## CHAPTER 6 CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS

Introduction Federal Clean Air Act Requirements California Clean Air Act RequirementsChapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 1 

### INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the 2003 Revision to the AQMP for the South Coast Air Basin is to set forth a comprehensive program that will lead the Basin and those portions of the Salton Sea Air Basin under the District’s jurisdiction into compliance with all federal and state air quality planning requirements. Specifi cally, the 2003 AQMP revision is designed to satisfy the California CAA triennial update requirements and fulfill the District’s commitment to update transportation emi ssion budgets based on th e latest approved motor vehicle emissions model and planning assumptions. Th e Plan will be submitted to U.S. EPA as SIP revisions once approved by the District’s Governing Board and CARB.



### FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS
In November 1990, Congress enacted a series of amendments to the CAA intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across th e nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 CAA Amendments was an overhaul of th e planning provisions for those areas not currently meeting NAAQS. The CAA identif ies specific emission reduction goals, requires both a demonstrati on of reasonable further progress and an attainment demonstration, and incorporates more stringent sanctions for fa ilure to attain or to meet interim milestones. 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 briefly described in Chapter 1 (Tables 1-4 and 1-5). The general provisions apply to a ll applicable pollutant s unless superseded by pollutant-specific requirements.
The following sections discuss the federal CAA requirements for PM10, ozone, CO, and NO 2 .



### PM10 Planning Requirements
Results of ambient air quality monitoring data indicate that the Basin exceeds federal and state standards for PM10. These micros copically fine particles can originate from several industrial processes, including dire ct emissions and atmospheric chemical reactions which convert gases into particles (referred to as “secondary” particulates), and from a variety of fugitive dust sources, both natural and man-made. In the western portions of the Basin, secondary particulates account for about 45 percent of the annual average PM10, while soil and reentrained dus t (referred to as “fugitive dust”) accounts for about 30 percent. In the eastern por tion of the Basin, the contributions from secondary particulates and fugitive dust ar e approximately 40 percent each. Mobile sources also contribute directly to ambien t PM10 levels through ta ilpipe emissions and, indirectly, through resuspension of road dust.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 2 Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, the South Coas t Air Basin was originally classified as a “moderate” PM10 nonattainment area. In response to SIP subm ittal requirements of the CAA for “moderate” areas, the District submitted applicable portions of the 1991 AQMP to the U.S. EPA prior to the Nove mber 15, 1991 statutory deadline. In accordance with the CAA requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, the moderate area PM10 SIP submittal proposed the implementation of “reasonably available control measures” (RACM) fo r fugitive dust sources, and relied upon the AQMP for reductions in precursor gaseous emi ssions as part of the ozone attainment plan. In February 1993, EPA reclassified the Basin from a “moderate” to a “serious” nonattainment area for PM10. The modera te area SIP further showed that the complexity of the problem was of sufficien t magnitude that the PM10 standards could not be attained by 2001 -- the deadline for serious nonattainment areas. The CAA provides a maximum five-year ex tension to the attainment date for those areas that cannot meet the 2001 date after all best ava ilable control measures (BACM) have been implemented by 1997; thus ma king 2006 the latest attainment year possible. The District had previously shown in the 1997 AQMP and 2002 update that it will need until 2006 to meet the federal PM10 standards.
Current PM10 Requirements

For areas such as the Basin that are cla ssified as serious nonattainment for PM10, Section 189(b)(3) defines major PM10 sources that would be subject to CAA major source requirements. Sections 189(b)(1 )(B) and 189(e) of the CAA require the implementation of “best available control technology” (BACT) for point sources of PM10 and precursor emissions (i.e., precursors of secondary particulates) and BACM for area sources of fugitive dust. It should be noted that federal BACT is equivalent to California best available retrofit t echnology (BARCT). U.S. EPA guidance 1 also states that, in instances where mobile sources cont ribute significantly to the area’s exceedance of federal PM10 standards, transportation c ontrol measures (TCMs) are also to be included as part of the PM10 SIP submittal. The C AA requires an attainment demonstration for PM10 as we ll as the establishment of emission reduction milestones (CAA Section 189(b)(1), 189(c)(1)). Lastly, c ontingency measures for PM10, in the event of failure to meet emission reduction milestones or achieve attainment, are also required as part of the SIP submittal (CAA Section 172(c)(9)).

1 U.S. EPA, State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; A ddendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 , Federal Register, pp. 41998-42017, August 16, 1994.Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 3 Major PM10 Source Requirements Section 189(b)(3) of the CAA defines a major source of PM10 as any stationary source that emits or has a potential to emit at leas t 70 tons per year of PM10. These major sources then would be subjec t to major source requirements contained in the CAA. District Rule 1302(p) defines major PM10 s ources in accordance with the CAA, making them subject to the major source requirements under New Source Review.
BACT for Point Sources As mentioned in the 1994 and 1997 AQMPs, BACT for point sources of PM10 and PM10 precursors is presently addressed through the District’s NSR and RECLAIM programs (District Rules 1303 and 2005).
BACM for Fugitive Dust Sources For fugitive dust sources, the selection of BA CM to be implemented must be based on a combination of technical feasibility, cost -effectiveness, and energy/environmental considerations. The District developed a list of candidate BACM as part of the 1994 PM10 BACM SIP submittal. These measur es were refined and updated for the 1997 AQMP:

