CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose 

Constraints in Achieving Standards 

Control Efforts 

Progress in Implementing the 2003 AQMP 

2007 AQMP 

Format of This Document 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-1 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP or Plan) for the South 

Coast Air Basin (Basin) is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead the region 

into compliance with federal 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards. The Plan 

will be submitted to U.S. EPA as a SIP revision once it is approved by the District’s 

Governing Board and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The key federal 

planning requirements are summarized briefly later in this chapter. Additional technical 

refinements are still underway to improve the planning assumptions, proposals, pollution 

control strategy, and attainment demonstration. Nonetheless, AQMD staff believes it is 

time to initiate broad public dialogue, to inform the public regarding the challenge 

ahead, and to solicit public input. 

This Final 2007 AQMP sets forth programs which require the cooperation of all levels of 

government: local, regional, state, and federal. Each level is represented in the Plan by 

the appropriate agency or jurisdiction that has the authority over specific emissions 

sources. Accordingly, each agency or jurisdiction commit to specific planning and 

implementation responsibilities. 

At the federal level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is charged 

with establishing emission standards of 49-state on-road motor vehicle standards; train, 

airplane, and ship pollutant exhaust and fuel standards; and regulation of non-road 

engines less than 175 horsepower. The CARB, representing the state level, also 

oversees on-road vehicle emission standards, fuel specifications, some off-road source 

requirements and consumer product standards. At the regional level, the District is 

responsible for stationary sources and some mobile sources, including operational 

limitations. In addition, the District has lead responsibility for the development and 

adoption of the Plan. Lastly, at the local level, the cities and counties and their various 

departments (e.g., harbors and airports) have a dual role related to transportation and 

land use. Their efforts are coordinated through the regional metropolitan planning 

organization; for the South Coast Air Basin, the Southern California Association of 

Governments (SCAG) is the District’s major partner in the preparation of the AQMP. 

Interagency commitment and cooperation are the keys to success of the AQMP. 

Since air pollution physically transcends city and county boundaries, it is a regional 

problem. No one agency can design or implement the Plan alone and the strategies in 

the Plan reflect this fact. 

CONSTRAINTS IN ACHIEVING STANDARDS 

The District is faced with a number of constraints or confounding circumstances that 

make achieving clean air standards difficult. These include the physical and 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-2 

meteorological setting, the large pollutant emissions burden of the Basin (including 

pollution from international goods movement), and the rapid population growth of the 

area. 

Setting 

The District has jurisdiction over an area of approximately 10,743 square miles, 

consisting of the four-county South Coast Air Basin (Basin), and the Riverside County 

portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). 

The Basin, which is a subregion of the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction, is bounded by the 

Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto 

mountains to the north and east. It includes all of Orange county and the nondesert 

portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The Riverside county 

portion of the SSAB is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains in the west and spans 

eastward up to the Palo Verde Valley. The federal nonattainment area (known as the 

Coachella Valley Planning Area) is a subregion of Riverside county and the SSAB that 

is bounded by the San Jacinto Mountains to the west and the eastern boundary of the 

Coachella Valley to the east. The Los Angeles county portion of the MDAB (known as 

north county or Antelope Valley) is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south 

and west, the Los Angeles/Kern county border to the north, and the Los Angeles/San 

Bernardino county border to the east. The SSAB and MDAB were previously included 

in a single large Basin called the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). On May 30, 

1996, the California Air Resources Board replaced the SEDAB with the SSAB and 

MDAB. In July 1997, the Antelope Valley area of MDAB was separated from the 

District and incorporated into a new air district under the jurisdiction of the newly 

formed Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD). The entire region is 

shown in Figure 1-1. 

The Coachella Valley Planning Area is impacted by pollutant transport from the South 

Coast Air Basin. In addition, pollutant transport occurs to the Antelope Valley, Mojave 

Desert, Ventura county, and San Diego county. As part of this AQMP revision, 

transport issues relative to the Coachella Valley Planning Area are specifically addressed 

in Chapter 8 – Future Air Quality – Desert Nonattainment Areas. 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-3 

South Coast

Air Quality Management District

SCAQMD Jurisdiction

Mojave Desert

Air Basin

Salton Sea

Air Basin San Diego

Air Basin

South

 Central

 Coast Air Basin

South Coast

 Air Basin

San Diego County

Imperial County

Riverside County

Los Angeles

 County

Kern County San Bernardino County

Orange

 County

Santa

 Barbara

 County

Ventura

 County

San Joaquin

 Valley

 Air Basin

FIGURE 1-1 

Boundaries of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

and Federal Planning Areas 

The topography and climate of Southern California combine to make the Basin an area 

of high air pollution potential. During the summer months, a warm air mass frequently 

descends over the cool, moist marine layer produced by the interaction between the 

ocean’s surface and the lowest layer of the atmosphere. The warm upper layer forms a 

cap over the cool marine layer and inhibits the pollutants in the marine layer from 

dispersing upward. In addition, light winds during the summer further limit ventilation. 

Furthermore, sunlight triggers the photochemical reactions which produce ozone. The 

region experiences more days of sunlight than any other major urban area in the nation 

except Phoenix. 

The Basin’s economic base is diverse. Historically, the four counties of the Basin have 

collectively comprised one of the fastest-growing local economies in the United States. 

Significant changes have occurred in the composition of the industrial base of the region 

in the past twenty years. As in many areas of the country, a large segment of heavy 

manufacturing, including steel and tire manufacturing and automobile assembly, has 

been phased down. Small service industries and businesses resulting from growth in 

shipping and trade have replaced much of the heavy industry. 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-4 

The Coachella Valley Planning Area is impacted by pollutant transport from the South 

Coast Air Basin. In addition, pollutant transport occurs to the Antelope Valley, Mojave 

Desert, Ventura county, and San Diego county. As part of this AQMP revision, 

transport issues relative to the Coachella Valley Planning Area will be specifically 

addressed in the next several months and incorporated into the final 2007 AQMP. 

