 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ZERO- AND NEARZERO EMISSION ON-ROAD HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLES: This measure 

would continue the efforts underway to develop zero-emission and near-zero 

emission technologies for on-road heavy-duty vehicle applications. Such 

technologies include, but not limited to, fuel cell, battery-electric, hybrid-electric 

with all electric range, and overhead catenary systems. Hybrid-electric systems 

incorporate an engine powered by conventional fuels or alternative fuels such as 

natural gas. The actions provided in the proposed measure are based on the SCAG 

2012 Regional Transportation Plan. 

ADV-02 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ZERO- AND NEARZERO EMISSION LOCOMOTIVES: This measure calls for the development and 

deployment of zero-emission and near-zero emission technologies for locomotives. 

Such technologies include overhead catenary systems, hybrid locomotives that have 

some portion of their operation in an ―all electric range‖ mode, and alternative forms 

of external power such as a battery tender car. The actions provided in the proposed 

measure are based on the SCAG 2012 Regional Transportation Plan. The zeroemission technologies could apply to freight and passenger locomotives.

ADV-03 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ZERO- AND NEARZERO EMISSION CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT: This measure 

recognizes the actions underway to develop and deploy zero- and near-zero emission 

technologies for various cargo handling equipment. The San Pedro Bay Ports are 

currently demonstrating battery-electric yard tractors. In addition, battery-electric, 

fuel cell, and hybridized systems could be deployed on smaller cargo handling 

equipment. In addition, the use of alternative fuels for conventional combustion 

engines could potentially result in greater emissions benefits.

ADV-04 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER EMISSION 

COMMERCIAL HARBORCRAFT: Several commercial harbor craft operators 

have begun deployment of hybrid systems in their harbor craft to further reduce 

criteria pollutant emissions and improve fuel efficiency. Other cleaner technologies 

include the use of alternative fuels, retrofit of existing older marine engines with 

selective catalytic converters, and diesel particulate filters. This measure recognizes 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-45

several efforts between the District and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to 

further demonstrate control technologies that could be deployed on commercial 

harbor craft that could go beyond the statewide Harbor Craft Regulation.

ADV-05 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER OCEANGOING MARINE VESSELS: The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, CARB, 

and the District have sponsored research and demonstration of various control 

technologies to further reduce emissions from ocean-going vessels. In addition, the 

San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan contains a measure to further 

demonstrate such technologies on ocean-going vessels. This measure recognizes 

many of these efforts and the need to further demonstrate retrofit technologies on 

existing ocean-going vessels. 

ADV-06 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER OFF-ROAD 

EQUIPMENT: The District, Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review 

Committee (MSRC), and CARB have been conducting an off-road ―showcase‖ 

program for retrofit technologies to further reduce emissions from older off-road 

equipment. In addition, several major off-road engine manufacturers are 

investigating the potential use of hybrid systems to further reduce criteria pollutant 

and greenhouse gas emissions. Potential advanced technologies include hybrid 

systems that utilize batteries, fuel cells, or plug-in capabilities, which could result in 

lower emissions compared to Tier 4 emission levels when combined with future Tier 

4 compliant engines. The measure is implemented by the District, CARB and U.S. 

EPA.

ADV-07 –ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER AIRCRAFT 

ENGINES: This measure recognizes the efforts of the Federal Aviation 

Administration’s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) 

Program. The goal of the CLEEN Program is the development of new aircraft 

engines that potentially can be up to 60 percent cleaner in NOx emissions than 

current aircraft engines. The actions under this measure are to continue the 

development of cleaner aircraft engines and work with the airlines and local airport 

authorities to develop mechanisms to route the cleanest aircraft to serve the South 

Coast Air Basin.

OVERALL EMISSION REDUCTIONS

A summary of emission reductions for the proposed 1-hour ozone control measures 

for the year 2022, based on the summer planning inventory for VOC and NOx, is 

provided in Table VII-4-5. These reductions reflect the emission reductions 

associated with implementation of control measures under local, State, and federal 

jurisdiction. Emission reductions represent the difference between the projected 

baseline and the remaining emissions. Note the inclusion in Table VII-4-5 of long 

term (―black box‖) measures under CAA Section 182(e)(5) provisions. 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-46

TABLE VII-4-5

Emission Reductions for 2022 Based on

Summer Planning Inventory (Tons per Day)

SOURCES VOC NOx

Year 2022 Baseline 1440 335

Emission Reductions:

Stationary Sources (2012 

Proposed Measures)

6 3

Mobile Sources (2012 

Proposed Measures)

--- 8

Mobile Sources (2007 SIP 

Carried Forward) 2

7 24

Long Term Measures 317 150

Total 1-hour Ozone SIP 

Reductions 

30 185

2022 Remaining Emissions 410 150

1 Emission assumptions from SCAG’s 2012 regional transportation plan are already reflected in the AQMP

baseline, including TCMs.

2 Emissions reductions already committed in the 2007 8-hour ozone SIP 

3 CAA Section 182(e)(5) long-term emission reduction measures. Note that the U.S. EPA approved 2007 8-hour 

ozone SIP included 40 tpd VOC and 241 tpd NOx emissions reductions (based on the emissions inventories from 

the 2007 SIP) as long term measures under CAA Section 182(e)(5). See 77 Fed. Reg. 12674 (March 1, 2012). 

Thus, the 1-hour ozone long term emissions reductions are not new emissions reductions as they are a subset of the 

previous 2007 SIP emissions reductions from long-term measures. 
SECTION 5

1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-47

INTRODUCTION

On September 19, 2012, in response to a California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

remand, U.S. EPA published a proposed rule to require California to provide a new 

1-hour ozone attainment demonstration for the South Coast Air Basin and the San 

Joaquin Valley non-attainment areas. The proposed rule made a finding of 

substantial inadequacy of the State Implementation Plan for the two areas. The 

proposed rule is anticipated to be approved early in 2013 and will allow five years, 

with a total of up to ten years for attainment of the now revoked 1-hour standard, if 

the state shows that ten years are needed. That will require a demonstration of 

attainment of the 0.12 ppm standard by 2023, with emissions reductions in place by 

the end of 2022. Background discussion on the reasoning for the required revision to 

the 1-hour ozone SIP as well as a description of the control strategy approach is 

provided in earlier sections of this Appendix. This section provides the details of the 

2012 1-hour ozone modeling attainment demonstration. 

BACKGROUND

For a full background discussion regarding the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration, see the Introduction to this Appendix. The most recently approved 

SIP for the 1-hour ozone standard is the 1997/99 Plan, approved by EPA in April 

2000. There have been changes to the motor vehicle emissions inventories and 

model since that time. EPA disapproved the attainment demonstration in the 2003 

SIP revision because it relied in large part on control measures that had been 

withdrawn by CARB following revocation of the 1-hour standard. This disapproval 

led to the litigation which resulted in the SIP call proposed by EPA on September 19, 

2012. In that proposal EPA calls for a revised and updated 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration.

Modeling platforms, meteorological models and chemistry packages have also 

undergone significant enhancements since the 1997 AQMP attainment demonstration 

when the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) with CB-IV chemistry was the primary tool 

for projecting air quality. During the development of the 2003 AQMP, the District 

convened a panel of seven experts to independently review the regional air quality 

modeling for ozone. The consensus of the panel was for the District to move to more 

current state-of-the-art dispersion platforms and chemistry modules. At that time, the 

model selected for the 2007 AQMP ozone attainment demonstrations was the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx) [Environ, 2002], using 

SAPRC99 chemistry. The Final 2012 AQMP has continued to move forward to 

incorporate current state-of-the-art modeling platforms to conduct regional modeling 

analyses. The Final 2012 AQMP PM2.5 attainment demonstration and ozone 

implementation update has been developed using the U.S. EPA supported

Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) (version 4.7) air quality modeling 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-48

platform with SAPRC99 chemistry, and the Weather Research and Forecasting 

Model (WRF) (version 3.3) meteorological fields. Appendix V of the 2012 Final 

AQMP provides an expanded discussion of the current modeling platform. 

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION STRUCTURE: DETERMINISTIC VS. 

TIERED RELATIVE RESPONSE FACTOR (RRF)

The 1997 AQMP and 2003 AQMP 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations relied on 

direct output from model simulations to project future year air quality and design 

values. This ―deterministic‖ approach was based on the premise that future year 

projected baseline inventories were accurate and the impacts of implementing the 

control program were well simulated. In addition, the form of the 1-hour ozone 

standard was directed at the fourth highest concentration in a three year period for a 

given air monitoring station. In essence, the analysis looked at the 2nd highest 

concentration in a given year, typically occurring during the worst-case 

meteorological scenario. The 2007 AQMP and 2012 AQMP have relied on the use 

of relative response factors (RRF) determined from the ratio of future to base year 

simulation projections to estimate attainment. Since shifting to the 8-hour ozone 

standard, the RRF estimated from multiple meteorological episodes has been the 

primary methodology to project future year station specific design values calculated 

as the three year averages of the 4th highest 8-hour concentration. Both approaches, 

(deterministic or RRF), have their limitations: the deterministic method relies on 

accurate modeling and the proper selection of a meteorological episode while the 

RRF approach tends to place less reliance on individual day model performance since 

the factor is based on an average of several events having similar meteorological 

profiles. However, basing the RRF on multiple days may mask the meteorological 

profile characteristics of an extreme event such as an annual second maximum 

concentration. Table VII-5-1 summarizes a comparison of the two approaches to 

demonstrate attainment of the standard.

No specific modeling guidance applies to this current analysis since the 1-hour 

standard has been revoked. As discussed above, the previous 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstrations utilized the deterministic approach to demonstrate 

attainment of the standard. As modeling platforms (both dispersion and 

meteorological) and emissions inventories have greatly improved over the past two 

decades, ozone simulations have demonstrated an increasingly higher level of 

accuracy in recreating observed base year concentrations. The improved simulation 

performance has mitigated several of the concerns regarding using the deterministic 

approach to directly predict future year concentrations. As a result of the improved 

base year performance, this Basin 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration will be 

based on the deterministic modeling approach. As part of the weight of evidence 

discussion, the RRF approach will applied using a stratified or tiered approach to 

develop station specific projections of 2022 1-hr ozone concentrations.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-49

TABLE VII-5-1

Comparison of Attainment Demonstration Methodologies

RRF Deterministic

Targets 98th percentile – multiple year 

average standard

Targets annual 2nd maximum 

concentration

Designed to compensate for base year 

performance

Requires performance within established 

criteria thresholds

Projects future design values based on the 

base year design value applied to ratio of 

future to base year simulated ozone

Assumes accurate future year emissions 

inventory and directly predicts expected 

concentrations

Station specific evaluation Day specific analysis requiring candidate 

episode meeting the ―worst case‖ profile

Requires concentration threshold for 

inclusion in analysis and minimum 

number of valid simulation days

MODELING PROTOCOL

Table VII-5-2 provides the Final 2012 AQMP 1-hour ozone modeling protocol. As 

previously discussed, the CMAQ/WRF/SAPRC99 modeling structure used for the 8-

hour ozone update in the Final 2012 AQMP was used for the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration. A comprehensive discussion of the 8-hour ozone 

modeling analysis is provided in Appendix V of the Final 2012 AQMP. 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-50

TABLE VII-5-2

Summary of Final 2012 AQMP 1-hour Ozone Model Selection and Modeling Protocol

Final 2012 AQMP 1-Hour Ozone Modeling Protocol

Ozone

Dispersion Platform: CMAQ 

Chemistry: SAPRC99

Domain/ Coordinates

Expanded SCOS97 

Meteorology, Emissions and Model application: Lambert Conformal

Grid: 4 Km X 4 Km

Ozone: 18 layers

Emissions Inventories

 2008 Base year

 Day-Specific Emissions

 Shipping emissions split into 2layers 

 EMFAC2011

o 3- modules

o Modified DTIM

 Adjustments to fugitive PM2.5 Paved road EPA with CA modifications

 Day-Specific Biogenic emissions

 Revised Mexican emissions profile

Meteorology

 WRF initialized with NCEP data with FDDA

Air Quality Model Performance

 Assess model performance based on both 1-hour statistics:

Normalized gross bias

Normalized gross error

Peak prediction accuracy

 60 ppb threshold (both indices)

 49 Cell averaging

2008 Base Year Simulations

 June – August 2008

 92 days of simulations evaluated

 Peak Episode 6/18-6/21

Future Year Projections—Deterministic Approach /Tiered RRF Approach

 2022
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-51

MODELING EMISSIONS INVENTORY

Table VII-5-3 provides the baseline and controlled modeling emissions inventories 

used in the attainment demonstration. The CMAQ simulations were based on the 

summer planning inventory, with adjustments made for weekly and daily temperature 

variations. A brief characterization of the emissions used for the modeling analysis is 

presented in Section 3 of this Appendix and Chapter 3 of the Final 2012 AQMP. An 

extensive discussion of the overall emissions inventory is provided in the Final 2012 

AQMP Appendix III. 

TABLE VII-5-3

Summer Planning Emissions Inventory (tons/day)

Year VOC NOX CO

(a) Baseline

2008 593 754 2880

2022 440 335 1540

(b) Controlled

2022 410 150 1540

EPISODE SELECTION AND DESIGN VALUES

Past ozone attainment demonstrations evaluated a set of days characterized by 

restrictive meteorology or episodes occurring during concurrent intensive field 

monitoring programs. Of great importance, these episode periods needed to be rated 

in terms of how representative they were relative to the ozone standard being 

evaluated. For the now revoked 1-hour ozone standard, the attainment demonstration 

focused on a limited number of days closely matching the annual design value. 

Typically, the analysis addressed fewer than 5 days of simulations. The 2003 1-hour 

ozone episode focused on the August 4-7, 1997 ozone meteorological episode that 

occurred during the Southern California Ozone Study and was the subject of an 

extensive field monitoring campaign. 

This update to the future year ozone projection focuses on 92 days of ozone air 

quality observed during June through August of the base year 2008. Overall, the 92 

day period provides a robust description of the 2008 ozone meteorological season. 

Table VII-5-4 lists the number of days each Basin station exceeded the revoked 1-

hour ozone standard during the June through August 2008 period. Also listed in 

Table VII-5-4 are the 2008, 5-year weighted design values (also used in the RRF 

future year ozone projections). Figure VII-5-1 depicts the time series of the daily 

Basin maximum and the Crestline (the Basin design station) daily maximum 1-hour 

ozone concentrations during the three month period in 2008. During this period, 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-52

seven well defined multi-day ozone episodes occurred in the Basin with 30 total days 

having daily Basin-wide 1-hour maximum ozone concentrations of 120 ppb or 

higher. More importantly, when assessed for a normalized meteorological ozone 

episode potential using a regression based weighting covering 30-years of data 

(1998-2010), the June 18 - 22, 2008 period was ranked in the 99th percentile. This 

episode contained the top four daily Basin ozone maximum concentrations for 2008 

and has been selected as the focus of the attainment demonstration. 

Table VII-5-5 summarizes the June 18 - 22 ozone meteorological episode. Three 

monitoring stations shared the distinction as having the daily maximum concentration 

including Crestline, Glendora and on the final day, Glendora and Santa Clarita. As 

indicated in Table VII-5-4, Crestline is the design site for the Basin with a 1-hour 

average design value of 158 ppb. Several locations in the San Bernardino and 

Riverside Valleys exhibit similar daily transport patterns as Crestline. Glendora, 

which exhibited the second highest design value (151 ppb) is located approximately 

30 km downwind of Central Los Angeles along the same wind transport route. The 

peak Basin 2008 1-hour average ozone concentration observed at Santa Clarita was 

on August 2nd with a value of 150 ppb along a distinctly different transport route. As 

illustrated in Table VII-5-5, the observed Basin maximum ozone concentration for 

the episode closely matches the station design value for the station observing the 

maximum concentration. The exceptions occur on June 20th where the observed 1-hr 

maximum ozone concentration reached 176 PPB at Crestline, approximately 111 

percent of the Crestline (and Basin) design value. Similarly, on Sunday June 22nd the 

observed maximum concentration was approximately 82and 87 percent of the 

Glendora and Santa Clarita design values, respectively.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-53

FIGURE VII-5-1

Observed Basin and Crestline Daily Maximum 1-Hr Ozone Concentrations: June 1 through 

August 31, 2008. (Shaded areas indicate multiple day regional ozone episodes).

TABLE VII-5-4

2008 Basin Weighted Design Values and Number of Days Daily 1-

Hour Ozone Maximum Concentrations Exceeded 120 ppb*

Station

2008 5-Year 

Weighted 

Design (ppb)

Number of Days in 2008 

with Observed 1-Hr 

Maximum Ozone > 120 

ppb

Azusa 137 7

Burbank 127 0

Reseda 125 0

Pomona 138 5

Pasadena 130 1

Santa Clarita 141 8

Glendora 151 12

Rubidoux 137 8

Perris 134 4

Mira Loma 129 4

Lake Elsinore 133 6

Banning Airport 138 10

Upland 147 9

Crestline 158 16

Fontana 148 8

San Bernardino 150 11

Redlands 149 12

*Only Stations having design values greater than 120 ppb are listed

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

PPB

Crestline Basin Max
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-54

TABLE VII-5-5

Profile of the June 18-22, 2008 Meteorological-Ozone Episode

Date Day of 

Week

Maximum 

Observed

1-Hr Ozone

(PPB)

Design

Value at 

Maximum 

Station

(PPB)

Maximum 

Location

18-Jun-08 Wed 162 158 Crestline

19-Jun-08 Thu 152 151 Glendora

20-Jun-08 Fri 176 158 Crestline

21-Jun-08 Sat 156 151 Glendora

22-Jun-08 Sun 123 151 Glendora

141 Santa Clarita

BASE-YEAR OZONE MODEL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

For the CMAQ performance evaluation, the modeling domain is separated into nine 

sub-regions or zones. Figure VII-5-2 depicts the sub-regional zones used for baseyear simulation performance. The different zones present unique air quality profiles. 

In previous ozone modeling attainment demonstrations using a smaller modeling 

domain, the number and size of the zones were different. Seven zones represented 

the Basin and portions of Ventura County, the Mojave Desert and the Coachella 

Valley. 

For the current analysis the Basin is represented by three of the zones: Zone 3 – the 

San Fernando Valley, Zone 4 – the Eastern San Gabriel, Riverside and San 

Bernardino Valleys, and Zone 5 – the Los Angeles and Orange County emissions 

source areas. Of the three areas, Zone 4 represents the Basin maximum ozone 

concentrations and the primary downwind impact zone. As such, the priority in 

evaluating model performance is focused on Zone 4. 

The statistics used to evaluate 1-hour average CMAQ ozone performance do not 

change from previous AQMPs and include the following: 
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-55

Statistic for O3 Criteria (%) Comparison Basis

Normalized Gross Bias  15 Paired in space and time

Normalized Gross Error  35 Paired in space (+2 grid 

cells) and time

Peak Prediction Accuracy   20 Unpaired in space and time

FIGURE VII-5-2

Performance Evaluation Zones

The base year average regional model performance for the June 2008 episode for 

Zones 3, 4, and 5 is presented in Table VII-5-6. Performance statistics are presented 

for observed concentrations of 60 ppb or greater.

The CMAQ ozone simulations generally meet the 1-hour average unpaired peak on 

four of the five episode days in Zones 3 and 5 and on three of the days in Zone 4. 

The 2008 highest observed 1-hour ozone concentrations occurred on June 18th and 

June 20th in Zone 4. The ozone simulations were only able to recreate 76 and 73

percent of the observed concentrations on each of those days. Normalized bias 

tended to be negative in Zones 3 and 4. Zone-5 showed a tendency for over 

prediction on June 19th and 22nd. The normalized model error performance goal was 

consistently met in the three zones on June 19-21. 

Figures VII-5-3 through VII-5-12 present the diurnal profiles of observed and 

CMAQ simulated 1-hour ozone and spatial plots of daily 1-hour maximum predicted 

ozone for the June 2008 episode. The diurnal trends depict station profiles grouped 

Zone 9
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-56

by evaluation zone with Zone 3 presented at the left side of the chart. The CMAQ 

predicted trend is highlighted by a dashed red line. The trend diagrams support the 

statistical analysis with June 19th and 21st depicting a close match with observations, 

particularly in Zone 4. The trend of predicted and observed diurnal ozone is also 

closely matched in Zones 3 and 5 for all days except June 22nd when the daily peak

ozone concentrations were over predicted. 

The corresponding spatial plots of daily ozone maximum demonstrate the extent and 

concentration ranges of CMAQ predicted ozone. The peak predicted concentrations 

occur in Zone 4 on June 21st followed by June 19th, with both days meeting the 

unpaired prediction criteria. On June 22nd, the same pattern persists but with an 

extension of higher predicted ozone concentrations occurring in Zone 5 as well. 

While June 18th and 20th are under predicted (unpaired peak ratio of 0. 76 and 0.73), 

the location of the projected daily 1-hour ozone maximum concentrations is correctly 

depicted in the spatial presentation.

Additional statistical characterizations of model performance and individual station 

diurnal trends of observed and predicted 1-hour ozone concentrations are presented 

as Attachments 1 and 2 to this Appendix.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-57

TABLE VII-5-6

June 18-22, 2008 Base Year 1-Hour Average Ozone Performance 

(Bold type indicates meeting statistical performance criteria).

Zone 3

Date Observed Predicted Unpaired Normalized Normalized

(ppb) (ppb) Peak Bias* Error*

Ratio (ppb) (ppb)

618 87 93 1.07 -17 25

619 95 109 1.15 4 18

620 111 99 0.89 -10 19

621 122 107 0.87 -19 20

622 123 92 0.75 -29 29

Zone 4

Date Observed Predicted Unpaired Normalized Normalized

(ppb) (ppb) Peak Bias* Error*

Ratio (ppb) (ppb)

618 162 123 0.76 -17 20

619 152 136 0.90 -1 18

620 176 129 0.73 -12 16

621 156 150 0.96 -1 18

622 123 134 1.09 10 21

Zone 5

Date Observed Predicted Unpaired Normalized Normalized

(ppb) (ppb) Peak Bias* Error*

Ratio (ppb) (ppb)

618 118 107 0.91 0 22

619 110 111 1.01 11 15

620 114 106 0.93 0 13

621 107 115 1.07 4 12

622 107 121 1.13 13 19

*Normalized bias and normalized error calculated for hours where observations > 60 ppb 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-58

FIGURE VII-5-3

CMAQ predicted and observed diurnal trends of 1-hour ozone for June 18, 2008

FIGURE VII-5-4

CMAQ predicted maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 18, 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Burbank

Reseda

Santa Clarita

Azusa

Glendora

Pasadena

Pico Rivera

Pomona

Banning Airport

Lake Elsinore

Mira Loma

Perris

Rubidoux

Crestline

Fontana

Redlands

San Bernardino

Upland

Los Angeles

LAX

Lynwood

North Long Beach

West Los Angeles

Anaheim

Costa Mesa

La Habra

Mission Viejo

PPB

OBS CMAQ

Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-59

FIGURE VII-5-5

CMAQ predicted and observed diurnal trends of 1-hour ozone for June 19, 2008

FIGURE VII-5-6

CMAQ predicted maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 19, 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Burbank

Reseda

Santa Clarita

Azusa

Glendora

Pasadena

Pico Rivera

Pomona

Banning Airport

Lake Elsinore

Mira Loma

Perris

Rubidoux

Crestline

Fontana

Redlands

San Bernardino

Upland

Los Angeles

LAX

Lynwood

North Long Beach

West Los Angeles

Anaheim

Costa Mesa

La Habra

Mission Viejo

PPB

OBS CMAQ

Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-60

FIGURE VII-5-7

CMAQ predicted and observed diurnal trends of 1-hour ozone for June 20, 2008

FIGURE VII-5-8

CMAQ predicted maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for for June 20, 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Burbank

Reseda

Santa Clarita

Azusa

Glendora

Pasadena

Pico Rivera

Pomona

Banning Airport

Lake Elsinore

Mira Loma

Perris

Rubidoux

Crestline

Fontana

Redlands

San Bernardino

Upland

Los Angeles

LAX

Lynwood

North Long Beach

West Los Angeles

Anaheim

Costa Mesa

La Habra

Mission Viejo

PPB

OBS CMAQ

Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-61

FIGURE VII-5-9

CMAQ predicted and observed diurnal trends of 1-hour ozone for June 21, 2008

FIGURE VII-5-10

CMAQ predicted maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 21, 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Burbank

Reseda

Santa Clarita

Azusa

Glendora

Pasadena

Pico Rivera

Pomona

Banning Airport

Lake Elsinore

Mira Loma

Perris

Rubidoux

Crestline

Fontana

Redlands

San Bernardino

Upland

Los Angeles

LAX

Lynwood

North Long Beach

West Los Angeles

Anaheim

Costa Mesa

La Habra

Mission Viejo

PPB

OBS CMAQ

Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-62

FIGURE VII-5-11

CMAQ predicted and observed diurnal trends of 1-hour ozone for June 22, 2008

FIGURE VII-5-12

CMAQ predicted maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 22, 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Burbank

Reseda

Santa Clarita

Azusa

Glendora

Pasadena

Pico Rivera

Pomona

Banning Airport

Lake Elsinore

Mira Loma

Perris

Rubidoux

Crestline

Fontana

Redlands

San Bernardino

Upland

Los Angeles

LAX

Lynwood

North Long Beach

West Los Angeles

Anaheim

Costa Mesa

La Habra

Mission Viejo

PPB

OBS CMAQ

Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-63

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION

Table VII-5-7 provides the summary of the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

using the CMAQ modeling platform and the 2022 controlled emissions inventory 

(410 TPD VOC, 150 TPD NOx). The Controlled Emissions Projection Algorithm 

(CEPA) summary is provided as Attachment 3 to this document. The maximum 

predicted 1-hour ozone concentration on 125.6 ppb occurs on June 19th at Pasadena. 

All other predicted concentrations during the five day episode are projected to be 

below the attainment demonstration concentration threshold of 124.4 ppb. (Note: 

both June 18th and June 20th failed to meet all of the model acceptance criteria, more 

specifically the unpaired peak analysis. As a result, the attainment demonstration is 

focusing on the June 19th and 21st, days with observed peak concentrations that 

closely matched the design values).

The final two columns in Table VII-5-7 provide the maximum of the 2022 predicted 

daily maximum 1-hour ozone concentrations for all 92 days simulated with the 

controlled emissions as well as the number of occurrences the daily maximum was 

predicted to exceed 124.4 ppb. The analysis demonstrated that throughout the June 

through August smog season, only Pasadena on June 19th has a 2022 predicted 1-hour 

daily maximum ozone concentrations that would exceed the attainment threshold. 

All other predicted maximum 1-hour average concentrations during the 92 day 

summer ozone season are projected to be at least 10 percent below the attainment 

threshold. This is illustrated by the time series of predicted daily maximum 1-hour 

ozone concentrations in Figure VII-5-13. Regional temperatures during the June 

episode were extremely warm, giving rise to extensive evaporative and biogenic 

emissions. Midday temperatures in the San Gabriel Valley exceeded 100 degrees

Fahrenheit on each day during the episode. Table VII-5-8 lists a summary of 4 

model simulations for June 19th which include the 2022 predicted maximum 1-hour 

ozone for that day, the maximum predicted 1-hour ozone over all 92 simulated days,

and the number of days the standard was projected to be violated at each station. The 

simulations included 2022 baseline emissions, and model analyses with reaming 

emissions of 410 TPD VOC and 180, 160 and 150 TPD NOx. 

The analysis shows that when NOx emissions are reduced from the 2022 baseline 

values to 180 TPD, only 4 sites have one day exceeding the standard throughout the 

season. Three violations are projected to occur on June 19th while the violation at 

Upland is projected to occur on June 20th. When simulated with 160 TPD NOx, only 

Burbank and Pasadena are projected to exceed the standard on June 19th, and with 

150 TPD NOx, only Pasadena is projected to exceed the standard on one day. The 

high biogenic emissions during this episode may have contributed to an increasing 

VOC/NOx ratio in this area which is directly downwind of the metropolitan Los 

Angeles emissions sources. As biogenic emissions remain constant, NOx emissions 

are lowered leading to the increased reactivity and ozone forming potential. By the 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-64

150 TPD NOx emissions level, the impact appears to be isolated only to Pasadena 

which remained above the 124.4 ppb level. It is important to note that variations in 

the local wind field and deeper atmospheric mixing responding to the surface heating 

on June 18th and June 20th may have ameliorated the impact to the San Gabriel Valley 

on those days.

The form of the 1-hour standard allows for a single exceedance at a station annually. 

Given the form of the standard, the 410 TPD VOC and 150 TPD NOx emissions 

carrying capacity satisfies the Basin 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration. The 

410 TPD VOC and 150 TPD NOx level emissions carrying capacity translates to a 30 

TPD (7 percent) reduction in VOC emissions beyond the 2022 baseline and a 185

TPD (55 percent) reduction in NOx emissions beyond 2022 baseline. The 150 TPD 

NOx level represents a conservative estimate of the carrying capacity. Since the 

form of the standard allows for one exceedance per station per year, it may be

possible to meet the standard at NOx levels as high as 180 TPD as demonstrated in 

Table VII-5-8.

Figures VII-5-14 through VII-5-23 provide the gridded daily 1-hour maximum ozone 

simulated for the 2022 baseline (440 TPD VOC and 335 TPD NOx) and controlled 

emissions (410 TPD VOC and 150 TPD NOx).
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-65

TABLE VII-5-7

Predicted Maximum 1-Hour Ozone (PPB) for the June 18-22 Episode for the 2022 

Controlled Summer Planning Day Emissions

June 18

Wed

June 19

Thu

June 20

Fri

June 21

Sat

June 22

Sun

92 Days 

Simulated

Maximum

PPB

Number 

of Days 

> 124.4 

PPB

Azusa 112.7 116.1 112.8 119.5 93.4 119.5 0

Burbank 107.5 121.9 97.6 91.3 78.6 121.9 0

Glendora 115.6 113.0 113.7 115.6 91.4 115.6 0

Pasadena 112.4 125.6 109.3 108.6 89.7 125.6 1

Pomona 122.1 89.5 101.3 112.2 99.0 122.1 0

Reseda 66.0 97.6 79.9 58.9 54.8 97.6 0

Santa Clarita 55.3 61.8 58.4 58.2 56.2 93.8 0

Banning Airport 104.7 83.0 103.2 93.8 104.9 104.9 0

Lake Elsinore 83.5 81.2 69.4 62.3 72.9 98.0 0

Mira Loma 111.9 90.9 106.7 100.2 105.1 111.9 0

Perris 97.6 90.9 77.8 92.3 101.1 101.1 0

Rubidoux 110.8 90.5 106.8 104.8 109.9 110.8 0

Crestline 99.5 83.4 106.7 116.4 96.1 116.4 0

Fontana 120.1 89.0 102.0 116.1 103.4 120.1 0

Redlands 115.1 94.5 109.1 104.1 107.6 115.1 0

San Bernardino 117.8 95.1 107.4 99.7 108.2 117.8 0

Upland 122.0 89.8 104.1 112.6 94.7 122.0 0
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-67

FIGURE VII-5-13

CMAQ Simulated Daily 1-Hour Maximum Ozone for June through August 2022 with the 2022 Controlled Summer Emissions.

