2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 

September 20, 2007 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno, CA 93726 
 

This page intentionally blank. 
 

CONTENTS 

1. Introduction 

2. Attainment Emission Inventory 

 

3. Maintenance Demonstration 

 

4. Monitoring Network 

 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

6. Contingency Plan 

7. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

8. Request for Redesignation 

 8.1 Attainment of the PM10 NAAQS 

 8.2 SIP Approval 

 8.3 Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality 

 8.4 Section 110 and Part D Requirements 

 8.5 Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

9. References 

 

Appendix A Emissions Inventory 

Appendix B Summary of District Measures from Amended 2003 PM10 Plan 

Appendix C Analysis of Meteorology Affecting PM10 Levels 

Appendix D Detailed Conformity Calculations 

Appendix E SOx Emission Reduction Credits 

Appendix F Modeling Analysis 
 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 3 

1. Introduction

On June 19, 2003, the Governing Board of the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (District) adopted the 2003 PM10 Plan, which presents the District’s 

strategy for attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less (PM10) in the San Joaquin 

Valley Nonattainment Area (Valley) by December 31, 2010 (SJVAPCD 2003)1. The 

California Air Resources Board (ARB) approved this plan on June 26, 2003 and 

transmitted it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. 

On December 18, 2003, the District adopted amendments to the 2003 PM10 Plan, and 

ARB subsequently transmitted these amendments to EPA. On May 26, 2004, EPA 

approved the 2003 PM10 Plan as amended. The District, ARB, and local governments 

began implementing measures in the 2003 PM10 Plan to improve PM10 air quality, 

which resulted in a decline in PM10 air pollution in the Valley. 

On February 16, 2006, the District fulfilled a commitment in the 2003 PM10 Plan by 

adopting the 2006 PM10 Plan (SJVAPCD 2006), which reexamines the overall Valley 

PM10 control strategy with updated emissions information, air quality data, and air 

quality modeling to determine if adjustments were needed to the strategy. The 2006 

PM10 Plan reaffirmed the 2003 PM10 Plan control strategy and noted that updated 

information indicated that the Valley was on track to attain the PM10 NAAQS before the 

2010 deadline. 

On April 24, 2006 the District transmitted to ARB a Request for Determination of PM10 

Attainment for the San Joaquin Valley (Sadredin 2006), which supplied detailed 

technical information and monitoring data showing that the Valley had attained the 

PM10 NAAQS. ARB concurred with this request and transmitted it to EPA on May 8, 

2006. Table 1 summarizes key data showing that all Valley PM10 monitors attained the 

PM10 NAAQS for the 2003-2005 period; subsequent data for calendar year 2006 

continue to show attainment, as verified by EPA in a Federal Register notice signed on 

August 15, 2007 (EPA 2007) (see Section 8.3 for more information). 

On October 30, 2006, EPA issued a Final Rule determining that the Valley had attained 

the NAAQS for PM10 [71 FR 63642]2

. EPA noted in its Final Rule that “This action 

does not constitute a redesignation to attainment” under Section 107(d)(3) of the federal 

Clean Air Act because other federal Clean Air Act requirements for redesignation have 

not yet been met. 

 

1

 PM10 is both a primary air pollutant that is directly emitted as well as a secondary air pollutant formed in the 

atmosphere via chemical reaction between precursors. For the Valley, the principal precursor is oxides of nitrogen. 

See SJVAPCD (2003) and SJVAPCD (2006) for more details on PM10 formation. 

2

 On August 15, 2007, EPA signed a Federal Register notice affirming PM10 attainment for the SJ Valley based on 

consideration of 2006 monitoring data. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 4 

Table 1 SJV PM10 Data, 2003-2005 

Monitoring Station Expected 24-hr 

Exceedance Daysa

Three-Year Annual 

Average (μg/m3) a

Bakersfield-California Ave 0.0 43 

Bakersfield-Golden State 0.0 46 

Clovis-Villa 0.0 34 

Corcoran-Patterson 0.0 43 

Fresno-Drummond 0.0 41 

Fresno-First Street 0.0 33 

Hanford-Irwin 0.0 44 

Merced-2334 M Street 0.0 29 

Modesto-I Street 0.0 22 

Oildale-Manor 0.0 41 

Stockton-Hazelton 0.0 28 

Stockton-Wagner/Holt 0.0 22 

Turlock-Minaret 0.0 30 

Visalia-Church St. 0.0 43 a

A station is considered in attainment if the three-year annual average PM10 concentration is less than or equal to 50 

ug/m3

 and the expected 24-hour exceedance days is less than or equal to 1.0. 

Section 107(d)(3) of the federal Clean Air Act states that a nonattainment area can be 

redesignated to attainment if it meets the following criteria (Calcagni 1992): 

1. EPA has determined that the NAAQS have been attained. 

2. EPA has fully approved the applicable implementation plan under section 110(k) 

of the federal CAA. 

3. EPA has determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

4. The state has met all applicable requirements for the area under Section 110 and 

Part D. 

5. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a contingency plan, for the 

area under Section 175(A) of the federal CAA. 

The Valley has met Criteria 1, 2 and 4 above. The District, ARB, and the Valley’s local 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have developed this 2007 PM10 

Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation to fulfill Criteria 3 and 5 above so that 

EPA can proceed with completing the redesignation process for PM10 for the Valley. 

Section 8 of this plan provides more detail on how the Valley meets the above criteria. 

The principal components of a maintenance plan, as relevant to the Valley, are as 

follows (Calcagni 1992): 

• Attainment emissions inventory

o Identify the level of emissions sufficient to attain the NAAQS 

o Present emission data for the time period with ambient air monitoring data 

showing attainment 

• Maintenance Demonstration

o Use modeling to show that future mix of sources and emission rates will 

not cause a violation of the NAAQS for 10 years after EPA redesignation 

o Project emissions for the ten-year period following redesignation 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 5 

o Show that emission rate projections are based on permanent, enforceable 

reductions 

• Monitoring Network

o Demonstrate that state will continue to monitor after redesignation to verify 

attainment 

o Discuss provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors that will 

verify attainment 

• Verification of Continued Attainment

o Ensure that the state has the legal authority to implement and enforce all 

measures needed to attain and maintain the NAAQS, including the 

acquisition of ambient and source emission data 

o Show how continued maintenance of the standard will be tracked 

• Contingency Plan

o Verify implementation of emission control measures in the fully approved 

implementation plan 

o Identify indicators and provisions to promptly correct any violation 

occurring after redesignation 

The maintenance plan constitutes a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. EPA has 

18 months to act on the maintenance plan and request for redesignation. For the 

purposes of the Valley’s 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, 

the District is assuming that EPA’s action on the redesignation request would be 

complete sometime in 2009; since the maintenance plan must provide for continued 

attainment 10 years after designation, the District selected 2020 as the target 

maintenance year. As noted in EPA guidance (Calcagni 1992), a maintenance plan SIP 

revision is due to EPA eight years after the approval of the original redesignation to 

attainment, and must provide for attainment for an additional 10 years. This means that 

the District would need to submit another maintenance plan in 2017 that would provide 

for continued attainment through 2030. 

Even though EPA has revoked the annual PM10 standard effective December 18, 2006 

(71 FR 61144), this 2007 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation addresses 

both of the annual and 24-hr PM10 standards, since both standards were included in 

the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan3 that EPA approved into the SIP. 

2. Attainment Emission Inventory 

An emissions inventory is a tabulation of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere. The 

District uses comprehensive emission inventories to develop control strategies, 

determine the effectiveness of permitting and control programs, provide input into 

ambient dispersion models, fulfill reasonable further progress requirements, and screen 

sources for compliance investigations. Emissions inventory data are also used as 

indicators for trends in air pollution. 

EPA requires maintenance plans to present the emission inventories for the time period 

used to define attainment for a particular area (Calcagni 1992). For the Valley, this 

 

3

 As amended on December 18, 2003 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 6 

period is 2003—2005 for the original attainment determination, followed by 2004—2006 

for supplemental analyses discussed in EPA’s determination of attainment. Because 

2005 is the third of three years used for the original attainment finding, the emission 

inventory for 2005 will be used as the attainment inventory. Inspection of Appendix A 

shows that the annual NOx emissions for 2005 is about 618 tons per day (tpd), and the 

annual PM10 emission inventory is about 285 tpd. Even though other pollutants are 

involved in forming secondary PM10 (e.g., sulfur oxides and volatile organic 

compounds), the District’s PM10 attainment strategy focused on reducing emissions of 

directly emitted PM10 and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Appendix A presents a full listing 

of emissions relevant to PM10 (annual and winter averages) for the years 2000, 2005, 

2010, and 2020. 

It is important to note that the NOx and PM10 inventories will be reduced substantially in 

the future due to post-2006 controls stemming from more recent attainment plans. For 

example, the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan will reduce the NOx emissions inventory to 

about 220 tpd by the year 2020, from reductions in the baseline inventory plus new 

District and ARB reductions stemming from the 2007 Ozone Plan (SJVAPCD 2007a). 

Similarly, the 2008 PM2.5 Plan now under development will reduce emissions of directly 

emitted PM2.54

, which in turn will lower the PM10 emission inventory as well. 

3. Maintenance Demonstration 

Modeling analysis is used to evaluate air quality measurements that violate the air 

quality standards by utilizing statistical methods and computer modeling to understand 

the effects of meteorology and emissions sources on observed PM10 events. Based on 

the results of this analysis, a baseline connection between emissions and air quality is 

established for each site that violates one of the air quality standards. The baseline 

relationship is used with projection of the emissions for future years to show whether 

existing and proposed emissions reductions are sufficient to maintain compliance with 

the PM10 NAAQS. Control measures and commitments can then be evaluated to 

determine if they provide enough additional emission reduction to maintain compliance 

with NAAQS in future years. 

The 2006 PM10 Plan (SJVAPCD 2006) provided an update to the Amended 2003 

PM10 Plan modeling analysis. The modeling protocol submitted and accepted as a part 

of the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan remains effective for the 2006 PM10 Plan as well as 

for this 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. The only 

revision in approach for the 2006 PM10 Plan was the use of additional, newer models 

for analysis of the nitrate chemistry from the California Regional Particulate Air Quality 

Study (CRPAQS—see the 2006 PM10 Plan [SJVAPCD 2006] for more information). 

The 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation follows revised EPA 

guidance by using model results in a relative sense, rather than as an absolute 

prediction of future particulate concentration. Model projections are made for the year 

2005 and 2020 and the resulting model prediction of the rate of change is applied to the 

observed current data to verify continued compliance with the standard through the year 

 

4

 PM2.5 refers to particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less. As such, it is a component of PM10. 

Similar to PM10, PM2.5 is emitted directly as a primary air pollutant and is also formed in the atmosphere as a 

secondary air pollutant due to chemical reactions occurring in the atmosphere among precursors. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 7 

2020. The current data utilized for this projection is the 2005 annual average data and 

the appropriate episode data for fall and winter episodes from review of 2004, 2005 and 

2006 air quality data. 

Analysis of PM10 concentrations uses emissions inventories, ambient data, 

meteorological analysis, chemical mass balance (CMB, which is used to identify and 

apportion sources of PM), and aerosol modeling. This plan also uses rollback 

(proportional reduction) methods to estimate the expected reduction in pollutant 

concentration in proportion to emissions reductions. The rollback approach has been 

strengthened by the incorporation of results of aerosol modeling and spatial analysis of 

emissions. 

As required by federal guidance, air quality modeling analyses are performed to 

demonstrate that a proposed control strategy provides for attainment and maintenance 

of the PM10 NAAQS. SIP submittals must include a description of how the modeling 

analysis was conducted by providing information on what models are used and why 

they were selected; model version and configuration information; assumptions involved 

in model application; discussion of model input data including meteorological data and 

ambient monitoring data; and description of model output data. The Protocol contains 

the required elements and can be found in Appendix K to the Amended 2003 PM10 

Plan, identified as the “San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District State 

Implementation Plan PM10 Modeling Protocol.” In accordance with federal guidance, 

the Protocol was submitted to EPA for review during development of the modeling 

analysis. 

3.1 Approach 

Modeling for the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan is required to demonstrate that 

projected emission inventory changes will not cause any site in the Valley to fail the 

NAAQS compliance tests. Evaluation of future emissions growth and control up to the 

year 2020 were evaluated for the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 

Redesignation 5

. 