Emission Sources 

The pollution burden of the Basin is substantial. In spite of substantial reductions 

already achieved, additional significant reductions of volatile organic compounds, 

oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter in the South Coast Basin 

(including. SSAB and MDAB) are needed to attain the federal and state air quality 

standards. 

Air pollution forms either directly or indirectly from pollutants emitted from a variety of 

sources. These sources can be natural, such as oil seeps, vegetation, or windblown dust. 

Emissions also result from fuel combustion, as in automobile engines; from evaporation 

of organic liquids, such as those used in coating and cleaning processes; and through 

abrasion, such as from tires on roadways. The air pollution control strategy in the Final 

2007 AQMP is directed almost entirely at controlling man-made sources. The emission 

sources in the Basin are described in Chapter 3. Natural emissions are accounted for in 

the background and initial conditions for the air quality modeling analysis in Chapter 5. 

Population 

Since the end of World War II, the Basin has experienced faster population growth than 

the rest of the nation. Although growth has slowed somewhat, the region’s population is 

expected to increase significantly through 2020. Table 1-1 shows the projected growth 

based on SCAG’s regional growth forecast. 

Per-capita exposures to air pollutants have declined significantly over the years, 

primarily due to the impacts of the region’s air quality control program. Figures 1-2 and 

1-3 show the decline in per-capita exposure for levels above the 1-hour and 8-hour 

federal ozone standard, while Figure 1-4 depicts the trends in maximum recorded PM10 

and PM2.5 concentration levels. As shown in the figures, drops in exposure levels 

above the federal ozone standards and maximum recorded annual average PM10 and 

PM2.5 concentration levels are significant. Although per-capita exposure to pollution 

has been brought down substantially in the Basin through several decades of 

implementing pollution controls, increases in the population over that time have made 

overall emission reductions more difficult. Many sources, such as automobiles, have 

been significantly controlled. However, increases in the number of sources, particularly 

those growing proportionally to population, reduce the potential air quality benefits of 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-5 

past and existing regulations. The net result is that unless significant steps are taken to 

further control air pollution, growth will overwhelm much of the improvement expected 

from the existing control program. 

TABLE 1-1 

Population Growth 

Year Population Average Percent 

Increase Per Year Over 

the Period 

1990 13.0 million -- 

2000 14.8 million 1.4 

2010 16.9 million 1.4 

2020 18.4 million 0.9 

2025 19.0 million 0.7 

2030 19.6 million 0.6 

FIGURE 1-2 

Basinwide Ozone Exposure Above Federal 1-Hour Standard 

1.00E+05

1.00E+06

1.00E+07

1.00E+08

1.00E+09

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Dosage (person-hour-ppm)
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-6 

1.0E+07

1.0E+08

1.0E+09

1.0E+10

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Dosage (person-ppb-hours)

FIGURE 1-3

Basinwide Dosage Above the Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard 

(based on ozone season, May through October inclusive) 

FIGURE 1-4 

PM10 & PM2.5 Trends Basin Maxium 

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Year

Annual Average

Concentration (ug/m3)

PM10

PM2.5
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-7 

CONTROL EFFORTS 

History 

The seriousness of the local air pollution problem was recognized in the early 1940s. In 

1946, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors established the first air pollution 

control district in the nation to address the problems of industrial air pollution. In the 

mid-1950s, California established the first state agency to control motor vehicle 

emissions. Countywide or regional air pollution districts were required throughout the 

state by 1970. Many of the controls, originating in California, became the basis for the 

federal control program which began in the 1960s. 

Nearly all control programs developed to date have relied on the development and 

application of cleaner technologies and add-on emission control devices. Industrial and 

vehicular sources have been significantly affected by the use of these technologies. 

Only recently have preventive efforts come to the forefront of the air pollution control 

program, (e.g., alternative materials, waste minimization, and maintenance procedures 

for industrial sources). 

In the 1970s, it became apparent at both the state and federal levels that local programs 

were not enough to solve a problem that was regional in nature and did not stay within 

city and county jurisdictional boundaries. Instead, air basins, defined by geographical 

boundaries, became the basis for regulatory programs. 

In 1976, the California Legislature adopted the Lewis Air Quality Management Act 

which created the South Coast Air Quality Management District from a voluntary 

association of air pollution control districts in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San 

Bernardino counties. The new agency was charged with developing uniform plans and 

programs for the region to attain federal standards by the dates specified in federal law. 

The agency was also mandated to meet state standards by the earliest date achievable, 

using reasonably available control measures. 

Rule development in the 1970s through 1990s resulted in dramatic improvement in 

Basin air quality (see Appendix II). However, the effort to impose incremental rule 

changes on the thousands of stationary sources through the command-and-control 

regulatory process had its limitations in economic efficiency. The 1991 AQMP 

introduced the concept of a Marketable Permits Program and outlined the framework of 

an idea that was forerunner to what is now known as the Regional Clean Air Incentives 

Market (RECLAIM). RECLAIM, a cap-and-trade program, calls for declining mass 

emission limits on the total emissions from all sources within a facility. In addition to 

the market trading program to achieve more cost-effective emission reductions, other 

incentive programs such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-8 

Program (Carl Moyer Program) have been implemented and provided additional 

reductions that would otherwise have been difficult to obtain through regulatory 

mandates and their associated lead time for implementation. 

In summary, while the District’s effort to achieve applicable ambient air quality 

standards continues to rely on the successful command-and-control regulatory structure, 

the strategy is supplemented where appropriate with market incentive and compliance 

flexibility strategies. 