CM #97BCM-01: Paved Roads 1a Minimal Track-Out 1b Routine Street Cleaning 1c Post Event Street Cleaning 1d/1e Curbs and Gutters / Chemical Stabilization of Unpaved Road Shoulders CM #97BCM-02: Construction/Demolition Activities Wider Application of Dust Control Plans CM #97BCM-03: Unpaved Roads Paving/Chemical Treatment/Speed Reductions CM #97BCM-04: Agricultural Activities Soil Conservation Plans CM #97BCM-05: Miscellaneous Sources Controls on Weed Abatement CM #97BCM-06: Further Emission Reduc tions from Fugitive Dust Sources to Meet Best Available Control Measures Requirements (RACM to BACM Upgrade)

The District committed to adopt all identif ied candidate BACM vi a rulemaking action by December 31, 1996 and implemen t these BACM by February 8, 1997. Based on the revised emissions inventory a nd other available information, each of the candidate BACM were evaluated for cost-effectivene ss and control efficiency. The DistrictFinal 2003 AQMP

6 - 4 completed the BACM technological and cost feasibility analysis prior to July 1996. BCM-01(a/b/c), BCM03, BCM-04, and BCM- 06 met both the technological and cost feasibility criteria and were adopted in Fe bruary 1997 through ame ndments to Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust and new Rule 1186 – PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations. The District identified the candidate BACM not meeting either the technological or cost feasibility criteria. Those measures were CTY-12 (formerly BCM-01d/e), CTY-13 (formerly BCM -02), and CTY-14 (formerly BCM-05). Contingency Measures 97CTY -12 and 97CTY-13 were adopt ed in February 1997 as contingency actions in Rule s 403 and 1186. CTY-14 remains a contingency measure in the 2003 AQMP.
The 2003 AQMP includes two new BACM: BCM -07 - Further Emission Reductions from Fugitive Dust Sources and BCM- 08 - Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Manufact uring Operations. BCM-07 pr oposes to review existing District BACM regulations to consider e nhancements that would further reduce PM10 emissions from fugitive dust sources. Add itionally, the BACM review will consider regulations for specific geographic areas ba sed on soil type, wind conditions, and source extent. As this control meas ure may address fugitive dust sources in localized areas, it is also intended as a means to ensure compliance in those areas that are subject to high levels of PM10. BCM-08 propos es to establish prescriptive measures to control fugitive dust from area sources within aggregate facilitie s and cement plants as well as evaluate whether additional controls are necessary for the control of PM10 for sources at aggregate and cement manufacturing plant ope rations subject to District Rule 404 - Particulate Matter - Concentration, Rule 405 – Solid Particulate Matter - Weight, and Rule 1112.1 - Emissions of Particulat e Matter From Cement Kilns.
Transportation Control Measures Transportation control measures meeting th e CAA requirements have been submitted in previous SIPs, including the 1994 and 1997 California Ozone SIP. Updated transportation control measures necessary fo r attainment of the federal PM10 and ozone standards are described in Appendix IV-C.

PM10 Attainment Demonstration Section 189(b)(1)(a) of the CAA requires a PM10 attainment demonstration. The results of the attainment demonstration are summari zed in Chapter 5. The air quality modeling used for the PM10 attainment demonstr ation is described in Appendix V.
Establishing PM10 Milestone Targets Section 189(c) of the CAA requi res the establishment of PM10 milestone targets. The 2003 AQMP establishes targets for 2003 and th e attainment year of 2006. The PM10 milestone targets are shown in Table 6-1.Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 5 TABLE 6-1 PM10 Attainment Year Targets (Annual Average - Tons per Day)

Pollutant 2003 2006

PM10 292 292 NOx 1,048 935 SOx 58 57 VOC 804 673

Contingency Measures for PM10 The federal CAA requires PM10 contingency me asures to be implem ented in the event of failure to meet milestone emission reduc tion targets and/or failure to attain the standard by the attainment date in 2006 (CAA Section 172(c)(9)). The PM10 contingency measures are thos e BACM measures that have failed either the technical feasibility or cost-effectiveness criteria or both. As discussed above, Rules 403 and 1186 contain contingency acti ons (based on Contingenc y Measures 97CTY-12 and 97CTY-13) to be implemented to meet CAA requirements. CTY-14 is the only remaining contingency measure for PM 10 carried over from the 1997 AQMP. In addition to the fugitive dust contingency me asures, other contingency measures for ozone serve as contingency for PM10 to reduce VOCs and NOx which are precursors to particulate organics and nitrates. Fu rther, 2003 AQMP Contingency Measure CTY-01- Accelerated Implementation of Control Meas ures, includes measures that reduce PM10 and PM10 precursors. The full descriptions of each of th e contingency measures are contained in Appendix IV-A, Section 2.



