# Appx VII

Air Quality Management Plan

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Cleaning the air that we breathe... ®



# AQ MD 

# December 2012 T R A N S P O R T A T I O



### N 

# A 

# I



# R 

# Q 

# U 

# A L I T Y

E N

E R G

Y



# C 

# L 

# I 

# M A T E



# 1-Hour Ozone

Attainment Demonstration

# FINAL 2012 AQMP

APPENDIX VI I

2012 1

- HOUR OZONE

ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRA TION

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 Cou nty



## 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 CONTR OL 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

- 1 8

SCAG’s Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation Control Me asures ...... VII

- 20

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

- 2 1

Section II. Regional Transportation Strategy and Transportation control

Measures .................................................................................... VII

- 2 1

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

- 2 2

Proposed Ozone Control Measures

.. ........................................................... VII

- 2 3

Proposed Ozone Stationary Source Measures ......................................... VII

- 2 8

Coating and Solvents ................................................................ VII

- 30

Combustion Sources ................................................................. VII

- 3 2

Petroleum Operations and Fugitive VOC Emissions ........................... VII

- 3 2

## Multiple Component Sources ...................................................... VII

- 3 3

Incentive Programs .............................................................................. VII

- 3 5

Educational Programs .

......................................................................... VII

- 3 5

Proposed Ozone Mobile Source Measures .................................................... VII

- 3 6

On

- Road Mobile Source Measures .......................................................... VII

- 3 9

Off

- Road Mobile Source Measures .......................................................... VII

- 40

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

- 4 1

Overall Emission Reductions ..

............................................................................. VII

- 4 5



# SECTION 5

– 1

- HOUR OZONE ATTAINMEN T 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

- 7 4

Summary and Conclusions...................................................

......... ....................... VII

- 8 2



# SECTION 6

– ENVIRONMENTAL AND SO CIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

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

- 8 4

Socioeconomic analysis .......................................................................... VII

- 8 6

# SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

## Final 2012 AQMP

VI I

- 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 provi de

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

- h our

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

provid ed 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 o zone ―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 i n 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 c apacity‖ 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 19 97 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) establis hed 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 de monstration 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 attain ment. 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 meeti ng 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 Circu it 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 determine s 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 disa pproved the 2003

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



# 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 S ection 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 evidenc e

## Final 2012 AQMP

VI I

- 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. E PA 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. 8213 3 (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 sub mit 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 l ater 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 g ive 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 Distric t plans to submit the updated 1

- hour ozone attainment

demonstration as part of the 2012 AQMP

.

# SECTION 2

OZONE AIR QU AL ITY IN THE BASIN

## Appendix VII: 1

- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII

- 4 

# INTRODUCTION

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

federal 1

- hour ozone standard of 0.12 ppm

. T he 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 exercis ing 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 Ca lifornia 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

- m entioned 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 wi th 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 supers eded by the more protective health warnings associated with

the current 8

- hour ozone NAAQS. The 1

- hour O 3 

# 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 O 3 

# Stage 1 episode occurred in

## Final 2012 AQMP

VI I

- 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 i n 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 show s maximum 1

- hou r 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 prevaili ng 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 v alleys 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 standar d (8 days). T he

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 O 3 

## > 0.12 ppm)



# AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Federal Ozone Standards

T he federal government ha s 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

r evoked federal ozone ambient air quality standard s 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

VI I

- 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 alter ed 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,

m aximum 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, a n exceedance of the concentration level does not necessarily mean a

violation of the NAAQS, given that the form of the standard must b e 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.

A ttainment 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 O 3 

# , the

form of the standard is the 4th highest measured 1

- hour average concentration at each

station over a three

- year period. The overall de sign value for an air basin is the

highest design value of a ll the stations in that basin. Figure VII

- 2

- 2 shows the trend s

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 qua lity 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

VI I

- 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

VI I

- 11



# INTRODU C TION

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

S ummar ies 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 i n 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: 2 008 Base Year

Summer Planning Inventory (tpd 1 

## ) *

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

VI I

- 13 

# TABLE VII

- 3

- 2

Summary of Emissions By Major Source Category: 2022 Baseline

Summer Planning Inventory (tpd 1 

## )

SOURCE CATEGORY SUMMER OZONE PRECURS ORS

VOC NOx

STATIONARY SOURCES

Fuel Combustion 14 2 7

Waste Disposal 14 2

Cleaning and Surface Coatings 55 0

Petroleum Production and Marketing 3 6 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 Summ er Planning Emissions by Source Category

in the South Coast Air Basin (tpd)

CODE SOURCE CATEGORY VOC NOx CO

10 Electric Utilities 0.8 8 0.23 8. 51

20 Cogeneration 0.05 0.01 0.41

30 Oil and Gas Production (Combustion) 0.1 2 0.8 1 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 0.0 8 1.2 8

60 Service and Commercial 4.4 5 9.25 17.3 7

99 Other (Fuel Combustion) 0.31 3.0 9 2.9 0

Total Fuel Combustion 13.9 6 27.38 57.3 7

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

VI I

- 15 

# TABLE VII

- 3

- 3 (Con tinued )

2022 Baseline Summ er 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 19 9.00

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 3.0 5

771 School Buses

- Gas 0.05 0.09 0.7 5

772 School Buses

- Diesel 0.03 1.77 0.1 3

777 Other Buses

- Gas 0.29 0.53 2.82

779 All Other Buses

- Diesel 0.10 1.06 0. 5 2

780 Motor Homes 0.07 1.00 1.0 7

Total On

- Road Motor Vehicles 72.77 134.82 62 6 .7 3

Other Mobile Sources

810 Aircraft 4.41 15.44 41.7 5

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 9 07. 76

## Appendix VII: 1

- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII

- 16 

# TABLE VII

- 3

- 3 ( Con cluded)