(The green dashed line depicts the 124.4 PPB threshold for the attainment demonstration).

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

601 604 607 610 613 616 619 622 625 628 701 704 707 710 713 716 719 722 725 728 731 803 806 809 812 815 818 821 824 827 830

Azusa

Burbank

Glendora

Pasadena

Pomona

Reseda

Santa Clarita

Banning Airport

Lake Elsinore

Mira Loma

Perris

Rubidoux

Crestline

Fontana

Redlands

San Bernardino
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-68

TABLE VII-5-8 

Predicted Maximum 1-Hour Ozone (PPB) for the June 19th Episode for the 2022 Baseline and Selected Controlled Summer 

Planning Day Emissions

Station

Baseline 

Emissions

June 19 

Max 

(PPB)

92 Day 

Max 

(PPB)

Days > 

124.4 

PPB

NOx 180 

TPD 

June 19 

Max 

(PPB)

92 Day 

Max 

(PPB)

Days > 

124.4 

PPB

NOx 160

TPD 

June 19 

Max 

(PPB)

92 Day 

Max 

(PPB)

Days > 

124.4 

PPB

NOx 150 

TPD 

June 19 

Max 

(PPB)

92 Day 

Max 

(PPB)

Days > 

124.4 

PPB

Azusa 113.5 133.1 1 120.1 124.8 1 119.1 121.9 0 116.1 119.5 0

Burbank 129.3 129.3 1 127.0 127.0 1 124.5 124.5 1 121.9 121.9 0

Glendora 112.9 132.4 1 117.0 121.3 0 115.8 118.4 0 113.0 115.6 0

Pasadena 122.4 122.4 0 128.4 128.4 1 127.2 127.2 1 125.6 125.6 1

Pomona 104.8 126.1 1 92.4 123.7 0 92.5 123.0 0 89.5 122.1 0

Reseda 111.4 111.4 0 101.8 101.8 0 99.6 99.7 0 97.6 97.6 0

Santa Clarita 67.7 108.2 0 63.2 105.1 0 62.3 104.4 0 61.8 93.8 0

Banning Airport 96.4 124.5 1 86.8 111.6 0 85.2 109.7 0 83.0 104.9 0

Lake Elsinore 98.8 107.7 0 85.2 102.3 0 82.8 100.7 0 81.2 98.0 0

Mira Loma 110.6 126.4 2 94.3 116.7 0 91.4 114.8 0 90.9 111.9 0

Perris 110.6 115.6 0 94.4 107.8 0 91.6 106.9 0 90.9 101.1 0

Rubidoux 109.8 127.1 2 93.8 116.6 0 90.8 115 0 90.5 110.8 0

Crestline 102.9 136.7 2 86.9 123.9 0 84.1 121.1 0 83.4 116.4 0

Fontana 106.0 131.7 1 92.5 123.6 0 89.9 121.6 0 89.0 120.1 0

Redlands 114.0 131.0 2 98.1 119.8 0 95 117.5 0 94.5 115.1 0

San Bernardino 113.5 127.8 4 98.4 121.9 0 95.3 120.4 0 95.1 117.8 0

Upland 107.4 127.0 1 93.3 124.5 1 90.6 123.4 0 89.8 122.0 0
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-69

FIGURE VII-5-14

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 18, 2008: Baseline Emissions

FIGURE VII-5-15

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 18, 2008: Controlled Emissions
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-70

FIGURE VII-5-16

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 19, 2008: Baseline Emissions

FIGURE VII-5-17

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 19, 2008: Controlled Emissions
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-71

FIGURE VII-5-18

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 20, 2008: Baseline Emissions

FIGURE VII-5-19

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 20, 2008: Controlled Emissions
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-72

FIGURE VII-5-20

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 21, 2008: Baseline Emissions

FIGURE VII-5-21

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 21, 2008: Controlled Emissions
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-73

FIGURE VII-5-22

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 22, 2008: Baseline Emissions

FIGURE VII-5-23

CMAQ predicted 2022 maximum 1-hour ozone (PPB) for June 22, 2008: Controlled Emissions
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-74

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

The U.S. EPA recommends that a weight of evidence discussion be incorporated with 

air quality attainment demonstrations, particularly if the future year simulated ozone 

concentrations are within a certain percent of the standard in question. For 8-hour 

ozone, U.S. EPA requires a weight of evidence discussion to provide aggregate 

supplemental analyses to support the modeled attainment test if the future projected 

concentration falls within 3 percent of the acceptance threshold. Applying this 

criterion for the 1-hour standard would require a weight of evidence discussion if the 

projected maximum concentration fell within 4 ppb of the 124.4 threshold. As such, 

the weight of evidence discussion presented in this section addresses two lines of 

reasoning why the proposed control strategy and associated emissions reductions will 

achieve attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard. The first analysis examines the 

trends of observed ozone and precursor emissions and then projecting those trends 

forward in time to determine when an empirically projected attainment date would 

take place and if the emissions trends continued. As previously stated, the second 

analysis employs a tiered RRF approach to determine if the emissions reductions 

using the simulation ratio and design value methodology provides further support for 

the demonstration of attainment.

Figures VII-5-24 and VII-5-25 present the trends of observed annual 1-hour 

maximum ozone concentrations and the projections of the trend through 2023. 

Figure VII-5-24(a) depicts the long term trend beginning with 1976 and including all 

years through 2011. The linear regression best fit line indicates that if the trend is 

projected forward in time, the Basin would be expected to meet the one hour standard 

as early as 2013. However, a close examination of the long term trend shows an 

inflection that occurred post 1996 California Phase II Reformulation creating a 

―hockey stick‖ appearance. Reexamining the blade of the hockey stick in Figure VII5-24(b) from 2000 through 2011, the best fit projection suggests attainment would 

take until 2023 which is consistent with the attainment demonstration. Similarly, by 

2022 the trends of Basin VOC and NOx emissions with full implementation of the 

2007 AQMP will be very consistent with the targeted carrying capacity (410 TPD 

VOC and 150 TPD NOx) .
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-75

FIGURE VII-5-24

Trends of Annual Basin 1-Hour Maximum Ozone Concentrations with Projections to 2023: 

(a) 1976 – 2011, (b) Post Phase II Fuel Reformulation: 2000 – 2011. (The dashed red line 

depicts the attainment threshold 124 PPB).

(a)

(b)
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-76

FIGURE VII-5-25

Trends of Annual Basin 1-Hour Maximum Ozone Concentrations with Projections to 2023: 

(a) 1976 – 2011, (b) Post Phase II Fuel Reformulation: 2000 – 2011. (The dashed red line 

depicts the attainment threshold 124 PPB).

The second element of the weight of evidence discussion utilizes the tiered RRF 

approach to determine station specific future year design concentrations based on 

base year 2008 emissions and 2022 controlled emissions. The proposed 

methodology tiers the concentration threshold for accepting a simulation station day 

based on three criteria for evaluation: (1) the base year daily maximum 

concentration absolute prediction error (calculated for a station per episode day) must 

be 20 percent or less; (2) the observed station concentration must be within 25 

percent of the design value; and (3) a minimum of four station specific days 

simulated must meet the error at the set concentration threshold for the RRF to be 

calculated. The 20 percent error criteria is the same level used in the 8-hour ozone 

analysis and the four day minimum was iteratively determined to provide a measure 

of robustness to the RRF calculation. Basically, the four day criteria represented a 

balance between an analyses based on a higher error criteria with potentially more 

days included at a higher concentration threshold vs. a limited set of better simulated 

station days with lower prediction error. Table VII-5-9 lists the impacted stations 

and the threshold concentration used for the RRF calculation. Also listed in Table

VII-5-9 are the base year average percentage prediction bias and error for those days 

included in the future year projection. Overall, the base year tendency is towards 

under prediction. 

It is important to note that the analysis included both weekdays and weekend days. 

For example, the RRF calculation for the design site, Crestline, included 4 days with 

VOC Carrying Capacity

NOx Carrying Capacity
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-77

observed concentrations above 140 ppb including one Thursday, two Fridays and one 

Saturday. In contrast, the RRF for Fontana met the four day criteria at the 120 ppb 

threshold with one Thursday, two Saturdays and two Sunday episodes respectively. 

For both Azusa and Glendora, one of the four days included in the analysis was a 

weekday. 

 

TABLE VII-5-9

Ozone Episode Selection Criteria: Four Days Above Threshold With Daily Absolute 

Percentage Prediction Error < 20%

Station Zone

Tier 

(PPB) No. Days

Avg Bias 

(PPB)

Avg Error 

(PPB)

Burbank 3 100 4 -8.4 8.4

Reseda 3 100 5 -8.0 9.5

Santa Clarita 3 110 6 -12.0 12.0

Azusa 4 115 4 -11.6 11.6

Glendora 4 120 4 -11.3 11.3

Pomona 4 115 5 -2.3 3.1

Banning Airport 4 100 5 -5.6 10.6

Lake Elsinore 4 115 7 -9.9 9.9

Mira Loma 4 120 4 4.3 4.9

Perris 4 115 6 -13.7 13.7

Rubidoux 4 125 4 -1.8 7.4

Crestline 4 140 5 -8.6 10.5

Fontana 4 120 5 -1.2 6.1

Redlands 4 130 4 0.3 4.7

San Bernardino 4 125 5 0.0 11.2

Upland 4 115 6 -4.8 7.0

Pasadena 5 100 5 -5.9 7.1

Tables VII-5-10 and VII-5-11 provide the summaries of the RRF analyses for the 

June through August period for 2022 baseline (440 TPD VOC and 335 TPD NOx) 

and 2022 controlled emissions (410 TPD VOC and 150 TPD NOx). The analyses 

provide future year projected 1-hour ozone design values for two scenarios: with and 

without the June 19th simulation day included. The difference between the projected 

future year design values assessed from the 17 and 18 day analyses provides an 

assessment of the impact a single day can have on the RRF attainment calculation. 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-78

The 2022 baseline analysis (Table VII-5-10) indicates that roughly half of the 

stations with 2008 weighted design values exceeding 120 ppb will not meet the 

attainment threshold of 124.4 ppb. Future year design values for the eastern portion 

of the Basin are projected to approach the standard at several sites. However, 

Crestline and Upland will remain upwards of 11 ppb over the attainment level. The 

San Gabriel Valley stations of Azusa, Pasadena and Glendora are all projected to be 

at least 15 ppb above the standard in the baseline scenario. Removing June 19th from 

the baseline analysis only impacts Pasadena, whereby the projected future design 

value is lowered by more than 8 ppb. All other future year design values remain ± 1 

ppb of the 18 station estimate.

When the controlled scenario is implemented in 2022 (TableVII-5-11), the predicted 

future year design values for the eastern portion of the Basin meet the attainment 

threshold. Only the San Gabriel Valley has projected design values exceeding the 

threshold. Removing June 19th from the analysis brings Pasadena into compliance 

and lowers the future design value at Azusa to within 3 ppb of the attainment goal. 

The removal of June 19th does not impact Glendora because that day was not 

included in the base year analysis. Of note, the removal of June 19th causes the 

Upland future year design value to nominally increase by 2 ppb. The RRF analysis 

demonstrates that the emissions reductions targeted through the implementation of 

the control program will cause future year air quality to meet the 1-hour standard at 

the majority of the areas in the Basin. Accounting for a particularly restrictive 

meteorological episode day, and excluding an episode such as June 19th, narrowed 

the gap between a projection of attainment and non-attainment. Overall, the 2022 

17-day Tiered RRF analysis based on the controlled emissions closely mirrored the 

deterministic attainment demonstration.

While the tiered RRF analysis attainment projection can provide an approximation of 

the form of the 1-hour standard, the analysis does not provide an exact comparison. 

Day selection, the number of days included in the calculation, and the simulation 

performance for that day, all have critical impacts on the outcome of the future year 

projections.

The weight of evidence discussion provided in this section shows that the ongoing 

trends in air quality due to the implementation of the 2007 and 2012 control program

and the control strategies already in place is expected to lower the future year 1-hour 

ozone design value such that the Basin will meet the standard by 2022. This is 

consistent with the Basin’s projected attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard in 

2023. Furthermore, while the tiered RRF analysis did not replicate the deterministic 

attainment projection, the analysis lends support to the level of emissions reduction 

need for attainment and the areas of the Basin expected to experience most air quality 

improvements from implementation of the control program. 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-80

TABLE VII-5-10

Summary of 2022 Tiered RRF Analysis for Baseline Emissions (440 TPD VOC and 335 TPD NOx)

Station

Days 

Included

Threshold to 

Enter Analysis

2008 Design 

Value

RRF 

18- Days

Future Design 

18-Days

RRF 

17-Days*

Future Design 

17-Days*

Azusa 4 115 137 1.021 139.9 1.024 140.3

Burbank 4 100 127 0.969 123 0.969 123

Glendora 4 120 151 0.949 143.3 0.949 143.3

Pasadena 5 100 130 1.089 141.6 1.026 133.4

Pomona 5 115 138 0.902 124.5 0.907 125.2

Reseda 5 100 125 0.899 112.4 0.899 112.4

Santa Clarita 6 110 141 0.849 119.7 0.849 119.7

Banning Airport 5 100 138 0.868 119.7 0.876 120.9

Lake Elsinore 7 115 133 0.818 108.8 0.818 108.8

Mira Loma 4 120 129 0.844 108.9 0.841 108.5

Perris 6 115 134 0.832 111.5 0.832 111.5

Rubidoux 4 125 137 0.853 116.9 0.850 116.4

Crestline 5 140 158 0.854 134.9 0.858 135.6

Fontana 5 120 148 0.867 128.3 0.865 128

Redlands 4 130 149 0.854 127.2 0.842 125.5

San Bernardino 5 125 150 0.851 127.7 0.829 124.4

Upland 6 115 147 0.924 135.9 0.929 136.6

*June 19th is removed from the analysis
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-81

TABLE VII-5-11

Summary of 2022 Tiered RRF Analysis for 2022 Controlled Emissions (VOC 410 TPD, NOx 150 TPD)

Station

Days 

Included

Threshold to 

Enter Analysis

2008 Design 

Value

RRF

18- Days

Future Design 

18-Days

RRF

 17-Days*

Future Design 

17-Days*

Azusa 4 115 137 0.956 131.0 0.930 127.4

Burbank 4 100 127 0.879 111.6 0.879 111.6

Glendora 4 120 151 0.884 133.5 0.884 133.5

Pasadena 5 100 130 1.035 134.6 0.950 123.5

Pomona 5 115 138 0.788 108.8 0.797 110.0

Reseda 5 100 125 0.808 101.0 0.808 101.0

Santa Clarita 6 110 141 0.747 105.3 0.747 105.3

Banning Airport 5 100 138 0.743 102.5 0.751 103.6

Lake Elsinore 7 115 133 0.683 90.9 0.683 90.9

Mira Loma 4 120 129 0.746 96.2 0.760 98.0

Perris 6 115 134 0.705 94.5 0.705 94.5

Rubidoux 4 125 137 0.758 103.8 0.773 105.9

Crestline 5 140 158 0.737 116.4 0.751 118.7

Fontana 5 120 148 0.749 110.8 0.752 111.2

Redlands 4 130 149 0.735 109.6 0.734 109.4

San Bernardino 5 125 150 0.739 110.9 0.727 109.0

Upland 6 115 147 0.824 121.1 0.838 123.2

*June 19th is removed from the analysis
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-82

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CMAQ regional air quality simulations, conducted for the severe June 18 - 22, 2008 

meteorological episode, demonstrate that the Basin will be in attainment of the 

revoked 1-hour ozone standard with controlled emissions of 410 TPD VOC and 150 

TPD NOx in 2022. The form of the 1-hour standard allows for one day at each 

station to exceed the threshold of 120 ppb (124.4 for the modeling attainment 

threshhold). When the deterministic modeling was expanded to include 92 days of 

simulations from June 1 through August 31, the projected number of violations of the 

standard totaled one station day at Pasadena. The attainment demonstration is 

supported by the air quality trend analysis and a companion attainment analysis based

on a tiered RRF methodology.

The 1997 SIP’s 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration defined a 2010 VOC and 

NOx emissions carrying capacity 413 and 530 TPD, respectively. The 2003 

AQMP’s updated attainment demonstration revised the projection to 313 TPD VOC

and 541 TPD NOx. The contribution of the long term emissions reductions measures 

to the attainment demonstration were 46 percent in 1997 and 76 percent in 2003. The 

2007 federally approved 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration defined a 2023 

carrying capacity of 420 TPD VOC and 114 TPD NOx. As presented above, the 1-

hour ozone attainment demonstration defines a 2022 carrying capacity of 410 TPD 

VOC and 150 TPD NOx. For both the current 8-hour and revoked 1-hour ozone 

standards, require a control strategy that significantly reduces NOx emissions and 

thus a continued reliance on long term measures (CAA Section 182(e)(5) ―black box‖

measures). For the 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration, the ―black box‖ control 

measures account for 43 percent of the total emissions reductions from the 2022 

baseline needed for attainment. 

This current 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration requires 7 percent VOC and 55 

percent NOx emissions reductions from 2022 baseline emissions. The targeted 

emissions reductions to achieve 1-hour ozone attainment are consistent in both the 

amount of emissions reduction and timing of those reductions with the approved 

2007 8-hour ozone SIP inventory. Table VII-5-12 summarizes the emissions 

reductions required for attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard.
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-83

TABLE-VII-5-12

1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Emissions Summary

Scenario

VOC 

(TPD)

NOx 

(TPD)

CO 

(TPD)

2022 Baseline 440 335 1540

2022 Attainment 410 150 1540

Total Reduction 30 185 0

Percentage Reduction From Baseline 7 55 0
SECTION 6

Environmental and Socioeconomic Impacts
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-84

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

In anticipation that U.S. EPA would likely request that the District prepare a onehour ozone SIP, the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2012 

AQMP included a total of 11 project objectives2including the following:

 Continue making expeditious progress towards attaining the federal 

eight-hour ozone standard and demonstrate attainment of the federal 

one-hour ozone standard (revoked) by 2022 – 2023;

 Reduce population exposure to ozone through continued progress 

towards attaining the federal one-hour (revoked) and eight-hour 

ozone standards by 2022 – 2023; 

The 2012 AQMP reflects a multi-agency effort to identify 2012 AQMP control 

measures that specifically address the District’s efforts to attain the federal 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard and the federal one-hour (revoked) and eight-hour ozone standards 

by 2022 – 2023, respectively. Consistent with CEQA requirements to analyze the 

whole of the actions from a project, the Program EIR prepared for the 2012 AQMP 

includes an environmental analysis of all PM2.5 control measures, as well as, all of 

the ozone-related control measures in the 2012 AQMP.

On September 19, 2012, U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register a proposed “SIP 

call” which, if finalized, would require the District to prepare a demonstration of 

attainment of the one-hour ozone standard, with attainment required by ten years 

from the date the SIP call is finalized. The same day, U.S. EPA published in the 

Federal Register a proposal to withdraw its approval of, and then to disapprove, the 

transportation control measure (TCM) demonstrations, also referred to as VMT 

emissions offset demonstrations, in the 2003 one-hour ozone plan and the 2007 eighthour ozone plan. As explained by U.S. EPA, both of these actions were taken in 

response to a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of 

Irritated Residents v EPA, January 27, 2012.

In response to U.S. EPA’s “SIP call” and in anticipation that it will be finalized, 

District staff has prepared this 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, which 

demonstrates attainment of the federal one-hour (revoked) ozone standard by the year 

2022. The federal one-hour ozone attainment demonstration in this document 

contains all of the same ozone control measures that are included in the 2012 AQMP, 

 

2 CEQA Guidelines §15124(b)
Final 2012 AQMP

VII-85

as well as the seven remaining mobile source control measures from the 2007 

AQMP. No new measures are proposed beyond those in the 2012 AQMP.

Similarly, in connection with the proposed disapproval of the TCM demonstrations 

for the South Coast Air Basin, U.S. EPA prepared a guidance document3for Severe 

and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas on how to address Clean Air Act (CAA) 

§182(d)(1)(A) (VMT emissions offset demonstrations). District staff conducted a 

VMT emissions offset analysis pursuant to U.S. EPA guidance and concluded that 

actual emissions with controls and VMT growth were substantially less than 

emissions assuming no new measures and no VMT growth ("ceiling"). Based on this 

conclusion, no new TCMs are required for the one-hour ozone SIP. District staff has 

prepared the VMT Offset Requirement Demonstration (2012 AQMP Appendix VIII) 

to provide the results of the VMT emissions offset analysis to the public.

With regard to the seven mobile source control measures from the 2007 AQMP, 

potential environmental impacts from these control measures along with all other 

2007 AQMP ozone and PM2.5 control measures were evaluated in the Final Program 

EIR for the 2007 AQMP (Sch. #2006111064), certified by the District Governing 

Board on June 1, 2007. These remaining measures would be implemented even 

without the 2012 AQMP. For this reason, the seven mobile source control measures, 

as well as four other remaining control measures from the 2007 AQMP, were also 

evaluated as Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, in the 2012 AQMP Program 

EIR, which concluded that implementation of the remaining 2007 AQMP control 

measures would not generate any significant adverse environmental impacts. The 

inclusion of existing 2007 AQMP control measures in this 1-hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration does not require additional environmental review where no changes 

are being proposed to the 2007 measures.

Based on the above information, no additional control measures or TCMs to address 

progress in attaining the federal one-hour (revoked) and eight-hour ozone standards 

by 2022 – 2023 have been identified beyond those listed in the 2012 AQMP. This 

means that this 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration includes all of the same 

ozone-related control measures that are currently in the 2012 AQMP. Further, the 

timing or implementation dates of the ozone control measures in this 1-hour Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration compared to timing and implementation dates in the 2012 

AQMP would not change to meet the one-hour standard. Therefore, by analyzing 

the 2012 AQMP ozone-related control measures in the Program EIR, the Program 

 

3 U.S. EPA. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 2012. Implementing Clean Air Act Section 

182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and Transportation Control Strategies to Offset Growth 

in Emissions Due to Growth in Vehicle Miles Travelled. EPA-420-B-12-053. August. 

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/policy/general/420b12053.pdf. 
Appendix VII: 1-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII-86

EIR also serves as the CEQA document for this 1-hour Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration and the VMT Offset Requirement Demonstration (2012 AQMP 

Appendix VIII). Finally, potential impacts from the seven remaining mobile source 

ozone control measures from the 2007 AQMP have been disclosed to the public in 

the 2007 AQMP and as part of the alternatives analysis in the Program EIR for the 

2012 AQMP. Since no changes are being proposed to those existing measures, no 

additional environmental analysis of the 2007 AQMP control measures is required.

Socioeconomic Analysis

The 1-hour ozone attainment demonstration provided in this Appendix does not 

include any new measures beyond those proposed for the 8-hour ozone plan in the 

Final 2012 AQMP. The socioeconomic impacts of the included new measures are 

fully analyzed in the Socioeconomic Report for the Final 2012 AQMP. The impacts 

of the 2007 AQMP ozone attainment strategy and the benefits of ozone attainment 

were discussed in the Socioeconomic Report associated with the 2007 AQMP. 

Therefore, no additional socioeconomic impact analysis is necessary. 

District staff assesses the socioeconomic impacts of proposed rule amendments or 

proposed rules pursuant to the Board resolutions and state legislative requirements. 

As additional information on control requirements becomes more well-defined 

during the rulemaking process, a detailed assessment of their socioeconomic and 

environmental impacts will be conducted.
Attachment-1

CMAQ Performance 

Observed Vs. Predicted

Concentration, Bias & Error

June 18-22, 2008
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-1

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Azusa 3 33.76 7 36.29 14 44.03 2 35.37 6 36.56

1 Azusa 4 33.38 2 34.33 6 42.53 10 35.8 14 36.15

2 Azusa 8 33.54 2 33.07 6 39.65 2 36.21 8 35.86

3 Azusa 2 33.28 3 31.47 2 36.77 2 37.35 8 35.64

4 Azusa -999 32.16 -999 29.74 -999 34.1 -999 37.84 -999 35.99

5 Azusa 2 31.2 3 28.29 3 32.05 5 37.31 8 35.57

6 Azusa 7 29.84 5 27.28 6 30.45 10 35.85 15 34.72

7 Azusa 15 30.17 8 29.7 15 31.63 14 38.2 32 38.25

8 Azusa 38 35.25 16 38.17 20 39.05 32 49.09 46 48.26

9 Azusa 41 43.26 24 48.35 35 50.1 62 63.12 70 57.94

10 Azusa 59 53.94 48 59.82 56 65.29 92 77.82 92 70.35

11 Azusa 80 64.54 86 74.93 85 80.05 117 90.07 110 84.17

12 Azusa 99 73.98 100 91.83 114 84.58 132 102.71 113 96.8

13 Azusa 115 79.66 111 103.84 105 81.06 113 113.45 104 105.87

14 Azusa 117 78.06 135 107.18 117 76.38 106 116.08 103 102.5

15 Azusa 89 81.24 98 100.46 95 82.84 97 106.64 103 90.69

16 Azusa 70 85.47 89 88.59 78 84.96 92 80.13 92 83.95

17 Azusa 65 76.13 63 78.16 69 75.58 80 62.45 77 70.7

18 Azusa 54 62.41 53 67.02 55 57.4 60 52.39 54 53.74

19 Azusa 35 53.55 36 61.67 63 50.33 50 50.39 44 43.91

20 Azusa 26 45.48 24 53.23 50 45.95 41 46.79 27 39.19

21 Azusa 15 41.27 15 46.97 47 40.19 37 44.09 22 36.93

22 Azusa 8 39.34 24 46.17 44 36.55 16 41.66 16 35.32

23 Azusa 7 37.77 19 45.08 7 34.8 13 38.46 14 33.73

Max 117 85.47 135 107.18 117 84.96 132 116.08 113 105.87
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-2

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Burbank 1 33.61 1 30.93 2 33.99 2 33.26 2 34.06

1 Burbank 1 30.17 1 29.58 2 31.67 2 34.3 2 32.26

2 Burbank 1 26.02 1 27.78 2 30.75 2 34.94 4 32.15

3 Burbank 1 22.17 1 25.06 2 29.9 2 34.84 5 32.92

4 Burbank -999 19.36 -999 20.56 -999 27.93 -999 33.35 -999 32.36

5 Burbank 3 18.91 2 17.67 2 24.17 6 31.01 7 31.34

6 Burbank 6 20.1 5 17.73 4 21.76 13 28.14 17 29.55

7 Burbank 20 25.04 10 21.67 10 23.1 23 30.13 28 31.09

8 Burbank 26 31.64 16 29.72 19 30.48 46 40.57 46 38.74

9 Burbank 39 38.62 31 39.06 37 39.06 63 51.14 64 47.92

10 Burbank 41 45.56 33 49.42 40 49.03 89 61.35 84 59.82

11 Burbank 61 52.41 63 60.32 64 58.44 110 74.38 117 74.6

12 Burbank 83 60.92 95 71.19 96 65.15 106 90.54 98 82

13 Burbank 87 72.17 87 80.71 111 75.47 106 93.55 91 79.9

14 Burbank 66 84.15 84 89.13 98 89.12 122 80.86 93 80.03

15 Burbank 58 86.99 81 95.9 82 90.98 108 73.2 99 75.1

16 Burbank 54 80.48 71 96.32 71 74.08 57 68.88 71 65.32

17 Burbank 45 66.3 65 78.56 58 49.67 49 60.13 58 57.9

18 Burbank 30 47.31 52 55.53 58 32.57 43 42.03 58 44.8

19 Burbank 18 36.97 28 46.16 52 28.58 29 33.41 42 35.49

20 Burbank 9 31.64 20 39.6 26 32 23 35.45 28 32.76

21 Burbank 5 31.29 10 37.44 14 35.99 10 36.2 20 32.37

22 Burbank 2 31.33 4 37.84 2 36.63 2 35.57 9 30.78

23 Burbank 1 31.46 2 36.8 2 33.52 1 35.38 4 29.12

Max 87 86.99 95 96.32 111 90.98 122 93.55 117 82
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-3

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Glendora 24 33.63 39 37.12 32 44 33 39.84 31 37.86

1 Glendora 20 34.26 42 36.16 31 42.62 28 38.64 29 36.84

2 Glendora 16 35.02 39 35.41 16 41.68 23 38.29 26 36.77

3 Glendora 19 35.36 49 34.08 25 40.38 19 38.38 30 37.12

4 Glendora -999 34.82 -999 32 -999 38.8 -999 38.1 -999 37.34

5 Glendora 24 33.92 38 29.95 18 37.42 25 37.19 23 36.68

6 Glendora 30 32.75 40 29.34 18 36 34 35.85 26 35.63

7 Glendora -999 32.74 -999 32.63 -999 37.18 39 38.18 38 38.44

8 Glendora -999 37.53 -999 41.24 -999 43.16 44 47.99 52 48.7

9 Glendora -999 44.82 45 50.52 -999 51.89 64 60.71 75 58.07

10 Glendora -999 54.66 54 60.81 -999 65.01 97 75.47 104 67.83

11 Glendora 87 64.9 76 73.58 -999 80.12 128 88.02 117 81.84

12 Glendora -999 75.49 111 89.99 118 86.22 156 99.05 123 96.75

13 Glendora -999 85.44 121 105.48 138 87.25 135 113.63 120 111.13

14 Glendora 131 87.15 152 114.89 129 82.22 119 122.46 116 114.48

15 Glendora 109 82.57 124 114.08 112 81.58 107 119.68 116 101.96

16 Glendora 79 86.62 105 101.05 88 83.52 103 99.69 102 90.33

17 Glendora 72 81.68 76 83.94 80 79.32 93 74.16 93 79.54

18 Glendora 62 68.44 60 69.98 67 68.37 68 65.88 69 64.64

19 Glendora 45 58.61 50 61.31 57 63.53 53 64.71 51 52.06

20 Glendora 32 52.27 35 56.48 53 57.24 43 53.42 41 42.64

21 Glendora 23 46.57 28 52.07 44 47.47 37 45.45 32 39.07

22 Glendora 22 42.71 23 49.24 39 42.53 33 42.03 30 37

23 Glendora 28 39.34 22 46.09 37 40.52 30 39.54 25 35.9

Max 131 87.15 152 114.89 138 87.25 156 122.46 123 114.48
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-4