Impact of Control Efforts 

Air pollution controls have had a positive impact on the Basin’s air quality relative to the 

1-hour ozone standard. The number of days where the Basin exceeds the federal 1-hour 

ozone standard has continually declined over the years. However, while the number of 

days exceeding the federal 1-hour ozone standard has dropped since the 1990s, the rate 

of progress has slowed since the beginning of the decade. The Basin currently still 

experiences ozone levels over the federal standard on more than 20 days per year. By 

2010, this plan shows that the Basin will still exceed the federal 1-hour ozone standard 

by 115 percent. 

Although past controls were designed to address the federal 1-hour ozone and PM10 

standards, they also improved on our ability to attain the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 

standards. The 8-hour ozone levels have been reduced by half over the past 30 years, 

nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead standards have been met, and other criteria 

pollutant concentrations have significantly declined. The federal and state CO standards 

were also met as of the end of 2002. The Basin has met the PM10 standards at all 

stations except for western Riverside where the annual PM10 standard has not been met 

as of 2006. Additional effort is under way to comply with the PM10 standards for the 

entire Basin and is discussed in Chapter 4. The Basin still experiences substantial 

exceedances of health-based standards for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5. Air quality 

summaries and health effects in the Basin are briefly discussed in Chapter 2; Appendix 

II provides an in-depth analysis of air quality as measured within the District’s 

jurisdiction. 

PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE 2003 AQMP 

District’s Actions 

While the 2003 AQMP has not been approved by U.S. EPA into the SIP, the District 

continues to implement the 2003 AQMP. Progress in implementing the 2003 AQMP 

can be measured by the number of control measures that have been adopted as rules and 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-9 

the resulting tons of pollutants targeted for reduction. Emission reduction commitments 

and reductions achieved in 2010 are based on the emissions inventory from the 2003 

AQMP. Since October 2002, sixteen control measures or rules have been adopted or 

amended by the District through June 2006. Table 1-2 lists the District’s 2003 AQMP 

short-term commitment and the control measures or rules that were adopted through 

June 2006. The primary focus of the District’s efforts had been the adoption and 

implementation of VOC control measures. As shown in Table 1-2, for the control 

measures adopted by the District, 29.2 tons per day of VOC reductions, 7.1 tons per day 

of NOx, 3.8 tons per day of SOx, and 2.4 tons per day of PM10 will result. Based on the 

updated 2002 emissions inventory, adopted rules as of June 2006, and the 2007 AQMP 

growth assumptions, the projected VOC and NOx emissions from District sources in 

2010 will be 137 and 74 tons per day, respectively, representing 10 to 12 tons per day 

below the AQMD allowable emission commitment in the 2003 AQMP (Figure 1-5). 

FIGURE 1-5 

Projected 2010 Emissions from AQMD Sources Compared with 2010 Allowable Emissions 

Committed To Under the 2003 AQMP 

CARB Actions 

Table 1-3 lists the control measures committed to in the 2003 AQMP that have been 

adopted (either entirely or partially) by CARB since 2002. To date, CARB has achieved 

an estimated combined VOC and NOx reductions for 2010 of 51 tons per day as 

compared to the short-term commitment in the 2003 AQMP of 168 tons per day (low 

137

74 86

147

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

VOC NOx

2003 AQMP Allowable 2007 AQMP Baseline
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-10 

end), representing 30% of the combined VOC and NOx commitment for short-term 

measures. 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-11 

TABLE 1-2 

Rules and Regulations Adopted by District Since Adoption of 2003 AQMP 

(October 2002 through June 2006a

) 

Control 

Measure 

(Rule)

Title

SIP 

Commitment

(tons/day)

Emission 

Reductions 

Achieved 

Through Rule 

Implementation 

(tons/day)

Adoption

Date

FUG-05(I) 

(Rule 1173) 

Fugitive Emission Sources 

at Petroleum Facilities and 

Chemical Plants (VOC) 

0.6 0.6 2002 

WST-02 

(Rule 1133.2) 

Co-Composting Operations 

(VOC) 

1.2 1.2 2003 

CTS-07 f

(Rule 1171) 

Architectural Coatings; 

Solvent Cleaning Operations 

(VOC) 

8.5 8.5 2003 

CTS-10 (I) 

(Rule 1113) 

Architectural Coatings 

(VOC) 

1.0 4.5 

0.9 

2003/ 

2006 

FUG-05 (II) 

(Rule 1148.1) 

Oil and Gas Production 

Wells (VOC) 

1.4 1.3 2004 

WST-01 

(Rule 1127) 

Livestock Waste (VOC) 4.8 6.0 2004 

CTS-10 (II) 

(Rule 1145) 

Plastic, Rubber, and Glass 

Coatings (VOC) 

1.0 0.9 2004 

PRC-7 (I) Industrial Process 

Operations (VOC) 

1.0 b b

PRC-07 (II) 

(Rule 1151) 

Motor Vehicle and Mobile 

Equipment Non-Assembly 

Line Coating Operations

(VOC) 

1.0 4.2 2005 

CTS-10 (III) 

(Rule 1107) 

Metal Parts and Products 

Coatings (VOC) 

1 1.1 2005 

Total VOC 21.5 29.2c
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-12 

TABLE 1-2 

(continued) 

Rules and Regulations Adopted by District Since Adoption of 2003 AQMP 

(October 2002 through June 2006a

) 

Control 

Measure 

(Rule)

Title

SIP 

Commitment

(tons/day)

Emission 

Reductions 

Achieved 

Through Rule 

Implementation 

(tons/day)

Adoption

Date

CMB-09f

(Rule 1105.1) 

Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Units (PM10) 

0.5 0.5 2003 

BCM-07f

(Rule 403 

/Rule 1186) 

Fugitive Dust/PM10

Emissions From Paved and 

Unpaved Roads, and 

Livestock Operations (PM10) 