The District and ARB maintain annual emission inventories of permitted emissions and 

estimations of mobile source, area source and naturally occurring emissions. For 

modeling analysis, adjustments were made to prepare seasonal modeling inventories 

consistent with the conditions applicable at the time of year that a high PM10 

concentration was observed. The emission inventories for modeling were also prepared 

 

5

 To provide a conservative projection of continued attainment, this modeling exercise used all District-based 

emissions inventory changes, including those from the adoption of rules and regulations, that occurred through May 

2005. The projected net decrease in NOx and VOC emissions given in Table B-1 of the 2007 Ozone Plan, as well as 

reductions from rules adopted by the District since the April 2007 adoption of the 2007 Ozone Plan, were not used in 

the maintenance demonstration. These rules will continue to be implemented and enforced regardless of the Valley’s 

PM10 attainment status (See Section 8.3). Similarly, to provide a conservative projection of continued attainment, 

the maintenance demonstration excluded emissions reductions from commitments to develop future rules as outlined 

in the District-adopted, ARB-approved 2007 Ozone Plan (SJVAPCD 2007). These are binding commitments that will 

be implemented regardless of the Valley’s PM10 attainment status. All emissions reductions not used in the 

maintenance modeling represent excess reductions available for consideration as part of the District’s contingency 

plan for PM10 maintenance (see Section 6). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 8 

to address the appropriate spatial scale with an understanding of the appropriate area 

identified as influencing the ambient concentration at the monitor. Emissions were 

grouped for CMB analysis and rollback projection as required by the technical 

constraints of these techniques. 

While several techniques are available to model the direct emission of particulates, 

secondary formation of particles and dispersion, it is important to select a methodology 

that is appropriate for the San Joaquin Valley and considers and compensates for the 

strengths and weaknesses of available approaches. Based upon availability of 

emission estimates, meteorology, and air quality data in the SJVAB, the use of receptor 

CMB modeling is used with the support and enhancement of regional aerosol modeling 

to evaluate secondary formation ratios, with profile selection for CMB modeling 

enhanced by assessment of local temporal and spatial emission distribution. The 2007 

PM10 Maintenance Plan updates these evaluations and projects future changes 

through the year 2020. 

3.2 Modeling Approach Components 

Receptor modeling using the chemical mass balance model (version CMB 8) was 

conducted for the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan for annual and episode conditions at sites 

that did not comply with the federal PM10 air quality standards. This method uses 

chemical analysis of collected air monitoring samples and information about the 

chemical composition of contributing sources to evaluate the link between observed 

conditions and emission sources. 

Many sources have components in common. For example, the PM10 emitted by the 

tires of a vehicle on a road is almost identical to windblown emissions from the adjacent 

land. Analysis of samples is used to establish the typical components found in the 

emissions of a source. This source signature is referred to as a speciation profile. The 

various signatures are used in modeling to identify the contributing sources to observed 

events, to the extent which the signatures can support reliable identification. To 

improve the accuracy of the receptor analysis, airflow back trajectories and analysis of 

the physical location of emissions (gridded inventory) were used to identify appropriate 

source signatures for analysis of contributing sources. 

To establish attainment at sites noncompliant with the NAAQS, CMB receptor model 

analysis results were used with a modified linear rollback approach to calculate the 

cumulative effect of predicted emission trends and control measure reductions. In the 

rollback projection, ambient pollutant concentrations are linked to CMB receptor 

analysis of source contributions utilizing the most accurate source identifications 

available. 

The quality of the rollback projection was enhanced to incorporate additional available 

information. Analysis of airflow back trajectories was combined with analysis of the 

physical location of emissions (gridded inventory) to quantify the contributing sources 

and influence of reductions as accurately as is possible with current information. The 

nonlinear secondary particle formation atmospheric processes are not accounted for in 

standard rollback methods; therefore, the method was improved by incorporating an 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 9 

adjustment for the secondary nitrate formation rates determined by regional modeling of 

a SJVAB particulate episode. 

Regional modeling of secondary particulates was conducted by ARB. Results improve 

understanding and provide useful secondary particle formation rates and precursor 

ratios, particularly for nitrate particulates. Results are used in conjunction with receptor 

modeling to predict effects on secondary precursors due to emission trends and 

adopted and proposed control measure reductions. 

3.3 Maintenance Demonstration Methodology and Procedure 

Observed exceedances are evaluated by mass balance analysis and related to the 

emissions inventory for the year when the exceedance occurred. Portions of PM10 

samples may originate from emissions sources that are not included in the District’s 

emission inventories, such as emissions transported from areas outside the SJVAB. 

However, these emissions are indistinguishable from local emissions, so portions must 

be estimated based on evaluations of current technical literature. Because local control 

programs do not reduce natural emissions and emissions from outside the local region, 

these emissions are excluded from emission reduction calculations and added back to 

the resulting future year projection unchanged. 

The future year predicted concentration is the sum of the projected, regulated local 

contribution plus the estimate of emissions that are not under the District’s regulatory 

authority. Attainment is demonstrated if the concentrations predicted by rollback 

modeling predict continued attainment of both the 24-hour and annual average PM10 

standards through the year 2020. 

3.4 Secondary Particle Formation Rates 

Regional modeling is used to evaluate the relationship of gaseous precursors to fine 

particle formation to address the inherent limitation of CMB modeling to consider 

atmospheric chemistry. All modeling approaches have advantages that recommend 

their use and limitations that call for supporting analysis. CMB receptor modeling 

provides the most comprehensive positive features for analysis but is not designed to 

evaluate nonlinear chemistry as is possible with a regional photochemical model. The 

regional grid based photochemical models do not handle the dynamics of large particle 

deposition and air stagnation events as well as receptor analysis. 

Regional modeling was used to determine the particle formation relationships specific to 

the SJVAB using a version of the Urban Airshed Model modified to assess nitrate 

particle formation (UAM 8-Aero) for the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan. Evaluation and 

modeling of extensive data collected for a typical winter episode from the IMS 95 

project, an early element of the CRPAQS research program, was used to establish 

precursor and particle formation ratios for secondary particulates. This analysis 

confirmed that the formation of nitrates associated with NOx emissions has a nonlinear 

response in the SJVAB. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 10 

The 2006 PM10 Plan (SJVAPCD 2006) used more recent projects of the CRPAQS 

research program and newer modeling methods to reevaluate the particle formation 

processes. Modeling with newer models and CRPAQS data is used to augment the 

determination of representative particle formation ratios. The Community Multiscale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) Model (version 4.4), with California specific modifications, was used to 

model the portion of PM10 formed in the atmosphere (secondary PM10), and to 

evaluate the response of particle formation to emission reductions. Using meteorology 

data from MM5 and the CCOS version 2.12 gridded emissions inventory, the 

photochemical model predicts expected secondary PM10 concentrations over the 

domain for the CRPAQS winter 2000-2001 episode. 

The rollback projection of future year annual average and 24-hour average episode 

response to emission precursor reductions uses results of the CMB modeling combined 

with conversion factors for precursor formation of secondary particulate matter 

developed from the regional modeling to account for nonlinear formation rates of 

secondary particulates. 

3.5 Maintenance Projection Results 

From the CMB receptor modeling identification of emissions source contributions by 

chemical species, future source contributions have been estimated from baseline and 

projected inventories with rollback techniques to evaluate the effects of trends and 

proposed emissions reductions in future years. Tables 2 and 3 present the results. 

Rollback calculations for each monitoring site determine future compliance with federal 

NAAQS for PM10 by calculating the effect of emission reductions predicted for the 

major source categories as defined in the CMB receptor modeling. The predicted PM10 

concentration may also be achieved by different reductions of precursor and PM10 

emissions as long as the total particulate reduction is equivalent. Maintenance is 

demonstrated for each site that is projected to have future concentrations at or below 

the federal NAAQS through the year 2020. Because of the inherent uncertainties 

associated with air quality models, revised EPA guidance recommends using the model 

predictions in a relative sense rather than as absolute predictions. Therefore, the 

percent of change predicted by the model for emissions changes from 2005 through 

2020 is applied to the observed values for current data to predict an approximate future 

value at each site. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 11 

Table 2 Maintenance Demonstration for the 24-hour PM10 Standard 

Site Name 

Observed

Episode 

Value 

Model Projected 

Percent of Change 

from 2005 to 2020 

 

2020 Projected 

Value 

Bakersfield, California Ave. 153 16.1% reduction 128 

Bakersfield-Golden #2 154 12.8% reduction 134 

Clovis 97 17.2% reduction 80 

Corcoran, Patterson Ave. 136 8.9% reduction 124 

Corcoran, Patterson Ave. fall episode 137 2.1% reduction 134 

Fresno-Drummond 132 13.8% reduction 114 

Fresno-First 117 17.4% reduction 97 

Hanford, Irwin St 142 15.6% reduction 120 

Hanford, Irwin St. fall episode 124 2.1% reduction 121 

Merced 69 - reduction - 

Modesto, 14th Street 96 17.7% reduction 79 

Oildale, 3311 Manor St No data 17.1% reduction 128 

Stockton Hazelton 79 - reduction - 

Stockton WHS 62 - reduction - 

Turlock, 900 Minaret Street 83 - reduction - 

Visalia, Church St. 145 15.6% reduction 122 

Peak Valleywide winter episode during the last three years was December 7, 2006. Oildale 

had no data for this event and is assumed to be consistent with Bakersfield based on prior 

historical data. Peak fall episodes were October 26, 2006 for Corcoran and November 7, 2006 

for Hanford. Based on CMB similarity, the Hanford fall episode assumes correlation to 

Corcoran fall analysis and the Visalia winter episode assumes correlation to Hanford winter 

analysis. Values below 90 μg/m3

 at new sites are well below the standard and do not require 

analysis. 

Table 3 Maintenance Demonstration for the Annual PM10 Standard 

Site Name 

Observed 

2005 Annual 

Value 

Model Projected 

Percent of Change 

from 2005 to 2020 

2020 Projected 

Value 

Fresno County, Fresno, 

Drummond 38.7 9.7% reduction 34.9 

Kern County, Bakersfield, Golden 

State Highway 43.2 7.6% reduction 39.9 

Kings County, Hanford, Irwin St. 40.3 9.1% reduction 36.7 

Tulare County, Visalia, Church 

Street 44.3 9.2% reduction 40.2 

Prior PM10 SIP modeling has not included annual projection for Merced, Stanislaus and San 

Joaquin Counties because these counties have annual values well below the standard. Annual 

values for these counties are below 35 μg/m3

 and will experience similar reductions. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 12 

4. Monitoring Network 

The District operates a network of PM monitors for use in air quality planning and to 

meet federal requirements. Federal regulations require PM10 monitoring networks to 

meet four basic objectives: 

! Monitoring the highest concentration of a pollutant 

! Monitoring representative concentrations in areas of high population density 

! Monitoring the impact of major pollutant sources 

! Monitoring pollutant background concentrations 

Fifteen PM10 and PM2.5 monitoring sites are located throughout the Valley. The 

District currently operates five PM2.5 and nine PM10 sites, and ARB operates six sites. 

The District plans to reevaluate the frequency of both PM 10 and PM 2.5 monitoring as 

part of the 5-year network assessment that is due in July 2010. In the meantime, the 

District will continue to operate real-time PM 10 federal equivalent method monitors at 

the peak sites, Corcoran and Bakersfield-Golden State. Table 4 provides a summary of 

the PM10 monitoring sites in the Valley. As part of the approval of the Amended 2003 

PM10 Plan, EPA approved the Valley’s PM10 monitoring network (69 FR 30006) and 

reaffirmed this approval with the determination of attainment (71 FR 63642). In its 

approval of the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan, EPA noted, “the network meets all 

applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and is adequate to support the 

technical evaluation of the PM10 nonattainment problem...” (69 FR 30033). On 

October 30, 2006, as part of its Final Rule determining the Valley to be in attainment of 

the PM10 NAAQS, EPA noted that updated information on the Valley’s monitoring 

system performance, including the results of state and federal audits, lead to the 

conclusion that “the data produced by the PM10 SLAMS6

 network operating in the SJV 

is adequate for EPA to base our finding of attainment” (71 FR 63650). The District 

commits to continue PM10 monitoring to verify continued attainment of the PM10 

NAAQS. Data recorded by the network of air quality monitors operated in the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin is used for attainment tests. A map showing locations of San 

Joaquin Valley monitoring stations is provided in Figure 1. 

The District’s plans for continued operation of its air quality monitoring network are 

presented in the Ambient Monitoring Network Plan prepared and submitted to EPA in 

June 2007 (SJVAPCD 2007b). Chapter 3 of this Ambient Monitoring Network Plan

addresses PM monitoring. EPA’s Final Rule providing revisions to ambient air quality 

regulations (71 FR 61236) required development and submittal of this plan, which is 

posted on the District’s web site (www.valleyair.org ). 