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 439.9 7 3 40

. 57 1659.23

# SECTION 4

1

- HOUR OZONE SIP CONTROL STRATEGY

## Final 2012 AQMP

VII

- 17



# INTRODUCTION

Th is 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, t he 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 measure s 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 CAR RIED FORWARD FOR THE 1

-

HOUR OZONE ATTAINMEN T 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 mea sures 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 co ntrol 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. T he emiss ion 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 

# TA BLE 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 M EASURES

FOR THE 1

- HOUR OZONE ATTAINMEN T 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

- h our ozone standard . T he proposed 8

- hour ozone control measures

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

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

of each control measure is provided in Appendi ces 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 throug h 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 Ann ual Emissions

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

stationary source control measures call for initiat ing 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 standard s

.

The mobile source strategy includes actions seeking further emission reductions from

both on

- road and off

- road mobile sources, such as accelerated penetration of zero

and near

- z ero 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 se veral 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. S ignificant 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 202 2 . 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 n ecessary 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 regulator y 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 me asures 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 t he 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 South ern 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 CA A establishes air quality standards and

planning requirements for various criteria air pollutants.

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

federally supported highway and transit project activities ―conform to‖ the pur pose 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 S ection 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

fou nd 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,

emplo yment, 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 SI P 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 Transporta tion Improvement Program (FTIP).

This was developed in consultation with federal, sta te 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. Link ing 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. SC AG 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 transporta tion 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 tra nsportation 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, r egional 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 impro vements 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

 P assenger 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 congest ion 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 strateg ies 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 transi t 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 region al 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

Transpor t ation 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

ev aluated 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 consi ders 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 dis cussion 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 k nown 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 reduc tions 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. O n

- road truck categories are projected to comprise the

single largest contributor to regional NOx. Other e quipment 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 tech nologies 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 anal yses, 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 h elp 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, howe ver,

substantial additional emission reductions will be needed through development of

new, advanced after

- treatment technologies. In addition, a lternative fuels will likely

play a transitional near

- term role

. Alternative fuels such as natural gas have

his torically 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 standar ds in a few short years, alternative fueled engines will continue to play

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

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

neutral

-- a p olicy 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 ze ro

- 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 des cribes 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

- emissio n 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 ca n 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,

sev eral 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 pub lic/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 no w 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 remain ing 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. Trans itioning 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 standard s by the

applicable dates is required by f ederal 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 potent ial 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

inclu des a number of ozone measure s 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 af

ter 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, 19 95).

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.

Th e 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 pro vides 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 stand ard 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. 45 7, 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 pl an 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 th at 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 identifi ed 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 ava ilable 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).

F inally, 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 attainme nt 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 pre sent 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



# H ad 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 a n 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 enforceabl e 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 plan ned 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 o zone SIP and in this 1

- hour ozone SIP

. Based on the State ’ s

anticipated development of these new technologies, CA RB 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

measur es 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, EP A

. 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 re ductions

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 contro l technology (RACT) ) and shall provide

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

T he U.S. EPA recommends th at 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/RA CTs 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 A ppendix.

Proposed Ozone Stati onary 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 c ategories 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

mea sures 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 Stationa ry 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/A a



## 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 Pending c



## 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 TBD e



## 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 TBD e

## 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 TBD e



## INC

- 02 Expedited Permitting and CEQA

Preparation Facilitating the

Manufacturing of Zero and Near

- Zero

Technologies [All Pollutants] 2014

- 2015 Beginning 2015 N/A a



## EDU

- 01

( formerly

MCS

- 02,

MCS

- 03 ) Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions

from Education, Outreach and Incentives

[All Pollutants] Ongoing Ongoing N/A a



### 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

continge ncy 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. T BD 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

a rchitectural 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, non

flat 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 applic ation 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, ADHESIV ES, 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 cons idered 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 ofte n 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 st amping 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 o perations,

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 v apor 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 ma y

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 tradit ional 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 REDUCTIO NS FROM RECLAIM: This prop osed

control measure will seek cumulative reductions of 3

- 5 tpd of NOx allocations by the

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

state law. If triggered, t he PM2.5 contingency measure provision of CMB

- 01 would

ach ieve 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 source

specific rules regulating NOx emissions from biogas flares. Flare NOx emissions are

regulated thro ugh 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 COMM ERCIAL 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 achieve d through the use of low

NOx 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 VACUU M 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, int ernal

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

D ISPENSING: 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 r ule 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 no t 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 easil y 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 measu res 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 MEASURE S ASSESSMENT:

This con trol 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 contin ually 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 wi ll review actions taken by other air districts for

applicability in our region.

MCS

- 02

- FURTHER EMISSION RED UCTIONS FROM GREENWA STE

PROCESSING (CHIPPING AND GRINDING NOT ASS OCIATED WITH

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

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 technic ally feasible and cost

- effective BMPs

or controls.

MCS

- 03

- IMPROVED START

- UP, SHUTDOWN AND TUR NAROUND

PROCEDURES: This proposed control measure seeks to reduce emissions during

equipment startup, shutdown, and turnaround. Opportunities for further reduc ing

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,

di verting 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 a nd 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 o perate 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

technolo gy.

INC

- 01: ECONOMIC INCENT IVE PROGRAMS TO ADOP T 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 focu s 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 PERMI TTING AND CEQA PREPA RATION

FACILITATING THE MAN UFACTURING OF ZERO A ND 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 wil l

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 b e 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 CRITERI A POLLUTANT REDUCTIO NS 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‖ coati ngs, 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 turn over

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 nea r

- 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 a nd 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 sou rces 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

tech nologies 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 zero

and near

- zero emission technologies for on

- road and off

- road mobile sources. The

draft Vision document discusses the need to accele rate 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 a nd off

- road

equipment.