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Los Angeles -999 23.56 -999 18.41 -999 17.17 1 14.82 13 22.88

1 Los Angeles 1 21.42 -999 18.07 -999 17.19 1 17.88 10 23.36

2 Los Angeles 1 18.44 -999 16.85 -999 17.92 3 20.79 6 25.2

3 Los Angeles 1 14.91 1 13.92 -999 17.48 6 22.83 13 27.17

4 Los Angeles -999 10.85 -999 9.67 -999 15.12 -999 23.32 -999 27.49

5 Los Angeles 1 10.59 1 9.5 1 12.63 3 23.73 6 26.47

6 Los Angeles 4 14.24 2 12.74 3 12.48 6 23.16 18 25.45

7 Los Angeles 7 22.61 4 19.67 9 16.26 18 28.7 26 31.08

8 Los Angeles -999 30.8 11 29.51 26 26.67 27 42.48 33 41.84

9 Los Angeles -999 38.6 26 43.27 33 39.98 50 57.91 51 52.14

10 Los Angeles -999 45.51 46 56.86 31 52.66 76 69.39 79 62.75

11 Los Angeles 65 51.03 68 66.63 50 59.48 74 77.53 90 76.68

12 Los Angeles 78 58.43 74 73.24 64 63.18 98 88.6 70 85.4

13 Los Angeles 71 70.5 81 77.64 82 73.99 103 93.26 80 81.12

14 Los Angeles 59 82.46 58 81.9 78 86.99 91 79.62 84 81.79

15 Los Angeles 52 80.47 54 85.64 72 85.32 76 68.66 75 78.88

16 Los Angeles 44 70.73 55 82.07 61 65.35 66 66.81 57 65.5

17 Los Angeles 29 57.76 50 66.04 52 38.21 67 60.18 56 55.68

18 Los Angeles 27 39.43 37 43.44 29 18.99 49 38.22 39 41.32

19 Los Angeles 10 27.93 35 33.83 9 14.53 32 25.03 33 29.78

20 Los Angeles 13 21.03 15 28.79 5 15.03 14 23.21 25 24.46

21 Los Angeles 7 17.32 6 22.92 1 15.28 3 23.73 17 20.4

22 Los Angeles 4 16.42 2 20.04 -999 15.63 1 23.18 19 18.42

23 Los Angeles 2 17.54 1 18.67 1 13.32 6 23.29 18 17.37

Max 78 82.46 81 85.64 82 86.99 103 93.26 90 85.4
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-5

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 LAX 24 38.53 4 15.66 3 14.84 31 14.78 9 20.85

1 LAX 23 36.29 7 13.76 28 10.37 24 10.04 4 21.94

2 LAX 18 31.98 5 13.1 24 10.52 15 9.83 12 20.74

3 LAX 12 24.74 6 11.29 17 10.64 12 11.37 14 18.42

4 LAX -999 14.45 -999 9 -999 10.22 -999 14.02 -999 18.42

5 LAX 3 9.14 10 10.05 2 12.35 20 17.61 18 20.8

6 LAX 7 12.4 10 13.46 5 15.08 19 19.79 23 23.69

7 LAX 18 19.48 15 19.71 10 18.82 28 24.75 29 29.94

8 LAX 30 28.52 24 29.35 20 25.96 36 36.47 30 39.67

9 LAX 42 36.97 35 42.42 28 37.29 37 49.83 37 49.7

10 LAX 52 43.25 50 53.89 27 45.97 56 58.12 41 62.81

11 LAX 54 53.31 60 63.03 40 56.48 64 65.74 41 77.13

12 LAX 45 68.56 60 73.28 52 69.79 58 75.15 39 79.57

13 LAX 46 81.31 60 81.7 51 82.73 56 79 47 79.46

14 LAX 52 84.11 55 84.4 41 83.82 57 77.51 53 80.48

15 LAX 54 78.91 54 79.63 44 70.01 60 77.98 54 72.22

16 LAX 47 71.29 50 70.95 52 56.66 60 75.79 53 66.8

17 LAX 38 62.61 41 62.39 49 49.38 65 67.74 51 59.05

18 LAX 37 53.9 37 54.3 51 40.03 61 55.89 51 48.6

19 LAX 31 48.53 25 50.16 49 35.71 47 47.2 46 42.33

20 LAX 28 43.76 25 45.42 45 34.41 41 41.66 41 39.24

21 LAX 16 38.52 18 39.01 45 31.9 32 37.68 34 34.83

22 LAX -999 30.2 19 31.02 37 29.19 28 30.49 31 29.91

23 LAX 1 20.47 3 22.8 31 22.39 24 23.41 29 25.73

Max 54 84.11 60 84.4 52 83.82 65 79 54 80.48
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-6

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Lynwood 13 25.28 19 16.23 1 13.05 10 4.9 30 21.04

1 Lynwood 4 23.27 23 17.26 2 15.18 20 6.42 30 19.43

2 Lynwood 11 19.91 14 17.09 -999 16.18 26 8.93 24 19.63

3 Lynwood 6 15.74 6 14.67 -999 14.44 22 12.06 22 22.07

4 Lynwood -999 11.17 -999 11.46 -999 11.05 -999 14.91 -999 24.17

5 Lynwood 1 11.06 -999 11.28 -999 10.03 9 18.51 11 24.95

6 Lynwood 2 15.89 2 14.38 1 11.51 9 21.95 22 25.66

7 Lynwood 4 24.66 8 22.3 4 15.9 22 30.04 34 33.25

8 Lynwood 10 32.74 14 33.7 17 26.15 33 45.23 46 45.12

9 Lynwood 25 40.62 29 49.09 25 41.09 48 61.71 52 56.2

10 Lynwood 37 47.12 45 63.78 33 53.72 56 72.86 53 64.44

11 Lynwood 49 50.68 64 73.1 39 58.16 50 77.22 49 73.01

12 Lynwood 58 57.36 65 77.02 52 64.69 75 83.41 70 83.07

13 Lynwood 58 71.75 67 80.38 78 77 71 90.89 60 83.78

14 Lynwood 49 85.41 53 83.96 61 86.47 64 86.33 62 83.42

15 Lynwood 50 81.74 47 85.17 52 83.96 54 71.69 63 80.26

16 Lynwood 47 69.63 59 77.35 48 63.59 52 68.7 52 64.75

17 Lynwood 34 58.04 47 60.29 37 40.64 54 62.63 40 55.66

18 Lynwood 26 44.97 32 42.11 31 22.28 35 43.88 33 45.49

19 Lynwood 20 34.61 18 31.91 13 15.76 17 31.97 26 36.62

20 Lynwood 21 27.52 23 25.94 12 14.01 12 30.07 20 31.29

21 Lynwood 20 22.1 19 20.47 11 11.06 9 28.63 22 24.97

22 Lynwood 18 17.91 8 17.01 13 9.77 8 24.92 21 20.17

23 Lynwood 17 15.82 6 13.8 13 7.13 23 22.94 18 16.92

Max 58 85.41 67 85.17 78 86.47 75 90.89 70 83.78
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-7

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Long Beach 25 29.23 36 16.36 9 17.21 30 6.79 33 20.09

1 Long Beach 30 27.34 34 17.85 10 20.35 30 4.69 27 16.35

2 Long Beach 31 22.69 27 19.69 15 19.94 29 4.5 27 15.16

3 Long Beach 28 16.16 22 19.38 21 17.81 27 5.89 27 15.83

4 Long Beach -999 12.67 -999 17.29 -999 14.7 -999 8.43 -999 18.67

5 Long Beach 19 13.98 2 17.08 7 13.21 19 13.26 21 21.69

6 Long Beach 7 18.98 5 19.99 3 14.55 27 18.44 28 24.29

7 Long Beach 9 27.25 14 27.31 13 18.42 33 27.18 33 31.32

8 Long Beach 12 35.74 19 38.03 25 26.42 43 40.91 38 40.08

9 Long Beach 17 43.32 19 51.67 27 37.82 51 54.61 41 48.72

10 Long Beach 16 49.63 25 64.24 37 50.06 49 65.63 49 56.36

11 Long Beach 48 54.49 41 72.18 46 60.95 50 72.08 43 68.38

12 Long Beach 87 62.54 59 77.02 68 73.74 53 78.26 47 84.96

13 Long Beach 83 78.79 61 83.5 77 84.1 46 88.78 51 88.98

14 Long Beach 72 89.63 41 90.21 78 86.39 59 89.3 52 85.9

15 Long Beach 62 84.44 47 87.65 67 80.97 73 74.17 57 79.63

16 Long Beach 46 70.84 35 73.62 70 64.56 72 69.31 70 63.6

17 Long Beach 37 58.66 34 55.32 69 45.32 71 61.93 58 54.6

18 Long Beach 42 47.48 30 40.43 57 28.34 45 46.67 50 44.4

19 Long Beach 35 39.42 34 33.5 41 20.67 38 37.47 38 37.28

20 Long Beach 34 33.45 28 29.27 26 20.86 31 32.54 31 33.38

21 Long Beach 36 28.08 23 24.8 42 17.83 28 28.92 29 27.77

22 Long Beach 37 22.83 21 22.28 37 13.73 34 26.43 23 20.87

23 Long Beach 35 17.93 16 18.19 27 10.76 38 24.27 22 18.12

Max 87 89.63 61 90.21 78 86.39 73 89.3 70 88.98
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-8

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Pasadena 3 31.97 3 31.35 -999 33.44 2 29.82 8 34.36

1 Pasadena 1 30.65 3 30.05 -999 33.42 1 33.05 7 33.49

2 Pasadena -999 28.75 2 28.32 -999 32.59 -999 34.29 9 33.88

3 Pasadena -999 26.88 1 26.07 -999 30.64 2 35.22 8 33.7

4 Pasadena -999 25.33 -999 22.65 -999 28.01 -999 35.59 -999 33.04

5 Pasadena 1 25.37 1 21.27 1 25.14 4 34.44 4 32.02

6 Pasadena 7 26.07 5 21.85 10 23.81 13 32.53 22 30.53

7 Pasadena 24 29.13 18 24.91 19 25.93 34 35.23 32 33.74

8 Pasadena 44 34.26 39 31.61 39 34.51 53 44.93 50 42.34

9 Pasadena 61 41.64 62 42.69 55 46.29 72 58.12 72 53.29

10 Pasadena 79 50.84 66 55.92 78 60.29 94 72.59 91 65.92

11 Pasadena 88 59.37 72 70.76 90 69.62 104 85.21 101 79

12 Pasadena 82 65.44 90 83.38 73 70.96 100 96.82 107 91.43

13 Pasadena 96 70.44 110 89.62 94 69.28 107 106.23 93 93.97

14 Pasadena 81 78.04 91 89.84 86 77.31 93 103.07 90 87.31

15 Pasadena 66 85.33 77 87.01 78 88.16 81 83.66 88 85.27

16 Pasadena 58 81.6 63 86.27 72 84.42 84 70.77 79 76.87

17 Pasadena 52 70.36 58 78.8 66 63.15 61 63.19 57 62.74

18 Pasadena 36 54.42 44 62.12 53 41.56 52 48.16 51 47.24

19 Pasadena 22 42.06 30 56.32 35 35.97 42 37.34 37 36.96

20 Pasadena 13 32.68 18 45.28 19 33.54 28 35.41 21 33.77

21 Pasadena 11 29.77 16 36.45 9 30.53 18 35.66 14 32.21

22 Pasadena 10 30.53 11 35.26 2 29.02 12 35.08 12 29.91

23 Pasadena 9 31.58 4 34.51 -999 27.56 10 35.79 9 28.43

Max 96 85.33 110 89.84 94 88.16 107 106.23 107 93.97
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-9

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Pico Rivera 3 23.17 2 28.06 -999 27.37 1 17.67 22 30.57

1 Pico Rivera 3 22.17 -999 27.42 -999 30.13 13 22.74 27 29.8

2 Pico Rivera 5 21.19 -999 25.74 -999 29.51 12 25.85 20 29.99

3 Pico Rivera 1 20.5 -999 23.27 -999 25.15 4 28.85 -999 31.07

4 Pico Rivera -999 19.39 -999 19.39 -999 20.76 -999 30.41 -999 31.92

5 Pico Rivera -999 19.63 -999 18.12 -999 18.13 -999 31.59 1 31.83

6 Pico Rivera 2 21.24 -999 20.06 -999 17.98 6 32.43 15 31.62

7 Pico Rivera 7 26.59 9 26.55 4 22.6 19 38.26 38 37.65

8 Pico Rivera 11 32.88 18 37 8 33.24 32 50.53 50 48.37

9 Pico Rivera 21 41.54 44 50.25 32 47.45 44 64.62 60 61.34

10 Pico Rivera 47 52.08 65 65.69 73 64.12 80 78.74 80 73.19

11 Pico Rivera 73 59.44 60 81.88 84 72.07 100 88.89 78 80.58

12 Pico Rivera 82 62.35 75 91.39 79 72 88 95.97 77 87.11

13 Pico Rivera 87 65.69 99 90.84 80 72.58 96 100.82 83 88.26

14 Pico Rivera 70 76.72 86 87.39 86 81.12 92 97.95 85 84.52

15 Pico Rivera 67 85.75 83 85.39 66 87.08 80 78.75 82 82.39

16 Pico Rivera 64 77.53 61 83.75 61 79.08 68 64.38 73 72.57

17 Pico Rivera 55 63.03 53 73.15 60 54.69 64 59.56 58 57.3

18 Pico Rivera 42 45.22 41 50.78 52 26.39 57 43.62 48 44.64

19 Pico Rivera 32 31.7 34 36.01 35 15.11 40 30.29 37 34.16

20 Pico Rivera 24 26.24 25 31.28 13 14.59 28 27.78 30 28.36

21 Pico Rivera 15 23.75 14 27.78 2 11.99 19 27.84 24 23.03

22 Pico Rivera 2 24.47 13 27.3 -999 11.71 16 29.93 21 19.94

23 Pico Rivera 2 26.26 -999 26.58 -999 12.62 11 31.13 19 18.83

Max 87 85.75 99 91.39 86 87.08 100 100.82 85 88.26
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-10

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Pomona 4 27.5 3 39.43 3 44.59 3 36.65 4 36.06

1 Pomona 3 27.45 3 38.5 3 40.66 3 38.01 3 37.49

2 Pomona 3 28.59 3 38.43 2 39.33 3 39.13 5 39.72

3 Pomona 2 29.36 3 36.76 3 38.18 2 39.35 3 40.42

4 Pomona -999 28.52 -999 34.88 -999 36.91 -999 39.79 -999 40.53

5 Pomona 3 26.25 3 32.07 4 35.08 4 39.89 8 40.56

6 Pomona 6 24.92 5 31.19 11 32.7 9 39.48 14 41.47

7 Pomona 20 26.33 10 34.96 21 33.25 18 43.46 32 46.85

8 Pomona 33 33.17 21 43.27 35 39.77 34 54.62 52 59.58

9 Pomona 67 43.65 49 51.54 56 50.62 76 65.98 78 72.36

10 Pomona 81 56.11 56 62.67 79 65.59 96 78.17 99 80.25

11 Pomona 91 66.16 87 77.82 84 78.85 117 89.21 116 89.77

12 Pomona 103 75.63 116 95.22 101 88.45 137 102.7 113 100.46

13 Pomona 105 84.13 126 110.18 141 95.17 118 120.26 93 106.56

14 Pomona 134 84.71 123 116.32 138 98.33 110 123.92 84 109.91

15 Pomona 126 77.72 106 113.75 106 95.91 98 115.45 86 103.84

16 Pomona 92 82.38 100 100.82 85 83.96 82 97.05 88 89.21

17 Pomona 74 80.02 82 82.05 67 73.33 71 65.8 80 76.97

18 Pomona 63 64.93 60 69.05 55 58.61 65 51.52 69 59.74

19 Pomona 42 52.42 46 63.24 29 49.56 53 51.62 54 47.2

20 Pomona 34 47.04 34 58.79 6 46.47 37 48.21 41 37.98

21 Pomona 25 45.91 18 57.92 3 39.28 24 41.86 31 32.07

22 Pomona 4 44.8 3 54.85 3 35.37 9 39.22 28 30.66

23 Pomona 4 42.16 4 50.04 3 35.17 3 36.79 18 29.95

Max 134 84.71 126 116.32 141 98.33 137 123.92 116 109.91
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-11

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Reseda 9 37.3 1 37.73 18 37.4 3 37.64 2 42.69

1 Reseda 15 34.36 2 36.13 8 35.58 3 36.68 1 39.43

2 Reseda 15 31.09 7 34.74 2 34.71 1 36.32 1 35.14

3 Reseda 5 26.7 11 33.02 1 34.23 1 35.8 1 33.21

4 Reseda -999 21.97 -999 30.44 -999 32.61 -999 34.49 -999 33.92

5 Reseda 3 20.96 5 27.52 3 30.6 3 32.49 4 34.33

6 Reseda 8 22.39 6 26.26 4 29.11 9 30.85 12 33.21

7 Reseda 21 26.5 16 27.76 14 29.17 20 32.37 26 34.84

8 Reseda 62 34.04 44 35.35 58 35.57 33 41.31 47 41.76

9 Reseda 66 41.38 52 42.14 61 41.29 50 48.8 66 48.1

10 Reseda 64 48.02 52 47.73 59 45.58 70 54.82 90 54.24

11 Reseda 62 54.06 42 55.24 53 53.33 67 64.05 90 60.5

12 Reseda 60 62.12 52 68.61 56 64.89 51 72.73 90 65.92

13 Reseda 56 74.85 55 84.71 69 78.6 48 74.88 98 67.83

14 Reseda 62 84.43 44 95.35 70 85.61 49 70.14 105 64.68

15 Reseda 58 81.88 44 95.77 58 77.4 50 65.03 99 58.95

16 Reseda 65 70.62 46 81.17 49 67.02 50 61.39 91 60.94

17 Reseda 67 62.02 57 59.67 48 54.26 47 59.61 75 59.1

18 Reseda 51 53.49 48 49.5 52 39.77 41 51.98 56 50.11

19 Reseda 49 45.91 37 45.46 47 36.2 37 47.83 43 44.07

20 Reseda 45 40.51 24 44.85 41 38.67 28 49.92 32 43.06

21 Reseda 35 41.5 18 45.18 32 41.9 20 49.58 23 41.48

22 Reseda 5 41.45 21 42.92 9 41.83 6 46.77 16 40.07

23 Reseda 2 39.71 21 39.63 7 39.69 3 44.56 13 37.29

Max 67 84.43 57 95.77 70 85.61 70 74.88 105 67.83
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-12

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Santa Clarita 37 39.55 61 38.5 24 37.96 9 41.53 17 43.98

1 Santa Clarita 40 37.63 40 37.2 22 36.57 17 40.66 16 40.96

2 Santa Clarita 40 36.5 31 36.16 21 35.79 22 39.71 19 38.28

3 Santa Clarita 39 35.21 25 35.01 19 35.08 20 38.48 18 36.52

4 Santa Clarita -999 33.62 -999 33.73 -999 34.08 -999 37.22 -999 35.41

5 Santa Clarita 34 32.53 4 32.71 5 32.96 8 35.98 22 34.69

6 Santa Clarita 34 31.9 6 32.62 9 32.59 13 35.16 21 34.39

7 Santa Clarita 60 33.29 27 34.65 42 34.76 37 36.95 35 36.8

8 Santa Clarita 66 39.01 47 40.79 60 40.74 56 43.09 52 43.02

9 Santa Clarita 66 44.21 57 45.43 67 45.63 64 47.72 62 48

10 Santa Clarita 65 47.96 55 48.82 66 49.44 58 50.05 91 50.74

11 Santa Clarita 59 50.48 50 51.42 55 53.05 55 52.16 105 53.29

12 Santa Clarita 58 52.35 49 54.48 51 58.86 61 56.81 123 59.01

13 Santa Clarita 60 55.53 52 59.43 53 65 56 68.92 80 63.35

14 Santa Clarita 58 64.62 60 66.77 53 72.76 55 75.22 46 62.18

15 Santa Clarita 56 71.18 63 74.31 66 73.92 58 70.4 45 60.02

16 Santa Clarita 55 64.83 62 72.99 72 67.54 60 64.35 43 64.93

17 Santa Clarita 57 58.35 50 58.51 57 59.17 58 62.11 50 64.47

18 Santa Clarita 62 49.45 41 51.66 46 50.82 52 58.3 52 57.87

19 Santa Clarita 66 44.24 36 49.03 42 49.32 39 56.68 49 53.13

20 Santa Clarita 63 43.83 21 48.99 23 47.36 18 55.82 30 50.73

21 Santa Clarita 57 44.12 17 47.46 15 46.77 13 53.79 23 47.65

22 Santa Clarita 57 42.75 20 43.5 10 44.9 11 50.62 28 43.42

23 Santa Clarita 58 40.42 23 40.03 8 43.19 10 47.34 24 38.8

Max 66 71.18 63 74.31 72 73.92 64 75.22 123 64.93
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-13

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 West LA 26 33.81 1 22.56 5 23.84 25 21.86 4 25.79

1 West LA 2 30.72 1 22.76 8 22.32 22 22.46 5 24.97

2 West LA 2 25.92 1 21.48 9 21.33 11 23.66 2 25.11

3 West LA 2 19.26 1 18.6 1 20.37 3 25.26 2 24.87

4 West LA -999 12.54 -999 15.11 -999 18.44 -999 26.25 -999 27.07

5 West LA 3 11.58 2 13.88 2 17.36 5 26.43 4 28.59

6 West LA 11 14.35 5 15.27 4 17.27 21 24.92 19 28.39

7 West LA 21 20.46 18 19.72 9 18.7 27 27.32 33 30.82

8 West LA 31 28.49 28 28.1 20 25.05 34 38.07 46 39.3

9 West LA 51 36.33 31 38.01 27 34.36 43 49.49 49 49

10 West LA 65 43.09 51 47.51 42 42.2 61 59.41 51 62.14

11 West LA 72 52.26 66 57.01 65 53.15 71 72.7 54 74.96

12 West LA 53 65.12 72 70.98 83 67.85 92 79.55 80 76.25

13 West LA 42 78.82 77 84.48 88 84.04 84 74.06 70 77.32

14 West LA 37 83.88 79 91.73 85 87.97 68 70.75 69 77.75

15 West LA 41 80.19 73 92.59 82 75.28 76 71.49 56 69.73

16 West LA 45 71.7 73 82.45 60 61.46 74 69.63 63 64.74

17 West LA 42 60.69 60 64.5 56 49.62 65 62.54 49 58.36

18 West LA 37 49.39 47 50.31 50 34.04 53 47.81 43 45.98

19 West LA 33 43.38 29 43.72 29 26.55 46 39.38 36 37.94

20 West LA 24 36.78 17 39.37 18 26.58 31 38.94 36 35.77

21 West LA 13 33.88 7 36.27 30 28.41 19 37.44 30 32.13

22 West LA 2 28.95 1 31.57 38 29.35 11 33.24 26 28.68

23 West LA 2 23.17 2 26.7 36 24.86 3 28.31 24 25.6

Max 72 83.88 79 92.59 88 87.97 92 79.55 80 77.75
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-14

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Anaheim 33 31.68 21 37.5 14 41.45 23 20.76 38 31.99

1 Anaheim 33 32.24 24 39.28 16 43.14 34 25.47 31 33

2 Anaheim 32 33.27 15 39.56 20 43.72 31 29.05 25 35.08

3 Anaheim 31 33.02 -999 37.31 19 40.36 30 31.12 19 36.57

4 Anaheim -999 29.85 -999 32.95 -999 33.9 -999 31.19 -999 37.26

5 Anaheim 12 26.88 1 29.63 1 27.99 2 31.25 17 37.13

6 Anaheim 5 27.05 3 28.57 2 25.14 8 33.07 20 36.77

7 Anaheim 10 32.24 10 33.95 4 27.63 36 40.4 27 43.72

8 Anaheim 17 38.89 38 43.96 21 35.67 49 54.46 50 55.39

9 Anaheim 32 48.71 41 56.65 51 48.77 67 67.28 66 69.34

10 Anaheim 52 60.61 56 75.67 71 63.04 84 80.3 68 81.7

11 Anaheim -999 71.79 76 90.34 83 75.14 78 93.01 67 88.74

12 Anaheim -999 80.44 89 93.4 86 86.9 80 98.24 67 93.06

13 Anaheim 94 85.45 92 93.23 85 98.24 82 96.97 65 99.65

14 Anaheim 93 87.74 94 93.53 105 99.51 85 100.59 62 104.52

15 Anaheim 93 91.04 84 93.07 92 90.81 87 99.08 57 99.43

16 Anaheim 66 86.41 67 88.7 92 82.99 80 78.24 68 83.49

17 Anaheim 60 70.56 60 78.08 76 66.43 68 61.98 58 64.31

18 Anaheim 55 50.58 52 59.19 57 39.44 58 44.99 40 45.13

19 Anaheim 35 36.94 43 45.66 28 19.63 41 32.49 28 30.87

20 Anaheim 29 31.04 36 38.3 24 15.04 35 29.24 24 25.19

21 Anaheim 27 29.78 27 36.51 20 13.66 38 29.16 20 21.85

22 Anaheim 26 31.56 20 38.24 20 13.97 45 30.96 18 20.32

23 Anaheim 24 34.88 17 40.24 22 16.61 48 31.49 26 20.68

Max 94 91.04 94 93.53 105 99.51 87 100.59 68 104.52
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-15

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Costa Mesa 36 50.48 30 48.45 29 65.3 48 29.03 39 39.67

1 Costa Mesa 41 50.59 23 51.37 33 66.05 50 30.3 43 42.57

2 Costa Mesa 40 50.69 20 52.86 31 62.63 48 32.02 39 43.62

3 Costa Mesa 39 50.8 12 51.43 24 57.7 44 35.38 28 42.91

4 Costa Mesa -999 49.14 -999 47.54 -999 53.82 -999 37.88 -999 42.02

5 Costa Mesa 22 45.27 4 43.63 6 48.7 18 37.62 28 42.69

6 Costa Mesa 18 44.3 6 42.61 11 45.09 34 37.01 33 44.1

7 Costa Mesa 16 48.28 18 46.57 14 45.66 43 40.7 38 49.69

8 Costa Mesa 24 53.87 30 56.93 28 50.86 53 52.35 46 57.52

9 Costa Mesa 28 61.62 42 70.39 47 62.24 60 67.16 49 65.1

10 Costa Mesa 33 70.74 67 83.43 71 76.89 67 79.86 57 71.05

11 Costa Mesa 53 78.23 68 87.32 75 87.38 70 84.23 63 79.88

12 Costa Mesa 69 82.85 78 86.43 80 92.31 67 84.34 56 93.56

13 Costa Mesa 76 90.4 73 85.03 80 94.73 72 89.87 50 107.67

14 Costa Mesa 71 98.64 73 87.13 80 96.63 69 98.57 47 113.92

15 Costa Mesa 65 101.98 67 94.77 62 95.56 76 102.47 47 104.17

16 Costa Mesa 55 93.05 59 93.57 57 86.44 80 86.27 53 82.67

17 Costa Mesa 52 75.86 50 82.75 54 70.65 72 70.83 50 65.27

18 Costa Mesa 37 62.41 46 67.99 49 51.37 64 58.18 44 53.4

19 Costa Mesa 38 55.42 38 58.95 39 37.86 55 52.62 40 44.29

20 Costa Mesa 41 50.66 36 54 34 34.44 48 50.21 31 38.57

21 Costa Mesa 37 48.31 32 53.41 33 32.76 50 45.53 31 36.82

22 Costa Mesa 29 47.55 30 57.24 28 31.65 43 41.77 35 37.21

23 Costa Mesa 31 47.11 28 61.71 41 29.67 42 38.62 38 36.67

Max 76 101.98 78 94.77 80 96.63 80 102.47 63 113.92
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-16

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 La Habra 16 30.24 9 39.62 13 42.88 15 23.27 16 35.64

1 La Habra 23 30.39 7 39.06 12 44.03 24 28.05 11 34.12

2 La Habra 23 31.85 5 38.73 3 42.78 9 32.63 14 35.15

3 La Habra 6 32.4 4 37.22 3 37.84 8 35.95 22 36.96

4 La Habra -999 30.98 -999 35.14 -999 32.83 -999 37.09 -999 38.55

5 La Habra 3 29.03 1 33.02 2 28.69 6 37.49 11 39.14

6 La Habra 6 27.99 5 32.09 6 26.49 20 38.8 26 39.47

7 La Habra 11 30.9 15 36.08 20 28.76 37 44.98 41 45.68

8 La Habra 22 37.07 39 44.82 41 37.45 51 58.09 53 56.81

9 La Habra 34 47.29 50 55.85 52 51.7 62 70.68 66 70.54

10 La Habra 54 59.32 58 73.12 60 66.7 87 82.57 80 83.53

11 La Habra 59 69.17 75 90.97 87 75.3 89 94.54 72 91.04

12 La Habra 63 76.65 84 98.43 93 84.77 88 103.84 70 92.58

13 La Habra 104 78.51 80 98.53 104 93.89 91 103.57 65 95.71

14 La Habra 102 79.31 84 97.23 104 98.39 87 103.57 73 99.12

15 La Habra 85 86.78 84 94.3 90 90.67 86 98.11 73 94.8

16 La Habra 67 86.06 69 88.5 70 83.36 74 75.91 71 83.11

17 La Habra 58 71.81 64 78.7 64 68.03 65 61.66 68 65.77

18 La Habra 54 52.79 50 62.1 57 43.42 63 47.4 52 47.63

19 La Habra 45 38.43 41 49.39 39 24.16 45 35.16 45 34.61

20 La Habra 32 32.37 31 41.85 24 19.35 27 31.5 42 28.92

21 La Habra 19 30.96 28 40.19 15 17.05 21 32.16 35 24.56

22 La Habra 15 33.22 17 40.8 4 16.84 22 35.28 19 22.28

23 La Habra 14 37.49 10 41.72 4 19.01 23 35.74 19 21.9

Max 104 86.78 84 98.53 104 98.39 91 103.84 80 99.12
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-17

