United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule 2202, On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options

Prepared by: Idalia Pérez

October 2015
Page 2 of 8

Table of Contents

I. Description of SIP submittal............................................................................................... 3

II. Rule Summary .................................................................................................................... 3

III. Effect on Emissions ............................................................................................................ 4

IV. Criteria for Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 4

V. Rule Evaluation................................................................................................................... 7

VI. Rule Deficiency .................................................................................................................. 8

VII. Proposed Action.................................................................................................................. 8
Page 3 of 8

I. Description of SIP submittal

This Technical Support Document (TSD) addresses SCAQMD Rule 2202, On-Road Motor 

Vehicle Mitigation Options:

• Adopted: October 9, 1998.

• Submitted for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP): June 3, 1999.

• Deemed complete by operation of law: December 3, 1999.

There are no previous versions of Rule 2202 in the SIP, although the SCAQMD adopted earlier 

versions of this rule on 12/08/95, 03/08/96 and 11/08/96, and CARB submitted it to us on 

11/26/96, 11/26/96 and 12/19/97, respectively. While we can act on only the most recently 

submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals. In addition, 

Rule 2202 has been amended three times (01/11/02; 02/06/04; 06/06/14) since the 10/09/98

version, but these amendments have not been submitted to EPA. 

II. Rule Summary

Rule 2202 requires employers with 250 or more full or part-time employees at a worksite to 

reduce mobile VOC, NOx and CO emissions generated from employee commutes. The rule 

provides employers a menu of options to reduce emissions. 

Section (d) of the rule includes definitions. 

Section (e) of the rule requires employers to register with the District and includes the equation 

used to calculate the annual emission reduction target (ERT). The ERT depends on the number 

of employees, the year of the employer registration and the location of the worksite. 

Section (f) of the rule lists the options available for generating emission reduction credits that 

employers can use to meet their ERT. These option include: 

- Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits (MSERCs) from Regulation XVI; 

- Emission Reduction Credits (ERC) from Stationary Sources in accordance with

Regulation XIII; 

- Air Quality Investment Program1 fees;

- Other emission reduction strategies that the Executive Office approves as generating 

“real, quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus emission reductions.”

Section (f) of the rule also lists strategies that employers may elect to generate Vehicle Trip 

Emission Credits (VTECs) which can be applied towards their ERT. These strategies include:

- Employee commute reductions that occur during the peak window in accordance with 

Rule 2202 Implementation Guidelines; 

- Employee commute reductions that occur outside of the peak window or from noncommute vehicle usage; 

- Alternate fuel vehicle usage; 

 1 Although not noted in Rule 2202, the Air Quality Investment Program (AQIP) is a program regulated by 

SCAQMD Rule 2501, which was adopted on May 9, 1997. Rule 2501 creates a reserve of emission reductions that 

is intended to be used to provide a voluntary alternative compliance option to sources subject to specific District 

rules. 
Page 4 of 8

- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Programs approved by the Executive Officer; 

- Parking Cash-Out programs.

Section (h) has additional provisions that apply to the emission credit strategies. They include the 

ability for employers to trade VTECs.

Section (i) describes program administration requirements including details of employer 

registrations, timing for employers to surrender emission credits and the process of AQIP monies 

release. 

Sections (j) and (k) of the rule allow for delegation of the program to local governments. 

Section (l) stipulates the employers that are exempt from the rule. 

Section (m) includes the emission factors used in calculations for this rule, and states that they 

are based on EMFAC2

and BURDEN 7F3 , and are to be revised when CARB revises them.

III. Effect on Emissions

The 1999 submittal does not assign specific emission reductions to implementation of Rule 2202. 

At this time, we have not credited emission reductions from this rule in an approved SIP. (See,

for example, Final Technical Support Document and Response to Comments, Final Rulemaking 

Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 

2007 State Strategy, US EPA Region 9, September 30, 2011, Appendix B, associated with 76 FR 

69928, (November 9, 2011); and Technical Support Document for the Final Rulemaking Action 

on the South Coast 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 

State Strategy, U.S. EPA Region 9, December 2011, Appendix B, associated with 77 FR 123674 

(March 1, 2012).) Lastly, we are not aware of a SCAQMD plan submitted to EPA that relies on 

emission reductions from this rule to fulfill a CAA requirement.

IV. Criteria for Evaluation

EPA evaluation criteria that are generally applicable to Rule 2202 include the following.

SIP Revisions

SIP rules must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify 

certain SIP control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater 

emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). 