Partial

- zero and zero

- emission technologies are rapidly being introduced into the on

road light

- and medium

- duty vehicle categories in large part due to the CARB Low

Emission Vehicle (LEV) and the Zero

- Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regula tions. In

## Final 2012 AQMP

VII

- 37



# addition, next

- generation electric hybrid trucks are being commercialized for light

heavy and medium

- heavy heavy

- duty on

- road vehicles. However, additional

research and demonstration are needed to commercialize zero

- and near

- zero

emission tech nologies 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 o f ―all zero

emission 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 Zero

Emission 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 Zero

Emission 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

OFFRD

01 Extension of the SOON

Provision for

Construction/Industrial

Equipment [NOx ] N/A Ongoing SCAQMD 7.5

OFFRD

02 Further 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



## OFFRD

03 Further Emission Reductions

from Passenger Locomotives

[NOx, PM] Ongoing Beginning 2014

-

2023 SoCal Regional

Rail Authority 3.0 [NOx] d



## 0.06

[PM2.5] d



## OFFRD

04 Further Emission Reductions

from Ocean

- Going Marine

Vessels While at Berth [NOx,

SOx, PM] 2014 Ongoing San Pedro Bay

Ports, CARB,

SCAQMD TBD a



## OFFRD

05 Emission 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 op tions 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 o perating 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

- emiss ion 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, sp orts 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 m easure seeks emission

reductions at near

- dock railyards through the deployment of zero

- emission heavy

duty 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 an ticipated 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 author ity of the state and

U.S. EPA. The first measure calls for the continuation of the Surplus Off

- Road Opt

In 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 ocean

going vessels whil e 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 mil lion 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 level s 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 ac tions. 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 di scussed 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 emis sion

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

va rious 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 t he 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 eng ine 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

soli cit 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 ZERO

EMISSION AND ZERO EMISSI ON 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 ve hicle, which may include a replacement voucher for a newer or new vehicle.

ONRD

- 03

– ACCELERATED PENETRATION OF PARTIAL ZERO

EMISSION AND ZERO

- EMISSION LIGHT

- HEAVY

- AND MEDIUM

HEAVY

- 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 vehi cles 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 truck s 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 replacemen t 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

con tainer 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 ra ilyards, 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 see ks 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 regulat ion. 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 thr ough

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 Port s 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

bas is and, if necessary, any adjustments to the program will be made.

ADV

- 01

– ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ZERO

- AND NEAR

ZERO EMISSION ON

- ROAD HEAVY

- DUTY VEHICLES : This measure

would continue the efforts underway to develop zero

- emission and near

- zero

emis sion 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 engi ne 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 NEAR

ZERO EMISSION LOCOMOTI VES : 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 zero

emission technologies could apply to freight and pa ssenger locomotives.

ADV

- 03

– ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ZERO

- AND NEAR

ZERO EMISSION CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT : This measure

recognizes the actions underway to develop and deploy zero

- and near

- zero emission

technologies for various cargo handling equip ment. 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 f or 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 parti culate filters. This measure recognizes

## Final 2012 AQMP

VII

- 4 5



# 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 Harbo r Craft Regulation.

ADV

- 05

– ACTIONS FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF CLEANER OCEAN

GOING 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 emiss ions 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 demonstrat e 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 (CL EEN)

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 clea ner 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 20 22, 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 V II

- 4

- 5

Emission Reductions for 202 2 Based on

Summer Planning Inventory (T ons per D ay)

SOURCES VOC NOx

Year 202 2 Baseline 1 

## 440 335

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 3 

## 17 1 50

T otal 1

- hour Ozone SIP

Reductions 30 185

202 2 Remaining Emissions 410 150

1 

### Em ission 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 S ection 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 F ed. R eg. 12674 (March 1, 2012)

. Thus, t he 1

- hour ozone long term emissions reductions are not new emissions reductions as they are a subset of the

previous 2007 SI P 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 Vall ey 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 yea rs 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. B ackground discus sion 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 attain ment 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

withdra wn 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

whe n the Urban Airshed Model (UAM) with CB

- IV chemistry was the primary tool

for projecting air qua lity. 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 d ispersion 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 d iscussion of the current modeling platform

.



# ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION STRUCTURE: DETERMINISTIC VS.

TIERED R ELATIVE R ESPONSE F ACTOR (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 basel ine 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 st ation. In essence, the analysis look ed at the 2 nd 

# 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 re sponse 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 speci fic design values calculated

as the three year averages of the 4 th 

# 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 meteorol ogical 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 characteristic s 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 thi s current analysis since the 1

- hour

standard has been revoked . As discussed above, the previous 1

- h our ozone

attainment demonstrations utilized the deterministic approach to demonstrate

attainment of the standard. As modeling platforms (both dispersion a nd

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 dete rministic 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 

# T ABLE 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 ozon e 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

- H our 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

 202 2

## 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 chara cterization of the emissions used for the modeling analysis is

presented in Section 3 of this Appendix and Chapter 3 of th e 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 1 5 0 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 e ach 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 99 th 

# percentile. This

episode contained the top four daily Basin ozone maximum concentrations for 2008

and has been selected as the focus of the attai nment 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 Sant a 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. Glend ora,

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 Aug ust 2 nd 

# 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 c oncentration. The exceptions occur on June 20 th 

# 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 22 nd 

# the

observed maximum con centration was approximately 82 and 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

Maxi mum Ozone > 120

p pb

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 EV ALUATION

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 base

year 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 Coac hella

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

sou rce 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 CM AQ ozone performance do not

change from previous AQMPs and include the following:

## Final 2012 AQMP

VII

- 55



# Statistic for O 3 

# 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 epi s ode 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 2 008 highest observed 1

- hour ozone concentrations occurred on June 18 th 

# and

June 20 th 

# 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 negati ve in Zones 3 and 4. Zone

- 5 showed a tendency for over

prediction o n June 19 th 

# and 22 nd 

# . 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 o f observed and

CMAQ simulated 1

- hour ozone and spatial plot s 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 19 th 

# and 21 st 

# depicting a close match with observations,

particularly in Zone 4. The trend of predicted and observed diurnal ozone is also

closely match ed in Zones 3 and 5 for all days except June 22 nd 

# when the daily peak

ozone concentrations were over predicted.

