Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 signed the following notice of proposed rulemaking

on May 9, 2016, and EPA is submitting it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this Internet version of this proposed rule, it is not the official version. Please refer to the 

official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on the Government Printing Office's FDsys

website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711.

Billing Code: 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711; FRL - ]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; 

Revisions to Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for Ozone and Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve and 

conditionally approve revisions to the State of California’s State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

the San Joaquin Valley (SJV) area. The revisions consist of an update to the Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (“budgets”) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs) for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or “standard”)

for the SJV ozone nonattainment area; for NOx and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standard for the SJV PM2.5 nonattainment area; and for NOx and course particulate 

matter (PM10) for the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard for the SJV PM10 maintenance area. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the SJV ozone and PM2.5 revised budgets and conditionally approve the 

PM10 budgets in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) and the 

EPA’s regulations.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE 

OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0711

at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

2

submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish 

any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file 

sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 

comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket and documents in the docket for this action are generally 

available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karina O’Connor, Air Planning Office 

(AIR-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (775) 434-8176, 

oconnor.karina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or 

“our” is used, we mean the EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows:
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

3

Table of Contents

I. What Action is the EPA Proposing?

II. Background

A. Standards Applicable to Today’s Action

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

C. What is the EMFAC Model?

D. What Versions of EMFAC are Currently in Use in California?

E. What Changes does EMFAC2014 Reflect?

F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014

III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

IV. What are the Criteria for Approval of Revised Budgets?

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittal

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10 Standard

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is the EPA Proposing?

The EPA is proposing action on a SIP revision submitted by the State of California 

(“State”) on November 13, 2015. The SIP submittal revises budgets applicable to control 

strategy or maintenance plans for the SJV for three different NAAQS. We are proposing to 

approve revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

4

standard. We are also proposing to conditionally approve revised budgets for the 1987 24-hour 

PM10 standard. Should the EPA later finalize the revised budgets as proposed herein, they will 

replace the SJV’s existing budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, and the 1987 24-hour PM10 standard. At that time, the previously-approved or adequate 

budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes, and the revised 

budgets would need to be used as of the effective date of the final approval. 

II. Background

A. Standards Applicable to Today’s Action

In 1997, the EPA revised the ozone standard to set the acceptable level of ozone in the 

ambient air at 0.08 parts per million, averaged over an 8-hour period. 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 

1997).1 On April 15, 2004, the EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard and classified the area as “Serious” under CAA section 181(a)(1) and 40 CFR 

51.903(a), Table 1. See 69 FR 23858 at 23888-89 (April 30, 2004) and 40 CFR 81.305. In 2007, 

California requested that the EPA reclassify the SJV from “Serious” to “Extreme” nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(3). We granted California's 

request on May 5, 2010 and reclassified the SJV to Extreme for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

effective June 4, 2010. See 75 FR 24409.

In 2006, the EPA revised the PM2.5 24-hour standard to provide increased protection of 

public health by lowering its level from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3 (40 

CFR 50.13). On November 13, 2009, the EPA designated the SJV as nonattainment for the 2006 

 1 In 2008, the EPA revised and further strengthened the 8-hour ozone standard by setting the acceptable level of

ozone in the ambient air at 0.075 ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period (“2008 8-hour ozone standard”). 73 FR 

16436 (March 27, 2008). In 2015, the EPA further tightened the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.070 ppm. 80 FR 65292 

(October 26, 2015).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

5

24-hour PM2.5 standard. 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009). This designation became effective 

on December 14, 2009 (40 CFR 81.305).2

In 1987, the EPA revised the particulate matter standard, replacing standards for total 

suspended particulates with new standards applying only to PM10. 52 FR 24633 (July 1, 1987). 

In 1990, the SJV was designated nonattainment for PM10. 56 FR 11101 (March 15, 1991). In 

2006, the 24-hour PM10 standard was retained, but the annual standard was revoked effective 

December 18, 2006. 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006).3 In 2008, the EPA approved a PM10

maintenance plan and redesignated the SJV to attainment for the 24-hour PM10 standard. 73 FR 

66759 (November 12, 2008).