 

6

 State and Local Air Monitoring Station 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 13 

Figure 1 San Joaquin Valley Air Basin monitoring stations 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation 14 

TABLE 4 PM10 Monitoring Stations in the San Joaquin Valley APCD 

Site Name AIRS Site 

Code 

Plan 

Section 

Location 

Sampling 

Interval/Frequency 

Scale Monitoring 

Objective 

 Bakersfield-California 06 029 0014 A.3 24 Hour/6-day Middle Representative Conc.  Bakersfield-Golden St 06 029 0010 A.4 24 Hour/6-day 

1 Hour/Continuous TEOM 

Neighborhood High Concentration 

 Clovis-Villa 06 019 5001 A.6 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc.  Corcoran-Patterson 06 031 0004 A.7 24 Hour/6-day 

1 Hour/Continuous TEOM 

Neighborhood High Concentration 

 Fresno-Drummond 06 019 0007 A.9 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc.  Fresno-First Street 06 019 0008 A.10 24 Hour/6-day 

1 Hour/Continuous BAM 

Neighborhood High Concentration 

 Hanford-Irwin 06 031 1004 A.13 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc. Merced-2334 M Street 06 047 2510 A.20 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc. Modesto-14th Street 06 099 0005 A.21 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc.  Oildale-Manor 06 029 0232 A.22 24 Hour/6-day Middle Source Impact  Stockton-Hazelton 06 077 1002 A.27 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood High Concentration  Stockton-Wagner/Holt 06 077 3010 A. 28 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc. Tracy Airport 06 077 3005 A. 29 1 Hour/Continuous TEOM Urban Representative Conc.  Turlock-Minaret 06 099 0006 A. 30 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc.  Visalia-Church 06 107 2002 A. 32 24 Hour/6-day Neighborhood Representative Conc. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 15 

5. Verification of Continued Attainment 

The District is a duly constituted unified district as provided in California Health and 

Safety Code (CHSC) sections 40150 to 40161, and as such has regulatory authority 

under these and other sections of the CHSC to issue permits, collect fees, impose 

penalties, develop rules, regulations and plans, and collect air monitoring and emissions 

data. This authority continues after redesignation to attainment. 

The District proposes to verify continued attainment of the PM10 NAAQS as part of its 

Annual Report process developed for and committed to by the District Governing Board 

for the 2007 Ozone Plan (SJVAPCD 2007a). As stated in Chapter 5 of the 2007 Ozone 

Plan (SJVAPCD 2007a), the District will complete annual reports to show progress in 

fulfilling its ozone and particulate matter (PM) plan commitments. These reports will be 

made publicly available and will be presented to the Governing Board in April (to allow 

time for PM data compilation) of each year, beginning in 2008. The reports will include: 

! A summary of progress made over the most recent calendar year in meeting the 

schedules for developing, adopting, and implementing the air pollution control 

measures in the District’s attainment plans7

. 

! A table summarizing the proposed and actual dates for adoption and 

implementation of each measure. 

! Air quality data from the year, showing progress towards attaining and continued 

maintenance of (as appropriate) the national ambient air quality standards. 

! A report of incentive funding, including the amount of funds awarded and the 

estimated reductions from grant-funded projects. Major elements of this part of 

the report would include the following: 

o Sources of funding 

o Expenditures 

o Types of projects funded 

o Actual versus predicted emissions reductions 

o Enforcement activities 

! Number and type of inspections conducted on grantees 

! Number of all grantees for whom there is evidence of noncompliance 

! List of enforcement actions taken by the District and the resultant 

penalties and remedies. 

o Description of the permanency of the funding sources and ideas for 

amending the program in the event of reduced funding. 

! A comparison of predicted versus current “best estimates” of emissions 

reductions for each measure and a short explanation of any shortfalls or surplus 

as well as a plan for rectifying shortfalls. 

! Status of State of California control measures (from ARB and DPR) 

 

7

 Required by California Health and Safety Code Section 40924. The most recently approved conformity timely 

implementation documentation will be used to provide updates on local government control measures through 2010. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 16 

These reports will be above and beyond any similar reports required by the federal 

Clean Air Act or the California Clean Air Act. 

6. Contingency Plan 

For maintenance plans, Section 175(d) of the federal Clean Air Act requires contingency 

provisions to assure prompt correction of any post-redesignation NAAQS violations. As 

elaborated in EPA guidance on redesignation requests (Calcagni 1992), a maintenance 

plan does not need fully adopted contingency measures that will go into effect without 

further action by the State. Instead, maintenance plan contingencies should include: 

! Specific triggers that will be used to determine when the contingency measures 

need to be implemented. Possible triggers are emissions inventory “action 

levels” or NAAQS violations (monitored or modeled). 

! A specific time limit for State action 

! A schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation 

! Measures to be adopted 

The EPA guidance also specifies that EPA will review maintenance plan contingencies 

on a case-by-case basis (Calcagni 1992). 

The District is selecting an action level equivalent to the level of the 24-hr PM10 

NAAQS: 155 μg/m3

. An area’s attainment status is determined by an attainment 

calculation, not by a single 24-hour average above the standard. Also, the District had 

no exceedances between 2003 and 2006. As such, setting the action level at the 

operational level of the NAAQS should be sufficiently preemptive. The District may also 

consider qualitative factors to supplement this trigger, such as a succession of values 

just below but near the level of the standard. 

Should the action level be reached, the District will evaluate the event and take 

appropriate action within 18 months of the event date, which includes sufficient time for 

sample weighing and processing. The following major steps are envisioned for the 

contingency plan process: 

1. First, the District will examine the event and determine if it needs to be classified 

as a natural or exceptional event in accordance with EPA’s final rulemaking (72 

FR 13560). If the data qualify for flagging under this rule, the District would 

proceed with preparing and submitting the necessary documentation for a 

natural/exceptional event, and would not consider the monitored level as a trigger 

for the maintenance plan contingency plan. 

2. If the event does not qualify as a natural or exceptional event, the District would 

then analyze the event to determine its possible causes. It would examine 

emission reductions from adopted rules or rule commitments in adopted and 

approved plans to see if emission reductions not used in demonstrating 

maintenance would cover the violation. 

3. If reductions from Step 2 above are insufficient, the District would proceed with 

identifying control measures from any feasibility studies (e.g., from the 2007 

Ozone Plan [SJVAPCD 2007]) completed to date that recommend future 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 17 

controls, and would prioritize development of the measures most relevant to 

reducing PM10 levels. 

Control measure commitments in other air quality plans provide opportunities for PM10 

contingency measures. Please refer to the District’s air quality plans (such as the 

adopted 2007 Ozone Plan and the 2008 PM2.5 Plan, which is currently in progress) for 

more information on the District’s ongoing emissions reductions strategies. The 

maintenance projection presented in the previous section did not incorporate emission 

reduction benefits from any future emission reductions in the 2007 Ozone Plan or the 

2008 PM2.5 Plan. 

For maintenance plan contingencies, EPA also requires that states have implemented 

all measures contained in the original Part D attainment demonstration plan before EPA 

formally redesignates an area. The District has adopted all of its control measure 

commitments from the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan (Appendix B). Control measures 

adopted by ARB achieve the 10 tpd of NOx and 0.5 tpd of direct PM10 emission 

reduction commitment as specified in the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan. Any emission 

reductions stemming from local government best available control measures were not 

used in demonstrating attainment in the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan; however, local 

governments are on schedule to implement measures as outlined in the Amended 2003 

PM10 Plan. Collectively, local governments adopted a broad range of commitments to 

implement control measures through 2010. Any emission reductions stemming from 

local government best available control measures were not used in demonstrating 

attainment in the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan; however, local governments are on 

schedule to implement measures through 2010 as outlined in the Amended 2003 PM10 

Plan 

7. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

In accordance with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, conformity requirements are 

intended to ensure that transportation activities do not result in air quality degradation. 

Section 176 of the CAA Amendments requires that transportation plans, programs, and 

projects conform to applicable air quality plans before being approved by a MPO. 

Section 176(c) provides the framework for ensuring that Federal actions conform to air 

quality plans under section 110. Conformity to an implementation plan means that 

proposed activities must not (1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard 

in any area, (2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any 

standard in any area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required 

interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. For nonattainment areas’ 

demonstration of Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and attainment, as well as for 

continued maintenance of NAAQS already attained, EPA requires that the SIP revision 

specify the motor vehicle emissions on which the demonstrations are based. The plans 

and programs produced by the transportation planning process are required to conform 

to the budget levels in the respective plans. 

EPA transportation conformity regulations establish criteria involving the comparison of 

projected transportation plan emissions with the motor vehicle emissions specified in 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 18 

the applicable air quality plans. The regulations define the term “motor vehicle 

emissions budget” as meaning “the portion of the total allowable emissions defined in a 

revision of the applicable implementation plan (or in an implementation plan revision 

endorsed by the Governor or his or her designee) for a certain date for the purpose of 

meeting reasonable further progress milestones or attainment or maintenance 

demonstrations, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated by the applicable 

implementation plan to highway and transit vehicles.”8

For PM10 in the Valley, EPA has approved on-road motor vehicle subarea emission 

budgets for PM10 and NOx for each County, as well as a trading mechanism, as part of 

the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan into the SIP (69 FR 30005). Budgets were established 

for 2005, 2008, and 2010 based on average annual daily emissions. These budgets 

were calculated with a federally-approved ARB emissions model called EMFAC 2002. 

In addition, the motor vehicle emissions budget for PM10 includes regional reentrained 

dust from travel on paved roads, travel on unpaved roads, and road construction. 

These budgets represent the current benchmark for PM transportation conformity 

determinations in the Valley. On February 16, 2006, the District adopted the 2006 

PM10 Plan. The 2006 PM10 Plan updates the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

SJV by sub-area for 2008 and 2010 PM10 and NOx. However, this Plan has not been 

officially submitted to EPA at this time. 

California’s release of a new on-road motor vehicle emissions model in 2007 (EMFAC 

2007) triggered a Federal Highway Administration requirement that transportation 

project air quality analyses begun after August 1, 2007 must use the new EMFAC 2007 

for the model. ARB’s development of EMFAC 2007 included a number of changes to 

the Valley’s on-road motor vehicle emissions inventory to improve the accuracy and 

representativeness of the inventory. One major change was a dramatic increase in 

NOx emissions for the Valley from on-road motor vehicles. Thus, any transportation 

project air quality analyses begun after August 1, 2007 would not be able to 

demonstrate conformity with the existing approved budgets that were derived with 

EMFAC 2002. This situation could ultimately result in a lockdown of transportation 

projects Valley-wide due to a failure for new projects to demonstrate conformity 

Consequently, this 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation

establishes attainment year subarea by County emissions budgets for 2005 to replace 

the approved budgets (for 2005, 2008, and 2010) established with EMFAC 2002. The 

year 2005 was selected because it is the third of three attainment years on which EPA’s 

original attainment determination is based. In addition, a transportation conformity 

budget must be established for the maintenance year of interest, which in this case is 

the year 2020 (see Section 1). The latest transportation planning assumptions must 

also be included to conform to federal requirements. Thus, in accordance with the 

conformity rule, described in more detail below, new subarea County motor vehicle 

emissions budgets are being established for 2005 for the 2003 PM10 Plan as amended 

and for 2020 for the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation. 

 

8

 Federal transportation conformity regulations are found in 40 CFR Part 51, subpart T – Conformity to State or Federal 

Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. of 

the Federal Transit Laws. Part 93, subpart A of this chapter was revised by the EPA in the August 15, 1997 Federal Register. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 19 

These are based on the average annual daily emissions that are applicable for both the 

annual and 24-hour PM10 standards. 

For conformity purposes, the motor vehicle emissions budget for PM10 includes 

regional reentrained dust from travel on paved roads, vehicular exhaust, travel on 

unpaved roads, and road construction. Section 93.122(d)(2) of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart 

T requires that PM10 from construction-related fugitive dust be included in the regional 

PM10 emissions analysis if it is identified as a contributor to the nonattainment problem 

in a PM10 implementation plan. 

Section 93.102(b)(2)(iii) of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart T identifies Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) and NOx as the two PM10 precursor pollutants that must also have 

a motor vehicle emissions budget if deemed significant. The air quality modeling (in 

both the Amended 2003 Plan and this Maintenance Plan) indicates that VOC is not a 

significant precursor to secondary PM10 formation in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

Accordingly, motor vehicle emissions budgets for NOx are being established and 

include vehicular exhaust only. Table 5 provides a sample budget calculation. The 

calculation methodology for the other years and counties is identical. Budgets for all 

District counties for 2005 are provided in Table 6 and for 2020 in Table 7. It is important 

to note that the conformity rule does not require sulfur oxides or ammonia to be 

addressed. 

Section 93.124(e) of the federal conformity rule indicates that nonattainment areas with 

more than one MPO may establish motor vehicle emission budgets for each MPO in the 

implementation plan. As a result, County-level emission budgets are provided in this 

plan. The budgets are derived starting with projections from ARB’s EMFAC 2007 onroad mobile source emission factor model. The emission budgets are based on the 

latest MPO VMT data and speed distributions (see Draft 2007 Conformity Analyses). 