-- 1.0 2004 

PRC-03) Restaurant Operations (PM10) 1.0 d d

BCM-08 

(Rule 1156/ 

Rule 1157) 

Cement Manufacturing and 

Aggregate and Related 

Operations (PM10) 

0.7 0.9 2005 

Total PM10 2.2 2.4 

 

CMB-10f, g

(RECLAIM) 

Regional Clean Air Incentives 

Market (NOx) 

3.0 7.1 2005 

MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrification (2.1e) -- 2005 

Total NOx 3 7.1 

CMB-07 

(Rule 1118) 

Refinery Flares (SOx) 2.1 3.8 2005 

Total SOx 2.1 3.8 

a

 SCAQMD summer planning emissions in 2010 (rounded to the nearest whole number), based on 2003 SIP inventory. 

b

 SIP commitment for this measure was achieved from Rule 1113 reductions of 4.5 tpd which was in excess of one tpd 

commitment under CTS-10(I). c

 The excess reductions will be accounted toward 182(e)(5) reduction commitment. d

 Due to the infeasibility of available control technologies, this measure is carried over to 2007 AQMP and the 

reduction commitment is fulfilled through BCM-07. e

 AQMD’s commitment of 2.1 tpd of NOx was achieved through CARB’s truck idling regulation with a total reduction 

of 23.7 tpd. Not accounted toward AQMD’s commitment. f Rules which have been approved by U.S. EPA. 

g

 Total reductions are 7.7 tpd to be achieved by 2011. 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-13 

TABLE 1-3 

State Measures Adopted Since 2003 AQMP 

Strategy Name Adopted ROG ROG NOx NOx 

Date Commitment 

(tpd) 1

Achieved 

By 2010 

(tpd) 

Commitment 

(tpd) 1

Achieved 

By 2010 

(tpd) 

NEAR-TERM CONTROL MEASURES 

LT/MEDDUTY-1 

(ARB) 

Replace or Upgrade Emission 

Control Systems on Existing 

Passenger Vehicles 

In Progress 0-20 TBD 0-20 TBD 

LT/MEDDUTY-2 

(BAR) 

Improve Smog Check to 

Reduce Emissions from 

Existing Passenger and Cargo 

Vehicles 2

2003 5.6-5.8 5.6 8.0-8.4 10 

ON-RD 

HVY-DUTY1 

(ARB) 

Augment Truck and Bus 

Highway Inspections with 

Community-Based Inspections 

In Progress 0-0.1 TBD 0 0 

ON-RD 

HVY-DUTY2 

(ARB) 

Capture and Control Vapors 

from Gasoline Cargo Tankers 

In Progress 4-5 TBD 0 0 

ON-RD 

HVY-DUTY3 

(ARB) 

Pursue Approaches to Clean 

Up the Existing and New 

Truck/Bus Fleet 3

2003-2006 

(In 

Progress) 

1.4-4.5 2.8-2.9 16-21 13-16 

OFF-RD 

CI-1 

(ARB) 

Pursue Approaches to Clean 

Up the Existing Heavy-Duty 

Off-Road Equipment Fleet 

(Compression Ignition 

Engines) – Retrofit Controls 

In Progress 2.3-7.8 TBD 8-10 TBD 

OFF-RD 

CI-2 

(ARB) 

Implement Registration and 

Inspection Program for 

Existing Heavy-Duty OffRoad Equipment to Detect 

Excess Emissions 

(Compression Ignition 

Engines) 

In Progress NQ TBD NQ TBD 

OFF-RD 

 LSI-1 

(ARB) 

Set Lower Emission Standards 

for New Off-Road Gas 

Engines (Spark Ignited 

Engines 25 hp and Greater) 4

Combined 

with OFFRD LSI-2 

0 0 0.8 --- 

OFF-RD 

LSI-2 

(ARB) 

Clean Up Off-Road Gas 

Equipment Through Retrofit 

Controls and New Emission 

Standards (Spark-Ignition 

Engines 25 hp and Greater) 4

2006 0.8-2.0 2.6 2-4 2.6 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-14 

TABLE 1-3 (CONTINUED) 

State Measures Adopted Since 2003 AQMP 

Strategy Name Adopted ROG ROG NOx NOx 

Date Commitment 

(tpd) 1

Achieved 

By 2010 

(tpd) 

Commitment 

(tpd) 1

Achieved 

By 2010 

(tpd) 

SMALL 

OFF-RD-1 

(ARB) 

Set Lower Emission Standards 

for New Handheld Small 

Engines and Equipment 

(Spark Ignited Engines Under 

25 hp such as Weed 

Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and 

Chainsaws) 5

Combined 

with 

SMALLOFF-RD-2 

1.9 --- 0.2 --- 

SMALL 

OFF-RD-2 

(ARB) 

Set Lower Emission Standards 

for New Non-Handheld Small 

Engines and Equipment 

(Spark Ignited Engines Under 

25 hp such as Lawnmowers) 6

2003 6.3-7.4 7.7 0.6-1.9 1.3 

MARINE-1 

(ARB) 

Pursue Approaches to Clean 

Up the Existing Harbor Craft 

Fleet – Cleaner Engines and 

Fuels 6

In Progress 0.1 TBD 2.7 0.4 

MARINE-2 

(ARB) 

Pursue Approaches to Reduce 

Land-Based Port Emissions – 

Alternative Fuels, Cleaner 

Engines, Retrofit Controls, 

Electrification, Education 

Programs, Operational 

Controls 7

In Progress 0.1 TBD 0.1 2.8 

FUEL-1 

(ARB) 

Set Additives Standards for 

Diesel Fuel to Control Engine 

Deposits 

 NQ TBD NQ TBD 

FUEL-2 

(ARB) 