The corresponding spatial plots of daily ozone maximum demonstrate the extent and

concentration range s of CMAQ predicted oz one. The peak predicted concentrations

occur in Zone 4 on June 21 st 

# followed by June 19 th 

# , with both days meeting the

unpaired prediction criteria. On June 22 nd 

# , the same pattern persists but with an

extension of higher predicted ozone concentrations occ urring in Zone 5 as well.

While June 18 th 

# and 20 th 

# are under predicted (unpaired peak ratio of 0. 7 6 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

- 1 7 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 1 9 , 2008



# FIGURE VII

- 5

- 6

CMAQ predicted maximum 1

- hour ozone (PPB) for June 1 9 , 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 tr ends 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 2 1, 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 5 Zone 4

## 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 C ontrolled 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 19 th 

# 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 18 th 

# and June 20 th 

# failed to meet all of the model acceptance crit eria, more

specifically the unpaired peak analysis. As a result, the attainment demonstration is

focusing on the June 19 th 

# and 21 st 

# , days with observed peak concentrations that

closely matched the design values)

.

The final two columns in Table VII

- 5

- 7 pro vide the maximum of the 2022 predicted

daily maximum 1

- hour ozone concentrations for all 92 days simulated with the

controlled emissions a s well as the number of occurrences the daily maximum was

predicted to exceed 124.4 ppb. T he analysis demonstrated that throughout the June

through August smog season

, only Pasadena on June 19 th 

# 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

epi sode were extremely warm, giving rise to extensive evaporative and biogenic

emissions. Midday temperatures in the San Gabriel Valley exceeded 100 degree s

F ahrenheit on each day during the episode. Table VII

- 5

- 8 lists a summary of 4

model simulations for June 19 th 

# 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 19 th 

# while the violation at

Upland is projected to occur on June 20 th



# . When simulated with 160 TPD NOx, only

Burbank and Pasadena are projected to exceed the standard on Ju ne 19 th



# , 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 con tributed 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 poten tial. 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 surfa ce heating

on June 18 th 

# and June 20 th 

# 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 TP D NOx emissions

carrying capacity satisf

ies 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 me et 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 ( 4 4 0 TPD VOC and 335 TPD NO x) and controlled

emissions (410 TPD VOC and 150 TPD NO x )

.

## 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 19 th 

## 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 1 5 0

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 demonstration s , 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 provid e 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 discussio n 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 reduction s 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 p lace and if the emissions trends continued . As previously stated, the second

analysis employs a tiered RRF a pproach to determine if the emissions reductions

using the simulation ratio and design value methodology provide s further support for

the demonstr ation of attainment

.

Figures VII

- 5

- 2 4 and VII

- 5

- 2 5 present the trends of observed annual 1

- hour

maximum ozone concentrations and the projections of the trend through 2023.

Figure VII

- 5

- 24(a) depict s the long term trend beginning with 1976 and including al l

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

i nflection that occurred post 1996 California Phase II Reformulation creating a

―hockey stick‖ appearance. Reexamining the blade of the hockey stick in Figure VII

5

- 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

d epicts the attainment threshold 124 PPB).



# The second element of the weight of evidence discussion utilizes the tiered RRF

approach to determin e 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 epi sode 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

c alculated. 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 ca lculation. Basically, the four day criteria represented a

bal ance between an analyses based on a higher error criteria with potentially more

days included at a higher concentration threshold v s. 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 week days 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 Frid ays 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 wa s 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



# Table s VII

- 5

- 10 and VII

- 5

- 11 provide the summar ies of the RRF analys e s for the

June through August period for 2022 base line ( 4 4 0 TPD VOC and 335 TPD NO x)

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 19 th 

# 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 base line an alysis ( 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 app roach 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 19 th 

# 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 cont rol led scenario is implemented in 2022 (Table VII

- 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 val u es exceeding the

threshold. Removing June 19 th 

# 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 19 th 

# does not impact Glendora because that day was not

included in the base year analysis. Of note, the removal of June 19 th 

# causes the

Upland future year design value to nominally increase by 2 ppb

. T he RRF analysis

demonstrates that the emissions reductions targeted through the implementation of

the control program will cause future year ai r 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 19 th 

# , 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 impact s on the outcome of the future year

projections.

The w eight 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 pro

jection, 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 ( 4 4 0 TPD VOC and 335 TPD NO x)

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 19 th 

## is removed from the analysis

## Final 2012 AQMP

VII

- 81 

# TABLE VII

- 5

- 11

Summary of 2022 Tiered RRF Analysis for 20 2 2 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 19 th 

## is removed from the analysis

## Appendix VII: 1

- hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration

VII

- 82 

# SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CMAQ region al 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 base d

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 4 1 0 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, t he ―black b ox‖ control

measures account for 43 percent of the total emissions reductions from the 2022

baseline neede d for attainment.