### Ozone Planning Requirements

This section describes how the 2003 AQMP meets the major ozone planning requirements of the federal CAA for the S outh Coast Air Basin. The requirements specifically addressed here are:

1. the post-1996 VOC rate-of-progress requirements,
2. the ozone attainment demonstration,
3. the contingency measure requirements, and
4. the average vehicle occupancy requirement.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 6 Post-1996 VOC Rate-of-Progress
The reasonable further progress requirements in the CAA are intende d to ensure that each ozone nonattainment area provide for su fficient precursor emission reductions to attain the ozone national ambient air quality standard. More specifically, Section 182(c)(2) requires that each serious and a bove ozone nonattainment area achieve actual VOC emission reductions of at least thre e percent per year averaged over each consecutive three-year period beginning six ye ars after enactment of the Act until the area’s attainment date (i.e., November 15, 2010 for the South Coast Air Basin). This is called the “post-1996 rate-of-progre ss” requirement of the CAA.
According to Section 182(c)(2)(C), actual NOx emission reductions which occur after 1990 can be used to meet post-1996 VOC em ission reduction requirements provided the NOx reductions satisfy the following criteria. First, the control strategy used to demonstrate attainment must consist of both VOC and NOx control measures. More specifically, the mix of VOC and NOx emissi on reductions used to satisfy the post-1996 rate-of-progress requirements of the CAA must be consistent with the controlled VOC and NOx emission levels used in the modeling demonstration. And lastly, the combined annual VOC and NOx reductions must average three percent per year. As discussed below, since the baseline VOC emissions ar e below the overall targ et levels for the milestone years 2005 and 2008 there is no need for NOx substitution in those years; NOx substitution is only necessary in 2010.
The 2003 AQMP post-1996 rate-of-progress demonstr ation for the Basin is presented in Tables 6-2 and 6-3a and 6-3b and Figures 6- 1a and 6-1b. These tables and figures depict the VOC and NOx emission target le vels and the projected baseline for 2005, 2008, and 2010, respectively. Controlled emi ssion levels are not shown since the VOC and NOx emission reductions from existing Di strict and CARB rules, included in the projected baseline, are sufficient to meet the CAA rate-of-progress.

For the milestone years 2005 and 2008, the ba seline VOC emission levels are below the target levels. In 2010, however, the VOC re ductions in the baselin e are insufficient and NOx substitution is necessary and allowed according to Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the CAA. The proposed reduction rates for milest one years are shown in Table 6-2. These rates are determined by applyi ng all the creditable VOC reduc tions at each milestone and providing sufficient NOx reducti ons to satisfy VOC reducti on requirements of Section 182(c)(2).Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 7 TABLE 6-2
Percent of VOC and NO x Emission Reductions from the 1990 Baseline to Meet the Post-1996 Rate-of-Progress Requirements

Year VOC NOx CAA*
2005 42.0 0.0 42.0 2008 51.0 0.0 51.0 2010 55.0 2.0 57.0 or attainment
* The percent VOC and NOx reductions must equal the CAA percent reduction requirements listed here.

TABLE 6-3A Summary of Rate of Progress Calculations - VOC

ROW CALCULATION STEP a 2005 2008 2010 1 1990 ROP Base Year b 1869.8 1869.8 1869.8 2 FMVCP/RVP c Reductions 373.6 386.1 390.5 3 Adjusted 1990 Base Year d 1496.2 1483.7 1479.3 4 Required Reduction (%) e 42.0 51.0 55.0

5 Emission Reductions f 628.4 756.7 813.6 6 RACT Corrections 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 I/M Corrections 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 Target Level g 867.8 727.0 665.7 9 Projected Baseline h 752.1 687.3 659.4

a Units are in tons per day unless otherwise noted; b Contains only anthropogenic emissions;

c FMVCP/RVP = Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program/Reid Vapor Pressure; d (Row 1) – (Row 2)

e 24% VOC reduction by 1999 and 3% per year (total VOC and NOx reductions) thereafter from the adjusted 1990 baseline year; f [(Row 3) x (Row 4)]/100; g (Row 3) – (Row 5) – (Row 6) – (Row 7); h Projected baseline emissions shown in Appendix III taking into account existing rules and projected growth. It includes emission reduction credits.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 8 FIGURE 6-1a Post-1996 Rate of Progress - VOC

TABLE 6-3b Summary of Rate of Progress Calculations - NOx

ROW CALCULATION STEP a 2005 2008 2010 1 1990 ROP Base Year b 1546.4 1546.4 1546.4 2 FMVCP/RVP c Reductions 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Adjusted 1990 Base Year d 1546.4 1546.4 1546.4 4 Required Reduction (%) e 0.0 0.0 2.0 5 Emission Reductions f 0.0 0.0 30.9 6 RACT Corrections 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 I/M Corrections 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 Target Level g 1546.4 1546.4 1515.5 9 Projected Baseline h 951.6 854.2 763.8

a Units are in tons per day unless otherwise noted; b Contains only anthropogenic emissions;

c FMVCP/RVP = Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program/Reid Vapor Pressure; d (Row 1) – (Row 2)

e 24% VOC reduction by 1999 and 3% per year (total VOC and NOx reductions) thereafter from the adjusted 1990 baseline year; f [(Row 3) x (Row 4)]/100; g (Row 3) – (Row 5) – (Row 6) – (Row 7); h Projected baseline emissions shown in Appendix III taking into account existing rules and projected growth. It includes emission reduction credits. 868

727 666 752 687 659

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

2005 2008 2010

Milestone YearEmissions (tpd)