 2 The EMFAC emissions model is developed and used by ARB to assess emissions from on-road vehicles including 

cars, trucks, and buses in California

3 The BURDEN model is used to calculate regional (area-specific) emissions in tons/day using emission factors that 

have been corrected for ambient conditions and speeds combined with vehicle activity. See “EMFAC2007 

Calculating emission inventories for vehicles in California” available at 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/downloads/docs/user_guide_emfac2007.pdf
Page 5 of 8

Rule Stringency

SIP rules must also require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category 

of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major 

source of VOCs and NOx in ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see 

CAA section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

classified as extreme for the 2008 and 1997 8-hour ozone standards (40 CFR 51. 305). Rule 

2202 does not concern emissions from stationary sources, thus it does not have to implement 

RACT. 

SIP rules must implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), including 

Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), in moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas (see 

CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C)). The SCAQMD regulates a PM2.5 nonattainment area 

classified as moderate for the 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standard (40 CFR 51. 305). A RACM 

evaluation is generally performed in context of a broader plan. In addition, SCAQMD has 

discretion to require employers “to implement programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and 

miles travelled by employees.” (see CAA section 182(d)(1)(B))

Enforceability

CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to EPA for approval into a SIP 

must be clear and legally enforceable.

Voluntary and Economic Incentive Programs

The following guidance documents provide EPA’s interpretation of the CAA requirements that 

apply to SIP submittals that rely on discretionary economic incentive programs (EIPs) and other 

nontraditional emission reduction programs for emission reduction credit. These guidance 

documents are non-binding and do not represent final agency action.

o “Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs),” Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, October 24, 1997 [1997 VMEP].

o “Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs” January 2001 (EPA-452/R-01-

001) [2001 EIP Guidance].

o “Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Measures,” Brian McLean, Office of Atmospheric Programs, and 

Steve Page, OAQPS, August 5, 2004 [2004 Electric-Sector Guidance].

o “Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measure in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),”

Stephen D. Page, OAQPS, October 4, 2004 [2004 Emerging and Voluntary Measures 

Guidance].

o “Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan,” Stephen D. 

Page, OAQPS, and Margo Oge, OTAQ, August 16, 2005 [2005 Bundled Measures

Guidance].
Page 6 of 8

o “Roadmap for Incorporating Energy Efficiency/Renewable Energy Policies and Programs 

into State and Tribal Implementation Plans,” July 2012 (EPA-456/D-12-001a) [2012 EE/RE 

Guidance].

o “Diesel Retrofits: Quantifying and Using Their Emission Benefits in SIPs and Conformity: 

Guidance for State and Local Air and Transportation Agencies,” February 2014 (EPA-420-

B-14-007) [2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance].

The CAA explicitly provides for the use of economic incentives as one tool for states to use to 

achieve attainment of the NAAQS. See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) (requiring that each SIP 

“include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate 

to meet the applicable requirements of [the Act]”); see also section 172(c)(6), 183(e)(4). EIPs 

use market-based strategies to encourage the reduction of emissions from stationary, area, and/or 

mobile sources in an efficient manner. EPA has promulgated regulations for statutory EIPs 

required under section 182(g) of the Act and has issued guidance for discretionary EIPs.4 See 59 

FR 16690 (April 7, 1994) (codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart U) and 2001 EIP Guidance. 

Where a State relies upon a discretionary EIP in a SIP submission, EPA evaluates the 

programmatic elements of the EIP to determine whether the resulting emission reductions are 

quantifiable, surplus, enforceable and permanent. See 2001 EIP Guidance at Section 4.1. These 

four fundamental “integrity elements,” which apply to all EIPs and other incentive/voluntary 

measures relied on for SIP purposes, are designed to ensure that such programs and measures 

satisfy the applicable requirements of the Act. See id.

EPA has generally defined the four fundamental integrity elements for discretionary EIPs and 

other incentive/voluntary measures as follows:

1. Quantifiable: emissions and emission reductions are quantifiable if they can be measured in 

a manner that is reliable and replicable by different users.

2. Surplus: Emission reductions are surplus if they are not otherwise required by or assumed in 

a SIP-related program (e.g., an attainment or reasonable further progress plan or a 

transportation conformity demonstration), any other adopted State air quality program, a 

consent decree, or a federal rule designed to reduce emission of a criteria pollutant or its 

precursors (e.g., a new source performance standard or federal mobile source requirement);

Additionally, the emission reductions are “surplus” only for the remaining useful life of the 

vehicle, engine, or equipment being replaced. 

3. Enforceable: emission reductions and other required actions are enforceable if they are 

independently verifiable; program violations are defined; those liable can be identified; the 

State and EPA may apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action where 

applicable; citizens have access to emissions-related information obtained from participating 

sources; citizens may file suit against a responsible entity for violations; and the required 

reductions/actions are practicably enforceable consistent with EPA guidance on practical 

enforceability.