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Mission Viejo 28 45.58 2 61.54 10 76.19 37 47.57 8 50.13

1 Mission Viejo 28 47.06 6 61.65 10 75.75 43 48.08 14 50.3

2 Mission Viejo 26 49.28 12 61.45 16 71.65 29 48.24 13 49.8

3 Mission Viejo 14 50.53 11 59.53 17 59.56 37 48.13 11 49.14

4 Mission Viejo -999 49.47 -999 53.15 -999 56.37 -999 47.36 -999 48.56

5 Mission Viejo 11 47.13 13 49.92 17 54.25 35 46.58 15 48.54

6 Mission Viejo 15 45.19 17 49.59 20 52.13 24 46.35 26 49.1

7 Mission Viejo 20 46.61 40 52.72 58 52.35 38 48.75 39 54.01

8 Mission Viejo 51 53.81 58 61.78 69 56.69 54 58.26 56 63.47

9 Mission Viejo 57 63.67 78 72.14 63 65.36 75 70.14 68 73.11

10 Mission Viejo 53 74.85 87 83.77 88 78.89 93 82.79 77 81.04

11 Mission Viejo 69 84.73 97 93.9 100 89.48 104 93.21 73 85.16

12 Mission Viejo 87 90.83 98 99.64 114 96.61 94 94.66 72 88.28

13 Mission Viejo 103 93.79 105 103.05 111 100.31 100 92.57 72 93.04

14 Mission Viejo 118 98.27 97 102.87 111 100.56 104 95.23 66 101.6

15 Mission Viejo 107 104.05 97 97.76 112 100.69 89 103.05 65 115.62

16 Mission Viejo 69 105.95 92 90.59 94 97.5 79 108.25 59 114.31

17 Mission Viejo 55 96.42 68 87.22 99 87.06 76 95.12 55 98.18

18 Mission Viejo 35 80.11 53 82.57 93 73.3 78 80.51 64 76.94

19 Mission Viejo 23 72.33 41 81.2 62 65.16 62 67.5 60 61.45

20 Mission Viejo 30 67.42 31 79.19 36 57.56 38 57.89 52 50.85

21 Mission Viejo 25 65.33 22 77.9 9 52.57 21 54.22 43 44.71

22 Mission Viejo 16 62.84 11 77.31 27 48.2 18 51.44 23 41.75

23 Mission Viejo 7 61.14 10 76.98 39 47.35 12 49.37 15 39.91

Max 118 105.95 105 103.05 114 100.69 104 108.25 77 115.62
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-18

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Banning 50 52.37 50 68.07 46 78.93 51 56.23 42 69.13

1 Banning 57 50.86 47 61.51 43 65.93 50 55.01 45 61.64

2 Banning 49 48.36 36 53.09 36 58.04 45 54.17 40 57.24

3 Banning 49 44.85 33 50.06 28 55.67 46 52.7 44 52.1

4 Banning -999 43.07 -999 47.85 -999 53.34 -999 50.87 -999 48.73

5 Banning 36 43.33 30 46.06 22 50.63 44 49.08 33 47.33

6 Banning 53 45.3 45 45.65 36 48.84 45 46.75 39 46.08

7 Banning 55 49.69 48 47.66 46 50.23 64 49.01 49 45.51

8 Banning 60 53.72 57 52.89 59 56.92 69 60.01 55 48.91

9 Banning 63 56.5 64 57.09 68 57.88 70 63.44 62 52.98

10 Banning 67 57.27 66 58.33 74 58.77 69 63.99 63 57.27

11 Banning 75 57.05 66 57.33 81 59.65 70 64.71 61 59.71

12 Banning 81 58.31 67 56.93 72 60.87 75 64.21 65 63.68

13 Banning 94 61.09 69 58.22 74 61.82 84 64.16 62 70.38

14 Banning 93 64.9 99 60.39 81 63.49 98 70.96 70 80.08

15 Banning 104 71.16 107 67.36 96 77.15 95 86.37 58 92.61

16 Banning 130 81.34 99 85.76 107 108.23 92 95.27 52 104.26

17 Banning 113 97.04 100 104.29 135 121.79 83 99.89 53 116.26

18 Banning 137 96.22 96 104.75 129 111.84 79 94.98 51 119.4

19 Banning 124 86.42 82 102.36 97 95.61 72 96.8 51 111.68

20 Banning 98 78.85 73 98.48 74 81.75 64 99.79 56 107.26

21 Banning 67 74.6 53 94.56 67 70.03 44 101.32 43 88.94

22 Banning 58 73.06 50 90.27 41 62.97 38 102.56 40 73.16

23 Banning 65 72.02 56 85.5 46 59.33 45 84.18 29 63.18

Max 137 97.04 107 104.75 135 121.79 98 102.56 70 119.4
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-19

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Lake Elsinore 19 40.73 41 68.77 30 81.68 20 57.09 20 66.54

1 Lake Elsinore 19 40.79 40 67.51 25 79.87 21 56.08 19 61.07

2 Lake Elsinore 10 41.14 26 67.27 20 71.72 17 55.29 15 58.19

3 Lake Elsinore 15 41.86 25 65.71 12 52.02 15 53.79 14 57.54

4 Lake Elsinore -999 42.37 -999 53.16 -999 43.74 -999 52.59 -999 54.78

5 Lake Elsinore 8 42.83 14 40.97 4 39.89 14 51.64 13 51.8

6 Lake Elsinore 18 43.17 24 35.95 12 38.28 17 51.26 25 50.56

7 Lake Elsinore 45 45.99 -999 36.28 50 39.41 42 54.56 41 52.54

8 Lake Elsinore 66 56.61 -999 40.01 69 44.61 71 63.84 58 59.09

9 Lake Elsinore 79 68.51 -999 46.31 74 51.75 82 71.01 73 64.92

10 Lake Elsinore 82 73.69 58 55.04 81 59.11 86 73.54 72 70.32

11 Lake Elsinore 83 74.86 71 67.07 86 66.33 80 74.39 73 74.68

12 Lake Elsinore 83 76.97 84 81.35 88 71.16 76 78.39 74 80.31

13 Lake Elsinore 86 85.09 95 93.57 86 80.73 75 86.41 64 86.25

14 Lake Elsinore 113 95.09 89 101.12 76 95.42 69 88.02 58 87.55

15 Lake Elsinore 135 104 96 109.23 83 93.71 61 84.92 57 83.83

16 Lake Elsinore 117 111.58 86 116.19 91 96.84 56 87.1 62 89.42

17 Lake Elsinore 106 106.53 77 115.32 92 90.02 51 90.25 57 104.88

18 Lake Elsinore 90 90.6 75 107.87 78 75.51 50 90.16 47 99.71

19 Lake Elsinore 70 79.53 70 103.68 63 71.14 48 77.48 43 75.93

20 Lake Elsinore 56 73.84 74 98.13 55 62.26 26 66.5 35 58.04

21 Lake Elsinore 50 73.46 65 92.57 45 59.51 26 64.3 30 54.93

22 Lake Elsinore 41 73.69 50 87.34 34 60.53 23 65.65 20 54.82

23 Lake Elsinore 42 71.41 36 83.87 25 59.2 14 67.09 22 55.72

Max 135 111.58 96 116.19 92 96.84 86 90.25 74 104.88
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-20

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Mira Loma 20 28.82 11 52.94 17 54.46 2 50.07 5 52.31

1 Mira Loma 14 27.2 6 49.31 9 51.72 2 49.97 4 54.66

2 Mira Loma 8 25.14 4 42.98 3 44.78 2 50.23 4 53.62

3 Mira Loma 5 21.62 3 35.99 3 36.96 2 49.52 4 48.06

4 Mira Loma -999 19.15 -999 28.11 -999 31.74 -999 47.82 -999 44.93

5 Mira Loma 3 20.87 3 23.46 4 29.37 3 46.11 6 44.38

6 Mira Loma 6 23.98 6 22.96 10 28.49 8 44.61 16 43.87

7 Mira Loma 17 30.03 14 25.8 18 29.92 20 49.36 26 48.18

8 Mira Loma 43 41.89 38 34.21 44 37.05 44 63.52 43 61.03

9 Mira Loma 69 53.24 61 43.92 65 46.41 77 72.81 68 76.61

10 Mira Loma 76 59.69 79 54.79 80 56.79 93 78.31 77 89.76

11 Mira Loma 84 65.34 96 67.92 88 66.41 96 84.42 91 94

12 Mira Loma 97 72.47 110 82.6 87 74.55 122 93.14 91 99.37

13 Mira Loma 120 83.14 118 98.7 123 89.3 96 113.03 78 106.78

14 Mira Loma 119 98.38 131 115.06 114 109.48 87 129.56 72 112.4

15 Mira Loma 128 107.25 110 125.57 135 116.73 89 115.46 69 116.43

16 Mira Loma 110 94.54 98 120.91 113 105.52 83 110.05 71 115.27

17 Mira Loma 99 83.55 87 101.09 94 79.86 74 100.79 70 100.48

18 Mira Loma 73 75.78 64 80 71 60.43 69 70.39 58 78.41

19 Mira Loma 62 65.19 57 68.93 42 49.07 56 50.07 52 59.38

20 Mira Loma 49 57.4 47 62.02 16 45.18 42 42.43 46 47.36

21 Mira Loma 35 52.16 36 57.25 4 45.35 25 40.8 33 40.45

22 Mira Loma 26 51.46 30 55.04 2 46.26 14 42.51 23 37.59

23 Mira Loma 14 53.4 22 55.18 3 48.34 9 47.14 18 36.87

Max 128 107.25 131 125.57 135 116.73 122 129.56 91 116.43
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-21

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Perris 26 37.9 20 65.54 13 71.72 26 63.7 4 75.22

1 Perris 11 36.71 26 63.98 10 68.33 21 62.01 -999 72.63

2 Perris 10 35.72 26 60.17 14 61.9 6 60.93 8 70.4

3 Perris 3 35.07 15 54.78 -999 53.77 10 59.79 13 66.48

4 Perris -999 35.03 -999 48.14 -999 47.98 -999 58.95 -999 64.65

5 Perris 5 36.13 8 41.18 1 44.55 7 58.39 6 62.73

6 Perris 15 38.72 20 37.28 13 42.54 22 58.55 25 60.94

7 Perris 39 44.91 41 37.31 44 43.3 44 63.11 36 61.02

8 Perris 65 57.46 65 41.03 67 49.53 68 74.98 53 63.81

9 Perris 76 69.28 75 46.69 71 57.67 80 82.8 59 66.34

10 Perris 77 72 74 54.09 71 63.55 80 80.04 67 70.15

11 Perris 75 69.67 82 61.17 66 66.46 74 75.69 75 73.39

12 Perris 86 68.36 79 68.08 67 67.14 78 74.23 70 77.11

13 Perris 92 70.87 86 76.9 59 69.97 86 80.26 64 82.45

14 Perris 97 77.35 83 89.38 68 86.85 76 96.21 61 92.31

15 Perris 100 90.84 92 106.7 78 102.98 79 103.62 58 96.05

16 Perris 116 109.69 92 123.52 112 96.71 62 94.43 55 100.95

17 Perris 122 106.89 79 126.19 109 92.46 51 94.23 54 111.47

18 Perris 102 88.18 70 109.83 79 77.94 47 96.78 51 108.13

19 Perris 82 78.86 61 96.57 51 68.36 35 84.74 43 91.5

20 Perris 69 73.55 60 88.45 38 64.75 31 76.43 31 74.91

21 Perris 58 70.35 54 83.27 32 65.14 5 72.76 24 66.52

22 Perris 37 68.22 32 78.29 28 67.21 2 71.59 18 64.73

23 Perris 19 66.94 17 74.28 17 66.29 5 73.32 19 67.68

Max 122 109.69 92 126.19 112 102.98 86 103.62 75 111.47
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-22

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Rubidoux 22 32.64 3 53.66 8 56.71 1 56.1 4 61.15

1 Rubidoux 20 30.97 2 49.18 1 52.65 1 55.69 11 58.67

2 Rubidoux 2 28.55 1 42.95 1 45.17 1 55.5 6 55.63

3 Rubidoux 1 25.17 1 36.69 1 37.73 1 54.15 1 49

4 Rubidoux -999 23.12 -999 29.56 -999 33.74 -999 52.62 -999 46.02

5 Rubidoux 1 24.55 1 24.53 1 32.23 2 51.76 3 45.48

6 Rubidoux 3 27.7 4 23.69 4 31.47 4 51 8 44.57

7 Rubidoux 14 34.06 12 25.98 22 32.38 12 55.86 22 47.85

8 Rubidoux 29 45.49 42 33.95 48 39.11 48 69.25 49 59.41

9 Rubidoux 61 55.6 69 43.44 77 48.7 88 77.34 74 74.09

10 Rubidoux 85 60.39 84 54.2 86 58.7 102 80.09 87 86.62

11 Rubidoux 88 64.61 94 66.51 89 67.43 89 82.76 89 93.08

12 Rubidoux 94 71 119 79.98 86 74.03 129 87.97 99 97.16

13 Rubidoux 116 79.49 119 94.7 115 84.82 122 103.53 85 104.51

14 Rubidoux 136 93.37 140 110.57 123 106.88 98 129.16 75 111.18

15 Rubidoux 138 109.73 130 124.52 146 118.42 99 121.08 74 117.76

16 Rubidoux 131 103.36 106 126.49 138 113.21 96 109.98 71 118.69

17 Rubidoux 114 86.67 97 110.67 110 87.33 85 107.89 75 108.77

18 Rubidoux 82 77.91 71 86.85 83 65.32 77 83.14 63 88.05

19 Rubidoux 67 69.39 63 72.23 62 53.73 65 61.01 54 68.26

20 Rubidoux 57 61.93 55 65 31 51.39 51 50.16 52 54.53

21 Rubidoux 45 58.31 47 61.24 2 52.73 29 47.04 47 46.51

22 Rubidoux 25 59.37 23 59.82 5 53.81 16 49.43 31 44.02

23 Rubidoux 8 58.03 10 59.27 1 55.66 10 55.71 22 43.76

Max 138 109.73 140 126.49 146 118.42 129 129.16 99 118.69
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-23

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Indio 49 52.14 68 57.78 61 59.12 62 47.34 51 63.88

1 Indio 52 50.85 61 55.69 55 58.77 54 48.73 49 54.15

2 Indio 48 46.23 55 52.98 54 56.09 50 49.61 46 50.91

3 Indio 35 40.58 54 52.1 47 52.15 49 49.03 45 49.69

4 Indio -999 36.82 -999 49.73 -999 48.94 -999 47.42 -999 52.22

5 Indio 3 34.43 46 46.3 36 46.13 11 45.6 29 54.96

6 Indio 9 33.72 30 43 37 43.84 30 43.69 19 54.96

7 Indio 23 36.91 43 43.1 40 43.01 55 48.06 20 57.6

8 Indio 53 45.52 53 48.41 54 48.46 67 59.66 23 61.66

9 Indio 65 53.45 69 52.84 66 52.96 75 68.77 29 66.83

10 Indio 71 60.79 79 57.12 76 57.19 70 75.12 38 70.4

11 Indio 78 66.98 68 60.94 79 63.36 71 79.47 50 72.55

12 Indio 81 71.97 63 63.8 75 65.37 77 81.24 61 74.65

13 Indio 81 74.43 61 65.53 74 63.46 74 83.83 67 75.41

14 Indio 78 72.19 64 65.72 76 60.93 69 84.19 65 75.31

15 Indio 76 69.24 65 64.29 76 59.67 66 82.3 64 75.12

16 Indio 70 66.93 64 62.53 75 59.44 63 81.12 67 75.92

17 Indio 81 63.09 62 59.25 69 59 66 76.74 61 75.74

18 Indio 93 61.64 73 56.55 80 72.92 60 68.48 52 76.26

19 Indio 102 71.07 85 67.11 111 90.99 57 79.32 45 88.53

20 Indio 115 77.23 76 80.21 101 78.9 62 92.8 43 89.27

21 Indio 100 74.1 79 78.28 88 62.7 61 87.83 45 81.92

22 Indio 90 67.14 73 68.69 74 51.39 56 78.83 47 70.8

23 Indio 74 60.14 67 61.13 61 47.09 54 71.54 44 56.63

Max 115 77.23 85 80.21 111 90.99 77 92.8 67 89.27
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-24

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Palm Springs 32 49.22 67 62.99 65 66.19 55 41.16 52 49.61

1 Palm Springs 32 47.96 65 63.43 52 57.69 50 41.83 51 47.31

2 Palm Springs 29 44.97 62 57.89 47 52.92 50 42.96 51 44.12

3 Palm Springs 27 40.75 60 52.78 48 49.68 41 44.25 48 41.89

4 Palm Springs -999 37.6 -999 48.68 -999 47.83 -999 43.7 -999 40.44

5 Palm Springs 55 36.34 53 44.96 47 46.91 40 42.56 43 39.41

6 Palm Springs 57 36.98 49 42.53 51 46.07 47 41.25 36 40.85

7 Palm Springs 61 39.95 59 42.71 53 46.32 60 43.24 21 47.83

8 Palm Springs 62 45.3 61 48.12 52 51.66 63 52.07 28 54.31

9 Palm Springs 64 48.53 60 52.62 56 53.48 78 59.72 38 60.3

10 Palm Springs 66 50.87 60 54.07 63 55.55 81 67.49 54 65.05

11 Palm Springs 69 53.09 63 55.78 71 57.77 76 71.58 67 68.91

12 Palm Springs 70 55.65 61 57.88 73 59.12 71 73.92 69 71.75

13 Palm Springs 64 58.55 61 59.58 74 60.23 70 76.01 66 72.35

14 Palm Springs 73 61.03 65 60.61 75 61.18 69 76.72 69 73.79

15 Palm Springs 86 62.63 79 61.65 79 61.94 83 79.62 66 77.26

16 Palm Springs 90 65.18 105 63.23 89 69.47 76 79.84 61 85.56

17 Palm Springs 99 72.97 100 67.89 104 99.08 70 76.15 54 93.14

18 Palm Springs 93 80.83 95 77.4 109 100.73 50 79.93 50 91.66

19 Palm Springs 97 79.62 75 81.59 102 74.73 47 89.89 46 88.35

20 Palm Springs 103 74.4 72 76.7 92 60.49 43 92.86 45 82.89

21 Palm Springs 88 69.78 70 68.45 76 50.31 43 79.83 41 70.14

22 Palm Springs 79 67.3 73 70.6 67 44.24 45 68.82 39 49.96

23 Palm Springs 68 64.89 69 73.35 59 42.79 52 59.53 39 45.01

Max 103 80.83 105 81.59 109 100.73 83 92.86 69 93.14
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-25

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Crestline 44 39.57 39 43.01 24 45.72 23 63.41 32 48.85

1 Crestline 39 38.79 40 40.16 30 42.41 26 61.55 30 44.69

2 Crestline 37 36.79 49 38.44 36 40.41 24 59.23 26 41.71

3 Crestline 33 35.47 50 37.39 36 39.18 22 55.23 23 39.48

4 Crestline -999 35.04 -999 36.46 -999 38.31 -999 50.87 -999 37.83

5 Crestline 20 35.71 45 35.52 41 38.04 24 47.58 17 36.62

6 Crestline 39 37.47 35 35.28 39 37.87 25 46.14 17 35.55

7 Crestline 55 39.75 47 37.27 52 39.39 30 48.33 17 36.89

8 Crestline 64 42.77 54 42.06 56 43.94 51 53.67 40 42.71

9 Crestline 66 46.89 56 48.25 60 50.52 58 58.89 60 51.26

10 Crestline 68 51.99 59 55.02 62 57.84 76 63.99 71 63.45

11 Crestline 68 55.14 62 60.84 64 65.31 96 70.21 77 78.37

12 Crestline 64 57.71 64 65.09 67 71.5 107 80.49 100 90.8

13 Crestline 60 62.23 78 70.71 75 76.64 118 92.33 112 97.82

14 Crestline 86 70.68 94 82.54 106 86.82 137 105.91 85 104.19

15 Crestline 140 82.57 91 99.42 134 99.46 140 129.67 81 118.48

16 Crestline 162 93.74 127 113.31 176 100.97 119 139.28 85 130.76

17 Crestline 133 90.28 142 117.78 138 94.22 105 128.45 88 122.05

18 Crestline 79 80.74 108 110.28 90 86.97 96 114.06 94 105.79

19 Crestline 27 76.05 66 102.26 51 81.68 72 107.53 80 98.91

20 Crestline 20 72.83 35 91.97 23 77.82 48 103.59 71 93.89

21 Crestline 26 62.87 22 79.59 23 70.06 38 95.73 51 84.9

22 Crestline 48 51.9 23 61.2 21 68.17 33 75.08 47 71.62

23 Crestline 48 46.88 25 51.1 23 66.69 30 54.91 44 57.17

Max 162 93.74 142 117.78 176 100.97 140 139.28 112 130.76
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-26

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Fontana 2 24.69 2 44.38 1 44.04 2 49.41 1 46.15

1 Fontana 2 23.63 2 39.65 1 41.25 3 48.41 3 47.03

2 Fontana 2 22.18 2 35.06 1 37.94 5 47.4 6 46.73

3 Fontana 2 20.34 2 30.41 1 35.78 2 46.25 9 42.85

4 Fontana -999 18.69 -999 26.47 -999 33.35 -999 44.35 -999 40.02

5 Fontana 3 19.55 4 24.28 3 32.08 4 42.35 9 39.04

6 Fontana 11 22.39 13 25.01 7 31.21 13 40.36 23 38.65

7 Fontana 33 27.03 23 28.5 21 32.31 29 42.72 41 42.77

8 Fontana 50 35.59 34 36.63 26 39.15 51 53.95 65 55.96

9 Fontana 60 44.27 38 45.29 -999 47.63 64 63.53 71 72.74

10 Fontana 68 51.79 51 54.75 59 56.49 88 72.82 84 88.25

11 Fontana 78 60.24 84 65.92 -999 65.81 92 83.42 110 95.14

12 Fontana 93 68.55 90 79.18 90 75.2 125 93.07 116 98.09

13 Fontana 117 79.22 124 95.35 97 88.21 149 107.86 117 104.75

14 Fontana 128 92.39 139 111.89 153 103.69 132 130.48 86 116.6

15 Fontana 149 99.97 134 122.08 162 107.73 120 130.76 83 122.38

16 Fontana 125 83.24 114 118.9 95 96.68 88 118.85 92 111.75

17 Fontana 90 75.15 102 101.97 74 78.62 92 99.79 91 90.1

18 Fontana 71 70.84 70 80.07 66 62.24 75 69.06 77 72.4

19 Fontana 50 59.54 50 65.78 45 50.38 51 54.2 61 57.01

20 Fontana 34 51.93 33 61.35 10 46.9 36 48.57 50 47.48

21 Fontana 29 48.53 15 57.69 2 45.94 26 47.51 36 43.46

22 Fontana 13 46.96 4 51.8 2 46.13 16 48.33 18 42.32

23 Fontana 7 46.93 2 47.88 4 48.47 5 45.86 16 40.09

Max 149 99.97 139 122.08 162 107.73 149 130.76 117 122.38
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-27

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Redlands 30 44.34 43 46.66 36 52.45 55 65.78 40 58.05

1 Redlands 24 41.52 42 44.59 39 49.97 53 62.1 36 50.79

2 Redlands 22 39.16 37 42.69 35 48.63 44 58.29 33 49.05

3 Redlands 25 36.72 40 40.31 35 47.6 42 54.82 33 44.61

4 Redlands -999 35.07 -999 37.63 -999 46.94 -999 52.91 -999 42.09

5 Redlands 38 35.08 41 35.44 28 45.71 37 52.01 25 41.46

6 Redlands 34 37.04 32 35.86 34 44.69 39 52.59 28 41.51

7 Redlands 43 42.1 55 40.92 30 46.9 59 57.97 44 43.97

8 Redlands 51 50.3 62 50.26 19 56.18 72 69.17 59 49.59

9 Redlands 60 56.85 70 57.95 47 64.73 86 74.01 74 56.86

10 Redlands 61 60.77 69 64.76 60 69.47 99 76.25 84 69.07

11 Redlands 73 63.56 81 69.6 84 71.39 113 76.63 80 83.13

12 Redlands 89 67.9 93 72.21 95 72.77 91 77.53 76 94.67

13 Redlands 94 74.46 104 77.46 95 76.62 104 83.75 100 101.2

14 Redlands 120 81.69 106 89.73 107 91.52 136 99.38 75 107.19

15 Redlands 135 94.74 126 106.45 126 116.34 106 131.29 62 115.56

16 Redlands 147 111.36 132 119.13 154 126.82 101 136.19 59 126.93

17 Redlands 139 103.72 111 124.3 121 119.04 99 124.94 63 125.07

18 Redlands 111 84.36 100 114.19 92 100.36 82 111.25 78 111.19

19 Redlands 84 77.56 78 98.39 72 84.34 61 98.01 65 97.75

20 Redlands 55 73.39 56 86.04 59 78.38 53 87.08 50 88.75

21 Redlands 48 67.98 52 78.62 66 70.48 58 86.54 40 76.71

22 Redlands 41 59.17 39 69.4 53 66.69 50 85.01 45 71.51

23 Redlands 42 50.7 32 59.72 49 67.04 47 73.43 43 66.84

Max 147 111.36 132 124.3 154 126.82 136 136.19 100 126.93
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-28

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 San Bernardino 1 35.23 27 44.48 21 48.28 24 61.82 2 57.91

1 San Bernardino 1 34.1 18 40.95 11 44.07 8 60.53 4 48.87

2 San Bernardino 5 32.34 14 38.3 3 41.02 2 58.69 14 45.04

3 San Bernardino 7 29.91 8 35.54 2 38.86 1 55.93 12 41.33

4 San Bernardino -999 27.8 -999 32.67 -999 37.93 -999 53.13 -999 38.9

5 San Bernardino 3 28.01 4 30.38 3 38.19 6 51.41 14 37.81

6 San Bernardino 8 30.96 9 30.47 9 38.06 17 51.19 32 36.73

7 San Bernardino 24 36.12 28 33.7 24 39.41 37 55.25 50 39.55

8 San Bernardino 35 44.31 51 41.62 38 46.74 63 64.89 69 49.7

9 San Bernardino 48 51.3 63 49.77 47 56.21 85 71.39 75 63.41

10 San Bernardino 64 56.61 64 58.61 65 65.41 96 76.97 85 79.38

11 San Bernardino 81 61.56 77 67.38 81 72.58 113 81.38 96 93.99

12 San Bernardino 82 67.91 90 73.95 91 75.88 107 85.63 101 101.37

13 San Bernardino 100 76.08 91 84.16 94 81.56 128 92.72 112 104.84

14 San Bernardino 127 86.5 95 100.35 109 98.64 127 116.53 82 110.48

15 San Bernardino 136 102.46 132 115.03 156 116.59 109 140.8 70 122.32

16 San Bernardino 157 107.73 126 123.63 138 117.5 109 129.29 71 126.98

17 San Bernardino 122 87.97 110 119.6 104 103.65 92 117.55 87 114.85

18 San Bernardino 94 75.6 92 100.99 82 83.72 79 99.31 80 97.21

19 San Bernardino 66 71.56 63 84.86 78 70.39 66 83.64 62 83.71

20 San Bernardino 40 68.37 36 76.05 49 68 47 74.95 50 74.73

21 San Bernardino 29 64.3 27 70.27 22 64.36 30 73.25 39 67.14

22 San Bernardino 19 57.58 16 61.58 9 61.85 28 69.21 41 61.84

23 San Bernardino 18 50.43 6 55.1 31 62.37 7 62.82 29 56.33

Max 157 107.73 132 123.63 156 117.5 128 140.8 112 126.98
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-29

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Upland 4 25.73 13 40.98 3 41.82 14 43.26 9 38.98

1 Upland 5 25.69 15 38.56 5 39.19 13 43.06 9 41.08

2 Upland 7 25.31 16 35.59 16 37.48 16 42.07 21 43.27

3 Upland 1 24.63 12 31.76 15 36.55 14 41.21 18 41.77

4 Upland -999 23.54 -999 28.45 -999 35.58 -999 40.61 -999 40.17

5 Upland 1 22.91 3 25.83 3 34.46 6 39.18 16 39.68

6 Upland 13 23.53 13 26.41 4 32.92 13 37.55 16 40.09

7 Upland 38 26.71 30 31.06 8 33.9 28 40.47 39 44.39

8 Upland 59 34.03 37 39.6 26 40.39 47 50.35 62 57.01

9 Upland 64 43.01 51 48.31 38 50.27 61 60.72 77 72.98

10 Upland 78 52.34 70 58.66 73 60.76 92 72.77 96 84.22

11 Upland 85 61.76 73 71.17 90 70.25 107 84.6 117 89.53

12 Upland 103 71.13 97 86.32 90 81.43 136 94.96 118 96.51

13 Upland 113 82 135 103.15 116 93.24 148 113.58 107 106.87

14 Upland 133 92.63 138 116.85 155 102.07 122 130.21 93 116.65

15 Upland 141 87.57 146 121.15 139 99.55 107 123.95 88 116.17

16 Upland 121 77.34 117 112.9 86 87.08 100 113.67 98 99.58

17 Upland 76 78.77 94 92.84 82 73.86 97 84.38 91 82.45

18 Upland 64 69.71 63 74.83 66 61.39 79 63.17 72 68.35

19 Upland 52 55.2 47 63.69 44 51.91 51 56.55 60 53.13

20 Upland 30 49.23 30 60.89 9 47.14 36 47.98 44 40.72

21 Upland 11 46.55 9 58.89 7 41.02 17 41.42 30 35.24

22 Upland 7 44.33 4 52.78 7 39.42 9 40.31 13 33.85

23 Upland 9 42.74 2 46.94 13 41.63 5 39.8 9 33.5

Max 141 92.63 146 121.15 155 102.07 148 130.21 118 116.65
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-30