Target Level Projected BaselineChapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 9 Ozone Attainment Demonstration
Under the federal CAA, air quality modeling is an integral part of the planning process to achieve clean air. Specifically, Secti on 182(b)(1)(A) requires that moderate and above ozone nonattainment ar eas must reduce VOC and NO x emissions sufficiently to attain the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. It is not sufficient for extreme ozone nonattainment areas to meet the pos t-1996 rate-of-progress requirements of the CAA; extreme ozone nonattainment areas, such as the Basin, must also demonstrate attainment by November 15, 2010. This may result in emission reduc tions in addition to those required by the reasonabl e further progress components of the CAA [i.e., Sections 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)]. A summary of the oz one attainment demons tration is provided in Table 5-2 of Chapter 5. The ozone atta inment demonstration is fully described in Appendix V. 1546 1546 1515

952 854 764

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

2005 2008 2010

Milestone Year
Target Level Projected Baseline

FIGURE 6-1b Pos t -1996 Rate of Pro g ress – NOxFinal 2003 AQMP

6 - 10 Contingency Measures
Section 172(c)(9) of the 1990 CAA require s that the plan shall provide for implementation of specific measures in the even t an area fails to make reasonable further progress or to attain the applic able standards by the specified dates. Such measures shall be included in the Plan revision as contingenc y measures to take e ffect without further action by the State or the Administrator. In addition to the c ontingency provisions required under Section 172(c)(9), Section 182(c)(9 ) requires the plan revision to provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone for ozone. Such measures must be included in the plan revision as contingency measures to take effect without further action by the State or the U.S. EPA Administrator upon a failure by the State to meet the applicable milestone. The contingency measures include d as part of the 2003 AQMP are contained in Appendix IV-A, Section 2.
Average Vehicle Occupancy Requirements (AVO)
Section 182 (d)(1)(A) of the CAA requires the Di strict to include transportation control strategies and TCMs in the Plan that offs et any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled and a ttain reduction of mobile source emissions. Such control measures must be developed in accordance with th e guidelines listed in Section 108(f) of the CAA. The programs lis ted in Section 108(f) of the CAA include, but are not limited to, public transit improve ment projects, traffic flow improvement projects, the construction of high occupancy vehi cle (HOV) facilities and other mobile source emission reduction programs. Th e TCMs included in the 2003 AQMP (see Appendix IV-C) have been developed to m eet the requirements of Section 182(d)(1)(A) and 108(f) of the CAA and include the capita l-based and non-capital-based facilities, projects and programs contained in the Regional Mobility Element and programmed through the RTIP process. As an additional measure of reducing mobile source emissions, Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the CAA allows the implementation of employerbased trip reduction programs that are aimed at improving the average vehicle occupancy (AVO) rates. As an alterna tive to trip reducti on programs, Section 182(d)(1)(B) also allows the substitution of these programs with alternative programs that achieve equivalent emission reducti ons. Rule 2202 - On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, adopted in December 1995, was developed to comply with CAA Section 182(d)(1)(B); emission reductions fro m Rule 2202 are reflected in the baseline inventory.



### Carbon Monoxide Attainment Demonstration
The South Coast Air Basin has historically had a persistent CO problem. However, there has been considerable improvement in CO air quality in the Basin from 1976 toChapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 11 2002. In 2001, the Basin met both the federal and state 8-hour CO standards for the first time at all monitoring stations. During a par ticularly stagnant morning in January 2002, however, the 8-hour federal standard was exce eded at one location. This was the only location and day exceeding the federal standa rd in 2002. Since the provision specified in the federal CAA defining atta inment of the federal 8-hour average CO standard allows no more than one day and one location to exce ed the standard in a two-year period, the Basin is currently in compliance w ith the federal 8-hour standard.

Based on the above, the 2003 revision to th e CO Plan provides a dual purpose: it replaces the 1997 attainment demonstration that lapsed at the end of 2000, and it provides the basis for a CO maintenance pl an in the future. Although the trend of reducing CO emissions is expected to continue, the 2003 AQMP does not include a request for EPA to consider re -designation of the Basin’s CO attainment status at this time. A comprehensive discussion of the CO attainment demonstration is included in Chapter 5 and Appendix V.
Section 187(a)(3) of the 1990 CAA requires th at adopted and enforceable contingency measures be included in the CO attainment demonstration plan submittal (see Appendix IV-A, Section 2). One contingency measure is included for CO attainment planning, to be implemented if the area fails to maintain the federal standard.
A list of the contingency measures develope d for these CAA require ments is provided in Chapter 9.



### Nitrogen Dioxide Maintenance Plan
Under the CAA, an area can be redesignate d as meeting attainment if, among other requirements, the U.S. EPA determines that the NAAQS have been attained. Section 175A of the CAA states that any district th at submits a request under Section 107(d) for redesignation of a nonattainment area to a ttainment must submit a revision of the applicable SIP that provides for maintenance fo r at least 10 years after the redesignation. U.S. EPA guidance states that a determination of complia nce with the NAAQS must be based on three complete, consecutive ca lendar years of quality-assured air quality monitoring data.