For all three pollutants, the SJV nonattainment area includes all of seven counties, 

including Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties, and the 

western half of Kern County. See the NAAQS-specific tables in 40 CFR 81.305.

B. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, control strategy SIP 

revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given NAAQS. 

These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., reasonable further progress (RFP) and 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions) and maintenance plans include motor vehicle emissions 

budgets of on-road mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to 

address pollution from cars and trucks. SIP budgets are the portions of the total allowable 

emissions that are allocated to on-road vehicle use that, together with emissions from other 

sources in the area, will provide for RFP, attainment or maintenance. The budget serves as a 

ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. For more information about 

 2 The SJV area is also designated nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards. 3 In 2013, the EPA again retained the 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 ug/m3

. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

6

budgets, see the preamble to the November 24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 

62188).

Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, Transportation Improvement 

Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects must “conform” to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP 

before they can be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation 

activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing air quality violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS or delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity 

regulations can be found at 40 CFR Part 93. 

Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, the EPA must affirmatively 

find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets do not supersede approved budgets for 

the same CAA purpose. If the submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same 

purpose, the EPA must approve the budgets, and can affirm that they are adequate at the same 

time. Once the EPA approves the submitted budgets, they must be used by state and federal 

agencies in determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP as required by 

section 176(c) of the CAA. The EPA's substantive criteria for determining the adequacy of 

budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

C. What is the EMFAC model?

The EMFAC model (short for EMission FACtor) is a computer model developed by the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB updates EMFAC on a regular basis and releases 

new versions generally every three or four years. The current version can estimate emission rates 

for on-road mobile sources (“motor vehicles”) operating in California for calendar years from 

2000 to 2050. Pollutant emissions for VOCs,4 carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, PM10, PM2.5, lead,

 4 California plans sometimes use the term Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) for VOC. These terms are essentially 

synonymous. For simplicity, we use the term VOC herein to mean either VOC or ROG.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

7

carbon dioxide (CO2), and sulfur oxides are outputs generated by the model. Emissions are 

calculated for fifty-one different vehicle classes composed of passenger cars, various types of 

trucks and buses, motorcycles, and motor homes. 

EMFAC is used to calculate current and future inventories of motor vehicle emissions at 

the state, air district, air basin, or county level. EMFAC contains default vehicle activity data, 

and the option of modifying that data, so it can be used to estimate a motor vehicle emissions 

inventory in tons/day for a specific year, month, or season, and as a function of ambient 

temperature, relative humidity, vehicle population, mileage accrual, miles of travel and speeds. 

Thus the model can be used to make decisions about air pollution policies and programs at the 

local or state level. Inventories based on EMFAC are also used to meet the federal CAA's SIP 

and transportation conformity requirements.

D. What Versions of EMFAC are Currently in Use in California?

Most budgets in the California SIP were developed using EMFAC2007 (released by 

CARB in October 2007) or EMFAC2011 (released by CARB in September 2011). The EPA 

approved EMFAC2007 at 73 FR 3464 (January 18, 2008) and EMFAC2011 at 78 FR 14533

(March 16, 2013) for all areas in California. 

EMFAC2011 was considered a major update to previous versions of EMFAC and most 

budgets in the California SIP were updated with EMFAC2011 in the 2012-2014 timeframe. 

EMFAC2011 included a new model structure, new data and methodologies regarding calculation 

of motor vehicle emissions, and revisions to implementation data for control measures.