 4 A “discretionary economic incentive program” is “any EIP submitted to the EPA as an implementation plan 

revision for purposes other than to comply with the statutory requirements of sections 182(g)(3), 182(g)(5), 

187(d)(3), or 187(g) of the Act.” 40 CFR § 51.491.
Page 7 of 8

4. Permanent: emission reductions are permanent if the State and EPA can ensure that the 

reductions occur for as long as they are relied upon in the SIP; the time period that the 

emission reductions are used in the SIP can be no longer than the remaining useful life of the 

retrofitted or replaced engine, vehicle, or equipment.

See 2001 EIP Guidance at Section 4.1, 1997 VMEP at pp. 6-7, 2004 Emerging and Voluntary 

Measures Policy at pp. 3-4 and 2014 Diesel Retrofits Guidance at p. 11.

V. Rule Evaluation

Our evaluation below focusses on the enforceability criteria. Because we identify some 

significant enforceability deficiencies that are too significant to approve the rule, we have not 

attempted to ensure that we have identified all other approvability issues. Also because of the 

magnitude of these enforceability deficiencies, we are not providing a detailed analysis of the 

other criteria (e.g., stringency) listed above.

Enforceability

EPA has laid out enforceability criteria in various guidance documents. (see “Review of State 

Implementation Plans and Revisions for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency,” from J. Craig 

Potter, Thomas L. Adams Jr., Francis S. Blake, September 23, 1987 and “Guidance an 

Enforceability Requirements for Limiting Potential to Emit through SIP and §112 Rules and 

General Permits” from Kathie A. Stein, January 25, 1995.) Some of the criteria essential in 

practically enforceable rules include clear statements of applicability, specificity of the standard 

that must be met, and inclusion of record keeping requirements.

Rule 2202 has clear applicability (employers with more than 250 employees), specificity of the 

standard that must be met (ERT calculated based on equation in the rule), and includes some 

clear recordkeeping requirements (annual registration requirements). However, several of the 

emission reduction options available to comply with the ERT are not adequately enforceable.

The rule has four options for on-road vehicle mitigation (Section (f)). The first option relies on 

MSERCs generated through Regulation XVI, which is not currently SIP-approved, and hence 

implementation of its requirements are not federally enforceable. Similarly, the third option is 

AQIP, a program regulated by SCAQMD Rule 2501 which has not been approved into the SIP

so it is also not federally enforceable. The last option for on-road vehicle mitigation is any other 

strategy approved by the Executive Officer. The rule states that “the Executive Officer shall not 

approve an alternative emission reduction program unless it is consistent with other District 

regulations and Governing Board policies, and shall consider guidelines established by the 

California Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency” (Section (f)(4)) but it 

does not require EPA approval of such alternate emission reductions strategies and it does not 

include specific, objective and replicable criteria that identify how compliance with this 
Page 8 of 8

requirement will be determined. Thus, it is inconsistent with long-standing national policy on 

executive officer discretion.5

 

The rule also allows employers to implement VMT reduction programs to generate VTECs that 

can be applied towards their ERT. (Section (g)(4)) These programs are approved by the 

Executive Officer and the rule does not require EPA approval of such alternate emission 

reductions strategies. The employer is required to demonstrate that the emission reductions 

achieved are real, quantifiable, enforceable, and surplus, but the rule does not include specific, 

objective and replicable criteria that identify how compliance with this requirement will be 

determined. Here too, the rule is inconsistent with national policy on executive officer discretion. 

VI. Rule Deficiency

To summarize the discussion above, several significant SIP deficiencies in the October 9, 1998

version of Rule 2202 are described below. We have not attempted to ensure that these are the 

only deficiencies: 

- The rule relies on Regulation XVI, which is not currently in the SIP. (Section (f)(1))

- The rule relies on AQIP (Rule 2501), which is not currently in the SIP. (Section (f)(3))

- The rule relies on emission reduction strategies approved on a case-by-case basis by the 

Executive Officer. (Section (f)(4))

- The rule relies on VMT reduction programs approved on a case-by-case basis by the 

Executive Officer. (Section (g)(4))

VII. Proposed Action

We recommend a full disapproval of SCAQMD Rule 2202. 

This disapproval does not have any sanctions or FIP implications under CAA section 179(a) 

because Rule 2202 emission reductions have not been credited in an SIP, and the rule was not 

submitted to address a requirement of part D, title I of the Act or in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (i.e., a “SIP Call”).

 5 See “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook) and “Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,” EPA Region 9, 

August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).