Set Low-Sulfur Standards for 

Diesel Fuel for Trucks/Buses, 

Off-Road Equipment, and 

Stationary Engines 

2003 Enabling Enabling Enabling Enabling 

CONS-1 

(ARB) 

Set New Consumer Products 

Limits for 2006 

2004 2.3 2 0 0 

CONS-2 

(ARB) 

Set New Consumer Products 

Limits for 2008-2010 

In Progress 8.5-15 TBD 0 0 

FVR-1 

(ARB) 

Increase Recovery of Fuel 

Vapors from Aboveground 

Storage Tanks 

In Progress 0-0.1 TBD 0 0 

FVR-2 

(ARB) 

Recover Fuel Vapors from 

Gasoline Dispensing at 

Marinas 

In Progress 0-0.1 TBD 0 0 

FVR-3 

(ARB) 

Reduce Fuel Permeation 

Through Gasoline Dispenser 

Hoses 

In Progress 0-0.7 TBD 0 TBD 

PEST-1 

(DPR) 

Implement Existing Pesticide 

Strategy 

--- Baseline Baseline NA NA 

Total for Near-Term Control Measures 33.3-72.9 20.7-20.8 38.4-69.1 30.1-33.1 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-15 

TABLE 1-3 (CONTINUED) 

State Measures Adopted Since 2003 AQMP 

Strategy Name Adopted ROG ROG NOx NOx 

Date Commitment 

(tpd) 1

Achieved 

By 2010 

(tpd) 

Commitment 

(tpd) 1

Achieved 

By 2010 

(tpd) 

ADDITIONAL NEAR-TERM MEASURES 

(ARB) Achieve Further Emission 

Reductions from On-Road and 

Off-Road Mobile Sources and 

Consumer Products 

2005-2008 97 8

 --- 

1. Based on CARB’s summer planning emission inventory for the 2003 South Coast SIP. 

2. Includes benefits from test only direction and truck loaded mode testing only. 

3. Includes benefits from solid waste collection vehicles, chip reflash, engine manufacturer diagnostics (EMD), idling 

limits, heavy duty on-board diagnostics (OBD), new truck idling, in-use testing, and on-road public fleets. 

4. OFF-RD LSI-1/LSI-2 adopted in one board action and achieved reductions are combined and shown under OFF-RD 

LSI-2. The amount of emission reductions shown under ROG achieved is reflective of a combined 2.6 tpd ROG + 

NOx. 

5. SMALL OFF-RD-1/OFF-RD-2 adopted in one board action and achieved reductions are combined and shown under 

OFF-RD-2. 

6. Reductions shown reflect implementation of CARB’s low sulfur diesel fuel rule for harbor craft adopted in 2004. 

7. Reductions shown reflect implementation of CARB’s statewide cargo handling equipment rule adopted in 2005. 

8. Shown as combined ROG and NOx 

U.S. EPA Actions 

Since the 2003 AQMP, the U.S. EPA has adopted low sulfur fuel standards for diesel 

fuel used in nonroad diesel engines, which phase in over time for a variety of sources 

including construction equipment, locomotives, and marine vessels. Several sources 

under federal control are being evaluated for future actions, including more stringent 

standards for locomotives, marine vessels, and aircraft. It should be noted that the 

reductions achieved for the low sulfur diesel fuel rule overlap with CARB regulations 

already adopted. 

2007 AQMP 

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this 2007 AQMP is designed to address the federal 

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 air quality standards, to satisfy the planning requirements of 

the federal Clean Air Act, and to develop transportation emission budgets using the 

latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions. Once 

approved by the District Governing Board and CARB, the 2007 AQMP will be 

submitted to U.S. EPA as a SIP revision. The 2007 AQMP contains measures based on 

current technology assessments. The emission reduction commitment takes into account 

technical feasibility, cost effectiveness, and current emission estimates. 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-16 

CAA Planning Requirements Addressed by the 2007 AQMP 

In November 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across the nation. One of the 

primary goals of the 1990 CAA Air Act Amendments was an overhaul of the planning 

provisions for those areas not currently meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA identifies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a 

demonstration of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and 

incorporates more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or to meet interim milestones. 

The U.S. EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone standard in July 1997; it was followed by 

legal actions, and eventually upheld in March 2002. The U.S. EPA finalized Phase 1 of 

the ozone implementation rule in April 2004. This rule set forth the classification 

scheme for nonattainment areas and continued obligations with respect to the existing 1-

hour ozone requirements. As described by the Phase 1 rule, the Basin is classified as 

Severe 17 with an attainment date of June 2021, while the portion of the Salton Sea Air 

Basin under the District’s jurisdiction (Coachella Valley Planning Area) is classified as 

serious, with an attainment date of June 2013. On November 9, 2005, the U.S. EPA 

followed up its Phase 1 implementation rule with the Phase 2 rule. The Phase 2 rule 

outlines the emission controls and planning requirements regions must address in their 

implementation plans. The U.S. EPA also revoked the 1-hour ozone standard, which 

had an attainment deadline of 2010. The AQMD, along with environmental group, has 

sued to challenge U.S. EPA’s revocation. The 8-hour ozone attainment plan must be 

submitted to U.S. EPA by June 2007. 