The federal annual NO 2 standard was met for the first time in 1992 and the standard has been met every year since. The South Coast Air Basin was redesignated as an attainment area in 1998. As such, based on the ambient nitrogen dioxide measurements and the demonstration shown in Chapter 5 that the Basi n will maintain the federal nitrogen dioxide air quality standard with th e projected baseline future-year emissions, this Plan serves as the Nitrogen Dioxide Maintenance Plan for the South Coast Air Basin.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 12 

### Transportation Conformity Budgets
The 2003 AQMP sets forth the strategy for ac hieving the federal one-hour ozone, PM10, and CO standards, and maintaining the federal NO 2 standard. For on-road mobile sources, Section 176(c) of the CAA requires that transportation plans and programs do not cause or contribute to any new violati on of a standard, incr ease the frequency or severity of any existing viol ation, or delay the timely a ttainment of the air quality standards. In other words, on-road mobile sources must "conform" to the attainment demonstration contained in the SIP.
U.S. EPA's transportation conformity rule, found in 40 CFR parts 51 and 93, details the requirements for establishing motor vehicle em issions budgets in SIPs for the purpose of ensuring the conformity of transportation pl ans and programs with the SIP attainment demonstration. The on-road motor vehicl e emissions budgets act as a "ceiling" for future on-road mobile source emissions . Exceedances of the budget indicate an inconsistency with the SIP, and could jeopardize the fl ow of federal funds for transportation improvements in the region. As required by the CAA, a comparison of regional on-road mobile source emissions to these budgets will occur during the periodic updates of regional transpor tation plans and programs.

The on-road motor vehicle emissions estimat es for the 2003 AQMP were analyzed using the CARB's EMFAC2002 on-road mobile source emission factor model in conjunction with the most recent motor vehicle activity data from SCAG. Emissions forecasts were generated for the summer, winter, and a nnual average planni ng inventory using EMFAC2002 for each milestone and attainme nt or maintenance year. The ozone emissions budgets for VOC and NOx are de rived from the summer planning inventory and the reductions from defined new measur es in the 2003 SIP. The PM10 emissions budgets for PM10 and the PM10 precursors VOC and NOx, and are derived from the annual average planning inve ntory. The CO and NO 2 emissions budgets for CO and NOx, respectively, are both derived from the winter planning invent ory. These budgets reflect existing control programs a nd new commitments for technology and transportation control measures.
The SIP emissions inventory includes both defined commitmen ts to develop specific measures and less defined long-term strate gies allowed under Section 182(e)(5) of the Clean Air Act, also known as the "black box. " The emissions budgets factor in only onroad mobile source reductions from adopted measures and the defined commitments.

This SIP includes an overall emissions re duction commitment for the long-term Statelocal strategy under Section 182(e)(5) for a ll sources, including an extensive public process to identify specific measures. The plan does not allocate emission reductions by source sector. In 2006-2007, the carrying cap acity will be reassessed and the black box further defined. At that time, the SIP will be revised to identify specific measures thatChapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 13 may affect on-road mobile, o ff-road mobile, stationary, and area-wide sources to fulfill the long-term obligation. The combinati on of emission reductions will depend on which new technologies prove feasible. Until thes e long-term measures are identified, the transportation emissions budget can only reflect the anticipated benefits of defined measures in this plan. In the next SIP revi sion, we will adjust th e budgets to reflect the latest control strategy, including commitmen ts for additional reductions from on-road motor vehicles.
This approach is consistent with U.S. EPA's transporta tion conformity rule, which provides that if emissions budge ts rely on new control meas ures, these measures should be specified in the SIP and the emissions reductions from each c ontrol measure should be quantified and supported by agency commitments for adoption and implementation schedules. Moreover, the rule provides that conformity analys es by transportation agencies may not take credit for measures which have not been implemented unless the measures are "projects, programs, or activities" in the SIP supported by written implementation commitments by the respons ible agencies (62 FR 43780, 40 CFR 93, subpart A).
The emissions budgets for ozone and PM10 ar e provided here for up to the respective attainment year. However, since trans portation analyses are needed beyond the attainment dates, the carrying capacities fo r PM10 and ozone attain ment demonstration also serve as the budgets for future years (e.g., 2010, 2020 and 2030 for PM10 and 2020 and 2030 for ozone). Ozone precu rsor emissions from motor vehicles are projected to continue declining through th ese extended periods. Howeve r, there is projected longterm growth in direct PM10 emissions due to increased vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads.
To address this increase in primary PM10 emissions from travel while continuing to provide for attainment after 2006, this plan establishes a mechanism for conformity demonstration purposes base d on the implementation of the new control measure, "Transportation Conformity Budget Backstop Control Measure" in which commitments are made to achieve additional primary PM10 reductions from tr ansportation-related PM10 source categories in 2020 and 2030 to offset the increased emissions. Specifically, the measure is proposed to be adopted in 2019 and 2029 in order to achieve 9 and 16 tons per day of PM 10 reductions in 2020 and 2030, re spectively. This measure will be revised in future SIP revisions to reflect updated PM10 em ission inventories and attainment demonstrations.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 14 TABLE 6-4
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets: PM10 * (Annual Average - Tons Per Day) 2003 2006 VOC Baseline EMFAC2002 315.8 263.8
SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 -8.5 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 315.8 255.3

South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -3.5 -2.6 I/M Improvements -1.9 -2.6 Adjusted Inventory 310.4 250.1
New Defined State Measures 0.0 0.0
New Local Measures 0.0 0.0 Mobile Source Emission Budgets** 311 251