This current 1

- hour ozone attainment demonstration require s 7 percent VOC and 55

percent NOx emissions reduction s 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

VI I

- 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 

# C alifornia E nvironmental Q uality Act (CEQA)

In anticipation that U.S. EPA would likely request that the District prepare a one

hour ozone SIP, the Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2012

AQMP included a total of 11 project objectives 2 

# including 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 m easures 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 D istrict to prepare a demonstration of

attainment of the one

- hour ozone standard, with attainment requi red 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 eight

hour 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

VI I

- 85



# as well as the seven remaining mobile source control measures from th e 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 document 3 

# for Severe

and Extreme ozone n onattainment 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 (201 2 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

20 07 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 Proje ct 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

- h our 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 federa l 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 curre ntly 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. T herefore, 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 A ct 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

Th e 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. T he 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 asse sses 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

- A 1

- 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 28.2 9 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 10 6 116.08 103 102.5

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

- A 1

- 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 Burb ank 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 4 4.8

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

- A 1

- 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 Gle ndora

- 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

1 7 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 5 2.07 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

- A 1

- 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 1 4.24 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 5 2.66 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 8 4 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 L os 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

- A 1

- 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 PP B 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

- A 1

- 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 4 5 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

Ma x 58 85.41 67 85.17 78 86.47 75 90.89 70 83.78

## Attachment 1 : CMAQ Performance

VII

- A 1

- 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

- A 1

- 8

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CM AQ 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 8 2 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

- A 1

- 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 18.1 3

- 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 River a 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 11.7 1 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

- A 1

- 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 40.4 2

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

- A 1

- 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 2 6.7 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 6 2.02 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

- A 1

- 12

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS C MAQ 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 39.7 1 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 Clari ta 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

- A 1

- 13 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB P PB 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 2 6 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

- A 1

- 14

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PP B 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 A naheim 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 7 6 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

- A 1

- 15 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OB S 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 Me sa 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 1 02.47 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

- A 1

- 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 7 0.54

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

- A 1

- 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 3 9 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

- A 1

- 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 B anning 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 9 9.89 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

2 2 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

- A 1

- 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 3 8.28 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 95.4 2 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 2 3 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

- A 1

- 20

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CM AQ 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

- A 1

- 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 38.7 2 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

1 1 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 10 2.98 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 9 1.5

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

- A 1

- 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 61.1 5

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 60.3 9 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 Rubi doux 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

- A 1

- 23 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB P PB 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 6 1.66

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

- A 1

- 24

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

PPB PPB PP B 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 4 3.24 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 68.9 1

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 Pa lm 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

- A 1

- 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 37.8 3

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 11 8 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

- A 1

- 26

Hour Station 18 1 9 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 46.7 3

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 Fon tana 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

- A 1

- 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 2 5 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 6 9 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 13 6 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

- A 1

- 28

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ OBS CMAQ

P PB 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 61.8 4

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

- A 1

- 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 41.7 7

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 4 0.39 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 Up land 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

- A 1

- 30

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias E rror

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

- 9 99

- 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

- A 1

- 31 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error B ias 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

- 9 99

- 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

1 9 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 Burban k

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 3 7.11 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

- A 1

- 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 A ngeles

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 99 9

- 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 1.8 3 3.566 7.098

- 5.86875 6.95375

- 1.8966667 8.6966667

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 36

Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB P PB 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 Lo ng 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 99 9

- 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 Nor th 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

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

- 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 Pasad ena

- 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

Avera ge

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 99 9

- 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 Pomo na

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- A 1

- 41 Hour Statio n 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- 99 9

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

- A 1

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

Averag e

- 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

- A 1

- 43 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PP B 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 Ana heim

- 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 Anahe im

- 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

- A 1

- 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 M esa 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

- 9 99

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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 45 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bia s 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

- 99 9

- 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 13.2 3 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

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

- 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 1.4 5 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

- 9 99

- 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

- A 1

- 47 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bi as 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

- A 1

- 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 27.4 2 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 24.1 3

- 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

- A 1

- 49 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error Bias Error

PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB PPB P PB 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

- 99 9

- 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 2 8.08

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 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 1 8.85 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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 51 Hour Statio n 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 Rubidou x

- 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 18.4 7 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

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

- 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 Ind io

- 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 1 3.65

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 1 8.12 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 2 2.1 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

- A 1

- 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 PP B 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 3.6945 455 8.5381818 8.6033333 8.6033333

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99 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

- A 1

- 55 Hour Station 18 19 20 21 22

Bias Error Bias E rror 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

1 1 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 27.1 1

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 9 99

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 Re dlands

- 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 1 5.2775

- 6.6227273 12.922727 0.7 24.746667 20.469 26.883

## Attachment 1 : CMAQ Performance

VII

- A 1

- 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 Bern ardino

- 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

- 9 99

- 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

- 9 99

- 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 Bernardin o

- 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

- 99 9

- 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

- A 1

- 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

- 99 9

- 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 2 8.17

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:

Observe d Vs. Predicted

June 18

- 22, 2008

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 60

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 61

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 62

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 63

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 64

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 65

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 66

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 67

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 68

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 69

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 70

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 71

## Final 2012 AQMP: Appendix VII

VII

- A 2

- 72

## Attachment 2 : Diurnal Trends

VII

- A 2

- 73

# Attachment

- 3

CEPA Analysis

## Attachment 3 : CEPA Analysis

VII

- A 3

- 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 \ Docum ents \ 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 A ir 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 R 1110.2

- 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 Emi ssions [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 Veh icle 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

- A 3

- 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

P07RETI RE 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 Emi ssions 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

- A 3

- 77 EMISSION SUMMARY FO R

(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

T OTAL 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 so urce 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 0.0 0 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

- A 3

- 78

(1) Emission reductions for individual measures were estim ated 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 ove rlapping 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 i s to provide emission reduction estimates for Appendix IV control measure

summary tables as well as cost effectiveness analysis.