Similar to the 8-hour ozone standard, the U.S. EPA promulgated the PM2.5 standards in 

July 1997. The U.S. EPA issued designations in December 2004, and they became 

effective on April 5, 2005. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments and U.S. EPA’s 

“Proposed Rule to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,” each state having a non-attainment area must submit to U.S. EPA an 

attainment demonstration three years after the designations became effective. The final 

date for submittal of attainment demonstrations is April 5, 2008. The AQMD has 

elected to submit the PM2.5 attainment demonstration for the Basin concurrently with 

their 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration because many of the control strategies that 

reduce PM2.5 precursor emissions (e.g., NOx) are also needed to help attain the 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

Unlike the 8-hour ozone standard, area designations for the PM2.5 standard did not have 

a classification system (e.g., serious, severe) and were designated as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. For the Basin and the portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin 

under the District’s jurisdiction, the regions were designated non-attainment and 

unclassifiable, respectively. The initial attainment date for areas such as the Basin is 

April 2010. Unclassifiable regions such as the Coachella Valley Planning Area do not 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-17 

require a planning demonstration for the federal standard and are not addressed in this 

document. Projected air quality data for the Basin shows that the region will not be able 

to meet the April 2010 deadline. Under Section 172 of the CAA, U.S. EPA may grant 

an area an extension of the initial attainment date for a period of one to five years. In the 

case of the Basin, the District plans to request the full five year extension until April 

2015. 

There are several sets of general planning requirements, both for nonattainment areas 

[Section 172(c)] and for implementation plans in general [Section 110(a) (2)]. These 

requirements are listed and very briefly described in Tables 1-4 and 1-5, respectively. 

The general provisions apply to all applicable pollutants unless superseded by pollutantspecific requirements. 

TABLE 1-4 

Nonattainment Plan Provisions 

[CAA Section 172(c)] 

Requirement Description 

Reasonably available 

control measures 

Implementation of all reasonably available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable. 

Reasonable further 

progress 

Provision for reasonable further progress which is defined as “such 

annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air 

pollutant as are required for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

applicable national ambient air quality standard by the applicable 

date.” 

Inventory Development and periodic revision of a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions from all sources. 

Allowable emission levels Identification and quantification of allowable emission levels for 

major new or modified stationary sources. 

Permits for new and 

modified stationary sources 

Permit requirements for the construction and operation of new or 

modified major stationary sources.

Other measures Inclusion of all enforceable emission limitations and control measures 

as may be necessary to attain the standard by the applicable attainment 

deadline. 

Contingency measures Implementation of contingency measures to be undertaken in the event 

of failure to make reasonable further progress or to attain the NAAQS. 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-18 

TABLE 1-5 

General CAA Requirements for Implementation Plans 

Requirement Description 

Ambient monitoring An ambient air quality monitoring program. [Section 110(a)(2)(B)] 

Enforceable emission 

limitations Enforceable emission limitations or other control measures as needed to 

meet the requirements of the CAA [Section 110(a)(2)(A)] 

Enforcement and 

regulation A program for the enforcement of adopted control measures and 

emission limitations and regulation of the modification and construction 

of any stationary source to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. 

[Section 110(a)(2)(C)] 

Interstate transport Adequate provisions to inhibit emissions that will contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of NAAQS or interfere 

with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality 

or to protect visibility in any other state. [Section 110(a)(2)(D)] 

Adequate resources Assurances that adequate personnel, funding, and authority are 

available to carry out the plan. [Section 110(a)(2)(E)] 

Source testing and 

monitoring Requirements for emission monitoring and reporting by the source 

operators. [Section 110(a)(2)(F)] 

Emergency Authority Ability to bring suit to enforce against source presenting imminent and 

substantial endangerment to public health or environment [Section 

(a)(2)(G)] 

Plan revisions Provisions for revising the air quality plan to incorporate changes in the 

standards or in the availability of improved control methods. [Section 

110(a)(2)(H)] 

Other CAA requirements Adequate provisions to meet applicable requirements relating to new 

source review, consultation, notification, and prevention of significant 

deterioration and visibility protection contained in other sections of the 

CAA. [Section 110(a)(2)(I),(J)] 

Impact assessment Appropriate air quality modeling to predict the effect of new source 

emissions on ambient air quality. [Section 110(a)(2)(K)] 

Permit fees Provisions requiring major stationary sources to pay fees to cover 

reasonable costs for reviewing and acting on permit applications and for 

implementing and enforcing the permit conditions. [Section 

110(a)(2)(L)] 

Local government 

participation 

Provisions for consultation and participation by local political 

subdivisions affected by the plan. [Section 110(2)(2)(M) & 121] 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-19 

The CAA requires that most submitted plans include information on tracking plan 

implementation and milestone compliance. Requirements for these elements are 

described in Section 182(g). Chapter 7 will address these issues. 

U.S. EPA also requires a public hearing on many of the required elements in SIP 

submittals before considering them officially submitted. The District’s AQMP adoption 

process includes a public hearing on all of the required elements prior to submittal. 

The CAA requires SIPs for most nonattainment areas to demonstrate reasonable further 

progress (RFP) toward attainment through emission reductions phased in from the time 

of the SIP submission out to the attainment date. The RFP requirements in the CAA are 

intended to ensure that each ozone nonattainment area provide for sufficient precursor 

emission reductions to attain the ozone NAAQS. Chapter 6 contains the detailed 

calculations of the RFP demonstration. Chapter 6 also provides an estimation of the 

emission levels at each of the milestone years compared to the CAA target levels. 

The South Coast Air Basin both transports to and receives air pollutants from the coastal 

portions of Ventura and Santa Barbara counties in the South Central Coast Air Basin. 

The South Coast Air Basin also receives air pollutants from oil and gas development 

operations on the outer continental shelf. The control measures in this Plan meet the 

CAA transport requirements and will assist downwind areas in complying with the 

federal ozone air quality standard. 

Monitoring data for the past several years have shown that the nitrogen dioxide 

concentrations were below the federal air quality standard. As required under Section 

175A(a), the plan must provide for maintenance of the air quality standard for at least 10 

years after the area is redesignated to attainment (which occurred in 1998). The 2007 

AQMP will serve as an update to the maintenance plan for nitrogen dioxide submitted 

with the 2003 AQMP. Similarly, the Basin met the carbon monoxide (CO) standard by 

December 2002. The 2003 AQMP revision to the carbon monoxide plan served a dual 

purpose: it replaced the 1997 attainment demonstration that lapsed at the end of 2000, 

and it provided the basis for a carbon monoxide maintenance plan in the future. In 2004, 

the AQMD formally requested U.S. EPA to redesignate the Basin as in attainment with 

the CO ambient air quality standard. EPA has just approved the redesignation request 

and maintenance plan, which will be effective June 11, 2007. The 2007 AQMP serves 

as an update to the maintenance plan submitted as part of the 2003 AQMP. 