2003 2006 NOx Baseline EMFAC2002 641.8 562.9
SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 -7.0 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 641.8 555.9

South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -4.1 -2.9 I/M Improvements -2.8 -4.1 Adjusted Inventory 634.9 548.9
New Defined State Measures 0.0 0.0
New Local Measures 0.0 0.0 Mobile Source Emission Budgets** 635 549

2003 2006 PM10 Baseline EMFAC2002 18.9 19.9
SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 -0.6 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 18.9 19.3

South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -0.1 -0.1 I/M Improvements 0.0 0.0 Reentrained road dust (paved) 136.8 134.9 Reentrained road dust (unpaved) 9.7 8.7
Road Construction dust 2.2 2.2 Adjusted Inventory 167.6 165.0
New Defined State Measures 0.0 0.0
New Local Measures 0.0 0.0 Mobile Source Emission Budgets** 168 166 * 2006 budget is applicable to all future years beyond 2006. ** Rounded up to the nearest ton.Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 15 TABLE 6-5
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets: Ozone (Summer Planning - Tons Per Day)

2005 2008 2010 VOC Baseline EMFAC2002 267.5 233.6 208.6
SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 -13.7 -15.7 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 267.5 219.9 192.8

South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -2.7 -2.1 -1.7 I/M Improvements -2.7 -2.2 -1.9 Adjusted Inventory 262.1 215.6 189.2 New Defined State Measures 0.0 0.0 -34.2
New Local Measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile Source Emissions Budgets** 263 216 156

2005 2008 2010 NOx Baseline EMFAC2002 552.9 474.9 413.9
SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 -5.5 -7.8 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 552.9 469.4 406.0

South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -2.9 -2.3 -1.8 I/M Improvements -4.2 -3.7 -3.4 Adjusted Inventory 545.8 463.4 400.9 New Defined State Measures 0.0 0.0 -37.4
New Local Measures 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mobile Source Emissions Budgets** 546 464 364

** Rounded up to the nearest ton.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 16 TABLE 6-6
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets: Carbon Monoxide (Winter Planning - Tons Per Day)

2002 CO Baseline EMFAC2002 3402.4 SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 3402.4 South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -41.9 I/M Improvements 0.0 Adjusted Inventory 3360.5 New Defined State Measures 0.0 New Local Measures 0.0 Mobile Source Emission Budgets** 3361

** Rounded up to the nearest ton.

TABLE 6-7

Motor Vehicle Emissions B udgets: Nitrogen Dioxide * (Winter Planning - Tons Per Day)

2003 NOx Baseline EMFAC2002 692.3 SCAG TCM Benefits 0.0 Adjusted Baseline EMFAC2002 692.3 South Coast AQMD Rule 2202 -4.4 I/M Improvements -2.8 Adjusted Inventory 685.0 New Defined State Measures 0.0 New Local Measures 0.0 Mobile Source Emission Budgets** 686

* 2003 budget applicable to future years, including the last year of maintenance plan (i.e., 2010). ** Rounded up to the nearest ton.Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 17 

### CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS

The California Clean Air Act established a number of legal mandates to facilitate achieving health-based state air quality standard s at the earliest practicable date. The following CCAA requirements are addressed in the remainder of this chapter:
(1) Demonstrate the overall effectiveness of the air quality program;
(2) Reduce nonattainment pollutants at a rate of five percent per year, or include all feasible measures and an expeditious adoption schedule;
(3) Ensure no net increase in emissions fro m new or modified stationary sources;
(4) Reduce population exposure to severe nonattainment pollutants according to a prescribed schedule;
(5) Include any other feasible controls that can be implemented, or for which implementation can begin, within 10 year s of adoption of the most recent air quality plan; and
(6) Rank control measures by cost-effectiveness.



### Plan Effectiveness
The CCAA requires, beginning on December 31, 1994 and every three years thereafter, that the District demonstrate the overall e ffectiveness of its air quality program [H&SC 40924(b)]. Trends in the follo wing air quality indicators are used to demonstrate the recent (i.e., for the three preceding years) effectiveness of the District’s program:
(1) VOC, NO x , and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions; (2) ozone and CO exceedance days; and (3) ozone and CO popul ation exposure.

Trends in the Basin-wide annual av erage rate of reduction of VOC, NO x , and CO emissions since 1997 are shown in Chapter 3. Since 1997, emissions of VOC, NOx, and CO have decreased on an annual basis by five percent, three percent, and six percent, respectively.
The number of days exceeding state sta ndards in 1990 through 2001 for ozone, CO, and PM10 air quality is illustrated in Figure 6-2. Even over this relativ ely short time period, it is evident that air qua lity has improved in the Basin. Trends in NO 2 air quality are not shown in Figure 6-3; however, improvement in air quality relative to that pollutant is also evident and the region has been rede signated to attainment for the state NO 2 airFinal 2003 AQMP

6 - 18 quality standard in 1996. The reader is referred to Appendix II for a more comprehensive discussion of local air quality trends.