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 1.12 1.12 -12.06 12.06

10 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -14.18 14.18 -21.65 21.65

11 Azusa -15.46 15.46 -11.07 11.07 -4.95 4.95 -26.93 26.93 -25.83 25.83

12 Azusa -25.02 25.02 -8.17 8.17 -29.42 29.42 -29.29 29.29 -16.2 16.2

13 Azusa -35.34 35.34 -7.16 7.16 -23.94 23.94 0.45 0.45 1.87 1.87

14 Azusa -38.94 38.94 -27.82 27.82 -40.62 40.62 10.08 10.08 -0.5 0.5

15 Azusa -7.76 7.76 2.46 2.46 -12.16 12.16 9.64 9.64 -12.31 12.31

16 Azusa 15.47 15.47 -0.41 0.41 6.96 6.96 -11.87 11.87 -8.05 8.05

17 Azusa 11.13 11.13 15.16 15.16 6.58 6.58 -17.55 17.55 -6.3 6.3

18 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -7.61 7.61 -999 -999

19 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -12.67 12.67 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Azusa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -13.702857 21.302857 -5.2871429 10.321429 -13.7775 17.1625 -8.614 12.872 -11.225556 11.641111
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-31

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -11.86 11.86 -16.08 16.08

10 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -27.65 27.65 -24.18 24.18

11 Burbank -8.59 8.59 -2.68 2.68 -5.56 5.56 -35.62 35.62 -42.4 42.4

12 Burbank -22.08 22.08 -23.81 23.81 -30.85 30.85 -15.46 15.46 -16 16

13 Burbank -14.83 14.83 -6.29 6.29 -35.53 35.53 -12.45 12.45 -11.1 11.1

14 Burbank 18.15 18.15 5.13 5.13 -8.88 8.88 -41.14 41.14 -12.97 12.97

15 Burbank -999 -999 14.9 14.9 8.98 8.98 -34.8 34.8 -23.9 23.9

16 Burbank -999 -999 25.32 25.32 3.08 3.08 -999 -999 -5.68 5.68

17 Burbank -999 -999 13.56 13.56 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

18 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Burbank -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -6.8375 15.9125 3.7328571 13.098571 -11.46 15.48 -25.568571 25.568571 -19.03875 19.03875
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-32

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -3.29 3.29 -16.93 16.93

10 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -21.53 21.53 -36.17 36.17

11 Glendora -22.1 22.1 -2.42 2.42 -999 -999 -39.98 39.98 -35.16 35.16

12 Glendora -999 -999 -21.01 21.01 -31.78 31.78 -56.95 56.95 -26.25 26.25

13 Glendora -999 -999 -15.52 15.52 -50.75 50.75 -21.37 21.37 -8.87 8.87

14 Glendora -43.85 43.85 -37.11 37.11 -46.78 46.78 3.46 3.46 -1.52 1.52

15 Glendora -26.43 26.43 -9.92 9.92 -30.42 30.42 12.68 12.68 -14.04 14.04

16 Glendora 7.62 7.62 -3.95 3.95 -4.48 4.48 -3.31 3.31 -11.67 11.67

17 Glendora 9.68 9.68 7.94 7.94 -0.68 0.68 -18.84 18.84 -13.46 13.46

18 Glendora 6.44 6.44 9.98 9.98 1.37 1.37 -2.12 2.12 -4.36 4.36

19 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Glendora -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -11.44 19.353333 -9.00125 13.48125 -23.36 23.751429 -15.125 18.353 -16.843 16.843
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-33

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -6.61 6.61 -16.25 16.25

11 Los Angeles -13.97 13.97 -1.37 1.37 -999 -999 3.53 3.53 -13.32 13.32

12 Los Angeles -19.57 19.57 -0.76 0.76 -0.82 0.82 -9.4 9.4 15.4 15.4

13 Los Angeles -0.5 0.5 -3.36 3.36 -8.01 8.01 -9.74 9.74 1.12 1.12

14 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 8.99 8.99 -11.38 11.38 -2.21 2.21

15 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 13.32 13.32 -7.34 7.34 3.88 3.88

16 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 4.35 4.35 0.81 0.81 -999 -999

17 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -6.82 6.82 -999 -999

18 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Los Angeles -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -11.346667 11.346667 -1.83 1.83 3.566 7.098 -5.86875 6.95375 -1.8966667 8.6966667
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-34

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

11 LAX -999 -999 3.03 3.03 -999 -999 1.74 1.74 -999 -999

12 LAX -999 -999 13.28 13.28 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

13 LAX -999 -999 21.7 21.7 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

14 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

15 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 17.98 17.98 -999 -999

16 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 15.79 15.79 -999 -999

17 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 2.74 2.74 -999 -999

18 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -5.11 5.11 -999 -999

19 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 LAX -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average N/A N/A 12.67 12.67 N/A N/A 6.628 8.672 N/A N/A
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-35

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

11 Lynwood -999 -999 9.1 9.1 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

12 Lynwood -999 -999 12.02 12.02 -999 -999 8.41 8.41 13.07 13.07

13 Lynwood -999 -999 13.38 13.38 -1 1 19.89 19.89 23.78 23.78

14 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 25.47 25.47 22.33 22.33 21.42 21.42

15 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 17.26 17.26

16 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

17 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

18 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Lynwood -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average N/A N/A 11.5 11.5 12.235 13.235 16.876667 16.876667 18.8825 18.8825
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-36

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

11 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

12 North Long Beach -24.46 24.46 -999 -999 5.74 5.74 -999 -999 -999 -999

13 North Long Beach -4.21 4.21 22.5 22.5 7.1 7.1 -999 -999 -999 -999

14 North Long Beach 17.63 17.63 -999 -999 8.39 8.39 -999 -999 -999 -999

15 North Long Beach 22.44 22.44 -999 -999 13.97 13.97 1.17 1.17 -999 -999

16 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -5.44 5.44 -2.69 2.69 -6.4 6.4

17 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -23.68 23.68 -9.07 9.07 -999 -999

18 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 North Long Beach -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average 2.85 17.185 22.5 22.5 1.0133333 10.72 -3.53 4.31 -6.4 6.4
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-37

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Pasadena -19.36 19.36 -19.31 19.31 -999 -999 -13.88 13.88 -18.71 18.71

10 Pasadena -28.16 28.16 -10.08 10.08 -17.71 17.71 -21.41 21.41 -25.08 25.08

11 Pasadena -28.63 28.63 -1.24 1.24 -20.38 20.38 -18.79 18.79 -22 22

12 Pasadena -16.56 16.56 -6.62 6.62 -2.04 2.04 -3.18 3.18 -15.57 15.57

13 Pasadena -25.56 25.56 -20.38 20.38 -24.72 24.72 -0.77 0.77 0.97 0.97

14 Pasadena -2.96 2.96 -1.16 1.16 -8.69 8.69 10.07 10.07 -2.69 2.69

15 Pasadena 19.33 19.33 10.01 10.01 10.16 10.16 2.66 2.66 -2.73 2.73

16 Pasadena -999 -999 23.27 23.27 12.42 12.42 -13.23 13.23 -2.13 2.13

17 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -2.85 2.85 2.19 2.19 -999 -999

18 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Pasadena -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -14.557143 20.08 -3.18875 11.50875 -6.72625 12.37125 -6.26 9.5755556 -10.9925 11.235
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-38

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 1.34 1.34

10 Pico Rivera -999 -999 0.69 0.69 -8.88 8.88 -1.26 1.26 -6.81 6.81

11 Pico Rivera -13.56 13.56 21.88 21.88 -11.93 11.93 -11.11 11.11 2.58 2.58

12 Pico Rivera -19.65 19.65 16.39 16.39 -7 7 7.97 7.97 10.11 10.11

13 Pico Rivera -21.31 21.31 -8.16 8.16 -7.42 7.42 4.82 4.82 5.26 5.26

14 Pico Rivera 6.72 6.72 1.39 1.39 -4.88 4.88 5.95 5.95 -0.48 0.48

15 Pico Rivera 18.75 18.75 2.39 2.39 21.08 21.08 -1.25 1.25 0.39 0.39

16 Pico Rivera 13.53 13.53 22.75 22.75 18.08 18.08 -3.62 3.62 -0.43 0.43

17 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -5.31 5.31 -4.44 4.44 -999 -999

18 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Pico Rivera -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -2.5866667 15.586667 8.19 10.521429 -0.7825 10.5725 -0.3675 5.0525 1.495 3.425
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-39

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Pomona -23.35 23.35 -999 -999 -999 -999 -10.02 10.02 -5.64 5.64

10 Pomona -24.89 24.89 -999 -999 -13.41 13.41 -17.83 17.83 -18.75 18.75

11 Pomona -24.84 24.84 -9.18 9.18 -5.15 5.15 -27.79 27.79 -26.23 26.23

12 Pomona -27.37 27.37 -20.78 20.78 -12.55 12.55 -34.3 34.3 -12.54 12.54

13 Pomona -20.87 20.87 -15.82 15.82 -45.83 45.83 2.26 2.26 13.56 13.56

14 Pomona -49.29 49.29 -6.68 6.68 -39.67 39.67 13.92 13.92 25.91 25.91

15 Pomona -48.28 48.28 7.75 7.75 -10.09 10.09 17.45 17.45 17.84 17.84

16 Pomona -9.62 9.62 0.82 0.82 -1.04 1.04 15.05 15.05 1.21 1.21

17 Pomona 6.02 6.02 0.05 0.05 6.33 6.33 -5.2 5.2 -3.03 3.03

18 Pomona 1.93 1.93 9.05 9.05 -999 -999 -13.48 13.48 -9.26 9.26

19 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Pomona -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -22.056 23.646 -4.34875 8.76625 -15.17625 16.75875 -5.994 15.73 -1.693 13.397
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-40

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Reseda -27.96 27.96 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Reseda -24.62 24.62 -999 -999 -19.71 19.71 -999 -999 -17.9 17.9

10 Reseda -15.98 15.98 -999 -999 -999 -999 -15.18 15.18 -35.76 35.76

11 Reseda -7.94 7.94 -999 -999 -999 -999 -2.95 2.95 -29.5 29.5

12 Reseda 2.12 2.12 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -24.08 24.08

13 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 9.6 9.6 -999 -999 -30.17 30.17

14 Reseda 22.43 22.43 -999 -999 15.61 15.61 -999 -999 -40.32 40.32

15 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -40.05 40.05

16 Reseda 5.62 5.62 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -30.06 30.06

17 Reseda -4.98 4.98 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -15.9 15.9

18 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Reseda -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -6.41375 13.95625 N/A N/A 1.8333333 14.973333 -9.065 9.065 -29.304444 29.304444
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-41

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -22.5 22.5 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Santa Clarita -26.71 26.71 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Santa Clarita -26.99 26.99 -999 -999 -19.26 19.26 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Santa Clarita -21.79 21.79 -999 -999 -21.37 21.37 -16.28 16.28 -14 14

10 Santa Clarita -17.04 17.04 -999 -999 -16.56 16.56 -999 -999 -40.26 40.26

11 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -51.71 51.71

12 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -4.19 4.19 -63.99 63.99

13 Santa Clarita -4.47 4.47 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -16.65 16.65

14 Santa Clarita -999 -999 6.77 6.77 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

15 Santa Clarita -999 -999 11.31 11.31 7.92 7.92 -999 -999 -999 -999

16 Santa Clarita -999 -999 10.99 10.99 -4.46 4.46 4.35 4.35 -999 -999

17 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

18 Santa Clarita -12.55 12.55 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Santa Clarita -21.76 21.76 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Santa Clarita -19.17 19.17 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Santa Clarita -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -18.81 18.81 1.6425 12.8925 -10.746 13.914 -5.3733333 8.2733333 -37.322 37.322
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-42

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

10 West LA -21.91 21.91 -999 -999 -999 -999 -1.59 1.59 -999 -999

11 West LA -19.74 19.74 -8.99 8.99 -11.85 11.85 1.7 1.7 -999 -999

12 West LA -999 -999 -1.02 1.02 -15.15 15.15 -12.45 12.45 -3.75 3.75

13 West LA -999 -999 7.48 7.48 -3.96 3.96 -9.94 9.94 7.32 7.32

14 West LA -999 -999 12.73 12.73 2.97 2.97 2.75 2.75 8.75 8.75

15 West LA -999 -999 19.59 19.59 -6.72 6.72 -4.51 4.51 -999 -999

16 West LA -999 -999 9.45 9.45 1.46 1.46 -4.37 4.37 1.74 1.74

17 West LA -999 -999 4.5 4.5 -999 -999 -2.46 2.46 -999 -999

18 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 West LA -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -20.825 20.825 6.2485714 9.1085714 -5.5416667 7.0183333 -3.85875 4.97125 3.515 5.39
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-43

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 0.28 0.28 3.34 3.34

10 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -7.96 7.96 -3.7 3.7 13.7 13.7

11 Anaheim -999 -999 14.34 14.34 -7.86 7.86 15.01 15.01 21.74 21.74

12 Anaheim -999 -999 4.4 4.4 0.9 0.9 18.24 18.24 26.06 26.06

13 Anaheim -8.55 8.55 1.23 1.23 13.24 13.24 14.97 14.97 34.65 34.65

14 Anaheim -5.26 5.26 -0.47 0.47 -5.49 5.49 15.59 15.59 42.52 42.52

15 Anaheim -1.96 1.96 9.07 9.07 -1.19 1.19 12.08 12.08 -999 -999

16 Anaheim 20.41 20.41 21.7 21.7 -9.01 9.01 -1.76 1.76 15.49 15.49

17 Anaheim 10.56 10.56 18.08 18.08 -9.57 9.57 -6.02 6.02 -999 -999

18 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Anaheim -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average 3.04 9.348 9.7642857 9.8985714 -3.3675 6.9025 7.1877778 9.7388889 22.5 22.5
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-44

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 7.16 7.16 -999 -999

10 Costa Mesa -999 -999 16.43 16.43 5.89 5.89 12.86 12.86 -999 -999

11 Costa Mesa -999 -999 19.32 19.32 12.38 12.38 14.23 14.23 16.88 16.88

12 Costa Mesa 13.85 13.85 8.43 8.43 12.31 12.31 17.34 17.34 -999 -999

13 Costa Mesa 14.4 14.4 12.03 12.03 14.73 14.73 17.87 17.87 -999 -999

14 Costa Mesa 27.64 27.64 14.13 14.13 16.63 16.63 29.57 29.57 -999 -999

15 Costa Mesa 36.98 36.98 27.77 27.77 33.56 33.56 26.47 26.47 -999 -999

16 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 6.27 6.27 -999 -999

17 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -1.17 1.17 -999 -999

18 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -5.82 5.82 -999 -999

19 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Costa Mesa -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average 23.2175 23.2175 16.351667 16.351667 15.916667 15.916667 12.478 13.876 16.88 16.88
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-45

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 8.68 8.68 4.54 4.54

10 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 6.7 6.7 -4.43 4.43 3.53 3.53

11 La Habra -999 -999 15.97 15.97 -11.7 11.7 5.54 5.54 19.04 19.04

12 La Habra 13.65 13.65 14.43 14.43 -8.23 8.23 15.84 15.84 22.58 22.58

13 La Habra -25.49 25.49 18.53 18.53 -10.11 10.11 12.57 12.57 30.71 30.71

14 La Habra -22.69 22.69 13.23 13.23 -5.61 5.61 16.57 16.57 26.12 26.12

15 La Habra 1.78 1.78 10.3 10.3 0.67 0.67 12.11 12.11 21.8 21.8

16 La Habra 19.06 19.06 19.5 19.5 13.36 13.36 1.91 1.91 12.11 12.11

17 La Habra -999 -999 14.7 14.7 4.03 4.03 -3.34 3.34 -2.23 2.23

18 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -15.6 15.6 -999 -999

19 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 La Habra -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -2.738 16.534 15.237143 15.237143 -1.36125 7.55125 4.985 9.659 15.355556 15.851111
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-46

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -12.31 12.31 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -5.86 5.86 2.36 2.36 -4.86 4.86 5.11 5.11

10 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -3.23 3.23 -9.11 9.11 -10.21 10.21 4.04 4.04

11 Mission Viejo 15.73 15.73 -3.1 3.1 -10.52 10.52 -10.79 10.79 12.16 12.16

12 Mission Viejo 3.83 3.83 1.64 1.64 -17.39 17.39 0.66 0.66 16.28 16.28

13 Mission Viejo -9.21 9.21 -1.95 1.95 -10.69 10.69 -7.43 7.43 21.04 21.04

14 Mission Viejo -19.73 19.73 5.87 5.87 -10.44 10.44 -8.77 8.77 35.6 35.6

15 Mission Viejo -2.95 2.95 0.76 0.76 -11.31 11.31 14.05 14.05 50.62 50.62

16 Mission Viejo 36.95 36.95 -1.41 1.41 3.5 3.5 29.25 29.25 -999 -999

17 Mission Viejo -999 -999 19.22 19.22 -11.94 11.94 19.12 19.12 -999 -999

18 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -19.7 19.7 2.51 2.51 12.94 12.94

19 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 3.16 3.16 5.5 5.5 1.45 1.45

20 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Mission Viejo -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average 4.1033333 14.733333 1.3266667 4.7822222 -8.6991667 10.2025 2.6390909 10.286364 17.693333 17.693333
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-47

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -14.99 14.99 -999 -999

8 Banning Airport -6.28 6.28 -999 -999 -999 -999 -8.99 8.99 -999 -999

9 Banning Airport -6.5 6.5 -6.91 6.91 -10.12 10.12 -6.56 6.56 -9.02 9.02

10 Banning Airport -9.73 9.73 -7.67 7.67 -15.23 15.23 -5.01 5.01 -5.73 5.73

11 Banning Airport -17.95 17.95 -8.67 8.67 -21.35 21.35 -5.29 5.29 -1.29 1.29

12 Banning Airport -22.69 22.69 -10.07 10.07 -11.13 11.13 -10.79 10.79 -1.32 1.32

13 Banning Airport -32.91 32.91 -10.78 10.78 -12.18 12.18 -19.84 19.84 8.38 8.38

14 Banning Airport -28.1 28.1 -38.61 38.61 -17.51 17.51 -27.04 27.04 10.08 10.08

15 Banning Airport -32.84 32.84 -39.64 39.64 -18.85 18.85 -8.63 8.63 -999 -999

16 Banning Airport -48.66 48.66 -13.24 13.24 1.23 1.23 3.27 3.27 -999 -999

17 Banning Airport -15.96 15.96 4.29 4.29 -13.21 13.21 16.89 16.89 -999 -999

18 Banning Airport -40.78 40.78 8.75 8.75 -17.16 17.16 15.98 15.98 -999 -999

19 Banning Airport -37.58 37.58 20.36 20.36 -1.39 1.39 24.8 24.8 -999 -999

20 Banning Airport -19.15 19.15 25.48 25.48 7.75 7.75 35.79 35.79 -999 -999

21 Banning Airport 7.6 7.6 -999 -999 3.03 3.03 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Banning Airport -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Banning Airport 7.02 7.02 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -20.300667 22.25 -6.3925 16.205833 -9.7015385 11.549231 -0.7435714 14.562143 0.1833333 5.97
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-48

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Lake Elsinore -9.39 9.39 -999 -999 -24.39 24.39 -7.16 7.16 -999 -999

9 Lake Elsinore -10.49 10.49 -999 -999 -22.25 22.25 -10.99 10.99 -8.08 8.08

10 Lake Elsinore -8.31 8.31 -999 -999 -21.89 21.89 -12.46 12.46 -1.68 1.68

11 Lake Elsinore -8.14 8.14 -3.93 3.93 -19.67 19.67 -5.61 5.61 1.68 1.68

12 Lake Elsinore -6.03 6.03 -2.65 2.65 -16.84 16.84 2.39 2.39 6.31 6.31

13 Lake Elsinore -0.91 0.91 -1.43 1.43 -5.27 5.27 11.41 11.41 22.25 22.25

14 Lake Elsinore -17.91 17.91 12.12 12.12 19.42 19.42 19.02 19.02 -999 -999

15 Lake Elsinore -31 31 13.23 13.23 10.71 10.71 23.92 23.92 -999 -999

16 Lake Elsinore -5.42 5.42 30.19 30.19 5.84 5.84 -999 -999 27.42 27.42

17 Lake Elsinore 0.53 0.53 38.32 38.32 -1.98 1.98 -999 -999 -999 -999

18 Lake Elsinore 0.6 0.6 32.87 32.87 -2.49 2.49 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Lake Elsinore 9.53 9.53 33.68 33.68 8.14 8.14 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 24.13 24.13 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 27.57 27.57 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Lake Elsinore -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -7.245 9.0216667 18.554545 20.010909 -5.8891667 13.240833 2.565 11.62 7.9833333 11.236667
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-49

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Mira Loma -15.76 15.76 -17.08 17.08 -18.59 18.59 -4.19 4.19 8.61 8.61

10 Mira Loma -16.31 16.31 -24.21 24.21 -23.21 23.21 -14.69 14.69 12.76 12.76

11 Mira Loma -18.66 18.66 -28.08 28.08 -21.59 21.59 -11.58 11.58 3 3

12 Mira Loma -24.53 24.53 -27.4 27.4 -12.45 12.45 -28.86 28.86 8.37 8.37

13 Mira Loma -36.86 36.86 -19.3 19.3 -33.7 33.7 17.03 17.03 28.78 28.78

14 Mira Loma -20.62 20.62 -15.94 15.94 -4.52 4.52 42.56 42.56 40.4 40.4

15 Mira Loma -20.75 20.75 15.57 15.57 -18.27 18.27 26.46 26.46 47.43 47.43

16 Mira Loma -15.46 15.46 22.91 22.91 -7.48 7.48 27.05 27.05 44.27 44.27

17 Mira Loma -15.45 15.45 14.09 14.09 -14.14 14.14 26.79 26.79 30.48 30.48

18 Mira Loma 2.78 2.78 16 16 -10.57 10.57 1.39 1.39 -999 -999

19 Mira Loma 3.19 3.19 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Mira Loma -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -16.220909 17.306364 -6.344 20.058 -16.452 16.452 8.196 20.06 24.9 24.9
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-50

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Perris -7.54 7.54 -23.97 23.97 -17.47 17.47 6.98 6.98 -999 -999

9 Perris -6.72 6.72 -28.31 28.31 -13.33 13.33 2.8 2.8 -999 -999

10 Perris -5 5 -19.91 19.91 -7.45 7.45 0.04 0.04 3.15 3.15

11 Perris -5.33 5.33 -20.83 20.83 0.46 0.46 1.69 1.69 -1.61 1.61

12 Perris -17.64 17.64 -10.92 10.92 0.14 0.14 -3.77 3.77 7.11 7.11

13 Perris -21.13 21.13 -9.1 9.1 -999 -999 -5.74 5.74 18.45 18.45

14 Perris -19.65 19.65 6.38 6.38 18.85 18.85 20.21 20.21 31.31 31.31

15 Perris -9.16 9.16 14.7 14.7 24.98 24.98 24.62 24.62 -999 -999

16 Perris -6.31 6.31 31.52 31.52 -15.29 15.29 32.43 32.43 -999 -999

17 Perris -15.11 15.11 47.19 47.19 -16.54 16.54 -999 -999 -999 -999

18 Perris -13.82 13.82 39.83 39.83 -1.06 1.06 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Perris -3.14 3.14 35.57 35.57 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Perris 4.55 4.55 28.45 28.45 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Perris -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -9.6923077 10.392308 6.9692308 24.36 -2.671 11.557 8.8066667 10.92 11.682 12.326
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-51

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Rubidoux -5.4 5.4 -25.56 25.56 -28.3 28.3 -10.66 10.66 0.09 0.09

10 Rubidoux -24.61 24.61 -29.8 29.8 -27.3 27.3 -21.91 21.91 -0.38 0.38

11 Rubidoux -23.39 23.39 -27.49 27.49 -21.57 21.57 -6.24 6.24 4.08 4.08

12 Rubidoux -23 23 -39.02 39.02 -11.97 11.97 -41.03 41.03 -1.84 1.84

13 Rubidoux -36.51 36.51 -24.3 24.3 -30.18 30.18 -18.47 18.47 19.51 19.51

14 Rubidoux -42.63 42.63 -29.43 29.43 -16.12 16.12 31.16 31.16 36.18 36.18

15 Rubidoux -28.27 28.27 -5.48 5.48 -27.58 27.58 22.08 22.08 43.76 43.76

16 Rubidoux -27.64 27.64 20.49 20.49 -24.79 24.79 13.98 13.98 47.69 47.69

17 Rubidoux -27.33 27.33 13.67 13.67 -22.67 22.67 22.89 22.89 33.77 33.77

18 Rubidoux -4.09 4.09 15.85 15.85 -17.68 17.68 6.14 6.14 25.05 25.05

19 Rubidoux 2.39 2.39 9.23 9.23 -8.27 8.27 -3.99 3.99 -999 -999

20 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Rubidoux -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -21.861818 22.296364 -11.076364 21.847273 -21.493636 21.493636 -0.55 18.05 20.791 21.235
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-52

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Indio -999 -999 -10.22 10.22 -1.88 1.88 -14.66 14.66 -999 -999

1 Indio -999 -999 -5.31 5.31 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Indio -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -7.34 7.34 -999 -999

9 Indio -11.55 11.55 -16.16 16.16 -13.04 13.04 -6.23 6.23 -999 -999

10 Indio -10.21 10.21 -21.88 21.88 -18.81 18.81 5.12 5.12 -999 -999

11 Indio -11.02 11.02 -7.06 7.06 -15.64 15.64 8.47 8.47 -999 -999

12 Indio -9.03 9.03 0.8 0.8 -9.63 9.63 4.24 4.24 13.65 13.65

13 Indio -6.57 6.57 4.53 4.53 -10.54 10.54 9.83 9.83 8.41 8.41

14 Indio -5.81 5.81 1.72 1.72 -15.07 15.07 15.19 15.19 10.31 10.31

15 Indio -6.76 6.76 -0.71 0.71 -16.33 16.33 16.3 16.3 11.12 11.12

16 Indio -3.07 3.07 -1.47 1.47 -15.56 15.56 18.12 18.12 8.92 8.92

17 Indio -17.91 17.91 -2.75 2.75 -10 10 10.74 10.74 14.74 14.74

18 Indio -31.36 31.36 -16.45 16.45 -7.08 7.08 8.48 8.48 -999 -999

19 Indio -30.93 30.93 -17.89 17.89 -20.01 20.01 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Indio -37.77 37.77 4.21 4.21 -22.1 22.1 30.8 30.8 -999 -999

21 Indio -25.9 25.9 -0.72 0.72 -25.3 25.3 26.83 26.83 -999 -999

22 Indio -22.86 22.86 -4.31 4.31 -22.61 22.61 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Indio -13.86 13.86 -5.87 5.87 -13.91 13.91 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -16.307333 16.307333 -5.8552941 7.18 -14.844375 14.844375 8.9921429 13.025 11.191667 11.191667
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-53

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Palm Springs -999 -999 -4.01 4.01 1.19 1.19 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Palm Springs -999 -999 -1.57 1.57 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Palm Springs -999 -999 -4.11 4.11 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Palm Springs -999 -999 -7.22 7.22 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Palm Springs -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Palm Springs -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Palm Springs -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Palm Springs -21.05 21.05 -999 -999 -999 -999 -16.76 16.76 -999 -999

8 Palm Springs -16.7 16.7 -12.88 12.88 -999 -999 -10.93 10.93 -999 -999

9 Palm Springs -15.47 15.47 -7.38 7.38 -999 -999 -18.28 18.28 -999 -999

10 Palm Springs -15.13 15.13 -5.93 5.93 -7.45 7.45 -13.51 13.51 -999 -999

11 Palm Springs -15.91 15.91 -7.22 7.22 -13.23 13.23 -4.42 4.42 1.91 1.91

12 Palm Springs -14.35 14.35 -3.12 3.12 -13.88 13.88 2.92 2.92 2.75 2.75

13 Palm Springs -5.45 5.45 -1.42 1.42 -13.77 13.77 6.01 6.01 6.35 6.35

14 Palm Springs -11.97 11.97 -4.39 4.39 -13.82 13.82 7.72 7.72 4.79 4.79

15 Palm Springs -23.37 23.37 -17.35 17.35 -17.06 17.06 -3.38 3.38 11.26 11.26

16 Palm Springs -24.82 24.82 -41.77 41.77 -19.53 19.53 3.84 3.84 24.56 24.56

17 Palm Springs -26.03 26.03 -32.11 32.11 -4.92 4.92 6.15 6.15 -999 -999

18 Palm Springs -12.17 12.17 -17.6 17.6 -8.27 8.27 -999 -999 -999 -999

19 Palm Springs -17.38 17.38 6.59 6.59 -27.27 27.27 -999 -999 -999 -999

20 Palm Springs -28.6 28.6 4.7 4.7 -31.51 31.51 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Palm Springs -18.22 18.22 -1.55 1.55 -25.69 25.69 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Palm Springs -11.7 11.7 -2.4 2.4 -22.76 22.76 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Palm Springs -3.11 3.11 4.35 4.35 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -16.554706 16.554706 -7.8195 9.3835 -15.569286 15.739286 -3.6945455 8.5381818 8.6033333 8.6033333
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-54

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Crestline -21.23 21.23 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