The EMFAC 2007 model runs include the updated VMT through adjustments to vehicle 

population per the EPA approved ARB Recommended Methods for use of EMFAC 2002 

to Develop Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets and Assess Conformity (note that ARB 

has indicated the methods will remain unchanged with the transition to EMFAC 2007). 

Updated speed distributions are input directly. 

The budgets are adjusted to account for any baseline emission reductions not included 

in the model and any emissions that the model does not project (e.g., road dust). For 

the exhaust component, both 2005 and 2020 include by County reductions for the ARB 

existing control measures Reflash, Idling, and Moyer. For the fugitive dust component, 

both 2005 and 2020 include reductions for the District existing control measures Rules 

8061 and 8021 by County. 

According to EPA, the emissions budget applies as a ceiling on emissions in the year 

for which it is defined and for all subsequent years until either another year for which a 

different budget is defined or until a SIP revision modifies the budget. The emissions 

budgets provided in Table 6 are replacements to those found in the federally approved 

Amended 2003 PM10 Plan and are applicable for both the annual and 24-hour PM10 

standards. Appendix D provides more detailed calculations. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 20 

Table 5 Example County Emission Budget Calculation for 2005 

(tons per average annual day) 

PM10 NOx 

Baseline EMFAC2007 3.10 70.72 

Existing ARB Reductions 0.01 2.40 

Reentrained road dust (paved) a 9.38 -- 

Reentrained road dust (unpaved) a 0.65 -- 

Road Construction Dust b 0.73 -- 

Conformity Emission Budgets c 13.9 68.4 a

 Includes Rule 8061 

b Includes Rule 8021 

c Rounded up to the nearest tenth 

Table 6 Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Attainment Year 

(tons per average annual day) 

County 2005 

PM10 NOx 

Fresno 13.9 68.4 

Kern a 12.8 102.2 

Kings 3.2 19.3 

Madera 3.7 16.0 

Merced 6.6 45.6 

San Joaquin 9.4 49.1 

Stanislaus 5.8 34.3 

Tulare 7.4 29.0 a Kern County subarea includes only the portion of Kern County within 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

Table 7 shows the maintenance plan transportation conformity emissions budgets for 

the maintenance of attainment; the same general type of calculation illustrated in Table 

5 was used to develop Table 7. 

Table 7 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Maintenance of PM10 NAAQS 

(tons per average annual day) 

County 2020 

PM10 NOx 

Fresno 16.1 23.2 

Kern a 14.7 39.5 

Kings 3.6 6.8 

Madera 4.7 6.5 

Merced 6.5 13.9 

San Joaquin 10.6 16.7 

Stanislaus 6.7 10.7 

Tulare 9.3 10.1 a Kern County subarea includes only the portion of Kern County within 

the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

Section 93.124 of the federal conformity rule, in particular 93.124I, allows for the SIP to 

establish trading mechanisms between budgets for pollutants or precursors, or among 

budgets allocated to mobile and other sources. The Amended 2003 PM10 Plan

included a trading mechanism, which was approved by EPA effective June 25, 2004, to 

be used after 2010. This SIP allows trading from the motor vehicle emissions budget 

for the PM10 precursor NOx to the motor vehicle emissions budget for primary PM10 

using a 1.5 to 1 ratio. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 21 

The trading mechanism remains unchanged in this plan; however, as part of this plan, 

the District and ARB are requesting that EPA approve the mechanism for use after 

2005. The trading mechanism will allow the agencies responsible for demonstrating 

transportation conformity in the San Joaquin Valley to supplement the 2005 budget for 

PM10 with a portion of the 2005 budget for NOx, and use these adjusted motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for PM10 and NOx to demonstrate transportation conformity with the 

PM10 SIP for analysis years after 2005. 

To ensure that the trading mechanism does not impact the ability to meet the NOx 

budget, the NOx emission reductions available to supplement the PM10 budget shall 

only be those remaining after the NOx budget has been met. Finally, reductions from 

the State’s motor vehicle control program shall be calculated using ARB-approved 

factors and methodologies. 

Each agency responsible for demonstrating transportation conformity shall clearly 

document the calculations used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of 

NOx or PM10 emissions in the conformity analysis. The federally approved Amended 

2003 PM10 Plan included commitments from the Directors of the San Joaquin Valley 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations to conduct feasibility analyses as part of each new 

Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), excluding revisions (i.e., amendments). The 

analysis will identify and evaluate potential control measures that could be included in 

the Regional Transportation Plans. Any additional PM10 or NOx reductions achieved in 

the RTPs shall be credited in the transportation conformity demonstration. Reductions 

achieved after 2006 shall be credited prior to implementing the trading mechanism. 

Those commitments remain unchanged for this plan. 

8. Request for Redesignation 

The District requests that EPA redesignate the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area 

to attainment status for the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Valley 

has met all of the redesignation criteria outlined in Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the federal 

Clean Air Act, as outlined below in Table 8: 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 22 

Table 8 Summary of Valley Compliance with Section 

107(d)(3)(E) Criteria for Redesignation to Attainment for PM10 

NAAQS 

Criterion Valley Compliance 

Attainment of the PM10 

NAAQS 

EPA found the Valley to be in attainment of the PM10 

NAAQS (Final Rule @ 71 FR 63642) 

State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Approval 

under Section 110(k) 

EPA approved the Valley’s 2003 PM 10 Plan (Final Rule 

@ 69 FR 30006); see especially 69 FR 30035 

Permanent and 

Enforceable 

Improvement in Air 

Quality 

Information in this 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Request for Redesignation (Section 8.3) demonstrates 

that the Valley’s improvement in PM10 air quality was due 

to permanent and enforceable emission reductions 

achieved through District and ARB rules and regulations 

that will remain in effect after designation to attainment. 

Emissions decreased and air quality improved in spite of 

substantial growth in population and vehicle miles 

traveled. 

Section 110 and Part D 

Requirements 

The State of California and the District have met Section 

110 and Part D requirements. 

Fully Approved 

Maintenance Plan 

In accordance with EPA Guidance (Calcagni, 1992) the 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan is submitted with this 

request for redesignation 

8.1 Attainment of the PM10 NAAQS 

In July 2006, EPA published a Proposed Rule determining that the Valley had attained 

the PM10 NAAQS (71 FR 40952). After a notice and comment period, EPA published 

in October 2006 a Final Rule determining that the Valley had attained the PM10 NAAQS 

(71 FR 63642). The Final Rule references then-recent PM10 monitoring data showing 

possible PM10 exceedances but noted that the exceedances were likely due to natural 

events. EPA went on to state that it would withdraw its finding of attainment if further 

review of the monitoring data for these exceedances showed that they were not caused 

by natural events. On December 29, 2006, Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club, Latino 

Issues Forum, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, et al., (Earthjustice 2006) filed with 

EPA a petition for reconsideration of the final rule alleging that EPA improperly ignored 

exceedances that were not subject to public review and comment, and on March 27, 

2007 Earthjustice filed a petition to withdraw the final rule alleging that several 

exceedances do not qualify as natural or exceptional events and thus the attainment 

determination must be withdrawn (Earthjustice 2007). The District prepared extensive 

documentation showing that the exceedances were due to natural events, and 

submitted this documentation to ARB to review. After concurring with these analyses, 

ARB transmitted them to EPA for review. On August 15, 2007, EPA signed a Federal 

Register notice (proposed rule) affirming PM10 attainment for the Valley after due 

consideration of 2006 PM10 monitoring data. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 23 

8.2 SIP Approval 

On May 26, 2004 EPA approved all provisions of the District’s Amended 2003 PM10 

Plan (as amended in December 2003) (69 FR 30006) except for the contingency 

measures. (EPA published a correction on September 3, 2004 [69 FR 53835] that dealt 

mainly with adding text to codify EPA’s approval of local government best available 

control measures as elements of the SIP.) On October 30, 2006, EPA determined the 

Valley had attained the PM10 standard and suspended the contingency measure 

requirement under the Clean Data Policy (71 FR 63642). Thus, all applicable 

requirements have been approved under 110(k) for the purposes of redesignation in 

accordance with Section 107(d)(3)(E). 

8.3 Permanent and Enforceable Improvement in Air Quality 

EPA maintenance plan requirements note that “the state must be able to reasonably 

attribute the improvement in air quality to emission reductions which are permanent and 

enforceable.” (Calcagni 1992). EPA further notes that attainment resulting from 

temporary emission reductions (such as a shutdown or economic downturn) or from 

“unusually favorable meteorology” would not qualify as resulting from permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

Figure 2 shows the long-term (1990-2006) trend in PM10 air quality for the Valley. The 

monitoring data indicates that PM10 air quality has improved significantly since 1990. 

For the period of 1990-1992, 19 out of 23 sites were nonattainment, and for the time 

period of 1998-2000, six out of 15 sites were nonattainment. The estimated numbers of 

exceedance days in the SJVAB have also decreased: 33.0 days for 1990-1992, 5.9 for 

1998-2000, and 2.9 days for 2002-2004. More air quality trend data can be found at 

<http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/aqdpage.htm>. 

The PM10 air quality in the Valley has greatly improved over the past two decades as 

air quality plans and regulations have been adopted and implemented. In the late 

1980s it was not uncommon to have 50 or more estimated annual exceedances of the 

24-hour PM10 standard, peak measurements well above 250 micrograms per cubic 

meter (μg/m3), and annual averages of 80 μg/m3. In contrast, as shown in Table 5, the 

San Joaquin Valley has not had a single 24-hour PM10 violation since 2003, and the 

maximum annual average is now only 46 μg/m3. A monitoring site is considered to be in 

attainment if the three-year annual average PM10 concentration is less than or equal to 

50 ug/m3

 and the estimated number of 24-hour exceedance days is less than or equal 

to 1.0. Table 9 shows that all of the SJVAB monitoring sites met the PM10 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) during calendar years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 24 

Figure 2 PM10 Trends 

PM10 Trends: Days over the NAAQS in the SJ Valley

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Year

Number of Days

Regarding whether or not the trends were due to shutdowns or economic downturns, 

federal and state data clearly support the fact that the Valley has experienced rapid 

economic growth during the period of PM10 air quality improvement. Figures 3 and 4 

illustrate trends in population and vehicle mile traveled growth, thus implying that activity 

levels in emissions sources for mobile and area (and some stationary) sources has also 

increased during this time. Between 1990 and 2010, NOx emissions have decreased 

by about 36% and direct PM10 has decreased by about 15%, while population has 

increased by about 50% and VMT has increased by about 79%.9

 The District surveyed 

its compliance and permit databases and did not identify any major, sector-wide 

shutdowns that would produce appreciable reductions in emissions relevant to PM10 in 

the Valley. At most, the District identified reductions of about 2 tons per day of PM10 

from shutdowns of specific facilities during the attainment period of interest. Thus any 

downturn in emissions of PM10 and its precursors, and resulting improvement in air 

quality, are not due to economic downturns or shutdowns. Inclusion of 2006 monitoring 

data supports the findings for 2003-2005, as noted by EPA. 

 

9

 ARB Population and Vehicle Trends Report, http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/trends/ems_trends.php 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 25 

Table 9 Summary of 2003-2005 PM10 Attainment Statistics 

(based on filter-based monitoring) 

Attainment Tests 

Monitoring Station 

Observed 

Three-Year 

24-Hour Maximum 

(μg/m3) 

Estimated 24-

Hour Exceedance 

Days b

Three-Year 

Annual 

Average 

(μg/m3) a

Attainment 

Status c

Bakersfield-California Ave 110 0.0 43 Yes 

Bakersfield-Golden State 136 0.0 46 Yes 

Clovis-Villa 87 0.0 34 Yes 

Corcoran-Patterson d 150 0.0 d 43 Yes 

Fresno-Drummond 102 0.0 41 Yes 

Fresno-First Street 106 0.0 33 Yes 

Hanford-Irwin 140 0.0 44 Yes 

Merced-2334 M Street 74 0.0 29 Yes 

Modesto-14th Street 93 0.0 29 Yes 

Oildale-Manor 107 0.0 41 Yes 

Stockton-Hazelton 88 0.0 28 Yes 

Stockton-Wagner/Holt 68 0.0 22 Yes 

Turlock-Minaret 87 0.0 30 Yes 

Visalia-Church Street 101 0.0 43 Yes a

 Average the 4 quarterly averages for each of three years, then average those three values. 

b

 Since PM samples are measured once every six days (or once every three days in Corcoran), the ratio of the 

number of measured exceedances to the number of samples in the quarter is applied to the total number of days in 

the quarter to yield a number of expected exceedance days for that quarter. The sum of the four quarters yields an 

annual total, and then 3 years of totals are averaged. 

c

 A station is considered in attainment if the three-year annual average PM10 concentration is less than or equal to 

50 ug/m3

 and the expected 24-hour exceedance days is less than or equal to 1.0. d

 September 3, 2004 was declared an approved NEAP event by the EPA. The value has been flagged and 

excluded from these calculations. Corcoran would still be in attainment of the PM10 NAAQS even if the value were 

included. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 26 

Figure 3 Valley Growth

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

Percent Increase from 1990

Population

Vehicle Miles Traveled

* Based on data from ARB Population and Vehicle Trends Report, http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/trends/ems_trends.php 

Figure 4 PM10 & Precursor Emissions

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

tons per day

PM10

NOx

* Based on data from ARB’s PM2.5SIP inventory, Ref#994 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 27 

The Valley’s meteorology is well known as being conducive to high air pollution levels.10 

Thus prevailing weather patterns tend to be unfavorable and encourage high air 

pollution levels. Weather patterns that are favorable and help lower pollution levels tend 

to be the exception rather than the rule. 