FIGURE 6-2 Days Exceeding State Standards
Trends in population exposure are shown in Table 6-8. Population exposure is a particularly good indicator of air quality tre nds since it takes into account spatial and temporal changes in air quality. For exam ple, per-capita popula tion exposure reflects the length of time the Basin population is exposed to unhea lthful air quality. Table 6-8 shows the per-capita exposure to ozone and CO for the historical period 1986-88 and for the years 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2000. The per-capita levels s hown in the table represent average exposure above the state 1-hour standard levels for each pollutant.
The table clearly shows that the per-capita exposure to ozone and CO has decreased dramatically since the 1986-88 period. The Ba sin is below the stat e 1-hour CO standard; therefore, the per-capita exposure to CO is zero. 0 50 100 150 200 250

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Days Exceeding

Ozone CO PM10*

*PM10 is normally measured every sixth day so actual numbe r of days could be six times higher for the entire period 2001Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 19 TABLE 6-8 Trends in Annual Average Per-Cap ita Exposure to Ozone and CO Based on 1-Hour Averages

Annual Average Per-Capita Exposure Period or Year Ozone (pphm-hrs) CO (ppm-hrs)

1986-88 198.5 8.4

1993 71.8 0.1
1995 46.6 0.0
1997 8.0 0.0
2000 4.6 0.0

In summary, the trends of all the indicators show improved air quality in the South Coast Air Basin; the population is being exposed to unhealthful air quality less and less each year. These air quality improvements are th e direct result of AQMP implementation.



### Emission Reductions
“Planning” inventories are developed to char acterize emissions during periods when air quality standards are exceeded and to serve as the basis for emissions reduction accounting (see Chapter 3). The planning inve ntories are higher than the comparable annual average emission inventories; this difference is primarily due to seasonal temperature changes and the corresponding e ffects on pollutant emissions rates (e.g., higher solvent and gasoline evaporative em issions on hot summer days; more fuel combustion on cold days).
The planning inventory 1990 ba seline emissions and estimat ed emission reductions for the reporting years 1997, 2000, and 2003 is presen ted in Table 6-9. These estimates are based on the controlled emi ssions and the adoption and implementation schedules contained in Chapter 7. As seen in the tabl e, the proposed control strategy falls short of the CCAA emission reduction goals (i.e., five percent per year for all nonattainment pollutants) even with the implementation of maximum feasible controls and an expeditious adoption sche dule. Nonetheless, the strategy represents “all feasible control measures” and an “expeditious adoption sc hedule” as permitted under H&S Code 40914.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 20 TABLE 6-9 Summary of 2003 AQMP Emissions Based on Pl anning Inventory Emi ssions (tons/day)*
Summer Ozone Inventory Winter CO Inventory Year VOC NO x CO
1990 Baseline 1,870 1,546 10,329
Emission Reductions 1997 648 (35%) 381 (25%) 3,869 (37%) CCAA Requirement (35%) (35%) (35%)

2000 823 (44%) 393 (25%) 4,729 (46%) CCAA Requirement (50%) (50%) (50%)

2003 1,024 (55%) 517 (33%) 5,802 (56%)
CCAA Requirement (65%) (65%) (65%)

*Emission reductions are estimated as the 1990 equivalent. Percent reductions from 1990 baseline are shown in parenthesis.



### Population Exposure
The CCAA also requires a reduction in overall population exposure to cr iteria pollutants. Specifically, exposure to severe nonattainme nt pollutants above standards must be reduced by at least:
(1) 25 percent by December 31, 1994; (2) 40 percent by December 31, 1997; and (3) 50 percent by December 31, 2000.

Reductions are to be calculated based on per-capita exposure and the severity of exceedances. This provision is a pplicable to ozone, CO and NO 2 in the Basin [H&S Code 40920(c)]. The definiti on of exposure is the number of persons exposed to a specific pollutant concentration level above the state standard times the number of hours exposed. The per-capita exposure is the population exposure (un its of pphm-personshours) divided by the total population.Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 21 The Regional Human Exposure (REHEX) model is used to estimate per-capita exposure reduction. It considers population mobility; time spent indoors, outdoors and in transit; exposure by age classification; and activity pattern by season and w eekday/weekend.

Ozone An analysis using the REHE X model indicates that the CCA Amendments exposure reduction targets have been ach ieved for ozone with a margin of safety. Figure 6-3 summarizes the results and compares exposure reductions to the targets.

The REHEX model also allows more detailed exposure reduction estimates disaggregated by age group and county. These results are summarized in Figures 6-4 and 6-5, respectively. As shown, the gr eatest exposure reduction for an individual age class is for children, who have longer exposure to outdoor concentrations; the geographic location with the most improvement for all age groups is that comprised of the two inland counties.

FIGURE 6-3 Percent Reductions in Annual Aver age Per-Capita Exposure to Ozone 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
YearPercent Reduction

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1997 2000

CAA Requirements REHEXFinal 2003 AQMP

6 - 22 FIGURE 6-4 Per-Capita Ozone Exposure Above the State Standard by Age Group

FIGURE 6-5 Per-Capita Ozone Exposure Above the State Standard by County 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

All Ages Children Adolescents AdultsHours

1997 2000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Basin Los Angeles Orange Riverside San BernardinoHours

1997 2000Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 23 Carbon Monoxide
As discussed in Chapter 5 and in Appendix V, the 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards have been met. Therefore, the Basin population will not be expos ed to unhealthful CO levels and thus per capita exposure is reduced 100 percent from the 1986-88 base levels.