# Attachment 4 of Appendix VII

T able of Contents

INTRODUCTION

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

IDENTIFYING AND EVAL UATING REASONABLY AV AILABLE 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 Regulati ons

................................ ................ 10

Step 5

- Other Districts’ Control Measures

................................ ................................ ..... 10

Step 6

- Additional Studies and Analyses

................................ ................................ ....... 15

CONCLUSION

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 16

REFERENCES

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 17

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 2 

# INTRODUC TION

As discussed in Appendix VII of the 2012 Draft Final AQMP , t he 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 de cision 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 E PA’s proposed SIP call give s 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 b y 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

-

h our O zone A ttainment D emonstration , 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

.

T he 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 obtain ed through the adoption, at a minimum, of

reasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment of the national

primary ambient air quality standards .”

T he U.S. EPA provide d further guidance on the RACM in the preamble and the final “Cl ean

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 area s,

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 VI I

- 3



# available that would advance the attain ment date by at least one year or contribute to

reasonable further progress (RFP) for the area.

Regarding the approac h of identifying emission reduction programs, the U.S. EPA

recommend s 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 recommend s the air districts to examine additional RACM/RACTs adopted for

other nonattainment areas to attain the ambie nt air quality standards a s expeditiously as

practicable. In addition, the U.S. EPA recognizes that each nonattainment area has its own

profile of emitting sources, and th us 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 control s for smaller sources if needed for attainment.

A RACM /RACT demonstration must be provided w ith in the State Implementation Plan

(SIP)

. F or 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 evaluat ion 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 cumu latively 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 severi ty 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 economical ly 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 t he CAA following closely the policy and

guidance approach provided by the U.S. EPA

.

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 4 

# For the scope of th is 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 Hou s ton

- Galveston

- Brazoria Texas, and New York

Metropol it an 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 distri cts 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 i n 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

2011 with participation of technical experts from a variety of areas and the public to solicit

new and innovative concepts to assist the Basin in attainin g the NAAQS) for PM2.5 by

201 4

- 2019 and o zone 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 :

 

# P romot ing zero or near

- zero emission measures and provid ing 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 focus ing on reformulations or alternatives to VOC

based

- solvents ;

## Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 5

 

# Conducting a mandatory technology review for NO

x 

# RECLAIM, and further re ducing

NOx emissions through the use of low NO

x 

# 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

 

# I nfluenc ing consumer behavior, expanding carpool progra ms, incentivizing with

outreach, increasing gas tax, and promoting public

- private participation and multi

agency 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 s ummarized in Table 1

, the District either has a n existing rule or developed a

2012 c ontrol 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

D iesel engine retrofit, rebuild

, replacement, with catalyzed particle filter Rule 1470, Rule 1110.2

New or upgraded emission control s 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, C ontrol M easure EDU

01, INC

- 01

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 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 v ehicles 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 R ules and

Control Measures

Op acity/emissions standards for gross

- emitting diesel equipment or

vessels Refer to CARB’s R ules 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, C ontrol M easure

BCM

- 01

Regulate charbroiling/other commercial cooking operations C ontrol M easure 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

– R easonably Available C ontrol T echnolog y (RACT)

As required by the CAA

, Section 172(c)(1)

, the nonattainment areas must implement

applicable RACT s

. 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 VI I

- 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, re quire 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 att ainment.

In addition, the CAA, Section 183, requires the U.S. EPA to provide guidance to the air

districts on the “presumptive” RACT level s . As a result, the U.S. EPA develop ed 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. T he U.S. EPA is required to update existing CTG/ACT s, or develop new

guidelines, on a frequent basis as new or updated control techn ologies become available

.

The CAA, Section 182(b)(2)

, further requires the air districts to revise their S IP s to include

the mandated RACT levels covered by the CT G s 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. 3 

# To satisfy this requi rement, 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 compar ing

the current requireme nts in the District’s r ules 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 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 As sembly Coatings (2008)

 

# Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials, and Miscellaneous (2008)

 

# Industrial Adhesives (2008)

District staff ’s analysis is summar ized in Table 2

. As shown in Table 2 , t hree 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 s t aff has developed one or more

control measure s 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 s taff is aware that additional assessments may be required , such as a determination

that major VOC sources subject to Rule s 1130 , 1115, and 1 168 met the minimum

requirements in the CTGs , or a negative declaration that there are no sources in the a rea

subject to the CTGs. These additional analyses w ill be provided during the rule development

phase

, or at the t ime of developing the 8

- hour ozone AQMP s , whichever comes first

.

## Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 9 

## T ABLE 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 standar ds 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 MCS

01

– Application of All Feasible Measure Assessment i f 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

Coating s 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 limit s for electro

- deposition primer at 84

g/L (145 g/L in R ule 1115) ; sprayable primer, primer

- surfacer,

and topcoat at 144 g/ L (180 g/L in R ule 1115) ; and trunk

coatings, interior coatings, sealers, and deadeners at 650 g/L (R ule

1115 provides an exemption for these categories)

. However, R ule

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

-

Adhesive s and

Sealant s CTG has more stringent limits for reinforced plastic composite at

200 g/L (250 g/L in R ule 1168); single

- ply roof membrane

adhesive primer at 250 g/L (450 g/L in R ule 1168); other adhesive

primers at 250 g/L (420 g/L in R ule 1168) ; the control efficiency

is 85% (80% in R ule 1168); and the work practices is limited only

for stripping cured adhesives or sealants for R ule 1148 . Staff may

further pursu e rule update as part of C ontrol M easure MCS

- 01

– App lication 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

C alungcagin and De Boer

.