To address the question of favorable meteorology, District staff analyzed trends in 

Valley meteorological parameters over the past several decades to determine if the 

meteorology experienced during the 2003-2006 time frame was unusually favorable for 

lower ambient PM10 levels in the atmosphere. Results of District analyses of trends in 

temperature, rainfall, wind speed and atmospheric stability show no conclusive 

evidence of being unusually favorable (Appendix C). The persistent, long-term 

downward trend in ambient PM10 levels spanning two decades means that a variety of 

meteorological conditions, favorable and unfavorable, have been experienced over this 

time, but that PM10 levels continued to improve over this time. Any favorable 

meteorology that did occur during the attainment period was well within the scope of 

previous favorable meteorology. As noted in the District’s adopted 2006 PM10 Plan, 

“although complex meteorological phenomena and emissions activities make it 

challenging to determine the extent of PM10 air quality improvements that are 

highlighted by favorable weather, longer-term analysis and modeling covering similar 

weather regimes indicate that recurring air quality improvements are the result of 

regulatory actions to reduce emissions.” (SJVAPCD 2006). 

To reduce emissions of PM10 and its precursors, and to achieve the resulting reduced 

ambient concentrations of PM10, the District has adopted eight PM10 plans and 

amendments since 1991. A key outcome from these plans and amendments has been 

the adoption and implementation of many rules and regulations directed at reducing 

emissions of PM10 and its precursors. Many of the over 500 new rules and 

amendments adopted by the District since 1992 are concerned with reducing emissions 

of PM10 or its precursors. Rules and regulations adopted by the District are binding on 

all counties within the District [California Health and Safety Code, Section 40600(b)], 

and remain permanently in place unless repealed by specific District Governing Board 

actions that have been duly noticed to the public. Appendix B summarizes the status of 

District commitments in the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan to adopt and implement rules 

and regulations to attain the PM10 NAAQS. As is shown in Appendix B, the District has 

adopted all measures from the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan, and has sent them to ARB 

for review and transmittal to EPA. Furthermore, EPA has taken final action to approve 

many of the measures into the SIP (Appendix B), thus making them federally 

enforceable. As noted by the courts (e.g., Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 515 F.2d 206, 211 

[8th Cir. 1975] and U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 814 F.2d 1099, 1103 [6th Cir. 1987]), once 

EPA approves something into a SIP, the requirements have the force and effect of 

federal law and can only be invalidated by federal appellate courts. For these reasons, 

the District considers the reductions from its PM10 rules and regulations to be 

permanent and enforceable. 

 

10 See, for example, the San Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study: Policy-Relevant Findings, published by the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Quality Study Committee, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California (November 

1996), page 4:”The Valley’s geography and prevailing weather patterns rival the pollution-forming potential of the Los 

Angeles basin.” Also, the December 15, 2002 Fresno Bee Special Report entitled “Last Gasp” quotes atmospheric 

scientist John Carroll as saying, “The L.A. Basin is pretty well-ventilated compared to the Valley (page 2).” 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 28 

The District’s controls on PM10 and PM10 precursors are some of the most effective in 

the state of California. The California Health and Safety Code (Section 39614) requires 

all air districts, regardless of PM attainment status, to adopt an implementation schedule 

of locally selected control measures from an ARB-developed list of existing PM, NOx 

(oxides of nitrogen), and VOC (volatile organic compounds) controls. The District 

developed and submitted such a schedule by the July 31, 2005 deadline. In conducting 

the analysis of control measures, District staff noted that over one third of ARB’s list of 

103 control measures cited District rules or programs as the most stringent measures in 

the state. Of the remaining measures, many of the District’s rules or programs covering 

the same source categories have similar limits or programs as the rules cited by ARB 

(SJVAPCD 2005). In other cases, the measures proposed by ARB are control measure 

commitments of the District’s Amended 2003 PM10 Plan or the District’s Extreme 

Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan. Collectively, this indicates that the District’s 

rules and programs for PM10 and its precursors are the most effective in the state. The 

emissions inventories for 1990 and 2005 shown in Table 10 illustrate the improvement 

that has been made in spite of the population growth that the Valley has experienced. 

Table 10 Annual Average Emissions Inventories, in tons per day 

for the SJVAB for 1990 and 2005 

1990 2005 Improvement 

SOx 99 28 72 

PM10 331 285 46 

NOx 846 617 228 

ROG 619 383 236 

Total Improvement 582 tons per day

Source: PM 2.5 SIP (v1.00_RF994) 

8.4 Section 110 and Part D Requirements 

The California Air Resources Board and the District have met all PM10 SIP 

requirements for the purposes of redesignation under Section 110 of the federal Clean 

Air Act. In addition, EPA has approved the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan as meeting 

Section 110 requirements and as meeting applicable requirements under Part D of Title 

I of the federal Clean Air Act. No outstanding PM10 SIP submittals exist for the District 

or ARB. 

8.5 Fully Approved Maintenance Plan 

In accordance with EPA guidance (Calcagni 1992) the District is submitting this request 

for redesignation as part of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 

Redesignation. EPA approval of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 

Redesignation would then allow EPA to proceed with redesignation of the Valley as 

attainment for the PM10 standards. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 29 

9. References 

Calcagni, John (1992), Memorandum, Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 4, 1992. 

Earthjustice (2006), Petition for Reconsideration, in the Matter of Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; State of California; PM-10; 

Determination of Attainment for the San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act Requirements, EPA Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0583, 

Oakland, California, December 29, 2006. 

Earthjustice (2007), Petition to Withdraw PM-10 Attainment Determination for the San Joaquin Valley and 

to Reinstate Certain Clean Air Act Requirements, Re: Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 63642 (Oct. 30, 2006)), 

Oakland, California, March 21, 2007. 

EPA (2007) Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality 

Planning Purposes; State of California; PM10; Affirmation of Determination of Attainment for the San 

Joaquin Valley Nonattainment area, Proposed Rule, August 15, 2007 (to be published in the Federal 

Register in August 2007). 

Sadredin, Seyed (2006), Request for Determination of PM10 Attainment for the San Joaquin Valley, 

Letter to Catherine Witherspoon, California Air Resources Board, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District, Fresno, California, April 24, 2006. 

SJVAPCD (2003), 2003 PM10 Plan as amended, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 

Fresno, California, June 19, 2003 and December 18, 2003, www.valleyair.org. 

SJVAPCD (2005), Final Staff Report for SB 656 Particulate Matter (PM) Control Measure Implementation 

Schedule, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, California, June 16, 2005, 

www.valleyair.org 

SJVAPCD (2006), 2006 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, 

California, February 16, 2006, www.valleyair.org 

SJVAPCD (2007a), 2007 Ozone Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Fresno, 

California, April 30, 2007, www.valleyair.org 

SJVAPCD (2007b), Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District, Fresno, California, June 29, 2007. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 30 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 31 

Appendix A. Emissions Inventory 

This Appendix contains the following emissions inventory tables: 

! NOx Inventories, Annual and Winter 

! Direct PM10 Inventories, Annual and Winter 

! VOC Inventories, Annual and Winter 

! SOx Inventories, Annual and Winter 

These tables include average tons per day for 2000, 2006, 2010, and 2020. This 

inventory is based on the emissions inventory prepared for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan

(PM25SIP, Ref#994), base year 2002, and contains reductions for control measures 

adopted by the District through May 2005. 

NOx (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

FUEL COMBUSTION 

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 2.9 3.3 3.1 3.4 2.6 3.2 3.1 3.4

COGENERATION 9.9 10.0 7.3 8.2 9.9 10.0 7.3 8.2

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 

(COMBUSTION) 33.8 11.2 10.0 9.7 33.8 11.2 10.0 9.7

PETROLEUM REFINING 

(COMBUSTION) 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1

MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 33.6 32.2 34.6 39.9 28.6 26.7 28.6 32.9

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL 

PROCESSING 21.3 18.0 15.4 10.3 14.0 12.0 10.2 6.8

SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 9.5 7.7 7.9 8.1 12.6 11.1 11.3 11.6

OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 1.9 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.7 1.3 1.1 0.8

* TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION 114.4 84.1 79.6 80.6 104.7 75.6 71.6 73.5

WASTE DISPOSAL 

SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LANDFILLS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

INCINERATORS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SOIL REMEDIATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL WASTE DISPOSAL 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 

LAUNDERING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DEGREASING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS 

SOLVENTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PRINTING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 32 

NOx (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

* TOTAL CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND 

MARKETING 

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

PETROLEUM REFINING 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

PETROLEUM MARKETING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 

CHEMICAL 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 9.8 9.2 9.0 8.8 9.4 9.2 9.0 8.8

MINERAL PROCESSES 2.4 2.3 2.5 3.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 3.0

METAL PROCESSES 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

WOOD AND PAPER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 8.7 9.4 8.4 10.1 8.9 9.4 8.4 10.1

OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

* TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 21.4 21.5 20.5 22.6 21.1 21.4 20.5 22.5

** TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 136.1 106.0 100.6 103.7 126.1 97.4 92.5 96.5

AREA-WIDE SOURCES 

SOLVENT EVAPORATION 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND 

RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL SOLVENT EVAPORATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 

RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 6.7 6.3 6.0 5.7 10.1 9.6 9.0 8.4

FARMING OPERATIONS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PAVED ROAD DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FIRES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 12.1 11.9 11.7 11.3 15.9 15.7 15.3 14.7

COOKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES 18.9 18.3 17.7 17.1 26.1 25.3 24.3 23.2

** TOTAL AREA-WIDE SOURCES 18.9 18.3 17.7 17.1 26.1 25.3 24.3 23.2

MOBILE SOURCES 

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 33 

NOx (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 40.6 22.4 14.8 5.8 43.9 24.2 15.9 6.3

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 18.2 10.0 6.7 2.7 19.7 10.8 7.2 2.9

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 29.8 19.8 13.8 6.5 32.4 21.4 14.9 7.1

MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 15.7 13.4 9.5 4.8 17.1 14.5 10.2 5.2

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1

(LHDV1) 5.3 4.7 4.0 3.8 5.7 5.0 4.2 3.9

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2

(LHDV2) 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.9

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(MHDV) 2.8 2.2 1.7 0.9 3.1 2.3 1.8 0.9

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(HHDV) 3.0 2.5 1.9 1.5 3.2 2.7 2.1 1.6

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 1 (LHDV1) 0.3 5.4 3.4 1.9 0.3 5.6 3.5 2.0

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 2 (LHDV2) 2.4 3.3 2.7 1.4 2.4 3.4 2.8 1.4

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (MHDV) 19.6 21.5 17.0 7.1 20.3 22.2 17.5 7.3

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (HHDV) 192.8 223.8 212.7 95.4 198.8 230.6 218.8 97.2

MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 0.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.5 1.6 1.6 1.8

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.5

HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4

SCHOOL BUSES (SB) 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.3

OTHER BUSES (OB) 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.0 0.6

MOTOR HOMES (MH) 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.6

* TOTAL ON-ROAD MOTOR 

VEHICLES 338.8 338.7 297.6 140.4 355.4 352.8 308.9 144.9

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 

AIRCRAFT 2.5 3.0 4.3 5.2 2.5 3.0 4.3 5.2

TRAINS 30.5 23.6 20.0 21.5 30.5 23.6 20.0 21.5

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5

RECREATIONAL BOATS 2.2 3.2 3.5 3.6 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.4

OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL 

VEHICLES 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 78.8 70.8 58.0 32.4 79.2 71.2 58.3 32.6

FARM EQUIPMENT 63.6 52.5 41.7 19.2 49.7 41.1 32.6 15.0

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 178.8 154.5 129.1 83.8 164.1 141.6 118.2 77.7

** TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 517.6 493.2 426.7 224.2 519.5 494.4 427.1 222.6

 

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN 

JOAQUIN VALLEY 672.6 617.5 545.0 345.0 671.7 617.1 543.9 342.2
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 34 

Directly Emitted PM10 (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

FUEL COMBUSTION 

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6

COGENERATION 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.6 1.2 1.3 1.4

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 

(COMBUSTION) 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.1

PETROLEUM REFINING 

(COMBUSTION) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL 

PROCESSING 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.7

SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0

OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

* TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION 5.6 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.8