E. What Changes does EMFAC2014 Reflect?

The EPA approved EMFAC2014 for use in SIP revisions and transportation conformity

at 80 FR 77337 (December 14, 2015). EMFAC2014 includes significant changes to its model 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

8

interface, new data and methodologies regarding calculation of motor vehicle emissions and 

revisions to implementation data for control measures. EMFAC2014 includes updated data on 

car and truck activity, and emissions reductions associated with CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars 

regulations.5 Motor vehicle fleet age, vehicle types and vehicle population have also been 

updated based on 2000-2012 California Department of Motor Vehicle data. EMFAC2014 

incorporates new temperature and humidity profiles. Each of these changes impact emission 

factors for each area in California. In addition to changes to truck activity, EMFAC incorporates 

updated vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for all vehicle classes. The new model interface for 

EMFAC2014 allows users to update the default VMT data and speed profiles by vehicle class for 

different future scenarios. CARB’s web site describes these and other model changes at:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm#onroad_motor_vehicles

F. Existing Adequate or Approved Budgets

The EPA previously approved the SJV budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and 

the 24-hour PM10 standard. The ozone budgets were included in the EPA’s approval of the SJV 

2007 8-hour Ozone Plan (“2007 Ozone Plan”) at 77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012), which 

established NOx and VOC budgets for 2011, 2014, 2017, 2020, and 2023.

6 The PM10 budgets

were included in the EPA’s approval of the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for 

Redesignation (“2007 PM10 Plan”) at 73 FR 66759 (November 12, 2008), which established 

direct PM10 and NOx budgets for 2005 and 2020.7

 5 For further information, see the EPA’s January 9, 2013 waiver of preemption for the Advanced Clean Cars 

regulations at 78 FR 2112. 6 The approved 2007 Ozone Plan includes the SJV 2007 Ozone Plan (as revised 2008 and 2011) and SJV-related 

portions of CARB’s 2007 State Strategy (revised 2009 and 2011). 7 The approved SIP includes the 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation, September 20, 2007, 

and technical corrections by CARB to the 2020 budgets for Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare counties in 

the 2007 PM10 Plan. See May 13, 2008 letter to Mr. Wayne Nastri from James N. Goldstene.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

9

The EPA previously proposed to approve the SJV budgets for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard. The PM2.5 budgets were included in the EPA’s proposed approval of the SJV 2012 

PM2.5 Plan (“2012 PM2.5 Plan”) at 80 FR 1816 (January 13, 2015). The EPA found the 2017 

PM2.5 budgets in the SJV 2012 PM2.5 Plan to be adequate at 81 FR 22194 (April 15, 2016), 

establishing direct PM2.5 and NOx budgets for 2017. As of May 2, 2016, these budgets must be 

used to determine conformity of transportation plans and TIPs to the control strategy plan for the 

SJV for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.8

The current EPA-approved budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and PM10

standard were developed using EMFAC2007, and the adequate budgets for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard were developed using EMFAC2011. In the SJV, the eight county-level

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 

are the relevant transportation agencies that must use approved or adequate budgets in 

determining the conformity of transportation plans and TIPs within the SJV region. 

G. Submission of Revised Budgets Based on EMFAC2014

The revised budgets for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 24-hour PM10

standards were adopted by the CARB on October 22, 2015.

9 They were submitted to the EPA on 

November 13, 2015.

10

III. CAA Procedural and Administrative Requirements for SIP Submittals

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 110(l) require a state to provide reasonable public 

notice and opportunity for public hearing prior to the adoption and submittal of a SIP or SIP 

 8 Also see letter, Elizabeth J. Adams, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive 

Officer, CARB, April 1, 2016 with enclosures. 9 CARB Resolution No. 15-50, October 22, 2015. 10 Letter, Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

9, November 13, 2015 with enclosures.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

10

revision. To meet this requirement, every SIP submittal should include evidence that adequate 

public notice was given and an opportunity for a public hearing was provided consistent with the 

EPA’s implementing regulations in 40 CFR 51.102.

CARB satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements for reasonable public 

notice and hearing prior to adoption and submittal of the revised budgets. In the documentation 

included as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal, CARB provided evidence of 

the required public notice and opportunity for public comment prior to its October 22, 2015

public hearing and adoption of the revised budgets. We find, therefore, that the submittal of the 

revised budgets meets the procedural requirements for public notice and hearing in CAA sections 

110(a) and 110(l).