### Cost Effectiveness Ranking
The CCAA requires the District Governing Boar d to determine that the AQMP is a costeffective strategy that will achieve attainme nt of the state standards by the earliest practicable date [H&SC 40913(b)]. In addition, the Plan mu st include an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of available and propos ed measures and a list of the measures ranked from the least cost-effective to the most cost-effective [H&SC 40922].

Table 6-10 and Table 6- 11 provide a listing of the control measures that have available cost information for stationary and mobile source measures, respectively. The costeffectiveness for stationary source meas ures ranges from $2,000 to as high as $20,100 per ton of pollutant reduced. Two methods are used to calcula te the cost-effectiveness of the mobile source measures. The CARB transm itted the cost-effectiven ess values for the mobile source measures based on incremental cost analyses, publishe d reports and other internal methods. However, the District us es the Discount Cash Flow method in its calculations, as it has since the 1987 AQMP. The Discount Cash Flow method is more versatile in analyzing complex financial cash flows and is the most widely used cost methodology by major businesses. The propos ed implementation schedule for these measures is provided in Chapter 7 and is ba sed on this informati on and other relevant factors.Final 2003 AQMP

6 - 24 TABLE 6-10 Cost-Effectiveness Ranking of District’s Stationary Source Control Measures a

Measure Number Description Dollars/Ton Ranking by Cost Effectiveness BCM-08 Further Emission Reductions from Aggregate and Cement Manufacturing Operations $700 1

WST-01 Emission Reductions from Livestock Waste (PR1127) $2,000 - $7,000 2

CMB-09 Emission Reductions from Petroleum Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (PR1105.1) $3,500 - $11,500 3

MSC-05 Truck Stop Electrification $5,000 4 CMB-10 Additional Reductions for NOx RECALIM $7,000 5 WST-02 Emission Reductions from Compositing (R1133, 1133.1, 1133.2) b $10,000 c 6

CTS-10 Miscellaneous Industrial Co atings and Solvents < $13,500 7 FUG-05 Emission Reductions from Fugitive Sources < $13,500 7 PRC-07 Industrial Process Operations < $13,500 7 PRC-03 Emission Reductions from Restaurant Operations $14,500 8

CTS-07 Further Emission Reductions from Architectural Coatings (R1113) < $20,000 9

a The cost-effectiveness values of these m easures are based on the Discount Cash Flow methodology and four percent real interest
rate. b Control Measure WST-02 was adopted January 10, 2003 as Rule 1133 - Composting and Rela ted Operations – General Administrative Requirements, Rule 1133.1 Chipping and Grinding Activities, and Ru le 1133.2 - Emission Reduction From CoComposting Operations.

c Cost-effectiveness based on VOC and NH 3 reductions combined.Chapter 6 Federal and Stat e Clean Air Act Requirements

6 - 25 TABLE 6-11 Cost-Effectiveness Ranking of State Control Measures *

Measure Number Current Title Old Measure Number CE Ratio $/ton HC+NOx Ranking by CESMALL OFF-RD-2 Set Lower Emission Standards for New NonHandheld Lawn and Garden Equipment – Like Lawnmowers [Spark-Ignition Engines Under 25 hp]. 1,100 1

SMALL OFF-RD-1 Set Lower Emission Standards for New Handheld Lawn and Garden Equipment – Like Weed Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, and Chain Saws [Spark-Ignition Engines Under 25 hp]. 1,600 2

OFF-RD LSI-1 Set Lower Emission Standards for New OffRoad Gas Engines [Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater]. 2,100 3

ON-RD HVYDUTY-3 Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing and New Truck/Bus Fleet. 2,200 4

MARINE-1 Pursue Approaches to Clean Up the Existing Harbor Craft Fleet – Cleaner Engines and Fuels. MARINE-2 2,600 5

ON-RD HVYDUTY-1 Augment Truck and Bus Highway Inspections with Community-Based Inspections. 3,000 6

OFF-RD LSI-2 Clean Up Existing Off-Road Gas Equipment Through Retrofit Controls [Spark-Ignition Engines 25 hp and Greater] 3,000 6

LT/MED-DUTY-2 Improve Smog Check to Reduce Emissions from Existing Passenger and Cargo Vehicles. 3,200 7

ON-RD HVYDUTY-2 Capture and Control Vapors from Gasoline Cargo Tankers. 4,000 8

FVR-1 Increase Recovery of Fuel Vapors from Aboveground Storage Tanks. 4,000 8

FVR-3 Reduce Fuel Permeation Through Gasoline Dispenser Hoses. 4,000 8

CONS-1 Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2006. 4,480 9 CONS-2 Set New Consumer Products Limits for 2008- 2010. 4,480 9

OFF-RD LSI-3 Require Zero Emission Forklifts Where Feasible – Lift Capacity <8,000lbs]. 7,500 10

FVR-2 Recover Fuel Vapors from Gasoline Dispensing at Marinas. 8,000 11

OFF-RD CI-1 Pursue Approach es to Clean Up the Existing Off-Road Equipment Fleet [Compression Ignition Engines]. OFF-RD CI-2 21,000 12

LT/MED-DUTY-1 Replace or Upgrad e Emission Control Systems on Existing Passenger Vehicles – Pilot Program. 22,000 13

* Cost-effectiveness provided by CARB.