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 10 

# Step 4

- Other Districts’ Current Rules and Regulations

B ecause the D istrict is classified as extreme nonattainment

, the District staff commits to

search for innovative control technologies, make improvements, and update the D istrict ’s

rules and regulations as expeditiously as possible to effectively help the B asin reach

attainment. District staff’s envisioned that the con trol technologies available and cost

effective to be implement ed in other local a reas 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 innova tive 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 the se 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 d istrict’s rules are more stringent than those in the District’s rules and

regulations. The analysis in Table 3 shows that i n general the District’s current rules and

regulations are equivalent to or more stringent than those developed by other air districts

. However, wh ere improvements are possible , District staff has developed several control

measures to further study the situations

. Details of the control measures, emission reductions,

cost effectiveness

, p rioritization and implementation schedule are discussed in App endix V II

. The control measures of which emission reductions cannot be quantified will not be

considered RACMs since they cannot be used collectively to estimate the a dvancement of the

attainment date. In addition, staff commits to monitor the rule deve lopment in other air

districts and conduct further analysis if necessary, and has developed a catch

- all C ontrol

M easure 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 1 00 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 VI I

- 11



# Ventura is class ified as serious nonattainment for the 2008 8

- hour ozone standard. In the

2006

- 2008 Final Triennial Assessment and Plan Update, 7 

# the 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 rule s :

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 R ule 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 R ule 1124

– Aerospace

Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations are currently a t 200 g/L (or 45 mmHg)

and 300 g/L (or 9.5 mmHg), respectively, and there is a potential to reduce these limits.

F urther assessment will be conducted through the District’s Control Measure CTS

- 02

–

Further Emission Reduction from Miscellaneous Coatings, A dhesives, Solvents and

Lubricants.

San Francisco Bay Area

San Francisco Bay Area is a nonattainment area for PM2.5 standard and a m arginal

nonattainment for 8

- hour ozone standard s . On September 15, 2010, the Bay Area adopted

the final Bay Area 2010 Clea n Air Plan (CAP) 8 

# to 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 A rea’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 develope d and proposed amended rule for SSM1

and scheduled for a Public Hearing in 2012. District staff will conduct further analysis

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 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 printi ng.

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 r equire s 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. Distric t staff will conduct further study through the C ontrol M easure 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) t o provide technical

assistance to local governments and encourage them to adopt and enforce energy efficient

building codes; and 3) to provide incentives for improving ene rgy efficiency at schools.

The se concept s are similar to th ose described in the Dist rict ’s Control Measure EDU

- 01

–

Further Criteria Pollutant Reductions from Education, Outreach and Incentives

.

 Bay Area ’s Control Measure ECM2

- Renewable Energy proposed to p romote distributed

renewable energy generation (solar, micro wind turbines, coge neration, 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 al ready spearheaded in implement ing other concepts in the Bay Area’s AQMP

that called for reducing SO 2 

# 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 VI I

- 13



# District also has an on

- going program that promote s tree planting. Other Bay Area’s control

measures addressing New Source Review, A ir T oxics “H ot S pot s” program, and gr eenhouse

gases in permitting

, are either administrative in nature or not related to criteria pollutants.

San Joaquin Valley

San Joaquin Valley is e xtreme 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 o zone standards in 2007 and the 1997 PM2.5 standards in 2008. Recently,

the SJVUAPCD developed a 2010 mid

- course review for the o zone 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 comparis on with

the 2012 control measures recommended by the District . Overall, the District has either

already implemented or d eveloped 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 moderat e 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 the ir 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 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 on e 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. Th e 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

. T he 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 fi nal 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 st ationary 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 VI I

- 15



# reduce cement kiln NOx emissions through the District’s Control Measure CM B

- 01

–

Further Reductions from NOx RE CLAIM.

 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 Di strict 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 multi

po llutant 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 Inter state

Trading of NOx and SO 2 

# . 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 ye t 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 16  

# RACM analyses and demonstration conducted by S CAG and CARB for transpor t ation

and mobile sources control measures are in cluded in Appendix IV

- C and in the

Addendum to this Attachment

. 21



##  

# C osts and cost effectiveness analyses , planning and scheduling to implement for each

District ’s stationary source and mobile source control measure s , if available, are provided

in Chapter IV, Appendix IV

- A and B.



# CONCLUSION

F ollowing 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 pol lution 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 r ules 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 dist ricts’ rules and regulations and their

proposed control measures in their respective SIPs. In the few areas where the District’s

r ules can be amended to promote cleaner technologies, add additional best management

practices, and improve enforceability

, Di strict staff has developed one or more control

measures t o facilitate these activities.

 The control measures that do n ot have estimated emission reductions cannot be considered

RACMs , and t he District commits to further conduct analyses to refine the emis sion

inventory, emission reductions, and cost

- effectiveness for these measures. T he District’s

## Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 17



# ambient air quality data and modeling analysis in Chapter 3 and Chapter 5 demonstrate s

that the Basin would be able to meet the 24

- hour PM2.5 attainment date by 2014 with the

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

.