WASTE DISPOSAL 

SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LANDFILLS 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

INCINERATORS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SOIL REMEDIATION 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL WASTE DISPOSAL 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 

LAUNDERING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DEGREASING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS 

SOLVENTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PRINTING 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND 

MARKETING 

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PETROLEUM REFINING 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

PETROLEUM MARKETING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 

CHEMICAL 2.4 2.3 2.7 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.3

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 12.1 9.7 9.3 9.6 12.4 10.0 9.4 9.8
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 35 

Directly Emitted PM10 (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

MINERAL PROCESSES 4.3 3.5 3.8 4.4 4.0 3.4 3.7 4.2

METAL PROCESSES 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

WOOD AND PAPER 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.1

GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.4

OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2

* TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 21.4 17.4 17.9 20.2 21.3 17.6 17.9 20.2

** TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 27.2 23.5 24.0 26.4 26.8 23.4 23.8 26.3

AREA-WIDE SOURCES 

SOLVENT EVAPORATION 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND 

RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL SOLVENT EVAPORATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 

RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 11.8 11.3 9.7 9.0 22.8 21.8 18.6 17.3

FARMING OPERATIONS 84.3 61.5 61.7 62.7 64.6 51.0 51.4 52.8

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 11.6 10.9 11.9 11.8 10.6 10.0 10.9 10.8

PAVED ROAD DUST 41.7 44.6 46.8 58.4 39.3 42.1 44.2 55.1

UNPAVED ROAD DUST 46.7 42.3 41.5 43.1 35.3 31.6 31.0 32.0

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 50.8 42.2 41.1 39.9 32.5 26.5 25.8 25.1

FIRES 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 21.5 21.2 20.9 20.1 24.5 24.0 23.5 22.4

COOKING 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.6 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.6

OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES 270.6 236.3 236.1 247.8 231.8 209.2 207.9 218.4

** TOTAL AREA-WIDE SOURCES 270.6 236.3 236.1 247.8 231.8 209.2 207.9 218.4

MOBILE SOURCES 

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 

LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.9 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.9

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.4 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.4

MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1

(LHDV1) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2

(LHDV2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(MHDV) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(HHDV) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 1 (LHDV1) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 36 

Directly Emitted PM10 (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 2 (LHDV2) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (HHDV) 11.8 10.3 8.9 4.2 11.8 10.4 8.9 4.3

MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SCHOOL BUSES (SB) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

OTHER BUSES (OB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MOTOR HOMES (MH) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL ON-ROAD MOTOR 

VEHICLES 15.5 14.9 13.7 9.8 15.6 14.9 13.7 9.8

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 

AIRCRAFT 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.7

TRAINS 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

RECREATIONAL BOATS 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5

OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL 

VEHICLES 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 4.4 3.9 3.1 1.4 4.4 3.9 3.1 1.4

FARM EQUIPMENT 3.9 3.2 2.5 1.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 0.7

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 10.8 9.9 8.7 6.3 9.5 8.8 7.6 5.2

** TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 26.3 24.8 22.3 16.1 25.1 23.8 21.3 15.0

 

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN 

JOAQUIN VALLEY 324.0 284.6 282.4 290.3 283.6 256.4 253.0 259.7
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 37 

VOC (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

FUEL COMBUSTION 

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5

COGENERATION 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 

(COMBUSTION) 2.1 3.3 3.2 3.3 2.1 3.3 3.2 3.3

PETROLEUM REFINING 

(COMBUSTION) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL 

PROCESSING 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0

SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5

OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

* TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION 5.6 7.4 7.4 7.5 5.5 7.2 7.2 7.3

WASTE DISPOSAL 

SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LANDFILLS 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.0

INCINERATORS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SOIL REMEDIATION 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7

* TOTAL WASTE DISPOSAL 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.8

CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 

LAUNDERING 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

DEGREASING 11.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 11.0 1.5 1.5 1.6

COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS 

SOLVENTS 8.2 7.6 8.6 10.5 8.1 7.6 8.5 10.4

PRINTING 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.2

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0.7 3.2 3.5 4.1 0.7 3.2 3.5 4.1

OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS) 2.8 3.4 4.0 5.0 2.8 3.4 4.0 5.0

* TOTAL CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 24.3 17.4 19.4 23.4 24.2 17.3 19.3 23.3

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND 

MARKETING 

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 33.2 27.9 26.8 24.0 33.1 27.9 26.8 24.0

PETROLEUM REFINING 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

PETROLEUM MARKETING 7.3 7.5 8.2 9.5 7.3 7.5 8.2 9.5

OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING 42.4 36.1 35.7 34.2 42.3 36.1 35.6 34.1

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 

CHEMICAL 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.1 2.5 2.3 2.6 3.1

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 11.0 11.4 11.8 12.8 9.8 10.0 10.4 11.3

MINERAL PROCESSES 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 38 

VOC (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

METAL PROCESSES 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3

WOOD AND PAPER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5

OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

* TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 14.3 15.0 15.8 17.6 12.9 13.5 14.3 16.0

** TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 88.5 78.2 80.6 85.5 87.0 76.4 78.8 83.5

AREA-WIDE SOURCES 

SOLVENT EVAPORATION 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 24.7 23.5 24.6 29.6 24.7 23.5 24.6 29.6

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND 

RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 11.3 9.4 9.8 10.8 9.3 7.7 8.1 8.9

PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 25.2 23.5 22.4 21.6 26.9 25.1 24.0 23.1

ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8

* TOTAL SOLVENT EVAPORATION 63.4 58.7 59.2 64.5 62.4 58.1 58.4 63.4

MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 

RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 6.3 5.9 4.9 4.4 12.2 11.4 9.4 8.4

FARMING OPERATIONS 59.8 65.4 71.0 85.9 59.8 65.4 71.0 85.9

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PAVED ROAD DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FIRES 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 16.6 16.3 16.0 15.5 19.4 19.0 18.6 17.8

COOKING 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES 83.2 88.2 92.5 106.4 91.9 96.4 99.6 112.7

** TOTAL AREA-WIDE SOURCES 146.7 146.9 151.8 170.9 154.3 154.4 158.0 176.1

MOBILE SOURCES 

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 

LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 47.0 27.2 17.7 7.9 49.7 28.6 18.4 8.0

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 18.2 10.5 7.0 3.4 19.5 11.2 7.5 3.7

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 19.7 14.0 11.1 7.1 20.9 14.9 11.9 7.5

MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 9.6 7.9 6.3 4.5 10.2 8.4 6.7 4.7

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1

(LHDV1) 6.9 5.4 3.2 2.3 7.5 5.8 3.4 2.5

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2

(LHDV2) 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.5 1.9 1.4 1.0 0.5

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(MHDV) 5.2 3.3 2.2 0.6 5.9 3.7 2.4 0.6

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(HHDV) 2.0 1.4 0.9 0.3 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.4

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 1 (LHDV1) 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 39 

VOC (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 2 (LHDV2) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (HHDV) 15.8 16.1 15.7 8.5 16.0 16.2 15.8 8.5

MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 2.6 5.8 5.1 5.0 2.8 6.0 5.2 5.1

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

SCHOOL BUSES (SB) 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

OTHER BUSES (OB) 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

MOTOR HOMES (MH) 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1

* TOTAL ON-ROAD MOTOR 

VEHICLES 130.9 94.8 71.5 41.3 138.5 99.7 74.8 42.8

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 

AIRCRAFT 5.8 6.7 6.5 7.2 5.8 6.7 6.5 7.2

TRAINS 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

RECREATIONAL BOATS 14.9 13.2 11.9 11.0 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.8

OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL 

VEHICLES 5.3 6.9 7.9 10.4 5.7 7.4 8.4 10.4

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 22.0 19.8 15.4 10.6 22.1 19.8 15.5 10.5

FARM EQUIPMENT 13.0 10.8 8.3 3.5 10.7 9.0 6.9 2.9

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 4.7 3.5 2.1 1.4 4.5 3.4 1.9 1.2

* TOTAL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 67.3 62.7 53.6 45.7 58.1 55.8 48.2 41.7

** TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 198.2 157.5 125.2 87.0 196.6 155.4 123.0 84.5

 

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN 

JOAQUIN VALLEY 433.4 382.6 357.5 343.3 437.9 386.3 359.8 344.1
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 40 

SOx (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

FUEL COMBUSTION 

ELECTRIC UTILITIES 1.5 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 0.8 0.9 1.1

COGENERATION 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 

(COMBUSTION) 7.1 2.3 2.2 2.4 7.1 2.3 2.2 2.4

PETROLEUM REFINING 

(COMBUSTION) 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.1 0.1

MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 6.0 6.8 7.3 8.3 6.0 6.8 7.3 8.3

FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL 

PROCESSING 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.5

SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9

OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL FUEL COMBUSTION 20.5 13.8 14.2 15.6 19.5 13.2 13.7 15.1

WASTE DISPOSAL 

SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LANDFILLS 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

INCINERATORS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SOIL REMEDIATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL WASTE DISPOSAL 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 

LAUNDERING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

DEGREASING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS 

SOLVENTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PRINTING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL CLEANING AND SURFACE 

COATINGS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND 

MARKETING 

OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3

PETROLEUM REFINING 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

PETROLEUM MARKETING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION 

AND MARKETING 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6

INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 

CHEMICAL 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.2 0.3 0.9 1.0 1.2

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 2.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.9 0.7 0.7 0.7

MINERAL PROCESSES 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.9
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 41 

SOx (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

METAL PROCESSES 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

WOOD AND PAPER 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 4.4 3.8 4.2 5.0 4.5 3.8 4.2 5.0

OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES 9.0 7.1 7.7 9.1 8.4 6.9 7.5 8.8

** TOTAL STATIONARY SOURCES 29.8 21.5 22.6 25.4 28.3 20.8 21.9 24.6

AREA-WIDE SOURCES 

SOLVENT EVAPORATION 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND 

RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PESTICIDES/FERTILIZERS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ASPHALT PAVING / ROOFING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL SOLVENT EVAPORATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES 

RESIDENTIAL FUEL COMBUSTION 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

FARMING OPERATIONS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

PAVED ROAD DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DUST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FIRES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

COOKING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 

PROCESSES 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0

** TOTAL AREA-WIDE SOURCES 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0

MOBILE SOURCES 

ON-ROAD MOTOR VEHICLES 

LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 1 (LDT1) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS - 2 (LDT2) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS (MDV) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 1

(LHDV1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS - 2

(LHDV2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(MHDV) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

(HHDV) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 1 (LHDV1) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 42 

SOx (tpd) 

ANNUAL WINTER SUMMARY CATEGORY NAME

2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 

LIGHT HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS

- 2 (LHDV2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (MHDV) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0

HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL 

TRUCKS (HHDV) 1.5 1.8 0.2 0.3 1.5 1.7 0.2 0.3

MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES 

(UB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SCHOOL BUSES (SB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OTHER BUSES (OB) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

MOTOR HOMES (MH) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL ON-ROAD MOTOR 

VEHICLES 2.2 2.6 0.7 0.9 2.2 2.5 0.7 0.9

OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 

AIRCRAFT 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5

TRAINS 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.0

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8

RECREATIONAL BOATS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL 

VEHICLES 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.1

FARM EQUIPMENT 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0

FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* TOTAL OTHER MOBILE SOURCES 2.9 2.4 1.1 1.5 2.8 2.3 1.1 1.5

** TOTAL MOBILE SOURCES 5.1 5.0 1.8 2.4 5.0 4.9 1.8 2.4

 

GRAND TOTAL FOR SAN 

JOAQUIN VALLEY 36.1 27.6 25.6 28.9 34.4 26.7 24.7 28.1
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 43 

Appendix B. Summary of District Measures from the 

Amended 2003 PM10 Plan

Since forming in 1992, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) has 

adopted about 500 rules and rule amendments. The District was the nation’s first to 

adopt a progressive Indirect Source Review (ISR) program, which reduces emissions 

from new indirect sources Valley-wide, such as commercial, industrial, and residential 

developments. The District was the first in the state to regulate emissions from on-field 

agricultural operations, through the Conservation Management Practices (CMP) rule. 

The District was also the first major air district in the state to regulate the use of 

residential fireplaces. The Senate Bill (SB) 656 Report, prepared and adopted to meet 

state law requirements in 2006, evaluated all of the District’s particulate matter and 

precursor control measures as compared to a list of potential measures developed by 

ARB based on measures state-wide. This report confirmed that the District’s PM10 and 

precursor strategy control measures are benchmarks for other air districts in California. 

The PM10 and precursor control measures adopted and amended by the District are 

summarized below. 