9 Crestline -19.11 19.11 -999 -999 -9.48 9.48 -999 -999 -8.74 8.74

10 Crestline -16.01 16.01 -999 -999 -4.16 4.16 -12.01 12.01 -7.55 7.55

11 Crestline -12.86 12.86 -1.16 1.16 1.31 1.31 -25.79 25.79 1.37 1.37

12 Crestline -6.29 6.29 1.09 1.09 4.5 4.5 -26.51 26.51 -9.2 9.2

13 Crestline 2.23 2.23 -7.29 7.29 1.64 1.64 -25.67 25.67 -14.18 14.18

14 Crestline -15.32 15.32 -11.46 11.46 -19.18 19.18 -31.09 31.09 19.19 19.19

15 Crestline -57.43 57.43 8.42 8.42 -34.54 34.54 -10.33 10.33 37.48 37.48

16 Crestline -68.26 68.26 -13.69 13.69 -75.03 75.03 20.28 20.28 45.76 45.76

17 Crestline -42.72 42.72 -24.22 24.22 -43.78 43.78 23.45 23.45 34.05 34.05

18 Crestline 1.74 1.74 2.28 2.28 -3.03 3.03 18.06 18.06 11.79 11.79

19 Crestline -999 -999 36.26 36.26 -999 -999 35.53 35.53 18.91 18.91

20 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 22.89 22.89

21 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Crestline -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -23.205455 23.927273 -1.0855556 11.763333 -18.175 19.665 -3.408 22.872 12.6475 19.259167
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-55

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -9.04 9.04

9 Fontana -15.73 15.73 -999 -999 -999 -999 -0.47 0.47 1.74 1.74

10 Fontana -16.21 16.21 -999 -999 -999 -999 -15.18 15.18 4.25 4.25

11 Fontana -17.76 17.76 -18.08 18.08 -999 -999 -8.58 8.58 -14.86 14.86

12 Fontana -24.45 24.45 -10.82 10.82 -14.8 14.8 -31.93 31.93 -17.91 17.91

13 Fontana -37.78 37.78 -28.65 28.65 -8.79 8.79 -41.14 41.14 -12.25 12.25

14 Fontana -35.61 35.61 -27.11 27.11 -49.31 49.31 -1.52 1.52 30.6 30.6

15 Fontana -49.03 49.03 -11.92 11.92 -54.27 54.27 10.76 10.76 39.38 39.38

16 Fontana -41.76 41.76 4.9 4.9 1.68 1.68 30.85 30.85 19.75 19.75

17 Fontana -14.85 14.85 -0.03 0.03 4.62 4.62 7.79 7.79 -0.9 0.9

18 Fontana -0.16 0.16 10.07 10.07 -3.76 3.76 -5.94 5.94 -4.6 4.6

19 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -3.99 3.99

20 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Fontana -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -25.334 25.334 -10.205 13.9475 -17.804286 19.604286 -5.536 15.416 2.6808333 13.2725
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-56

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Redlands -999 -999 -11.74 11.74 -999 -999 -2.83 2.83 -999 -999

9 Redlands -3.15 3.15 -12.05 12.05 -999 -999 -11.99 11.99 -17.14 17.14

10 Redlands -0.23 0.23 -4.24 4.24 9.47 9.47 -22.75 22.75 -14.93 14.93

11 Redlands -9.44 9.44 -11.4 11.4 -12.61 12.61 -36.37 36.37 3.13 3.13

12 Redlands -21.1 21.1 -20.79 20.79 -22.23 22.23 -13.47 13.47 18.67 18.67

13 Redlands -19.54 19.54 -26.54 26.54 -18.38 18.38 -20.25 20.25 1.2 1.2

14 Redlands -38.31 38.31 -16.27 16.27 -15.48 15.48 -36.62 36.62 32.19 32.19

15 Redlands -40.26 40.26 -19.55 19.55 -9.66 9.66 25.29 25.29 53.56 53.56

16 Redlands -35.64 35.64 -12.87 12.87 -27.18 27.18 35.19 35.19 -999 -999

17 Redlands -35.28 35.28 13.3 13.3 -1.96 1.96 25.94 25.94 62.07 62.07

18 Redlands -26.64 26.64 14.19 14.19 8.36 8.36 29.25 29.25 33.19 33.19

19 Redlands -6.44 6.44 20.39 20.39 12.34 12.34 37.01 37.01 32.75 32.75

20 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 4.48 4.48 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Redlands -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -21.457273 21.457273 -7.2975 15.2775 -6.6227273 12.922727 0.7 24.746667 20.469 26.883
Attachment 1: CMAQ Performance

VII-A1-57

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 1.89 1.89 -19.3 19.3

9 San Bernardino -999 -999 -13.23 13.23 -999 -999 -13.61 13.61 -11.59 11.59

10 San Bernardino -7.39 7.39 -5.39 5.39 0.41 0.41 -19.03 19.03 -5.62 5.62

11 San Bernardino -19.44 19.44 -9.62 9.62 -8.42 8.42 -31.62 31.62 -2.01 2.01

12 San Bernardino -14.09 14.09 -16.05 16.05 -15.12 15.12 -21.37 21.37 0.37 0.37

13 San Bernardino -23.92 23.92 -6.84 6.84 -12.44 12.44 -35.28 35.28 -7.16 7.16

14 San Bernardino -40.5 40.5 5.35 5.35 -10.36 10.36 -10.47 10.47 28.48 28.48

15 San Bernardino -33.54 33.54 -16.97 16.97 -39.41 39.41 31.8 31.8 52.32 52.32

16 San Bernardino -49.27 49.27 -2.37 2.37 -20.5 20.5 20.29 20.29 55.98 55.98

17 San Bernardino -34.03 34.03 9.6 9.6 -0.35 0.35 25.55 25.55 27.85 27.85

18 San Bernardino -18.4 18.4 8.99 8.99 1.72 1.72 20.31 20.31 17.21 17.21

19 San Bernardino 5.56 5.56 21.86 21.86 -7.61 7.61 17.64 17.64 21.71 21.71

20 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 San Bernardino -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -23.502 24.614 -2.2427273 10.57 -11.208 11.634 -1.1583333 20.738333 13.186667 20.8
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A1-58

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB

0 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

1 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

2 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

3 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

4 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

5 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

6 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

7 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

8 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -4.99 4.99

9 Upland -20.99 20.99 -999 -999 -999 -999 -0.28 0.28 -4.02 4.02

10 Upland -25.66 25.66 -11.34 11.34 -12.24 12.24 -19.23 19.23 -11.78 11.78

11 Upland -23.24 23.24 -1.83 1.83 -19.75 19.75 -22.4 22.4 -27.47 27.47

12 Upland -31.87 31.87 -10.68 10.68 -8.57 8.57 -41.04 41.04 -21.49 21.49

13 Upland -31 31 -31.85 31.85 -22.76 22.76 -34.42 34.42 -0.13 0.13

14 Upland -40.37 40.37 -21.15 21.15 -52.93 52.93 8.21 8.21 23.65 23.65

15 Upland -53.43 53.43 -24.85 24.85 -39.45 39.45 16.95 16.95 28.17 28.17

16 Upland -43.66 43.66 -4.1 4.1 1.08 1.08 13.67 13.67 1.58 1.58

17 Upland 2.77 2.77 -1.16 1.16 -8.14 8.14 -12.62 12.62 -8.55 8.55

18 Upland 5.71 5.71 11.83 11.83 -4.61 4.61 -15.83 15.83 -3.65 3.65

19 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -6.87 6.87

20 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

21 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

22 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

23 Upland -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999 -999

Average -26.174 27.87 -10.57 13.198889 -18.596667 18.836667 -10.699 18.465 -2.9625 11.8625
Attachment-2

Diurnal Trends:

Observed Vs. Predicted

June 18-22, 2008
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-60
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-61
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-62
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-63
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-64
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-65
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-66
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-67
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-68
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-69
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-70
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-71
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A2-72
Attachment 2: Diurnal Trends

VII-A2-73
Attachment-3

CEPA Analysis
Attachment 3: CEPA Analysis

VII-A3-75

Run Date: 9/25/2012 2:06:26 PM

(PC-CEPA V4.4 / October 2008)

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\CMs\DF070612-Clean\1hr-O3-092012\cf2022-1hr-o3-092112d.txt

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\CMs\DF070612-Clean\1hr-O3-092012\master_cm.txt

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\ARB-dump082212\SC\ems22sc.txt

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\CMs\DF070612-Clean\1hr-O3-092012\scen_cm.txt

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\CMs\DF070612-Clean\1hr-O3-092012\impact.txt

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\CMs\DF070612-Clean\1hr-O3-092012\lineitem_092112_aa.prn

C:\Users\SYan\Documents\AQMP2012\CMs\DF070612-Clean\1hr-O3-092012\lineitem_092112_pl.prn

Year 2022 Emission Reductions Excluding Natural Sources by Control Measure in the South Coast Air Basin (Planning Inventory -

Tons/Day)

(A) Reductions Without Overlapping/Double-Counting With Other Control Measures (1)

(Reductions - Tons/Day)

Measure Name VOC NOx CO NO2

BA-01 Revised Controls from R1118 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13

BA-02 Adjustment for R1110.2 -0.03 -1.61 -0.07 -1.61

BA-03 Adjustment for R1147 0.00 -4.55 0.00 -4.55

BA-04 Adjustment for NonAgICE (CES89664) 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.15

CMB-01 Reclaim NOx Reductions 0.00 3.08 0.00 3.08

CMB-03 Commercial Space Heating [Nox] 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15

CTS-01 Architectural Coatings [VOC] 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

CTS-02 Misc. Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents & Lubricants [VOC] 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

CTS-03 Mold Release[VOC] 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

FUG-02 LPG Transfer and Dispensing [VOC] 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00

FUG-03 Fugitive Emissions [VOC] 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

P07SMOG1 Annual Inspection of Older Vehicles 1.63 3.93 0.00 4.24

P07SMOG2 Inspection of Motocycles 1.21 0.41 0.00 0.45

P07SMOG3 Annual Inspection of High Mileage Vehicles 0.29 0.80 0.00 0.86

P07RETIRE Expanded Passenger Vehicle Retirement Program 0.42 0.32 0.00 0.35

P07LOCO1 Accelerated Intro. of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 0.00 12.14 0.00 12.14

P07OGV1 OGV Cleaner Main Engines 0.00 6.21 0.00 6.20

P07OFRD1 Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Expanded Emissions Stds. 3.61 0.00 0.00 0.00

OFRD-01 SOON [NOX] 0.00 7.47 0.00 7.47

Black Box Black Box (VOC:mobile+airc:0.882; NOx:Allsrce+RC:0.484>CC150) 20.58 157.93 0.00 161.71

Grand Total (Net) 34.42 186.55 -0.03 190.78
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A3-76

Year 2022 Emission Reductions Excluding Natural Sources by Control Measure in the South Coast Air Basin (Planning Inventory -

Tons/Day)

(B) Reductions With Overlapping/Double-Counting With Other Control Measures (2)

(Reductions - Tons/Day)

Measure Name VOC NOx CO NO2

BA-01 Revised Controls from R1118 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.13

BA-02 Adjustment for R1110.2 -0.03 -1.61 -0.07 -1.61

BA-03 Adjustment for R1147 0.00 -4.55 0.00 -4.55

BA-04 Adjustment for NonAgICE (CES89664) 0.00 0.15 0.04 0.15

CMB-01 Reclaim NOx Reduction 0.00 3.08 0.00 3.08

CMB-03 Commercial Space Heating [Nox] 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15

CTS-01 Architectural Coatings [VOC] 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00

CTS-02 Misc. Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents & Lubricants [VOC] 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

CTS-03 Mold Release[VOC] 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

FUG-02 LPG Transfer and Dispensing [VOC] 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00

FUG-03 Fugitive Emissions [VOC] 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

P07SMOG1 Annual Inspection of Older Vehicles 1.63 3.93 0.00 4.24

P07SMOG2 Inspection of Motocycles 1.21 0.41 0.00 0.45

P07SMOG3 Annual Inspection of High Mileage Vehicles 0.30 0.85 0.00 0.92

P07RETIRE Expanded Passenger Vehicle Retirement Program 0.43 0.34 0.00 0.38

P07LOCO1 Accelerated Intro. of Cleaner Line-Haul Locomotives 0.00 12.14 0.00 12.14

P07OGV1 OGV Cleaner Main Engines 0.00 6.21 0.00 6.20

P07OFRD1 Off-Road Recreational Vehicle Expanded Emissions Stds. 3.61 0.00 0.00 0.00

OFRD-01 SOON [NOX] 0.00 7.47 0.00 7.47

Black Box Black Box (VOC:mobile+airc:0.882; NOx:Allsrce+RC:0.484>CC150) 21.43 174.14 0.00 178.15

Grand Total (with potential overlapping) 35.29 202.84 -0.03 207.31
Attachment 3: CEPA Analysis

VII-A3-77

EMISSION SUMMARY FOR

(POINT, AREA, MOBILE SOURCE, AND OFF-ROAD MV)

BASELINE EMISSIONS

VOC NOx CO NO2

 

 Point source 40.05 5.59 37.94 5.59

 Area source 218.32 30.94 171.97 40.12

 RECLAIM 0.00 27.23 0.00 27.23

 

 Total Stationary 258.37 63.77 209.90 72.94

 

 On-road 72.78 134.81 622.73 142.19

 Off-road 104.39 120.67 665.66 111.88

 Aircraft 4.41 15.44 41.71 15.44

 

 TOTAL 439.94 334.69 1540.00 342.46

 

 

EMISSION REDUCTIONS 

 

 Point source 2.12 2.17 -0.07 2.17

 Area source 4.56 13.91 0.04 18.64

 RECLAIM 0.00 15.54 0.00 15.54

 

 Total Stationary 6.68 31.62 -0.03 36.35

 

 On-road 11.72 72.20 0.00 76.23

 Off-road 15.50 74.76 0.00 70.23

 Aircraft 0.52 7.97 0.00 7.97

 

 TOTAL 34.42 186.55 -0.03 190.78

 

 

REMAINING EMISSIONS 

 

 Point source 37.93 3.42 38.01 3.42

 Area source 213.76 17.03 171.92 21.47

 RECLAIM 0.00 11.69 0.00 11.69

 

 Total Stationary 251.69 32.15 209.93 36.59

 

 On-road 61.06 62.61 622.73 65.96

 Off-road 88.88 45.91 665.66 41.66

 Aircraft 3.89 7.47 41.71 7.47

 

 TOTAL 405.52 148.14 1540.02 151.68

 

 

 AQMP/Set-Aside 4.56 1.89 0.00 1.89

 

 Public Funding 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 

 GRAND TOTAL (T/D) 410.08 150.03 1540.02 153.57

 

 Mobility Adjustments 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 
Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII-A3-78

(1) Emission reductions for individual measures were estimated based on the sequence of listing

 contained here. When the sequence changes, reductions from each measure could be affected,

 but the net total remain the same. The purpose of this table is to estimate

 total emission reductions without overlapping or double-counting between measures.

(2) Emission reductions for individual measures were estimated in the absence of other measures.

 Therefore, the sequence of listing does not affect the reduction estimates. The purpose of 

 this table is to provide emission reduction estimates for Appendix IV control measure

 summary tables as well as cost effectiveness analysis.
Attachment 4 of Appendix VII

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................2

IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL 

MEASURES .....................................................................................................................4

Step 1 - Air Quality Technology Symposium...................................................................4

Step 2 – U.S. EPA’s Suggested List of Control Measures ...............................................5

Step 3 – Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) .........................................6

Step 4 - Other Districts’ Current Rules and Regulations................................................10

Step 5 - Other Districts’ Control Measures.....................................................................10

Step 6 - Additional Studies and Analyses.......................................................................15

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................16

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................17
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 2

INTRODUCTION

As discussed in Appendix VII of the 2012 Draft Final AQMP, the purpose of the 2012 1-hour 

ozone SIP revision is to provide an attainment demonstration to respond to the U.S. EPA’s 

published “SIP call” proposal on September 19, 2012, finding the existing approved 1-hour 

ozone SIP substantially inadequate to provide for attainment of the revoked 1-hour ozone 

standard by the applicable attainment date of November 15, 2010. EPA’s proposed SIP call 

was in turn a response to the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of

Irritated Residents, et al, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 686 F. 2d 

668 (Amended January 12, 2012). For further background details, please refer to Appendix 

VII of the 2012 Draft Final AQMP. The EPA’s proposed SIP call gives the State up to one 

year after the effective date of the SIP call to submit the revised attainment demonstration. 

The District intends to demonstrate that a period of the full 10 years allowed by law is needed 

to attain the 1-hour ozone standard, and submit the updated 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration as part of the 2012 AQMP. This Attachment is a part of Appendix VII - 1-

hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration, and the information presented in this Attachment is 

largely summaries and replications of information presented in the Appendix VI of the Draft 

Final 2012 AQMP. 

The CAA, Section 172(c)(1), sets the overall framework for the Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM) analysis. The CAA requires the nonattainment air districts to:

“provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in emissions from existing 

sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 

reasonably available control technology)and shall provide for attainment of the national 

primary ambient air quality standards.”

The U.S. EPA provided further guidance on the RACM in the preamble and the final “Clean 

Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule” to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS which were 

published in the Federal Register in November 1, 2005 and April 25, 2007, respectively, 

which can be applied to the ozone RACM demonstration.

1, 2 The U.S. EPA’s long-standing 

interpretation of the RACM provision stated in the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule is that 

the nonattainment air districts should consider all candidate measures that are available and 

technologically and economically feasible to implement within the nonattainment areas, 

including any measures that have been suggested; however, the districts are not obligated to 

adopt all measures, but should demonstrate that there are no additional reasonable measures 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 3

available that would advance the attainment date by at least one year or contribute to 

reasonable further progress (RFP) for the area. 

Regarding the approach of identifying emission reduction programs, the U.S. EPA

recommends the nonattainment air districts to first identify the emission reduction programs 

that have already been implemented at the federal, other states and local air districts. Next, 

the U.S. EPA recommends the air districts to examine additional RACM/RACTs adopted for 

other nonattainment areas to attain the ambient air quality standards as expeditiously as 

practicable. In addition, the U.S. EPA recognizes that each nonattainment area has its own 

profile of emitting sources, and thus neither requires specific RACM/RACT to be 

implemented in every nonattainment area, nor includes a specific source size threshold for 

the RACM/RACT analysis. The U.S. EPA however recommends severe nonattainment air 

districts to evaluate controls for smaller sources if needed for attainment.

A RACM/RACT demonstration must be provided within the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). For areas projected to attain within five years of designation, a limited RACM/RACT 

analysis including the review of available reasonable measures, the estimation of potential 

emission reductions, and the evaluation of the time needed to implement these measures is 

sufficient. The areas that cannot reach attainment within five years must conduct a thorough 

RACM/RACT analysis to demonstrate that sufficient control measures could not be adopted 

and implemented cumulatively in a practical manner in order to reach attainment at least one 

year earlier. 

In regards to economically feasible, the U.S. EPA did not propose a fixed dollar per ton cost 

threshold and recommended the air districts to include health benefits in the cost analysis. 

As indicated in the preamble of the 1997 PM2.5 Implementation Rule:

“In regard to economic feasibility, U.S. EPA is not proposing a fixed dollar per ton cost 

threshold for RACM, just as it is not doing so for RACT...Where the severity of the 

nonattainment problem makes reductions more imperative or where essential reductions 

are more difficult to achieve, the acceptable cost of achieving those reductions could 

increase. In addition, we believe that in determining what are economically feasible

emission reduction levels, the States should also consider the collective health benefits 

that can be realized in the area due to projected improvements.” 

The objective of this Appendix is to demonstrate that the District has conducted a thorough 

RACM/RACT analysis to meet the requirement of the CAA following closely the policy and 

guidance approach provided by the U.S. EPA.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 4

For the scope of this RACM analysis, District staff will closely study the attainment 

strategies for stationary and area sources, the rules and regulations of the air districts 

responsible for the nonattainment areas, namely Ventura, San Francisco, San Joaquin Valley, 

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Texas, and New York 

Metropolitan while taking into account all available candidate measures proposed by the 

U.S. EPA, CARB, the Advisory Committee members, the technical experts in air pollution 

control as well as the public and variety of stakeholders. Staff selected the air districts listed 

above based on the severity of their nonattainment status and their near-term attainment 

dates. The RACM analysis for Transportation Control Measures is conducted by SCAG and 

the RACM analysis for mobile sources conducted by the CARB is shown in applicable 

Attachments of the Appendix VII. 

IDENTIFYING AND EVALUATING REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL 

MEASURES

To demonstrate that the District has considered all candidate measures that are available and 

technologically and economically feasible to implement within the Basin, the District staff 

has conducted 6-steps analysis described below.

Step 1 - Air Quality Technology Symposium

District staff conducted the 2012 Air Quality Technology Symposium in September 

2011with participation of technical experts from a variety of areas and the public to solicit 

new and innovative concepts to assist the Basin in attaining the NAAQS) for PM2.5 by 

2014-2019 and ozone by 2024-2032. In addition, the District’s Planning, Rules 

Development and Area Sources Division conducted multiple internal meetings with the 

District’s Technology Advancement Office and the Engineering & Compliance Division 

from September through November of 2011 to brainstorm ideas for feasible control 

measures. In addition, the District also conducted an on-going extensive outreach to engage 

a wide range of stakeholders in the process. In general, the following concepts were 

proposed:

 Promoting zero or near-zero emission measures and providing incentives for on-road 

and non-road mobile sources as well as goods movement;

 Further reducing VOC emissions from marine coatings, aerospace coatings, solvents and 

various consumer products, and focusing on reformulations or alternatives to VOC 

based-solvents;
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 5

 Conducting a mandatory technology review for NOx RECLAIM, and further reducing 

NOx emissions through the use of low NOx burners, fuel cells, biogas control, 

distributed power generation applications, and assessment for all feasible measures, as 

well as incentives;

 Addressing energy-climate change and co-benefits, the need for electricity storage and 

smart grid, or new fossil-fueled peaking plants, to compensate for fluctuations in 

renewable energy supply, and the use of outreach to promote energy efficiency 

measures; and

 Influencing consumer behavior, expanding carpool programs, incentivizing with 

outreach, increasing gas tax, and promoting public-private participation and multiagency collaboration.

Step 2 – U.S. EPA’s Suggested List of Control Measures

District staff reviewed for inclusion the control measure concepts suggested by the U.S. EPA

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas described in the preamble of the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule. Many of these concepts are intended to reduce NOx, a precursor of PM2.5 as well as 

ozone. As summarized in Table 1, the District either has an existing rule or developed a 

2012 control measure for each control measure concept suggested by the U.S. EPA.

TABLE 1

Demonstration of Compliance with Control Measures Recommended by U.S. EPA

U.S. EPA’S CONTROL MEASURE CONCEPTS

2012 CONTROL 

MEASURES AND 

EXISTING RULES

STATIONARY SOURCE MEASURES

Diesel engine retrofit, rebuild, replacement, with catalyzed particle filter Rule 1470, Rule 1110.2

New or upgraded emission controls for direct PM2.5 (e.g., baghouse or 

electrostatic precipitator; improved monitoring methods)

Rule 1155, Rule 1156

New/upgraded emission controls for PM2.5 precursors (e.g., scrubbers) 2010 RECLAIM Amendment 

Energy efficiency measures to reduce fuel consumption Rule 1146, Rule 1146.1, Rule 

1146.2, Rule 1114, Rule 

1111, Control Measure EDU01, INC-01
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 6

MOBILE SOURCE MEASURES

On-road diesel engine retrofits for school buses and trucks using U.S. 

EPA-verified technologies

Refer to CARB’s Existing 

Rules and Control Measures

Non-road diesel engine retrofit, rebuild/replace with catalyzed particle 

filter

Refer to CARB’s Existing 

Rules and Control Measures

Diesel idling programs for trucks, locomotive, and other mobile sources Refer to CARB’s Existing 

Rules and Control Measures

Transportation control measures (including those listed in section 108(f) 

of the CAA as well as other TCMs), as well as other transportation 

demand management and transportation systems management strategies

Refer to SCAG’s Control 

Measures

Programs to reduce emissions and accelerate retirement of high emitting 

vehicles, boats, lawn and garden equipment

Refer to CARB’s Rules and 

Control Measures

Emissions testing and repair/maintenance programs for on-road vehicles Refer to CARB’s Rules and 

Control Measures

Emissions testing and repair/maintenance programs for non-road heavy 

duty vehicles and equipment

Refer to CARB’s Rules and 

Control Measures

Programs to expand use of clean burning fuels Refer to CARB’s Rules and 

Control Measures

Opacity/emissions standards for gross-emitting diesel equipment or 

vessels

Refer to CARB’s Rules and 

Control Measures

AREA SOURCE MEASURES

New open burning regulations and/or measures to minimize emissions 

from forest and agricultural burning activities

Rule 444

Reduce emissions from woodstoves and fireplaces Rule 445, Control Measure 

BCM-01

Regulate charbroiling/other commercial cooking operations Control Measure BCM-02

Reduce solvent usage or solvent substitution Control Measure CTS-02

Reduce dust from construction activities/vacant disturbed areas, paved 

and unpaved roads.

Rule 1157

Step 3 – Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)

As required by the CAA, Section 172(c)(1), the nonattainment areas must implement 

applicable RACTs. While RACM refers to measures which may be applicable to a wide 

range of sources, stationary as well as area and mobile sources, the U.S. EPA defines RACT 

as the lowest level of control specifically designed for stationary sources:
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 7

“lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the 

application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological 

and economic feasibility”.

The CAA, Section 172(c)(1) and Section 182, require nonattainment areas for ozone that 

are designated at moderate or above to adopt RACT for major sources. Nonattainment

areas classified as serious, severe, or extreme must adopt control measures above and beyond 

the minimum RACT levels to fulfill attainment.

In addition, the CAA, Section 183, requires the U.S. EPA to provide guidance to the air 

districts on the “presumptive” RACT levels. As a result, the U.S. EPA developed several 

Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs) for VOC sources, and Alternatives Control 

Techniques (ACT) documents for VOC and NOx sources. Most of the CTGs were issued 

prior to 1990, and most of the ACT documents were issued in the mid-1990s. The CTGs 

contain mandated emission standards and work practices whereas the ACTs describe 

available control techniques and their cost effectiveness, but do not define “presumptive” 

RACT levels. The U.S. EPA is required to update existing CTG/ACTs, or develop new 

guidelines, on a frequent basis as new or updated control technologies become available.

The CAA, Section 182(b)(2), further requires the air districts to revise their SIPs to include 

the mandated RACT levels covered by the CTGs issued after November 15, 1990 and prior to 

the area’s date of attainment. The U.S. EPA's final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone 

standard discusses RACT requirements which states that where a RACT SIP is required, 

the states must assure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously 

required RACT controls represent RACT for 8-hour ozone standards, or through a new 

RACT determination.3To satisfy this requirement, the District developed and submitted to 

CARB and U.S. EPA a demonstration and certification that the District’s rules and 

regulations fulfill the 8-hour ozone RACT requirements developed between 1990 and the 

beginning of 2006.

4

The U.S. EPA approved the District’s RACT demonstration in 

December 2008.

5

Subsequently, the U.S. EPA developed twelve new CTGs in 2006-2008 to update the 

requirements for several types of coatings, and staff again conducted an analysis comparing 

the current requirements in the District’s rules with those requirements in the new CTGs. The 

12 new CTGs developed by the U.S. EPA are:

6

 Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (2006)

 Flexible Packaging Printing Materials (2006)
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 8

 Industrial Cleaning Solvents (2006)

 Lithographic Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials (2006)

 Large Appliance Coatings (2007)

 Metal Furniture Coatings (2007)

 Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (2007)

 Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings (2008)

 Plastic Parts Coating (2008)

 Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (2008)

 Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous (2008)

 Industrial Adhesives (2008)

District staff’s analysis is summarized in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, three District’s VOC 

rules, Rule 1130 – Graphic Arts, Rule 1115 – Motor Vehicle Assembly Line Coating 

Operations and Rule 1168 - Adhesives and Sealants have met or exceeded most, but not all, 

minimum requirements of the CTGs. Consequently, District staff has developed one or more 

control measures to address these issues. Staff estimates a potential reduction of 0.2 tons per 

day VOC associated with Rule 1130, and less than 0.01 tons per day VOC associated with 

Rule 1115, and no emission reduction estimate for Rule 1168 is available at this time. 

District staff is aware that additional assessments may be required, such as a determination 

that major VOC sources subject to Rules 1130, 1115, and 1168 met the minimum 

requirements in the CTGs, or a negative declaration that there are no sources in the area 

subject to the CTGs. These additional analyses will be provided during the rule development 

phase, or at the time of developing the 8-hour ozone AQMPs, whichever comes first. 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 9

TABLE 2

Evaluation of 2006-2008 U.S. EPA’s VOC CTGs

CTG TITLE DISTRICT RULE EVALUATION

Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (2006) Rule 1104 - Wood 

Flat Stock Coating 

Operations

Overall equivalency to CTG emission standards. No further action 

is needed. 1

Flexible Packaging Printing Materials 

(2006); Lithographic Printing Materials and 

Letterpress Printing Materials (2006)

Rule 1130 - Graphic 

Arts

Regarding flexible packaging printing, the rule is more stringent 

than CTG, and thus no further action is needed. Regarding 

lithographic and letterpress printing, the CTG standards for 

alcohol content in fountain solution and overall control efficiency 

are more stringent. Staff estimated a potential reduction of 0.2 

tpd and may pursue rule update as part of Control Measure MCS01 – Application of All Feasible Measure Assessment if needed 

for ozone attainment. 1

Industrial Cleaning Solvents (2006) Rule 1171 - Solvent 

Cleaning Operations

District rule is more stringent than CTG. No further action is 

needed. 2

Large Appliance Coatings (2007); Metal 

Furniture Coatings (2007); and 

Miscellaneous Metal Products Coatings 

(2008)

Rule 1107 - Coating 

of Metal Parts and 

Products

District rule is equivalent or more stringent than CTGs, thus no 

further action is needed. 2

Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (2007) Rule 1128 - Paper, 

Fabric, and Film 

Coatings

District rule is more stringent than CTG. No further action is 

needed.1

Plastic Parts Coatings (2008) Rule 1145 - Plastic, 

Rubber, Glass 

Coatings

District rule is equivalent or more stringent than CTG. No further 

action is needed. 1

Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly 

Coatings (2008)

Rule 1115 - Motor 

Vehicle Assembly 

Line Coating 

Operations

CTG has more stringent limits for electro-deposition primer at 84 

g/L (145 g/L in Rule 1115); sprayable primer, primer-surfacer, 

and topcoat at 144 g/L (180 g/L in Rule 1115); and trunk 

coatings, interior coatings, sealers, and deadeners at 650 g/L (Rule 

1115 provides an exemption for these categories). However, Rule 

1115 has a small inventory of about 0.01 tpd, thus no action is 

needed. 1

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, 

and Miscellaneous (2008)

Rule 1162 -

Polyester Resin 

Operations

The rule has an overall equivalency to CTG based on more 

stringent transfer efficiency requirements. No further action is 

needed. 2

Industrial Adhesives (2008) Rule 1168 -

Adhesives and

Sealants

CTG has more stringent limits for reinforced plastic composite at 

200 g/L (250 g/L in Rule 1168); single-ply roof membrane 

adhesive primer at 250 g/L (450 g/L in Rule 1168); other adhesive 

primers at 250 g/L (420 g/L in Rule 1168); the control efficiency 

is 85% (80% in Rule 1168); and the work practices is limited only 

for stripping cured adhesives or sealants for Rule 1148. Staff may 

further pursue rule update as part of Control Measure MCS-01 –

Application of All Feasible Measures Assessment or CTS-02 –

Further Emission Reductions from Miscellaneous Coatings, 

Adhesives, Solvents and Lubricants if needed for ozone 

attainment. 3

Note: 1) Evaluation conducted by Hopps and Ono; 2) Evaluation conducted by Morris and Ono; 3) Evaluation conducted by 

Calungcagin and De Boer.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 10

Step 4 - Other Districts’ Current Rules and Regulations

Because the District is classified as extreme nonattainment, the District staff commits to 

search for innovative control technologies, make improvements, and update the District’s

rules and regulations as expeditiously as possible to effectively help the Basin reach 

attainment. District staff’s envisioned that the control technologies available and costeffective to be implemented in other local areas in California, or any other areas in the nation, 

would be available and cost-effective for use in the Basin in a timely manner. 