Table 1-6 summarizes the key CAA planning requirements addressed by the 2007 

AQMP. The table lists the relevant CAA section along with the AQMP document or 

chapter where the submittal is discussed. It may be used as a reference guide showing 

where each of the CAA planning requirements is addressed. 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-20 

TABLE 1-6 

CAA SIP Revisions and Submittals in the 2007 AQMP 

Submittal CAA Section 2007 AQMP 

Reference 

PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration (Basin) 172(c) Chapter 5 

Appendix V 

PM2.5 Reasonable Further Progress Milestones 172(c)(2) Chapter 6 

Appendix V 

PM2.5 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget 176(c)(2)(A) Chapter 6 

PM2.5 RACM/RACT Demonstration 172(c)(1) Appendix VI 

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration (Basin) 182(c)(2)(A) Chapter 5 

Appendix V 

8-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration for Salton 

Sea Air Basin (under District jurisdiction)1

182(c)(2)(A) Chapter 8 

Appendix V 

8-Hour Ozone Reasonable Further Progress 

Milestones 

182(c)(2)(B) Chapter 6 

Appendix V 

8-Hour Ozone RACM/RACT Demonstration 172(c)(1) Appendix VI 

Maintenance Plan for Carbon Monoxide1 175A Chapter 5 and 6 

Appendix V 

Maintenance Plan for Nitrogen Dioxide1 175A Chapter 5 and 6 

Appendix V1

State Law Requirements 

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was signed into law on September 30, 1988, 

became effective on January 1, 1989, and was amended in 1992. Also known as the 

Sher Bill (AB 2595), the CCAA established a legal mandate to achieve health-based 

state air quality standards at the earliest practicable date. The Lewis Presley Act 

provides that the plan must also contain deadlines for compliance with all state ambient 

air quality standards and the federally mandated primary ambient air quality standards 

[Health and Safety Code (H&SC) 40462(a)]. In September 1996, AB 3048 (Olberg) 

amended Sections 40716, 40717.5, 40914, 40916, 40918, 40919, 40920, 40920.5, and 

44241, and repealed Sections 40457, 40717.1, 40925, and 44246 of the Health and 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-21 

Safety Code relating to air pollution. The amendments to the Health and Safety Code 

became effective January 1, 1997. This plan revision reflects state planning 

requirements as they pertain to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 

Through its many requirements, the CCAA serves as the centerpiece of the Basin’s 

attainment planning efforts since it is generally more stringent than the federal Clean Air 

Act. 

Based on pollutant levels, the CCAA divides nonattainment areas into categories with 

progressively more stringent requirements (H&SC 40918 - 40920.5). The categories are 

outlined in Table 1-7. The state nonattainment designations are on a county basis. The 

entire Basin is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone. Although PM10 and PM2.5 are 

not explicitly addressed in the CCAA, it is governed by the Lewis Presley Act. The plan 

therefore provides achieving all federal ambient air quality standards by their applicable 

date and state ambient air quality standards as early as possible. 

TABLE 1-7 

California Clean Air Act Nonattainment Area Classifications (H&SC 40921.5) 

 Concentration Level (ppm) 

Category Ozone 

Moderate 0.09 to 0.12*

Serious 0.13 to 0.15*

Severe 0.16 to 0.20*

Extreme > 0.20 

* Inclusive range. 

Serious and above nonattainment areas are required to revise their air quality 

management plan to include specified emission reduction strategies, and to meet 

milestones in implementing emission controls and achieving more healthful air quality. 

The key planning requirements are provided in Table 1-8. Some of these requirements 

are discussed in further detail in the next section. Chapter 6 addresses how these 

requirements are met in the Basin. The CCAA also includes some additional 

requirements that can significantly affect control strategy selection. These requirements 

are provided in Table 1-9. All of these mandates have either already been met through 

District regulations or are included/considered in the preparation of the Final 2007 

AQMP. 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-22 

Plan Effectiveness

The CCAA requires, beginning on December 31, 1994 and every three years thereafter, 

that each district demonstrate the overall effectiveness of its air quality program. For 

those areas that do not attain state air quality standards by 2000, a comprehensive plan 

update was required to be submitted by December 31, 1997. In addition, Section 40925 

of the Health and Safety Code requires that the plan incorporate new data or projections 

including, but not limited to, the quantity of emission reductions actually achieved in the 

preceding three-year period and the rates of population-related, industry-related, and 

vehicle-related emissions growth actually experienced in the district and projected for 

the future. The Final 2007 AQMP serves as the comprehensive plan update for the 

South Coast Air Basin. 

TABLE 1-8 

California Clean Air Act Planning Requirements 

Requirement Description 

Indirect and area source controls An indirect and area source control program 

[H&SC 40918(a)(4)], 

Best available retrofit control 

technology 

Best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for 

existing sources of specified sizes [H&SC 40918(a)(2))], 

New source review A program to mitigate all emissions from new and modified 

permitted sources [H&SC 40918(a)(1)) and 40920.5(b)], 

Transportation control measures Transportation control measures as needed to meet plan 

requirements [H&SC 40918(a)(3)], and 

Clean fleet vehicle programs Significant use of low-emission vehicles by fleet operators 

[H&SC 40919(a)(4)]. 