The Amended 2003 PM10 Plan included an analysis of Best Available Control 

Measures (BACM) and Best Available Control Technologies (BACT). All of the control 

measure commitments in the Amended 2003 PM10 Plan have been adopted. The 

District requires most new and modified stationary sources that increase emissions in 

amounts in excess of emission offset thresholds to obtain emission reduction credits 

(ERCs) to offset the growth in emissions, as specified in District Rule 2201 (New and 

Modified Stationary Source Review Rule). The District expects to continue operating 

this program as has been outlined in previous air quality plans. 

The District also operates a successful emissions reductions incentive program and 

conducts a comprehensive public outreach program. The effectiveness of the District’s 

groundbreaking control strategy and programs is validated by improvements in the 

Valley’s air quality. Due to the importance of PM10 maintenance and the challenges 

presented by 8-hour ozone and PM2.5, the District will not relax any adopted control 

measures. In fact, control measure commitments in the District’s ozone plans (such as 

the 2007 Ozone Plan) include measures to reduce NOx; these measures will also 

reduce secondary PM10 levels. 

Since PM2.5 is a subset within PM10, strategies to reduce PM2.5 will also reduce 

PM10. As such, new control strategies developed for 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 plans 

are expected to continually benefit PM10 air quality as well. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation 44 

Amended 2003 PM10 Plan Commitments

Rule # Rule Title 

PM 10 

Plan 

ID 

Adoption 

Amendment 

Date 

SIP 

Submittal 

Date 

EPA 

Action 

4204 Cotton Gins B 2/17/2005 3/24/2005 Approved 74307 Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters 2.0 to 5.0 mmBTU 

H 

4/20/2006 4/25/2006 Approved 7

4308 Boilers, Steam Generators, and 

Process Heaters 0.075 to 2.0 mmBtu 

I 

10/20/2005 11/14/2005 Approved 7

4550 Conservation Management 

Practices 

A 8/19/2004 8/25/2004 Approved Volum

4692 Wineries J 12/15/2005 12/28/2005 Unde4401 Steam Enhanced Crude Oil 

Production Well Vents 

K 12/14/2006 1/10/2007 Unde

4309 Dryers, Dehydrators, and Ovens C 12/15/2005 12/30/2005 Approved 74352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam 

Generators, and Process Heaters 

G 5/18/2006 6/12/2006 Approved 7

4354 Glass Melting Furnaces E 8/17/2006 8/28/2006 Approved 74702 Internal Combustion Engines 

Phase 2 

M 6/16/2005 7/6/2005 Unde

4905 Natural Gas Fired, Fan-type, 

Residential Central Furnaces 

L 

10/20/2005 11/10/2005 Approved 7

Reg VIII

8011 

8021 8031 8041 

General Requirements 

Construction, Demo, Excavation Bulk Materials Carryout and Trackout 

D 

8/19/2004

8/19/20048/19/20048/19/2004

9/8/2004 Approved

ApprovedApprovedApproved

Volum

VolumVolumVolum
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation 45 8051 8061 8071 8081 

Open Areas Paved and Unpaved Roads Unpaved Vehicle/Equip Traffic Areas Agricultural Sources 

D 8/19/2004

8/19/20049/16/20049/16/2004

9/16/2006

ApprovedApprovedApprovedApproved

VolumVolumVolumVolum

9510 Indirect Source Review F 12/15/2005 7/6/2006 Unde

Rules Developed During the Development of the PM10 Plan 

Rule # Title Pollutant Adoption Date SIP Submittal Date EPA Action 

4103 Open Burning 

Phase I Phase II Phase II 

VOC, 

NOx 

9/16/2004 5/19/2005 5/17/2007 

9/24/2004 6/9/20055/29/2007

Approved 

4305 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 

Heaters NOx 8/21/2003 9/23/2003 Approved 

4409 4451 & 4452 

Components Serving Light Crude Oil or Gases at Production Facilities 

Components at Petroleum Refineries VOC 4/20/2005 4/28/2005 Approved 

4570 Confined Animal Feeding Operations VOC 6/15/2006 6/30/2006 U4604 Can and Coil Coating Operations VOC 1/15/2004 1/29/2004 Approved 9310 School Bus Fleets NOx 9/21/2006 10/19/2006 U
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation 46 

This page intentionally blank. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 47 

Appendix C. Analysis of Meteorology Affecting PM10 

Levels 

C.1 Introduction 

Meteorology can have a significant influence on PM10 concentrations. District staff has 

conducted a detailed analysis of meteorological parameters that can influence PM10 by 

reviewing data from six stations in the center of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. 

Based on this analysis, the District believes that the recent attainment of the PM10 

standard cannot be attributed to “unusually favorable” meteorological conditions. EPA 

guidance for redesignating areas as attainment (Calcagni 1992) requires documentation 

that air quality improvements leading to attainment were not due economic downturns, 

shutdowns, or unusually favorable meteorological conditions. See Section 8 for more 

discussion. This appendix presents a summary of wind speed, precipitation, 

temperature, and atmospheric stability analyses that support the finding that improving 

PM10 air quality in the Valley in recent years was not caused by “unusually favorable” 

meteorological conditions. 

• Wind Speed: High winds can entrain soil and cause blowing dust events, leading 

to high PM10 concentrations. Stagnant conditions can lead to a buildup of 

emissions near the emission source area, producing a gradual increase in 

pollutant concentrations. The longer the stagnant period lasts, the higher the 

particulate concentrations can rise. An increase in winds causes an end to the 

stagnant conditions and can transport the polluted air mass down wind, resulting 

in a lowering of particulate concentrations in the emission source area. 

• Precipitation: Moisture content of soils is a very significant factor in a blowing 

dust event, which can produce high concentrations of PM10. A significant 

precipitation event can wet the soils and inhibit dust entrainment in strong winds. 

Soils that have lower than normal moisture content during the driest time of the 

year would be more easily entrained by strong winds. Precipitation varies 

considerably in the District. Some parts of the west side of the valley report only 

a few inches annual precipitation. Some parts of the Sierra Nevada report over a 

100 inches annual precipitation. The west side of the valley has the lowest 

annual precipitation in the San Joaquin Valley, and the undisturbed soils, on the 

average, are drier than other parts of the valley. The 'west side of the valley' is 

well known as a source location of blowing dust events. 

• Temperature: High temperatures can dry soils, which make them more easily 

entrained during periods of high winds. The valley, which is famously hot in the 

summer, experiences an average of 36 days over 100°F. 

• Stability: In an unstable atmosphere, pollution emitted at the surface is easily 

dispersed, which results in good surface air quality. In a stable atmosphere, a 

temperature inversion may be present that acts like a lid on the atmosphere. The 

inversion helps keep the emissions near the surface, which causes a gradual 

buildup of air pollution. Measurements of the strength of the temperature 

inversion help characterize the potential for air pollution events. This type of 

analysis has been used to understand PM10 levels in the SJ Valley (Smith and 

Lehrman 1996) and to forecast PM10 levels in central California (Shipp 1995). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 48 

C.2 Long Term Weather Trends 

To answer the question, “Did unusually favorable meteorological conditions cause low 

PM10 pollution concentrations during 2003 through 2006,” District staff analyzed 

several key meteorological parameters to attempt to discern a pattern of unusually 

favorable meteorological conditions. This section presents a summary of historical 

weather trends in the San Joaquin Valley. It is a sampling of a larger number of long 

term meteorological analyses conducted by the District, which are available upon 

request. Summarizing from the analyses: 

• In Fresno, precipitation totals increased over the period from 1878 to 2006. The 

2003-2006 period received 12% more rainfall than the long-term average. 

• March, May, July and August 2003 to 2005 Hanford temperatures were 

consistently warmer than the 1900 to 2005 average. 

• Very little inter-annual variation was observed in Parlier average annual wind 

speed for 2003 to 2006. 

Precipitation

Figure C-1 presents Fresno, CA annual precipitation data for 1878 to 2006 obtained 

from the National Weather Service website (weather.gov). The best-fit linear trend line 

indicates that the annual precipitation at Fresno has been increasing since 1878. The 

average precipitation for the period 1878 to 2006 was 10.13 inches. The average 

precipitation for the period 2003 to 2006 was 11.34 inches. Annual precipitation totals 

for 2003 to 2006 are presented in Table C-1. 

Figure C-1. Fresno, CA annual precipitation for 1878 to 2006. 

Fresno, CA - Annual Precipitation

0

5

10

15

20

25

1878

1882

1886

1890

1894

1898

1902

1906

1910

1914

1918

1922

1926

1930

1934

1938

1942

1946

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

Year

Precipitation (Inches)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 49 

Table C-1. Fresno, CA precipitation in inches. 

Year Average for 1878 to 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Precipitation (inches) 10.13 9.11 10.63 11.68 13.94

The 2003-2006 period had two wet years and two dry years, considering the 128 year 

precipitation record. The 2003-2004 “water year” (July 1 through June 30) was dry 

(98th wettest year on record) as was the 2006-2007 water year (122nd wettest year on 

record). The 2004–2005 and 2005-2006 water years were wet, 12th and 17th wettest on 

record, respectively. 

Temperature

Figure C-2 and C-3 are plots of Hanford, CA January and July averaged temperature 

data for 1899 to 2006. Similar plots were generated for all months and are available 

upon request. The Hanford, CA monthly temperature trends are listed in Table C-2. 

March, May, July and August 2003 to 2005 temperatures were consistently warmer than 

the 1900 to 2005 average. 

Table C-2. Hanford, CA temperature data for the period 1900 to 2006 (degrees C). 

NA-Not Available 

Month 

Temperature 

Trend 

1900 to 2005 

Average 

Monthly 

Temp. 

1900 to 

2005 

Average 

Monthly 

Temp. 

2003 

Average 

Monthly 

Temp. 

2004 

Average 

Monthly 

Temp. 

2005 

Average 

Monthly 

Temp. 

2006 

January Decrease 7.3 9.4 7.3 7.7 7.7 

February Slight 

decrease 

10.2 10.2 9.5 11.6 9.9 

March Increase 12.7 14.2 16.4 13.6 9.4 

April Increase 16.0 14.6 17.8 14.6 NA 

May Increase 19.9 20.4 20.8 20.3 NA 

June Slight 

decrease 

23.8 25.2 24.4 22.2 NA 

July Slight 

decrease 

26.7 28.9 27.1 28.6 NA 

August Slight increase 25.7 26.6 26.1 27.1 NA 

September Increase 22.7 25.3 23.1 21.4 NA 

October Increase 17.6 20.3 17.1 17.2 NA 

November Slight 

decrease 

11.4 10.3 10.0 12.3 NA 

December Decrease 7.4 9 6.5 9.1 NA 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 50 

Figure C-2. Hanford, CA Mean January temperatures for 1899 to 2006. 

Hanford, CA Mean January Temperature 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1899

1903

1907

1911

1915

1919

1923

1927

1931

1935

1939

1943

1947

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

Year

Temperature (Deg C)

Figure C-3. Hanford, CA Mean July temperatures for 1899 to 2005. 

Hanford, CA Mean July Temperature 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1899

1903

1907

1911

1915

1919

1923

1927

1931

1935

1939

1943

1947

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

Year

Temperature (Deg C)
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 51 

Wind Speed

Parlier, CA wind data was chosen for examination because the record was complete for 

1984 to 2006. As shown in Table C-3, inter-annual variation in wind speed was very 

small. 

Table C-3. Parlier, CA average wind speed for the period 1984 to 2006 (mph). 

Atmospheric Stability

The 850 MB stability parameter is calculated by taking the 12 Z (4:00 Pacific Local 

Time) 850 MB temperature at Oakland and subtracting the minimum temperature at 

Fresno (T850 MB (Oakland) – TMIN (Fresno)). The 850 MB level is approximately 

5,000 feet in the atmosphere. This parameter was utilized due to its strong correlation 

with PM10 pollution measurements, with an R squared of 0.8061. (Figure C-4) 

Figure C-4: Correlation of the 850 MB Stability Parameter to PM10 Concentrations 

(1990 to 2006). 

Average PM10 versus Average T850 mb Stability Parameter 

from 1990 to 2006 by year

y = 12.574x + 39.176

R2

 = 0.8061

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5

Average T850 MB Stability Parameter

Average PM10 (μg/m3)

Figure C-4 shows that higher PM10 concentrations generally correspond to greater 

atmospheric stability. When the 850 MB stability parameter is positive (to the right of 

the y-axis), an inversion is present trapping pollutants within the boundary layer. When 

the 850 MB stability parameter is negative, atmospheric mixing is adequate allowing for 

pollutants to disperse. This relationship is one indicator on how the meteorology 

influences the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Average Wind Speed 

1984 to 2006 

Average 

Wind 

Speed 2003

Average 

Wind 

Speed 2004

Average 

Wind 

Speed 

2005 

Average 

Wind 

Speed 

2006 

3.72 3.63 3.75 3.73 3.65 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 52 

Figure C-5: Relationship between Stability Parameter and PM2.5 at Fresno 

Figure C-5 is a scatter plot of the 850 MB Stability Parameter versus PM2.5 

measurement at Fresno-1st. The plot shows that in 1999 through 2001, high stability 

days resulted in high PM2.5 measurements. High stability days are defined as when 

the 850 MB stability parameter is greater than 0. Since 2003, high stability days have 

not caused high PM2.5 measurements. 