To catch all the improvements on innovative control technologies and identify the areas for 

improvements in its rules and regulations, the District staff re-evaluated all the District’s 

source-specific rules and regulations, and compared the requirements in these rules with more 

than 100 rules recently adopted or amended by four local air districts in California from 2007 

to 2012. The four air districts selected are San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Metropolitan, 

Ventura, and San Francisco Bay Area. Staff selected these districts based on the severity of 

their nonattainment status and their near-term attainment dates.The summary of this analysis 

is presented in Table 3. In this table, staff only listed the areas where the requirements in 

other local air district’s rules are more stringent than those in the District’s rules and 

regulations. The analysis in Table 3 shows that in general the District’s current rules and 

regulations are equivalent to or more stringent than those developed by other air districts. 

However, where improvements are possible, District staff has developed several control 

measures to further study the situations. Details of the control measures, emission reductions, 

cost effectiveness, prioritization and implementation schedule are discussed in Appendix VII. 

The control measures of which emission reductions cannot be quantified will not be 

considered RACMs since they cannot be used collectively to estimate the advancement of the 

attainment date. In addition, staff commits to monitor the rule development in other air 

districts and conduct further analysis if necessary, and has developed a catch-all Control 

Measure MCS-01 – Application of All Feasible Measures Assessment to facilitate this 

activity. 

Step 5 - Other Districts’ Control Measures

In an effort to ensure that all feasible candidate control measures are considered, District 

staff evaluated more than 100 control measures adopted within the period of 2007-2012 by 

the nonattainment air districts as shown below.

Ventura
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 11

Ventura is classified as serious nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. In the 

2006-2008 Final Triennial Assessment and Plan Update,7the Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District conducted an analysis of all feasible control measures, and identified 7 new

control measures in addition to the 15 control measures in the Ventura’s 2007 AQMP. In 

this list, there is only one new Ventura’s control measure described below that is more 

stringent than the requirements in the existing District’s rules:

Ventura adopted a control measure to eliminate the current vapor pressure limit (45 mmHg) 

of low VOC spray gun cleaning and establish a new limit of 25 g/L VOC content for 

cleaning solutions used in aerospace assembly and component manufacturing operations, 

adhesives and sealants, marine coating operations, and pleasure craft coatings and 

commercial boatyard operations. Currently, the cleaning solutions used in marine coating 

operations, pleasure craft coatings, and adhesives and sealants in the Basin are subject to 

District’s Rule 1171 limit of 25 g/L, and there is no vapor pressure limit in Rule 1171. 

However, the limit for cleaning solutions and strippers in District’s Rule 1124 – Aerospace 

Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations are currently at 200 g/L (or 45 mmHg) 

and 300 g/L (or 9.5 mmHg), respectively, and there is a potential to reduce these limits. 

Further assessment will be conducted through the District’s Control Measure CTS-02 –

Further Emission Reduction from Miscellaneous Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants.

San Francisco Bay Area

San Francisco Bay Area is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 standard and a marginal

nonattainment for 8-hour ozone standards. On September 15, 2010, the Bay Area adopted 

the final Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP)8to provide an integrated, multi-pollutant 

strategy to address ozone, PM, air toxics and greenhouse gases. The plan established 55 

feasible control measures to be implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe in which there are 

18 measures for stationary and area sources and 4 energy and climate measures. The

following 6 Bay Area’s control measures are currently above and beyond the requirements in 

the existing District’s rules:

 Bay Area’s Control Measure SSM1 – Metal Melting, and Control Measure SSM6 – PM 

Limitation proposed to reduce particulate emission limits and encourage the use of high 

efficiency filtration at foundry operations and metal melting facilities, and other facilities 

whenever appropriate. The Bay area has developed and proposed amended rule for SSM1 

and scheduled for a Public Hearing in 2012. District staff will conduct further analysis 
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 12

study on this concept through the District’s Control Measure MCS-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment.

 Bay Area’s Control Measure SSM2 – Digital Printing proposed to control VOC emissions 

from digital printing. The Bay Area is currently collected emissions information from this 

fairly new category of printing, including solvent-based injet printing and laser printing. 

It is forecasted to have 21% market share by 2025, and thus there will be a potential to 

reduce VOC emissions from this category. District staff will conduct further study on this 

concept through the District’s Control Measure MCS-01 – Application of All Feasible 

Measures Assessment.

 Bay Area’s Control Measure SSM5 – Vacuum Trucks requires carbon or other control 

technology on vacuum trucks to reduce emissions of VOCs. District staff will conduct 

further study on this concept through the District’s Control Measure FUG-01 – Further 

VOC Reductions from Vacuum Trucks.

 Bay Area’s Control Measure SSM9 – Cement Kilns, SSM10 – Refinery Boilers and 

Heaters, SSM11 - Glass Furnaces proposed to further reduce NOx from these source 

category. District staff will conduct further study through the Control Measure CMB-01 –

Further NOx Reductions from RECLAIM.

 Bay Area’s Control Measure ECM1 – Energy Efficiency proposed 1) to promote 

education and training to increase awareness on energy efficiency; 2) to provide technical 

assistance to local governments and encourage them to adopt and enforce energy efficient 

building codes; and 3) to provide incentives for improving energy efficiency at schools. 

These concepts are similar to those described in the District’s Control Measure EDU-01 –

Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions from Education, Outreach and Incentives.

 Bay Area’s Control Measure ECM2 - Renewable Energy proposed to promote distributed 

renewable energy generation (solar, micro wind turbines, cogeneration, etc.) on 

commercial and residential buildings, and at industrial facilities. These concepts are 

covered under the District’s Control Measure EDU-01 – Further Criteria Pollutant 

Reductions from Education, Outreach and Incentives.

The District already spearheaded in implementing other concepts in the Bay Area’s AQMP

that called for reducing SO2 emissions from coke calciner and cement kilns; further 

controlling VOC emissions from livestock waste and natural gas production facilities; and 

NOx emissions from residential fan type furnaces, space heating, dryers, and ovens. The 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 13

District also has an on-going program that promotes tree planting. Other Bay Area’s control 

measures addressing New Source Review, Air Toxics “Hot Spots” program, and greenhouse 

gases in permitting, are either administrative in nature or not related to criteria pollutants. 

San Joaquin Valley

San Joaquin Valley is extreme nonattainment with respect to 2008 8-hour ozone standards 

and nonattainment with respect to PM2.5 standards. Up to date, the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) has developed two separate plans to 

address the 8-hour ozone standards in 2007 and the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 2008. Recently, 

the SJVUAPCD developed a 2010 mid-course review for the ozone plan, and continued the 

feasibility study for several other measures such as refinery wastewater separators, refinery 

turnaround units, refinery vacuum devices and municipal water treatment plans. In addition, 

the SJVUAPCD is in the process of developing a plan to address the 2006 PM2.5 standards in 

cooperation with CARB and the District. District staff reviewed the list of control measures 

completed and listed in the San Joaquin Valley’s 2010 mid-course review in comparison with 

the 2012 control measures recommended by the District. Overall, the District has either 

already implemented or developed control measures with similar concepts proposed in the 

SJVUAPCD plans.9-11

Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) Texas

The entire state of Texas is in attainment of the PM2.5 standards, but the state has two 

nonattainment areas with respect to the 8-hour ozone standards: the Dallas-Fort Worth and 

the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria. The DFW area was reclassified from a moderate to a 

serious nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and is moderate 

nonattainment with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone. The area must attain the 1997 and 2008 

8-hour ozone standards by June 2013 and December 2018, respectively. In their previous 

SIPs, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCQE) identified 8 new RACMs for 

area sources and point sources, and 6 of these measures were already implemented at the 

District. The remaining 2 measures, one for the cement kilns and one for the voluntary 

energy efficiency and renewable energy will be implemented through the District’s Control 

Measure CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions from RECLAIM and Control Measure EDU-01 

– Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions from Education, Outreach and Incentives.

12

After being reclassified from a moderate to a serious nonattainment area, TCQE conducted 

additional RACM analysis in 2011 and made a determination not to adopt any additional 
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 14

measures since modeling demonstrated that the area would be able to meet the attainment 

date of 2013 for the 1997 ozone standard. 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) Texas

The Houston-Galveston-Brazoria area was reclassified from moderate to a severe 

nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and classified as marginal for the 

2008 8-hour ozone standard. The HGB area must attain the 1997 8-hour ozone standards by 

June 2019. The TCQE identified 11 RACMs for area sources and point sources. After being

reclassified to severe nonattainment area, the TCQE conducted additional RACM analysis, 

analyzed additional 100 potential control measures, and determined that there is only one 

control measure that would help advance the attainment date for the HGB by one year.

13

This specific control measure calls for a 25% additional reduction of the facility’s highly 

reactive VOC (HRVOC) caps from the facilities which are located in the Harris County and 

regulated under the HRVOC Emissions Cap and Trade program. The HRVOC cap includes 

the emissions from cooling towers, process vents, and flares. The District does not have a 

VOC cap and trade program, nevertheless plans to further control emissions from flares and 

from process vents at specific facilities through the District’s Control Measure CMB-02 –

NOx Reductions from Biogas Flares, FUG-01 – Further VOC Reductions from Vacuum 

Trucks, FUG-02 – Emission Reduction from LPG Transfer and Dispensing , and FUG-03 –

Further VOC Reductions from Fugitive VOC Emissions. The District has no plan to further 

regulate the emissions from cooling towers at this stage.

New York Metropolitan

The New York Metropolitan Area is classified as nonattainment area or the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 standard of 15 μg/m3. All of the New York State is in compliance with the 1997 24-

hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m3. To satisfy the requirement of the CAA, the New York 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) finalized the final annual PM2.5 SIP 

in July 2008.14 In this final PM2.5 SIP, it was determined that modeling will be used to 

demonstrate attainment in 2010 taking into effect the emission reduction programs already in 

place, the control measures already proposed, and the contingency measures, if needed. The 

three stationary source control measures that are more stringent than the District’s existing 

rules are:

15

 Portland Cement Plants. The NYDEC has revised its regulations for cement plants on June 

11, 2010 to require case-by-case RACT analysis for cement kilns. The District selects to 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 15

reduce cement kiln NOx emissions through the District’s Control Measure CMB-01 –

Further Reductions from NOx RECLAIM.

 Glass Furnaces. The NYDEC has revised its regulation for glass manufacturing facilities 

on June 11, 2010 to require case-by-case RACT analysis to potentially include control 

technologies such as oxy-fuel firing, low NOx burners, SCR, SNCR. The District selects 

to reduce emissions from glass furnaces through Control Measure CMB-01 – Further 

Reductions from NOx RECLAIM.

 Stationary Combustion Installations. The NYDEC has revised its regulation on June 8, 

2010 to include stricter, case-by-case RACT determination for major stationary sources 

that contain natural gas and/or oil-fired Industrial/Commercial/Institutional boilers, or 

combined cycle/cogeneration combustion turbines. The Districts will reduce emissions 

from this category of sources through the District’s Control Measure CMB-01 – Further 

Reductions from NOx RECLAIM.

In addition, many counties in the New York state are nonattainment areas with respect to the 

8-hour ozone standards. The NYDEC developed a comprehensive plan to address multipollutant attainment for criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases and toxics in June 2010.

16 In 

addition to the control measures for cement kilns, glass furnaces, boilers and turbines 

addressed above, the NYDEC includes several measures for VOC Clean Air Interstate 

Trading of NOx and SO2. Some of the VOC measures are more stringent than the District’s 

existing rules which will be further analyzed under District’s Control Measure MCS-01 –

Application of All Feasible Measures Assessment. 

New Jersey and Sacramento Metro

District staff also reviewed the control measures developed by Sacramento Metro and New 

Jersey Department of Environmental Protection for their 8-hour ozone plans. There are no 

additional new measure concepts that the District has not yet considered for this Draft Final 

2012 AQMP. 

17-20

 

Step 6 - Additional Studies and Analyses

In addition to all of the above analyses, SCAG, CARB, and the District have completed the 

following analyses to meet the requirements of the CAA:
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 16

 RACM analyses and demonstration conducted by SCAG and CARB for transportation 

and mobile sources control measures are included in Appendix IV-C and in the 

Addendum to this Attachment.

21

 

 Costs and cost effectiveness analyses, planning and scheduling to implement for each 

District’s stationary source and mobile source control measures, if available, are provided 

in Chapter IV, Appendix IV-A and B.

CONCLUSION

Following are the District staff’s findings:

 As required by the CAA and the U.S. EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule, District staff 

evaluated and analyzed all feasible control measure concepts that were currently available 

for inclusion in the Draft Final 2012 AQMP. These concepts were either provided by the 

public and experts, or recommended by U.S. EPA, or implemented by other air districts. 

From these concepts, District staff selected and developed 8 short-term stationary source 

control measures to address the 24-hour PM2.5 attainment, 16 early-action stationary 

source control measures and 17 on-road and off-road control measures to address the 8-

hour ozone attainment. District staff also developed a catch-all Control Measure MSC-01 

– Application of All Feasible Measures Assessment to facilitate the inclusion of any 

incoming innovative air pollution control technologies or ideas that can help the Basin

achieve the NAAQS as expeditiously as possible.

 Following the approach recommended by the U.S. EPA in the PM2.5 Implementation 

Rule, District staff conducted a study of more than 100 rules and regulations and 100 

control measures recently developed in the 2007-2012 timeframe by other nonattainment

air districts in the nation. In general, the District’s existing rules and regulations are 

equivalent to, or more stringent than other districts’ rules and regulations and their 

proposed control measures in their respective SIPs. In the few areas where the District’s 

rules can be amended to promote cleaner technologies, add additional best management 

practices, and improve enforceability, District staff has developed one or more control 

measures to facilitate these activities.

 The control measures that do not have estimated emission reductions cannot be considered 

RACMs, and the District commits to further conduct analyses to refine the emission 

inventory, emission reductions, and cost-effectiveness for these measures. The District’s 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 17

ambient air quality data and modeling analysis in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 demonstrates

that the Basin would be able to meet the 24-hour PM2.5 attainment date by 2014 withthe 

implementation of a few episodic control measures discussed in Chapter 4.

 With regards to the early actions to achieve ozone attainment, District staff has developed 

an effective menu of controls to meet the attainment dates as expeditiously as possible. 

The available control measures that District staff did not include would not collectively 

advance the attainment date or contribute to the RFP because of the uncertain nonquantifiable amount of emission reductions that they may potentially generate. 

 In conclusion, the District has conducted the RACM/RACT analysis for identifying and 

selecting the control measures for the Draft Final 2012 AQMP is in compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA, the U.S. EPA’s PM2.5 Implementation Rule, as well as the U.S. 

EPA’s policy and guidelines. 

REFERENCES

1. Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule. 40 CFR Part 51, Federal Register, 

Volume 72, No. 79, page 20586. April 25, 2007.

2. Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

40 CFR Part 51 and 52, Federal Register, Volume 70, No. 210, page 65984. November 

1, 2005.

3. Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) Memorandum from Stephen Page, Director of Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to Regional Air Directors, March 2, 2012.

4. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard. 40 

CFR Part 51, 52, and 80, Federal Register, Volume 70, No. 228, page 71612. November 

29, 2005

5. Adopt SCAQMD 8-Hour Reasonably Available Control Technology State 

Implementation Plan, Agenda #37, Governing Board Meeting, July 7, 2006.

6. U.S. EPA’s RACTs, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ctg_act/index.htm, as of May 

29, 2012.

7. Ventura County Triennial Assessment and Plan Update, 2006-2008, June 14, 2011.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 18

8. Bay Area Clean Air Plan, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Adopted 

September 15, 2010.

9. San Joaquin Valley APCD, Draft 2012 PM2.5 Attainment Plan for 2006 PM2.5 Federal 

Standards, April 30, 2012.

10. San Joaquin Valley APCD, 2010 Ozone Mid-Course Review, June 2010

11. San Joaquin Valley APCD, 2008 PM2.5 Attainment Plan for 1997 PM2.5 Federal 

Standards, April 30, 2008.

12. List of Control Measures for Affected Areas in Texas, 

http://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/sipstrategies.html#point.

13. SIP Revision for Houston–Galveston-Brazoria of Texas, Chapter 4 - Control Strategies 

and Required Elements, March 10, 2010, 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/hgb/hgb_sip_2009/0901

7SIP_Ch4_ado.pdf

14. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Final Revision of State 

Implementation Plan for PM2.5 for New York Metropolitan Area, July 10, 2008. 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/60541.html

15. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Reasonably Available Control 

Measures Analysis in the Final Revision of State Implementation Plan for PM2.5 for 

New York Metropolitan Area, July 10, 2008. 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/60567.html

16. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Management Plan –

Multi-Component Approach, Final Draft June 2010. 

http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/72352.html

17. 2009 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress, 

March 26, 2009. http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/8hr1997/2009AandRFP/
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 19

18. 2011 Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Progress Plan, 

http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/8hr1997/2009AandRFP/PlanAndAppendi

cesAfterSIPRevis-Clean.pdf, November 10, 2011.

19. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Fine 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard – PM2.5 Attainment 

Demonstration, 

http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/pm25sip/PM2.5%20SIP%20Document%20Final%202009.

pdf. March 24, 2009.

20. The State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard – Ozone Attainment Demonstration, October 29, 

2007. http://www.nj.gov/dep/baqp/8hrsip/Final_CompleteSIP.pdf

21. RACM/RACT Analysis for Transportation & Mobile Source Control Measures, e-mails 

communication between Pham of SCAQMD, Nadler of SCAG, and Ramalingan and 

Lawrence of CARB, dated May 24, August 15, August 22, and September 4, 2012.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 20

TABLE 3

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1109 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Boilers and 

Process Heaters – Petroleum 

Refineries (Amended 8/5/88)

0.03 lbs/mmBTU of heat input 

(~25 ppmv). Subsumed by 

RECLAIM. 

RECLAIM (Amended 1/2005):

 5 ppmv for >110 mmbtu/hr 

units 

 25 ppmv for units 40-100 

mmbtu/hr

San Joaquin Rule 4306 (Amended 

10/18/08) has the following limits:

NOx limits for refinery gas:

 5 ppmv for units >110 

mmbtu/hr; 

 25 ppmv for units 65-110 

mmbtu/hr; and

 30 ppmv for 5-65 mmbtu/hr 

units

San Joaquin Rule 4320 (Amended 

9/5/08) has the following limits for 

refinery gas: 

 5 ppmv for >110 mmbtu/hr units

 5 - 6 ppmv for units between 20 

- 110 mmbtu/hr

Compliance may be mitigated with 

annual emissions fee.

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the NOx limits through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM 

1110.2 NOx, 

VOC, 

CO

Emissions from Gaseous and 

Liquid Fueled Engines 

(Amended 7/9/2010)

Rule 1110.2 has NOx, VOC, CO 

limits for all stationary and 

portable engines over 50 brake 

horse power (bhp). 

In general, the limits applicable 

to 1) stationary, non-emergency 

engines by 7/1/2011, and 2) 

biogas (landfill and digester gas) 

engines by 7/1/2012 are:

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4702 

(Amended 8/19/2011) has NOx, 

VOC, CO and SOx limits for 

engines rated over 25 bhp.

For engines over 50 bhp:

- By 1/1/2017, the limits for 

spark-ignited engines are:

 11 ppmv NOx

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the NOx limits through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 21

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’ 

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

 11 ppmv NOx

 30 ppmv VOC

 250 ppmv CO

Limits for new non-emergency 

engines driving electrical 

generators are:

 0.07 lbs NOx per MW-hr

 0.20 lbs CO per MW-hr

 0.10 lbs VOC per MW-hr 

NOx limits for low usage biogas 

engines:

 36 ppmv, engines ≥ 500 bhp

45 ppmv, engines < 500 bhp

VOC and CO limits for low 

usage biogas engines:

 40 ppmv VOC, landfill gas

 250 ppmv VOC, digester gas

 2000 ppmv CO.

Portable and agricultural engines 

are not subject to the general 

limits listed above.

Many of Rule 1110.2 engines are 

in RECLAIM, and RECLAIM 

will be amended to incorporate 

feasible BARCT.

 250 ppmv VOC (rich-burn) 

and 750 ppmv VOC (lean 

burn), and

 2000 ppmv CO 

- Engines used in agricultural 

operations (AO), or fueled with 

waste gas, or limited used, or 

cyclic loaded and field gas 

fueled are subject to higher 

limits than the above

- In general, all compression 

ignited engines must meet EPA 

Tier 4 standards.

Engines between 25 bhp - 50 bhp, 

non agricultural operations (AO), 

must meet federal standards 

40CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII and 

JJJJ.

The SOx limits are: 1) Natural gas, 

propane, butane, LPG, or 

combination, or 2) 5 grains/100 scf 

for gaseous fuel, or 3) 15 ppmv 

liquid fuel, or 4) CA reformulated 

gasoline for spark-ignited engines, 

or 5) CA reformulated diesel for 

compression ignited engines, or 6) 

95% control.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 22

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1111 NOx NOx Emissions from 

Natural-Gas-Fired, Fan-Type 

Central Furnaces (Amended 

11/6/09)

40 nanograms per joule heat 

output until 2014. A lower 

standard of 14 ng/J is required 

with staggering compliance dates 

from 2014-2018. 

1112 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Cement Kilns 

(Amended 6/6/86)

Applicable to gray cement only. 

11.6 lbs/ton clinker averaged 

over 24 hours and 6.4 lbs/ton 

clinker averaged over 30 days. 

Subsumed by RECLAIM.

RECLAIM, amended 1/2005 

version, had no recommendation 

for cement kiln BARCT. 

However, RECLAIM BARCT 

analysis is an on-going process 

and will be evaluated every three 

years.

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the NOx limits through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM 

1117 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Glass Melting 

Furnaces (Amended 1/6/84)

4 lb/NOx per ton of glass pulled. 

Flat glass and fiberglass melting 

furnaces are exempt.

Many of these R1117 units are in 

RECLAIM. RECLAIM 

(Amended 1/2005 version) had 

no BARCT recommendation for 

this class. However, BARCT 

analysis is an on-going process 

and will be reevaluated every 

three years.

San Joaquin Rule 4354 – Glass 

Melting Furnaces (Amended 

5/19/2011) have NOx, CO, VOC, 

SOx limits. 

There are several options for the 

NOx limits:

 Container Glass: 1.5 lbs/ton 

(rolling 30-day average)

 Fiberglass: 1.3-3 lbs/ton (24-

hour average)

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering NOx limit through: 

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 23

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1117

(Cont.)

 Flat Glass: 2.9 lbs/ton (30-day 

average) – 3.7 lbs/ton (24-hour 

average)

The SOx limits are:

 Container Glass: 0.9-1.1lbs/ton 

(rolling 30-day average)

 Fiberglass: 0.9 lbs/ton (rolling 

24-hour average)

 Flat Glass: 1.2 lbs/ton (30-day 

average) – 1.7 lbs/ton (24-hour 

average)

The VOC limits are: 

 Container or Fiberglass: 0.25 

lbs/ton or 20 ppmv

 Flat Glass: 0.10 lbs/ton or 20 

ppmv.

1121 NOx Control of Nitrogen Oxides 

from Residential Type, 

Natural-Gas-Fired Water 

Heaters (Amended 9/3/2009)

15 ppmv at 3% O2, dry input (or 

10 ng/j output) for all stationary 

water heaters; and 55 ppmv at 

3% O2, dry input (40 ng/j 

output) for mobile water heaters.

Other Districts’ plans propose to 

accelerate replacements of old water 

heaters with electric units or new 

highly-efficient lower-emitting 

water heaters with the use of 

incentives.

Further study the possibility of using 

incentives to promote electric heaters 

through:

INC-01 – Economic Incentive 

Programs to Adopt Zero and NearZero Technologies [NOx]

In addition, further consider the 

feasibility of technology transfer 

through:

CMB-03 – Reductions from 

Commercial Space Heating
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 24

TABLE 3

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1134 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Stationary 

Gas Turbines (Amended 

8/8/97)

Standard = Reference Limit x

(Unit Efficiency/25%), where 

reference limit depends on size 

of units, varying from 9 ppmv

for units rating at equal to or 

larger than 10MW to 25 ppmv 

for units rating from 0.3 MW to 

less than 2.9 MW.

RECLAIM, amended 1/2005 

version, indicated that 5 ppmv 

was achieved in practice but not 

cost effective, therefore did not 

propose BARCT. This analysis 

may need to be revised based on 

new information. RECLAIM 

BARCT is an on-going process 

that is planned to be reviewed 

every 3 years.

Bay Area, Regulation 9, Rule 9 

(Adopted 12/6/06) contains the 

following limits:

 9 ppmv for units between 250-

500 mmBTU/hr and

 5 ppmv for units more than 500 

mmBTU/hr

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4703, 

(Amended 8/17/06) requires 3 

ppmv for combined cycle >10 

MW, and standards from 5 – 50 

ppmv for other units. 

Sacramento Rule 413 (Amended 

03/24/05) requires 9 – 25 ppmv 

depending on size of units, but are 

independent on equipment 

efficiency.

Ventura Rule 74.9 (Amended 

11/08/05) requires 25 – 125 ppmv 

depending on fuel type but are 

independent from equipment size 

and efficiency. Control efficiency 

90% - 96%. In addition, all units 

have to meet 20 ppmv NH3. 

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the NOx standard and 

establish ammonia standard through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM 

MCS-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment (for 

non-RECLAIM facilities)
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 25

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1135 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen From Electric 

Power Generating Systems 

(Amended 7/19/91)

Mass emission limits and 

emission reduction goals for 

utility boilers. Only City of 

Glendale is subject to Rule 1135, 

which is allowed to meet 0.2 

lb/MW-hr (or a daily mass limit 

of 390 lb NOx per day, or an 

annual limit of 35 tons per year).

Other utility boilers are in 

RECLAIM subject to declining 

NOx allocations which were 

determined based on a level of 7 

ppmv = 0.07 lb/MW-hr = 0.008 

lb/mmbtu, assuming a heat rate 

of 8130 Btu/kw-hr. The utility 

boilers are operated at various 

BARCT levels from 5 - 30

ppmv. (Note)

Ventura Rule 59 (amended 

7/15/97) requires:

 0.1 lb NOx/MW-Hr for utility 

boilers and

 0.04 lb/MW-hr for auxiliary 

boilers.

San Joaquin Rule 4306 – Phase 3

(amended 3/17/2005) requires 

boilers more than 20 mmbtu/hr to 

comply with the following options:

 Standard option of 9 ppmv (or 

0.011 lb/mmbtu) complied by 

2005-2007, or 

 Enhanced option of 6 ppmv (or 

0.007 lb/mmbtu) complied by 

2006-2008. (Assuming a heat 

rate of 8130 Btu/kw-hr, 6 

ppmv is about 0.06 lb/MW-hr.)

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the emission targets 

through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM facilities

MCS-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment

Note: RECLAIM facilities have flexibility to operate their utility boilers provided that the total facility emissions must be at or below their allocations determined 

based on a level of 7 ppmv. Regarding BARCT levels, according to Marty Kay and John Yee, the utility boilers at Southern California Edison, Department of Water 

and Power, and City of Burbank are operated at a level from 5 – 7 ppmv (1-hr to 1-month average time) whereas City of Pasadena boilers are operated at a level of 30 

ppmv. In addition, since heat rate (mmbtu per kw-hr) varies with each utility boiler, District staff used 8130 BTU/kw-hr to convert the ppmv to lb/MW-hr for the unit 

operated by City of Glendale.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 26

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1146 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Industrial, 

Institutional and Commercial 

Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters 

(Amended 9/5/2008)

Applicable to units rating of 

more than 5 mmbtu/hr.

Current NOx limits:

 For digester gas: 15 ppmv 

 For landfill gas: 25 ppmv

 For refinery gas: 30 ppmv 

(the 2008 amendment did not 

revise limits for refinery gas)

 For other types of fuels:

5 ppmv for ≥75 mmbtu/hr, 

natural gas; 30 ppmv for ≥75 

mmbtu/hr, other fuels; and 5 

or 9 ppmv for 20–75 

mmbtu/hr units

CO limit: 400ppmv

Many Rule 1146 units are in 

RECLAIM. RECLAIM 

(Amended 1/2005 version) 

contains the following NOx 

limits:

 For refinery gas:

5 ppmv for units > 110 

mmbtu/hr; and 25 ppmv for 

units < 110 mmbtu/hr units

 For other units: 

9 ppmv for units > 20 

mmbtu/hr; and 12 ppmv for 

units >2 mmBTU/hr

Sacramento Rule 411 (Amended 

10/27/05) limits for gaseous fuel 

are 9 ppmv for units greater than 

20 mmbtu/hr, and 15 ppmv for 

units from 5 to 20 mmbtu/hr.