T he 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 non

quantifiable 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 w ell 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 Meeti ng, 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VI I

- 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

Standa rds, 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

– Ga lveston

- 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 S a cramento 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 VI I

- 19



# 18. 2011 Sacramento Regional 8

- Hour Oz one Attainment and Reasonable Progress Plan,

http://www.airquality.org/plans/federal/ozone/8hr1997/2009AandRFP/PlanAndAppendi

cesAfter SIPRevis

- 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 Maintenan ce 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

- mail s

communication b etween 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 V I I: 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 (A mended 1/ 20 05 ):

 5 ppmv for > 1 10 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 f

or refinery gas:

 5 ppmv for units >110

mm btu /hr ;

 25 ppmv for units 65

- 110

mm btu /hr ; and

 30 ppmv for 5

- 65 mm

btu /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

(Amen ded 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 l imits for low

usage biogas engines :

 40 ppmv VOC

, landfill gas

 250 ppmv VOC

, digest e r 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 ar e : 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% c ontrol



## .

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: 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 re commendation

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 stud y the possibility of using

incentives to promote electric heaters

through:

INC

- 01

– Economic Incentive

Programs to Adopt Zero and Near

Zero Technologies [NOx]

In addition, further consider the

feasibility of technology transfer

through:

CMB

- 03

– Reductions from

Commercial Space Heating

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: 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 depend s 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

d epending 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

- REC LAIM 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 dail y 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 he at

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 Ye e, 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 av erage 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 V I I: 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

revis e 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 mm

btu /hr units ; 15 ppmv for ≤20 mm

btu /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

l ower ing the NOx standards for Rule

1146 (e.g. refinery fuels, digester and

landfill gases) and RECLAIM

through:

CMB

- 01

– Further NOx Redu ctions

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 mm

btu /hr ; 6

– 9 ppmv

for units between 5

- 20

mm btu/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.

 Fo r oil field generators:

5

- 7 ppmv for units greater than

20 mm btu /hr ; 6

– 9 ppmv for

units larger than 5 but less than

20 mm tu/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

tr eatment 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

mm btu /hr

Compliance may be mitigated with

annual emission fees.

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: 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 fo r boilers from 1.5

- 1.75

mmbtu/hr, 3) 30 ppmv for boilers

less than 1.5 million btu/hr. Non

gaseous 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 g as, propane, butane,

or LPG: 5 grains of to tal sulfur

per 100 scf, or 9 ppmv SO2, or

95% control

- For liquid fuels: 15 ppmv sulfu 

## r Further study the feasibility of

promot ing the use of cleaner units

through incentives through one of the

following:

INC

- 01

– Economic Incentive

Programs to Adopt Zero and Near

Zero 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

promot ing the use of cleaner units

through:

INC

- 01

– Economic Incentive

Programs to Adopt Zero and Near

Zero 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 30 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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, op erator 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 110 6)

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

t his 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 va r nish is 420 g/L, which is

more stringent than the limits in

Rule 1106.1 (i.e. 775 g/L for teak

pr imer, 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, So lvents 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

RUL E 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

- specifi c emission limits

from 2.3 lbs/gal

– 3.5 lbs/gal

. In

lieu of complying with specific

emission limits, op erator can use

air pollution control system with

at least 9 5% 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 measu re:

CTS

- 02

– Further Emission

Reduction from Miscellaneous

Coatings. Adhesives, Solvents, and

Lubricants, or

MSC

- 01

– Application of All

Feasible Measures Assessment

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 32 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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,

(A mended 9/17/09 ) has more

stringent limits for : 1) Primer at

0.7 lbs/gal and 2) Primer surfac e

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 SO 2 

## gradually

decreas ing 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; SO 2 

## 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 mitig ation 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

RUL E TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE

REQUIREMENTS OTHER DISTRICTS’

2 007

- 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, oper ator 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) ha s the

following lim its 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)

Sa cramento Rule 456 (Amended

10/23/08 ) ha s 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 34 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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 solution s

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

RUL E 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

- specifi c 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,

op erator can use air pollution

control system with at least 9 5%

control efficiency (or 50 ppmv

outlet) and 90% capture

efficiency, wh ich 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 th ose 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 b ase

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) E xplore 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 36 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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 Vall ey 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 heat

set 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 off set 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

RUL E 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 38 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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

co ntrol 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 a dhesive s at 150

g/L (400 g/L in Rule 1130.1)

.

Sacramento Rule 450 (A mended

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

RUL E 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 . T ransfer

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 c oating

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

o verall control efficiency of

85%

- 90% for flat wood

paneling products, whereas R ule

1136 does not have cont rol

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

Feasib le Measures Assessment

## Attachment to Appendix V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 40 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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 p reparation 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 t hrough:

CTS

- 02

- Further Emission

Reductions from Miscellaneous

Coatings, A dhesives, Solvents and

Lubricants

## Final 2012 AQMP

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 41 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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 c omply 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 mor e stringent at

40%

- 46% (48% in Rule 1162).

The ru le 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 42 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

- VOC Rules

RUL E 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

ca tegories)

 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

RUL E 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 V OC 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 howeve r 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

0.0 4 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 V I I: Reasonably Available Control Measures

Attachment 2 to Appendix VII

- 44 

# TABLE 3 (continued)

Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations

– VOC, PM Rules

RUL E TYPE RULE TITLE CURRENT RULE

REQUIREMENTS OTHER DISTRICTS’

2007

- 2012 RULES EVALUATION

1133,

1133.1,

1133.2 PM,

VOC,

NH3 Composting, Co

Composting, 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 emi ssions.

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

(Ad opted 8/18/11) have various

operational requirements for these

operations as well as the operators

who landfills, composts, or co

composts 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

ch ipping & 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

NH 3 

## Emission Reductions from

Greenwaste Composting

Operations (Adopted

7/8/2011) Include requirements for

composting greenwaste, or

greenwaste in combination of

manure or foodwaste. Include

v arious performance standards

. Require air pollution control

with efficiency of 80% or greater

for ope rations 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%

NH 3 

## 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 V I I: 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

– t he 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 t hat 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 off

road vehicles and engines. Use of this authori ty 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 t he “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 identifie d 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 4156 2 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.