This illustrates that emission reductions may have played a role. On days when stability 

has been high (2003 through 2006), PM2.5 levels have not reached the same levels 

they would have in the past (1999 through 2001). 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 53 

Figure C-6: October 01 through January 31 Average 850 MB Temperature 

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

Average T850 Stability Parameter (degrees C)

1977-19781978-19791979-19801980-19811981-19821982-19831983-19841984-19851985-19861986-19871987-19881988-19891989-19901990-19911991-19921992-19931993-19941994-19951995-19961996-19971997-19981998-19991999-20002000-20012001-20022002-20032003-20042004-20052005-20062006-2007*

Average T850 Stability

Figure C-6 illustrates the average 850 MB temperature stability parameter from October 

1 through January 31 by year since 1977. Figure C-5 indicates that stability parameters 

varied more year-to-year during the earlier years of the period than during the more 

recent years. The average of the stability parameters from 1977 through early 2006 is 

1.7°C whereas the average for 2003 through early 2006 is 0.6°C. This indicates that 

during the more recent period, the stability parameter was somewhat low, showing a 

potential for better dispersion conditions. 

C.3 SUMMARY 

As shown above, analysis of the key meteorological parameters does not show a 

conclusive pattern that “unusually favorable” meteorology was the cause of low ambient 

PM10 levels that led to the Valley’s attainment of the PM10 standard. 

• Interannual variation in Parlier's wind speed was very low, so this parameter 

does not appear to have effected PM10 concentrations. 

• Fresno's average precipitation for the period 1878 to 2006 was 10.13 inches. The 

average precipitation for the period 2003 to 2006 was 11.34 inches. Soils that 

have lower than normal moisture content during the driest time of the year would 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 54 

be more easily entrained by strong winds. Since the 2003 to 2006 was wetter 

than normal, this indicator could have the effect of decreasing the potential for 

blowing dust events that can lead to high PM10 levels. 

• March, May, July and August 2003 to 2005 temperatures at Hanford, CA were 

consistently warmer than the 1900 to 2005 average, which may lead to greater 

drying of the soils. This indicator could have the effect of increasing the potential 

for blowing dust events that can lead to high PM10 levels. 

• The average of the stability parameters from 1977 through early 2006 is 1.7°C. 

The average for 2003 through early 2006 is 0.6°C, indicating a potential for better 

dispersion conditions during 2003 to 2006. 

For meteorological parameters to show a conclusive pattern of “unusually favorable” 

meteorology, the indicators would need to show a very consistent pattern of indicators 

that would support lower PM10 concentrations. The indicators reviewed by the District 

do not show a consistent pattern of favorable meteorology that is statistically significant. 

C.4 References 

Calcagni, John (1992), Memorandum, Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to 

Attainment, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 4, 1992. 

California Department of Water Resources, California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS), 

http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Weather data, http://www.weather.gov 

Shipp, Evan M., “Meteorological Characteristics and Forecasting of High PM10 Days Applicable to 

Declaring “Ban” and “Burn” Days for Residential Wood Combustion in Northern San Luis Obispo County,” 

Prepared by Shipp Air Quality Consulting for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 

August 21, 1995. 

Smith, T.B. and D.E. Lehrman, “SARMAP II Design, Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley Meteorological 

Environment During High PM10 Loading,” Final Report, Prepared by Technical and Business Systems, 

Inc., June 21, 1996. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation 55 Appendix D. Detailed Conformity Calculations 

San Joaquin Valley MVEB Estimates 

(tons per annual day) 

ARB calculated with updated transportation data 

* Budget is established by rounding emissions total to the next highest tenth. 

2005 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

County Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin Sta

 PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 Baseline EMFAC2007 3.10 70.72 4.76 106.87 0.89 20.13 0.75 16.50 2.26 47.25 2.23 50.56 1.4HDI, PFR, Moyer, AB1493, Reflash 0.01 2.40 0.02 4.71 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.52 0.01 1.74 0.01 1.47 0.0Paved Road Dust: 9.38 7.30 1.78 2.23 2.74 6.44 3.8Freeway Arterial Collector Local Rural Unpaved Road Dust 0.65 0.42 0.45 0.55 1.38 0.12 0.2Road Construction Dust 0.73 0.20 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.51 0.1Total 13.87 68.32 12.70 102.16 3.19 19.22 3.64 15.98 6.50 45.51 9.31 49.09 5.7Budget* 13.9 68.4 12.8 102.2 3.2 19.3 3.7 16.0 6.6 45.6 9.4 49.1 5
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation 56 

2020 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

County Fresno Kern Kings Madera Merced San Joaquin S

 PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PM10 NOx PMBaseline EMFAC2007 1.92 25.85 2.69 44.92 0.45 7.79 0.54 7.26 1.06 15.72 1.47 18.31 ARB Reflash, Idling, Moyer 0.02 2.73 0.02 5.45 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.78 0.01 1.92 0.02 1.71 Paved Road Dust: 12.59 10.70 2.46 3.43 3.95 8.40 Freeway Arterial Collector Local Rural Unpaved Road Dust 0.60 0.34 0.42 0.51 1.27 0.11 Road Construction Dust 0.87 0.89 0.19 0.12 0.16 0.55 Total 16.00 23.12 14.64 39.47 3.52 6.72 4.60 6.48 6.45 13.80 10.55 16.60 Budget* 16.1 23.2 14.7 39.5 3.6 6.8 4.7 6.5 6.5 13.9 10.6 16.7 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 57 

Appendix E. SOx Emission Reduction Credits 

The District’s 2006 PM10 Plan demonstrates that the stationary source inventory for 

SOx in the San Joaquin Valley has been reduced to a level that makes further control 

measures ineffectual and unnecessary with respect to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS. 

The 2006 plan demonstrated attainment, and this maintenance plan demonstrates 

continued attainment through 2020, without additional SOx controls proposed for 

stationary sources. 

However, the District’s New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule, Rule 2201, 

allows the use of SOx emissions reductions for the purposes of offsetting (mitigating) 

permitted PM10 emissions increases. While this so-called “SOx-for-PM10 interpollutant 

trading” creates no inherent conflict with our PM10 attainment plans, the federal 

Environmental Protection Agency has asked that we provide a description and 

quantification of the maximum potential impact of this type of ERC-use on our efforts to 

maintain the PM10 NAAQS through 2020. 

Of concern is the potential impact on our attainment status if the SOx reductions are 

used as offsets for PM10 emissions increases from stationary sources, as allowed by 

Rule 2201. This analysis will conservatively assume that SOx emission reduction 

credits used as offsets will provide no true mitigation of PM10 increases. In fact, the 

most conservative approach is to assume that all forecast SOx and PM10 increases are 

“offset” using SOx emissions reductions, but not take any credit in the plan for mitigating 

the increases (i.e., we will not count the use of these reductions as decreases in the 

growth in emissions), and to cap the allowed use of SOx emission reduction credits at 

that level. Since we have demonstrated with this plan that this amount of emissions 

growth does not interfere with the maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS, and this analysis 

will cap the allowed use of SOx reductions within this growth, there can be no impact on 

maintenance of the standard. 

In this analysis, we will also conservatively assume a trading ratio of 1-to-1 (one pound 

of SOx reduction allowing one pound of PM10 or SOx increase). Appropriate SOx-toPM10 ratios in recent trades have been demonstrated to range from 1-to-1 to 1.9-to-1, 

so assuming 1-to-1 for our calculation purposes will have the consequence of 

maximizing the possible use of SOx credits to offset PM10 increases. To assure the 

conservative nature of this assumption, we will commit to requiring a SOx-for-PM10 

trading ratio of at least 1-to-1 for such trades in the future.11 

As one further conservative assumption, we will not consider distance ratios when 

calculating the amount of SOx credits being consumed. Distance ratios from 1.2-to-1 or 

1.5-to-1 are generally required for NSR offsetting with offsite reductions in the San 

Joaquin Valley, but for the purposes of this demonstration, it is more conservative to 

assume that all reductions are supplied at a 1-to-1 ratio. 

 

11 Proposed interpollutant trading ratios will still be required to be scientifically justified with an air quality analysis, as 

required by Rule 2201, Section 4.13.3, but the minimum ratio allowed will be 1-to-1, regardless of any future 

proposed air quality analysis showing that a lower than 1-to-1 ratio would be sufficient. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 58 

From CARB’s PM SIP Planning Inventory (v1.00_RF994), growth in PM-10 and SOx 

emissions is forecast as follows: 

Inventory Year 2005 2010 2015 2020 

 SOx Emissions (tpd) 21.5 22.6 24.1 25.4 

 Forecast growth in SOx - 1.1 2.6 3.9 

 PM10 Emissions (tpd) 23.5 24.8 26.1 27.7 

 Forecast growth in PM10 - 1.3 2.6 4.2 

Total Growth (SOx+PM10, tpd) - 2.4 5.2 8.1 

This total growth in SOx and PM10 emissions then becomes a cap on the amount of 

SOx offsets allowed to be used in our NSR offsetting program. In other words, during 

the life of the plan, through 2020, no more than 8.1 tons per day of SOx offsets will be 

allowed to be used.12 

As an interim check of the proposed cap, we have reviewed the quantity of SOx offsets 

withdrawn under NSR permitting requirements during the period January 2005 through 

June 2007, a period of 2.5 years. A total of 0.32 tons per day of SOx credits have been 

committed or withdrawn for Authority to Construct permits issued during this period. 

Since this period is 50% of the 2005-2010 period shown above, we compare the total 

SOx credits used to 50% of that period’s anticipated SOx ERC-use, or 1.2 tons per day 

(0.5 x projected growth of 2.4 tpd). This comparison demonstrates that the SOx ERC 

use-to-date, 0.32 tpd, is well short of the prorated anticipated ERC-use of 1.2 tpd. 

So, because we have capped the use of SOx emissions reduction credits at levels 

within the growth in emissions of SOx or PM10 that are forecast in this maintenance 

plan, without taking credit for any mitigation due to the use of these credits, and this 

maintenance plan forecasts attainment at these growth rates, we have assured that the 

use of SOx credits can not interfere with our ability to maintain attainment with the 

PM10 NAAQS.13

 

12 This new cap replaces the now-obsolete SOx ERC-use cap of the 2006 plan. 13 Note that setting SOx ERC-use cap at the level of SOx and PM-10 emissions growth is a matter of convenience – 

we are not suggesting that the use of ERCs has any impact on ARB’s projections of growth in emissions during the 

period of this plan. Rather, ARB has projected a certain level of emissions growth, which we have then used in our 

maintenance demonstration, and then we have shown that using ERCs has no impact on our ability to maintain 

compliance with the NAAQS because we have taken no plan-level credit for mitigations supplied by those ERCs. 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District September 20, 2007 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation 59 

Appendix F. Modeling Analysis 

Episodic and annual modeling analysis for 2020 is shown on the following pages. 

Modeling analysis for 2005 is not included, but it is available on request. 

The following tables show adjustments made to ARB’s PM2.5SIP inventory, Ref#994 to 

account for changes not reflected in the emission inventory. 

Table F-1 ARB Adjustments to Winter Emission Inventory Baseline 

Description NOx PM10 ROG SOx 

2005 2010 2020 2005 2010 2020 2005 2010 2020 2005 2010 2020

Reflash -11.18 -9.96 -1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Public Fleet 0.00 -0.05 -0.02 0.00 -0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Idling -2.02 -10.73 -13.99 -0.05 -0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

AB 1493 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Moyer -1.09 -0.90 0.00 -0.06 -0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Off-road -0.15 -2.24 -1.35 -0.01 -0.18 -0.17 0.00 -0.07 -0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Ships 0.00 -0.03 -0.06 0.00 -0.04 -0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.34 -0.63 

Consumer 

Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1.03 -1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Table F-2 ARB Adjustments to Annual Emission Inventory Baseline 

Description NOx PM10 ROG SOx 

2005 2010 2020 2005 2010 2020 2005 2010 2020 2005 2010 2020

Reflash -11.18 -9.96 -1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Public Fleet 0.00 -0.05 -0.02 0.00 -0.05 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Idling -2.02 -10.73 -13.99 -0.05 -0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

AB 1493 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.07 0.00 0.00 -0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Moyer -1.09 -0.90 0.00 -0.06 -0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Off-road -0.15 -2.24 -1.35 -0.01 -0.14 -0.16 0.00 -0.07 -0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Ships 0.00 -0.03 -0.06 0.00 -0.04 -0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.34 -0.63 

Consumer 

Products 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00