The CCAA suggests a number of air quality indicators to show plan effectiveness, 

including actual emission reductions, ozone design value improvements, population 

exposure reductions, and pollutant concentration hours. In Chapter 6, plan effectiveness 

is illustrated by trends in the following indicators: 

• volatile organic compound and oxides of nitrogen emissions, 

• ozone air quality (i.e., exceedance days), 

• PM10 and PM2.5 concentration, and 

• ozone population exposure above air quality standards. 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-23 

TABLE 1-9 

California Clean Air Act Requirements for Control Strategy Development 

Requirement Description 

Rate-of-progress Reducing pollutants contributing to nonattainment by five percent 

per year or all feasible control measures and an expeditious 

adoption schedule (H&SC 40914), 

Public education programs Public education programs [H&SC 40918(a)(6)],

Per-capita exposure Reducing per-capita population exposure to severe nonattainment 

pollutants according to a prescribed schedule [H&SC 40920(c)], 

Any other feasible controls Any of the feasible controls that can be implemented or for which 

implementation can begin, within 10 years of adoption date of the 

most recent air quality plan [H&SC 40920.5(c)], and 

Control measure ranking Ranking control measures by cost-effectiveness and 

implementation priority (H&SC 40922). 

Emission Reductions

According to the CCAA, districts must design their air quality management plan to 

achieve a reduction in basinwide emissions of five percent or more per year (or 15 

percent or more in a three-year period) for each nonattainment pollutant or its precursors 

(H&SC 40914). However, an air basin may use an alternative emission reduction 

strategy which achieves a reduction of less than five percent per year if it can be 

demonstrated that either of the following applies: 

• The alternative emission reduction strategy is equal to or more effective than the 

five percent per year control approach in improving air quality; or 

• That despite the inclusion of every feasible measure, and an expeditious 

adoption schedule, the air basin is unable to achieve the five percent per year 

reduction in emissions. 

For each district that is designated nonattainment for both state and federal ambient air 

quality standards for a single pollutant subject to the planning requirements (i.e., ozone), 

reductions in emissions shall be calculated with respect to the actual emissions during 

the baseline year applicable to the implementation plan required by the federal CAA. 

This baseline year is 2002. 
Final 2007 AQMP 

1-24 

Population Exposure

The CCAA also requires that exposure to severe nonattainment pollutants above 

standards must be reduced from 1986 through 1988 levels by at least 25 percent by 

December 31, 1994; 40 percent by December 31, 1997; and 50 percent by December 31, 

2000. Reductions are to be calculated based on per-capita exposure and the severity of 

exceedances. This provision is applicable to ozone in the Basin [H&SC 40920(c)]. The 

definition of exposure is the number of persons exposed to a specific pollutant 

concentration level above the state standard times the number of hours. The per-capita 

exposure is the population exposure (units of pphm-persons-hours) divided by the total 

population. While this requirement has already been met in previous AQMPs, the 

exposure demonstration is provided again in the Final 2007 AQMP for consistency. 

Control Measure Ranking

The CCAA requires the District Governing Board to determine that the AQMP is a costeffective strategy that will achieve attainment of the state standards by the earliest 

practicable date (H&SC 40913). In addition, the Plan must include an assessment of the 

cost-effectiveness of available and proposed measures and a list of the measures ranked 

from the least cost-effective to the most cost-effective [H&SC 40922(a)]. 

In addition to the relative cost-effectiveness of the measures, the District must consider 

other factors as well in developing an adoption and implementation schedule [H&SC 

40922(b)]. The other factors noted in the CCAA include technological feasibility, 

emission reduction potential, rate of reduction, public acceptability, and enforceability. 

Efficiency, equity, and legal authority were also included in the 2007 AQMP for 

prioritization purposes because of their importance. The results of the cost-effectiveness 

prioritization are given in Chapter 6 of the Final 2007 AQMP. 

FORMAT OF THIS DOCUMENT 

This document is organized into eleven chapters, each addressing a specific topic. Each 

of the remaining chapters is summarized below. 

Chapter 2, “Air Quality and Health Effects,” discusses the Basin’s air quality in 

comparison with federal and state air pollution standards. 

Chapter 3, “Base Year and Future Emissions,” summarizes recent updates to the 

emissions inventories, estimates current emissions by source and pollutant, and projects 

future emissions with and without growth. 

Chapter 4, “AQMP Control Strategy,” presents the attainment strategies. 
Chapter 1 Introduction 

1-25 

Chapter 5, “Future Air Quality,” describes the modeling approach used in the AQMP 

and summarizes the Basin’s future air quality projections with and without controls. 

Chapter 6, “Clean Air Act Requirements,” discusses specific federal and state 

requirements as they pertain to the 2007 AQMP. 

Chapter 7, “Implementation,” presents the implementation schedule of the various 

control measures and delineates each agency’s area of responsibility. 

Chapter 8, “Future Air Quality - Desert Nonattainment Areas,” describes the future air 

quality in the Coachella Valley Planning Area. 

Chapter 9, “Contingency Measures,” presents contingency measures as required by the 

federal CAA. 

Chapter 10, “Looking Beyond Current Requirements,” examines the recently approved 

lowering of the 24 hour PM2.5 standard from 65 ug/m3

 to 35 ug/m3 as well as the 

technical uncertainties associated with the current plan analysis. 

Chapter 11, “Ultrafine Particles,” examines the extent, impacts, and sources of the air 

pollution problem caused by particles smaller than PM2.5. 

Chapter 12. “Request to Redesignate the South Coast Air Basin as Extreme 

nonattainment and the Coachella Valley Portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin as Severe15” describes the Basin’s needs to reclassify to an extreme nonattainment area as well as 

requesting a bump-up for the Coachella Valley from serious to severe-15. 

For convenience, a “Glossary” is provided at the end of the document, presenting 

definitions of commonly used terms found in the Final 2007 AQMP.