San Joaquin Rule 4306 (Amended 

10/18/08) has the following limits:

NOx limits:

 30 ppmv for 5-65 mmbtu/hr 

units using refinery gas. For 

units from 40 – 100 mmbtu/hr, 

refer to the comparison under 

Rule 1109.

 For other types of fuels:

9 ppmv for >20 mmbtu/hr units; 

15 ppmv for ≤20 mmbtu/hr units

(6 – 9 ppmv for enhanced 

options)

 Other units: 15 – 30 ppmv

CO limit: 400 ppmmv.

San Joaquin Valley further reduces 

NOx, CO, SO2 and PM10 

emissions by adopting Rule 4320 

on 10/16/08. The limits in Rule 

4320 are:

Further explore the feasibility of 

lowering the NOx standards for Rule 

1146 (e.g. refinery fuels, digester and 

landfill gases) and RECLAIM 

through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 27

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1146

(Cont.)

NOx NOx limits:

 For refinery gas:

5 – 6 ppmv for units between 

20-110 mmbtu/hr; 6 – 9 ppmv 

for units between 5 - 20 

mmbtu/hr; and 9 ppmv for units 

firing of less than 50% by vol

PUC quality gas. Refer to the 

comparison under Rule 1109 for 

40 mmbtu/hr units and above 

using refinery gas.

 For oil field generators:

5 - 7 ppmv for units greater than 

20 mmbtu/hr; 6 – 9 ppmv for

units larger than 5 but less than 

20 mmtu/hr; and 9 ppmv for 

units firing of less than 50% by 

vol PUC quality gas

 For low usage units: 9 ppmv

 For units at a wastewater 

treatment facilities firing on less 

than 50% by vol PUC quality 

gas: 9 ppmv

 For other units: 5 – 7 ppmv for 

units larger than 20 mmbtu/hr; 

and 6 – 9 ppmv for units 

between 5 mmbtu/hr and 20 

mmbtu/hr

Compliance may be mitigated with 

annual emission fees.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 28

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’ 2007-2012 

RULES

EVALUATION 

1146.1 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Small 

Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process 

Heaters (Amended 9/5/2008)

Applicable to units rating from 

2 mmbtu/hr to 5 mmbtu/hr. 

NOx limits:

 Atmospheric Units: 12 ppmv

 Digester gas: 15 ppmv

 Landfill gas: 25 ppmv 

 All others: 9 ppmv 

CO limit: 400 ppmv.

Many Rule 1146.1 units are in 

RECLAIM, and RECLAIM 

(Amended 1/2005 version) 

BARCT analysis recommended 

12 ppmv for less than 20 

mmbtu/hr units based on ultra 

low NOx technology that is 

achieved in practice. 

RECLAIM (Amended in 2005) 

has a limit of 12 ppmv NOx for 

boilers in this size range.

Bay Area Rule 9-11 (Amended 

5/17/00) has following limits for 

boilers using gaseous fuel 1) 10 

ppmv for boilers with rated input 

greater than 1.75 mmbtu/hr, 2) 25 

ppmv for boilers from 1.5-1.75 

mmbtu/hr, 3) 30 ppmv for boilers 

less than 1.5 million btu/hr. Nongaseous fuel combustion devices 

have higher limits than gaseous 

fuel devices.

San Joaquin Rule 4307 (Amended 

5/19/2011) has the following 

limits:

NOx limits:

- For New or Replacement Units:

Atmospheric Units: 12 ppmv, and 

Non-Atmospheric Units: 9 ppmv

-For Retrofit Units: 30 ppmv 

burning gaseous fuels; and 40 

ppmv burning liquid fuels

Sulfur limits for SO2: 

-For natural gas, propane, butane, 

or LPG: 5 grains of total sulfur 

per 100 scf, or 9 ppmv SO2, or

95% control

-For liquid fuels: 15 ppmv sulfur

Further study the feasibility of 

promoting the use of cleaner units 

through incentives through one of the 

following:

INC-01 – Economic Incentive 

Programs to Adopt Zero and NearZero Technologies [NOx]
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 29

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - NOx and SOx Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’ 

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1146.2 NOx Emissions of Oxides of 

Nitrogen from Large Water 

Heaters and Small Boilers

(Amended 5/5/06)

Applicable to units less than 

2 mmbtu/hr. 

Current limits are:

 20 ppmv for units from 

400,000 btu/hr – 2 mmbtu/hr

 55 ppmv for units rating less 

than 400,000 btu/hr

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4308, 

(Amended 12/17/09) requires:

 20 ppmv for units used PUC 

gas from 75,000 btu/hr – 2 

mmbtu/hr

 30 ppmv for units from 400,000 

btu/hr - 2 mmbtu/hr used other 

types of fuels

 77 ppmv for units rating from 

75,000 btu/hr – 400,000 btu/hr 

used other types of fuels

Further study the feasibility of 

promoting the use of cleaner units 

through:

INC-01 – Economic Incentive 

Programs to Adopt Zero and NearZero Technologies [NOx]

2000 -

2015

NOx, 

SOx

RECLAIM (Amended 

5/6/05)

Include facility allocations for 

NOx and SOx for RECLAIM 

facilities. 

Since other Districts do not have 

RECLAIM, refer to comparison 

for individual rules such as Rule 

1146, 1146.1, 1110.2 etc.

Further review BARCT through:

CMB-01 – Further NOx Reductions 

from RECLAIM .

District has set most stringent 

BARCT for SOx sources in the 2010 

RECLAIM Amendments.
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 30

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1106 VOC Marine Coating Operations

(Amended 1/13/95)

Coating-specific emission limits 

from 275 – 780 g/L. In lieu of 

complying with specific 

emission limits, operator can use 

air pollution control system with 

at least 85% efficiency. Solvent

cleaning operations must comply 

with Rule 1171.

Ventura Rule 74.24 (Amended 

11/11/03) generally has the same 

limits as South Coast Rule 1106, 

except the limit for special 

marking of items such as flight 

decks, ship numbers is 420 g/L 

(490 g/L in Rule 1106)

Bay Area Rule 8-43 (Amended 

10/16/02) generally has the same 

limits as South Coast Rule 1106, 

except it has lower limit for 

pretreatment wash primer at 420 

g/L (780 g/L in Rule 1106)

Further study the potential of 

lowering the emission standards for 

this source category through:

CTS-02 – Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants

1106.1 VOC Pleasure Craft Coating 

Operations (Amended 

2/12/99)

Coating-specific emission limits 

from 340 – 780 g/L. Solvent 

cleaning operations must comply 

with Rule 1171.

San Joaquin Valley’s Rule 4603 

(Amended 9/17/09) limit for teak 

primer, wood sealer, and clear 

wood varnish is 420 g/L, which is 

more stringent than the limits in 

Rule 1106.1 (i.e. 775 g/L for teak 

primer, 550 g/L for clear wood 

sealers, and 490 g/L for clear wood 

varnishes.) 

Further study the potential of 

lowering the emission standards for 

this source category through:

CTS-02 – Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants 

1113 VOC Architectural Coatings 

(Amended 6/3/2011)

Coating-specific emission limits 

from 50 g/L – 730 g/L. Allow 

averaging, scheduled to be 

phased out on January 1, 2015.

Further study the potential of 

lowering the emission standards for 

this source category through:

CTS-01 – Further VOC Reductions 

from Architectural Coatings (R1113)
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 31

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1107 VOC Coating of Metal Parts and 

Products (Amended 1/6/06)

Coating-specific emission limits 

from 2.3 lbs/gal – 3.5 lbs/gal. In 

lieu of complying with specific 

emission limits, operator can use 

air pollution control system with 

at least 95% control efficiency

(or 5 ppmv outlet) and 90% 

capture efficiency. Solvent 

cleaning operations must comply 

with Rule 1171.

Ventura Rule 74.12 (Amended 

1/6/06) generally has the same 

coating-specific limits as South 

Coast Rule 1107, except in the 

following categories: 

 Limit for metallic coating is 3 

lbs/gal (3.5 lbs/gal in Rule 

1107);

 Limit for camouflage is 3 lbs/gal 

(3.5 lbs/gal in Rule 1107);

 Limit of pretreatment coatings is 

2.3 lbs/gal (3.5 lbs/gal in Rule 

1107)

 Overall minimum control 

efficiency is 90%, higher than 

Rule 1107 requirement at 85%

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4603 

(Amended 9/17/09) have more 

stringent limits than Rule 1107 for 

baked camouflage and baked 

metallic coating at 360 g/L (420 

g/L in Rule 1107)

Explore the feasibility of lowering 

the VOC limits considering the 

diversity of applications, and if 

feasible, implement through the 

following control measure:

CTS-02 – Further Emission 

Reduction from Miscellaneous 

Coatings. Adhesives, Solvents, and 

Lubricants, or

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 32

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1115 VOC Motor Vehicle Assembly 

Line Coating Operations

(Amended 5/12/95)

Limits from 1.2 lbs VOC/gal 

coating for electrophoretic

primer to 15 lbs/gal of applied 

solids for primer, primer surfacer 

and topcoat. Cleaning operations 

must comply with Rule 1171.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4602, 

(Amended 9/17/09) has more 

stringent limits for: 1) Primer at 

0.7 lbs/gal and 2) Primer surface 

and topcoat at 12 lbs/gal 

Further lowering the VOC limits

1118 All Refinery Flares (Amended 

11/4/05)

 Minimize flare emissions & 

require smokeless operations

 Specify SO2 gradually 

decreasing performance 

target to less than 0.5 tons 

per million barrels of crude 

by 2012.

 If the performance target is 

exceeded, the operator must 

1) pay mitigation fee; or 2) 

submit a Flare Mitigation 

Plan to reduce emissions.

 Require Cause Analysis for 

event exceeding 100 lbs 

VOC, 500 lbs of SO2, or 

500,000 scfm of vent gas, 

excluding planned shutdown, 

startup and turnarounds

 Require 160 ppmv H2S, 3 

hour average by 1/1/2009, 

and no limits for NOx, VOC, 

PM and CO.

U.S. EPA suggested the District to 

further re-evaluate Rule 1118 (FR 

Vol 76 No 217, Nov 9, 2011, CBE 

comments).

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4311 

(Amended 6/18/09) has VOC/NOx 

limits for ground-level enclosed 

flares; SO2 Targets (1.50 

tons/million barrels of crude by 

2011, and 0.5 tons/million barrels 

by 2012); Flare Minimization Plan 

for refinery flares more than 5 

mmbtu/hr; and operational 

requirements for all flares that 

have potential to emit more than 10 

tons/yr VOC and more than 10 

tons/yr of NOx. 

Bay Area Rule 12-12 (Adopted 

4/5/06) does not specify a 

declining SO2 target and does not 

contain a mitigation fee option.

Explore the possibility of further 

minimizing flare related events, 

through:

MSC-03 – Improved Start-Up, 

Shutdown and Turnaround 

Procedures

In addition, further study the 

feasibility of reducing emissions of 

landfill flares through:

CMB-02 – NOx Reductions from 

Biogas Flares
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 33

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1122 VOC Solvent Degreasers 

(Amended 5/1/09)

Contain various work practice 

and design requirements.

Further study to assess the feasibility 

of reducing emissions through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants 

1124 VOC Aerospace Assembly and 

Component Manufacturing 

Operations (Amended 

9/21/01)

Coating-specific emission limits 

from 160 – 1000 g/L. Specific 

high transfer coating applications 

(e.g. HVLP spray). In lieu of 

complying with specific 

emission limits, operator can use 

air pollution control system with 

at least 95% control efficiency 

(or 50 ppmv outlet) and 90% 

capture efficiency. Solvent 

cleaning operations must comply 

with Rule 1171.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4605 

(Amended 6/16/2011) has the 

following limits that are more 

stringent than those in Rule 1124: 

 Flight Test Coatings = 600 g/L 

(840 g/L in Rule 1124)

 Fastener Sealant = 600 g/L (675 

g/L in Rule 1124)

Sacramento Rule 456 (Amended 

10/23/08) has the following limits 

that are more stringent than those 

in Rule 1124: 

 Conformal Coating = 600 g/L 

(Rule 1124 limit is 750 g/L)

Explore the feasibility of lowering 

the VOC limits through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants 
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 34

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1124 

(Cont.)

 Fire Resistant Coatings = 600 

g/L. (Rule 1124 limits are 650 

g/L for Commercial; 800 g/L for 

Military)

 High-Temperature Coating = 

420 g/L. (Rule 1124 limit is 850 

g/L)

 Mold Release Coatings = 762 

g/L. (Rule 1124 limit is 780 

g/L)

 Radiation Effect = 600 g/L. 

(Rule 1124 limit is 800 g/L)

 Rain Erosion Resistant Coating 

= 600 g/L in All Other Category. 

(Rule 1124 limit is 800 g/L)

Ventura 2006-2008 Triennial 

Assessment and Plan Update has a 

control measure to require 25 g/L 

VOC limit for cleaning solutions 

and remove the 45 mmHg vapor 

pressure allowance. (Rule 1124 

limits for cleaning solutions and 

strippers are 200 g/L (or 45 mmHg 

vapor pressure) and 300 g/L (or 

9.5 mmHg vapor pressure)
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 35

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1125 VOC Metal Container, Closure, 

and Coil Coating Operations

(Amended 3/7/2008)

Coating-specific emission limits 

from 0 g/L (for non food cans) –

660 g/L. Specific high transfer 

coating applications (e.g. HVLP 

spray). In lieu of complying 

with specific emission limits, 

operator can use air pollution 

control system with at least 95% 

control efficiency (or 50 ppmv 

outlet) and 90% capture 

efficiency, which is equivalent to 

an overall control efficiency of 

85%. Solvent cleaning 

operations must comply with 

Rule 1171.

The following limit in San Joaquin 

Rule 4604 (Amended 9/20/07) are 

more stringent than those in Rule 

1125: 

 Two-Piece Interior Body Spray

= 420 g/L (440 g/L in Rule 

1125)

 Three-Piece Interior Body Spray

= 360 g/L (510g/L in Rule 

1125)

In addition, SJV Rule 4604 have 

many limits that are not listed in 

Rule 1125 such as 20 g/L for end 

seal compounds and 225 g/L for 

two-piece interior sheet base 

coating and over-vanish.

Sacramento Rule 452 (Amended 

9/25/2008) has the following more 

stringent limits than Rule 1125:

 Two-Piece Interior Body Spray

= 420 g/L (440 g/L in Rule 

1125)

 Three-Piece Interior Body Spray 

= 360 g/L (510g/L in Rule 1125)

Explore the feasibility of lowering 

the VOC limits through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants, or

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 36

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1130 VOC Graphic Arts (Amended 

10/8/99)

VOC content limits: 80 g/l – 100 

g/l for fountain solution, 150 g/l 

for adhesives, 225 g/l - 300 g/l 

for inks and coatings. In lieu of 

meeting specific emission limits, 

control device with overall 

control efficiency from 75% -

85% can be used to achieve 

equal or better emission 

reductions.

VOC limits for cleaning 

solutions for printing presses are 

in Rule 1171 ranging from 25 g/l 

(0.21 lb/gal) for flexographic 

printing to 100 g/l (0.83 lb/gal) 

for lithographic printing (even 

though 500 g/l is allowed up to 

end of year 2007.)

The following limits in San 

Joaquin Valley Rule 4607 

(Amended 12/18/08) are more 

stringent: 1) 95% control 

efficiency for heat-set web offset 

lithographic or letterpress printers 

that emit greater than 25 tons per 

year VOC; 2) 1.6% VOC content 

for fountain solution used in heatset lithographic printers, 5% for 

fountain solution used in cold-set 

and sheet-fed lithographic printers, 

and 8% for fountain solution used 

in other presses. 

Sacramento Rule 450 is more 

stringent in the following: 1) 

overall control efficiency of 95% 

for heat-set web offset lithographic 

and letterpress printing and 80% 

for flexible package printing (Rule 

1130 requires only 75% control 

efficiency) ; 2) VOC in fountain 

solution is lower, generally from 

1.6% to 5%; 3) electronic circuit 

limit is 800 g/l (850 g/l in Rule 

1130.1)

Further study to assess the feasibility 

of increasing the overall control 

efficiency and reducing the alcohol 

usage in fountain solution through 

the implementation of:

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 37

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1130 

(Cont.)

Bay Area, Regulation 8, Rule 20 

(Amended 11/19/08) requires 8% 

VOC content in fountain solution. 

In addition, the rule requires 

recordkeeping for digital printing, 

cleaning and stripping of UV or 

electron beam-cured inks for 

further study potential emission 

reductions in a near future.

Ventura Rule 74.19 (Amended 

6/14/11) requires low VOC content 

in fountain solution used in 

lithographic presses.

In addition, the U.S. EPA CTG for 

lithographic and letterpress, 

September 2006, recommends:

 Destruction efficiency of 90% 

to 95% depending on date of 

installation (or 20 ppmv outlet 

concentration) for heat-set web 

with potential to emit, prior to 

controls, of at least 25 tpy. 

 For operations emitting 15 

lb/day, fountain solution must 

be 1) 1.6% alcohol or less, or 
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 38

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1130 

(Cont.)

2) 3% with refrigerated chiller 

or 3) 5% alcohol substitute for 

heat-set web presses; 4) 5% 

alcohol for sheet-fed presses; 5) 

5% alcohol substitute and no 

alcohol in fountain solution for 

cold-set web presses.

The EPA CTG for rotogravure and 

flexographic, adopted in 

September 2006, recommends 

control efficiency of 80% for 

presses installed after March 1995, 

and 65% - 75% for older presses.

1130.1 VOC Screen Printing Operations

(Amended 12/13/96)

VOC content limits ranges from 

400 g/l – 800 g/l for materials 

used in screen printing. In lieu 

of specific emission limits, 

control device can be used to 

achieve equal or better 

reductions, at least 95%.

Bay Area, Regulation 8, Rule 20 

(Amended 11/19/08) has more 

stringent limit for adhesives at 150 

g/L (400 g/L in Rule 1130.1).

Sacramento Rule 450 (Amended 

10/23/08) has more stringent limits 

than Rule 1130.1 in the following 

areas: 1) limit for electronic circuit 

ink is 800 g/L (850 g/L in Rule 

1130.1); 2) limit for adhesives is 

150 g/L (400 g/L in Rule 1130.1)

Further study to assess the feasibility

of reducing the VOC limits for 

adhesives through:

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 39

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1132 VOC Further Control of VOC 

from High Emitting Spray 

Booths (Amended 5/7/04)

Further reduce emissions by 65% 

from the baseline primarily 

through the installation of 

control devices, beyond and 

above the use of coatings that

comply with existing coating 

rules.

1136 VOC Wood Products Coatings

(Amended 6/14/96)

VOC content limits range from 

2.3 – 6.3 lbs/gal VOC. 

Averaging provisions and add-on 

control are allowed. Transfer 

efficiency is at least 65%, or 

operator must use certain type of 

equipment (e.g. HVLP). Solvent 

cleaning operations must comply 

with Rule 1171.

Ventura Rule 74.30 (Amended 

6/27/06) has more stringent limit 

for high-solid stains on new wood 

products at 2 lbs/gal (2.9 lbs/gal in 

Rule 1136). In lieu of coating 

specific limits, control equipment 

achieving 90% efficiency is 

required. No averaging provisions 

in Ventura.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4606 

(Amended 10/16/08) is more 

stringent in the following areas:

 Rule 1136 allows the use of a 

stripper with limits higher than 

350 g/L if the stripper has low 

vapor pressure of 2 mmHg. SJV 

does not have this allowance;

 SJV Rule 4606 requires a min

overall control efficiency of 

85% - 90% for flat wood 

paneling products, whereas Rule 

1136 does not have control 

efficiency requirement.

Explore the feasibility of lowering 

the VOC limits for wood products 

coatings through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants, or

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 40

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1136

(Cont.)

Bay Area, Regulation 8, Rule 32, 

(Amended 8/5/09) has lower limits 

for surface preparation and 

cleanup, including stripping, at 

0.21 lbs/gal.

1144 VOC Metalworking Fluids and 

Direct-contact Lubricants 

(Amended 7/9/2010)

Various limits from 50 g/L – 340 

g/L. Add-on control at 90% 

capture efficiency, 95% control 

efficiency (or 5 ppmv outlet)

Further study the potential of 

lowering the VOC limits through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 41

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1151 VOC Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Non-Assembly 

Line Coating Operations 

(Amended 12/2/05)

VOC content limits range from 

250 – 840 grams VOC per liter. 

Averaging provisions are 

allowed. High transfer coating 

equipment (e.g. HVLP) is 

required. Solvent cleaning 

operations must comply with 

Rule 1171.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4602 

(Amended 9/17/09) is more 

stringent in the following areas: 1) 

adhesive at 250 g/L (540 g/L in 

Rule 1151), 2) gasket/gasket 

sealing at 200 g/L (400 g/L in Rule 

1151), and 3) truck bed liner 

coating at 200 g/L (310 g/L in Rule 

1151)

Sacramento Rule 459 (Amended 

8/25/11) is more stringent in the 

following areas: 1) multi-color 

coating at 520 g/L for mobile 

equipment driven on rails (680 g/L 

in Rule 1151), 2) truck bed liner 

coating at 200 g/L (310 g/L in Rule 

1151)

Bay Area, Regulation 8, Rule 45 

(Amended 12/3/08) is more 

stringent in the following areas: 1) 

VOC limit for surface preparation 

and cleanup, including stripping, of 

0.2 lbs/gal or 2) a minimum 85% 

overall control efficiency.

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the VOC limits for coatings 

through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants, or

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment 

1162 VOC Polyester Resin Operations

(Amended 7/8/05)

VOC limits (monomer content) 

from 10-48% by weight or 

alternatively 90% control 

efficiency for add-on control

Regulation 8, Rule 50 (Amended 

12/2/09) is similar to Rule 1162, 

except the limit for corrosion 

resistant resin is more stringent at 

40% - 46% (48% in Rule 1162). 

The rule allows some usage of 

acetone

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the VOC limits through:

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 42

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1168 VOC Adhesive and Sealant 

Applications (Amended 

1/7/05)

VOC limits for solvents range 

from 30 – 775 lbs VOC per 

gallon. Require the use of high 

transfer efficiency equipment 

(e.g. HVLP spray). In lieu of 

meeting the VOC limits, using 

add-on control with 80% control 

efficiency is allowed.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4653 

(Amended 9/16/2010) has more 

stringent limits in the following 

areas:

 100 g/L for Cellulosic Plastic 

Welding Adhesive, 100 g/L for 

Styrene Acrylonitrile Welding 

Adhesive, and 200 g/L for 

Reinforced Plastic Composite 

Adhesive (Rule 1168 limit is 

250 g/L limits for all three 

categories)

 Minimum overall control 

efficiency is 85% (80% in Rule 

1168)

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the VOC limits through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 43

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations - VOC Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1171 VOC Solvent Cleaning Operations

(Amended 5/1/2009)

VOC limits for solvents are 25 

g/l in general, and have a 100-

800 g/l VOC for specific 

cleaning operations. In lieu of 

meeting the VOC limits, add-on 

control having 90% collection 

efficiency and 95% destruction 

efficiency or meeting 50 ppmv 

outlet concentration can be used. 

The rule however only requires 

(70%)(95%) = 66.5% overall 

control efficiency for graphic 

arts and screen printing 

applications

The U.S. EPA RACT published in 

September 2006 limit is 50 g/l or 

an overall control efficiency of 

85%. The U.S. EPA is not 

recommending limits beyond 50 

g/l; but also recommends states to 

adopt higher limits based on 

individual performance 

requirements of specific 

applications. Rule 1171 meets the 

U.S. EPA RACT.

Further study the feasibility of 

lowering the VOC limits and 

increasing the overall control 

efficiency requirement for control 

devices located at graphic arts 

facilities through:

CTS-02 - Further Emission 

Reductions from Miscellaneous 

Coatings, Adhesives, Solvents and 

Lubricants,

462 VOC Organic Liquid Loading 

(Amended 5/14/99)

Limit in Rule 462 is 0.08 lbs per 

1000 gallons of liquid loaded for 

Class A facility loading of 

20,000 gallons or more. This 

limit is not applicable to small 

facilities (Class B and C).

Bay Area, Regulation 8, Rule 33 

(Amended 4/15/09) has a limit of 

0.04 lbs/1000 gallons of liquid 

loaded and requires stringent 

monitoring requirements

Further study to assess the feasibility 

of reducing the VOC limits through:

MSC-01 – Application of All 

Feasible Measures Assessment
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 44

TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations – VOC, PM Rules

RULE TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE 

REQUIREMENTS

OTHER DISTRICTS’ 

2007-2012 RULES

EVALUATION 

1133, 

1133.1, 

1133.2

PM, 

VOC, 

NH3

Composting, CoComposting, and Related 

Operations

(Rule 1133, Adopted 

1/10/2003; Rule 1133.1, 

Amended 7/8/2011; and 

Rule 1133.2, Adopted 

1/10/2003)

Various performance standards. 

Air pollution control must have 

80% control efficiency or 

greater. Existing operations 

must reduce up to 70% baseline 

VOC and ammonia emissions. 

Baseline emission factors are 

1.78 lbs VOC/ton throughput and 

2.93 lbs NH3/ton throughput.

San Joaquin Rule 4565 –

Biosolids, Animal Manure, and 

Poultry Litter Operations (Adopted 

3/15/07) and Rule 4566 – Organic 

Material Composting Operations 

(Adopted 8/18/11) have various 

operational requirements for these 

operations as well as the operators 

who landfills, composts, or cocomposts these materials. The 

applicability of Rules 4565/4566 is 

broader than the applicability of 

Rule 1133.3. In addition, Rules 

4565/4566 include additional 

mitigation measures to control 

VOC from composting active piles 

(e.g. maintain minimum oxygen 

concentration of 5%, moisture 

content of 40%-70%, carbon to 

nitrogen ratio of 20-1). San 

Joaquin’s rule does not address 

chipping & grinding as in Rule 

1133.1. 

Further study the feasibility of 

further control through:

MCS-02 – Further Emission 

Reductions from Green Waste 

Processing 

1133.3 VOC

NH3

Emission Reductions from 

Greenwaste Composting 

Operations (Adopted 

7/8/2011)

Include requirements for 

composting greenwaste, or 

greenwaste in combination of 

manure or foodwaste. Include 

various performance standards. 

Require air pollution control 

with efficiency of 80% or greater

for operations greater than 5000 

tons/year of foodwaste. For 

operations less than 5000 

tons/year, require the composting 

piles to be covered, watered, and 

turned, or operated with 

measures that reduce at least 

40% VOC emission and 20% 

NH3 emissions.
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 45

TABLE 3 (continued)

444 All Open Burning (Amended 

11/7/2008)

Contains requirements and 

prohibitions for open burning to 

minimize emissions and smoke 

impacts to the public.

San Joaquin Valley Rule 4103 

(Amended 4/15/2010) contains 

additional best management 

practices compared to Rule 444 

such as best management practices 

to control open burning of weeds.

Bay Area, Reg 5, sets requirements 

for open burning, and was to forbid 

recreational burning during 

curtailment periods.

Further study to include additional 

good management practices and a 

possibility of restricting burning 

during episodic curtailment periods 

through:

BCM-02 – Further Reductions from 

Open Burning
Attachment to Appendix VII: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 46

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Mobile Source RACM Analysis for the South Coast 2012 Draft Final AQMP

Given the significant emission reductions needed for attainment in California, ARB has adopted 

some of the most stringent control measures nationwide for on-road and off-road mobile sources 

and the fuels that power them. These measures target both new and in-use equipment. And 

while California first focused on cleaning up cars – new car emissions have been reduced by 99 

percent – the scope of California’s program is vast. The State has implemented regulations and 

programs to reduce emissions from freight transport equipment, including heavy-duty trucks, 

ocean going vessels, locomotives, harbor craft, and cargo handling equipment. In addition, the 

State has standards for lawn and garden equipment, recreational vehicles and boats, and other 

newly manufactured off-road equipment. California has also adopted many measures that focus 

on achieving reductions from in-use mobile sources that include accelerated replacement of older 

equipment with newer, less polluting equipment; more stringent inspection and maintenance 

requirements; and operational requirements such as truck and bus idling restrictions and speed 

reduction requirements for ocean going vessels.

California has unique authority under Clean Air Act section 209 to adopt and implement new 

emission standards for many categories of on-road vehicles and engines, and new and in-use offroad vehicles and engines. Use of this authority is subject to U.S. EPA waiving the applicable 

federal standard upon their finding that the standards adopted by California are, in the aggregate, 

at least as stringent as the comparable federal standard. 

To support the attainment plans submitted to U.S. EPA in 2007 for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5, 

ARB undertook an extensive public consultation process to identify potential SIP measures. 

New measures developed by ARB as part of this 2007 State Strategy focused on cleaning up the 

in-use fleet, and increasing the stringency of emissions standards for a number of engine 

categories, fuels, and consumer products. These measures build on ARB’s already 

comprehensive program that addresses emissions from all types of mobile sources.

In 2011, U.S. EPA approved the State mobile source control program as being RACM in the 

context of the 2007 and 2008 South Coast and San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 plans (76 FR 69928 at 

69933). In its proposed approval of the 2007 South Coast PM2.5 Attainment Plan, U.S. EPA 

recognized that the “State of California has been a leader in the development of some of the most 

stringent control measures nationwide for on-road and off-road mobile sources and the fuels that 

power them” (76 FR 41562 at 41570). In the 2007 State Strategy, ARB identified and committed 

to propose new defined measures for the sources under its jurisdiction. Of these new measures, 
Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII - 47

U.S. EPA noted that “many, if not most, of these measures are being proposed for adoption for 

the first time anywhere in the nation” (76 FR 41562 at 41570).

California’s comprehensive mobile source program continues to be RACM as it expands and 

further reduces emissions. The 2012 PM2.5 SIPs rely on additional regulations adopted since the 

State’s last major SIP revision in 2007. In January 2012, ARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars 

program, which combines the control of smog-causing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions 

into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025. The 

program was developed in tandem with the federal government over several years, including a 

joint fact-finding process with shared engineering and technical studies. Benefits from this new 

program are reflected in emission inventories used in the 2012 PM2.5 attainment plans.