CAA section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to determine whether a SIP submittal is 

complete within 60 days of receipt. This section also provides that any plan submittal that the 

EPA has not affirmatively determined to be complete or incomplete will be deemed complete by 

operation of law six months after the date of submittal. The EPA’s SIP completeness criteria are 

found in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V. The EPA determined that CARB’s November 13, 2015

SIP revision submittal was complete on April 21, 2016.

11

IV. What are the Criteria for Approval of Revised Budgets?

Under section 110(l) of the CAA, SIP revisions must not interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment or RFP or any other applicable requirement of the Act. 

Generally, the EPA reviews budgets for adequacy or approval in the context of the Agency’s 

review of a control strategy implementation plan (i.e., attainment or RFP plan) or maintenance 

plan. However, revisions to budgets can be approved without comprehensive updates to the 

 11 Letter, Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, 

dated April 21, 2016.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

11

related control strategy implementation or maintenance plan if the plan, with the new level of 

motor vehicle emissions contained in the revised budgets, continues to meet applicable 

requirements (i.e., RFP, attainment, or maintenance). EPA policy guidance suggests that a state

may revise the motor vehicle emissions inventories and related budgets without revising their 

entire SIP consistent with section 110(l) if: (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements 

when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with new MOtor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES) base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year 

inventories; and (2) the state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for nonmotor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall

conclusions of the SIP. 12 The EPA’s policy guidance for MOVES can be applied to EMFAC

because EMFAC is a California-specific emissions model analogous to MOVES.

In addition, revised budgets that are intended to replace adequate (but not approved) 

budgets must meet the adequacy criteria found in our transportation conformity regulations at 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). These criteria include endorsement by the Governor (or designee); prior 

consultation among relevant air and transportation agencies; clear identification and precise 

quantification of the budgets; consistency of the budgets, when considered with all other 

emissions sources, with applicable requirements for RFP, attainment or maintenance; 

consistency with and clear relation to the emissions inventory and control measures; and 

explanation and documentation of changes relative to previously submitted budgets. In this 

instance, the adequacy criteria do not apply to our review of the revised budgets for the 2007

 12 Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2014 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes, EPA-420-B-14-008, July 2014. See question and answer #6 on page 7. Available 

online at: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/documents/420b14008.pdf. MOVES is a model that states use to 

estimate on-road emissions for SIP development, transportation conformity determinations, and other purposes. Also 

see examples of EPA rulemakings involving replacement of budgets in response to a MOVES update, e.g., 

Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton (79 FR 28435, May 16, 2014) and Beaumont/Port Arthur (78 FR 7672, February 4, 

2013).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

12

Ozone Plan or the 2007 PM10 Plan because the budgets they would replace are approved budgets. 

The adequacy criteria do, however, apply to our review of the revised budgets for the 2012 PM2.5

Plan because the budgets from that plan have been found adequate, but are not yet approved.

V. Summary of Changes to Budgets and the EPA’s Analysis of the State’s Submittal

Table 1 lists the revised budgets by subarea included in the State’s submittal for the SJV 

budgets applicable to the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and the 24-hour PM10 standards. 

CARB developed the revised budgets using EMFAC2014 and the travel activity projections 

provided by the San Joaquin Valley MPOs consistent with the 2015 Federal TIP. As such, we find 

that the revised budgets reflect the most recent planning forecasts and are based on the most recent 

emission factor data and approved calculation methods. A comparison of the current approved or 

adequate budgets with the revised budgets and a discussion of the EPA’s proposed action on each 

set of budgets is provided further below.

Table 1. San Joaquin Valley Revised Budgets Developed Using EMFAC201413

County

Subarea

1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard 2006 24-Hour 

PM2.5 Standard PM10 Standard

NOx

(tons per summer 

day)

VOC

(tons per summer 

day)

Direct 

PM2.5

(tons 

per 

winter 

day)

NOx

(tons 

per 

winter 

day)

Direct 

PM10

(tons 

per 

annual 

day)

NOx

(tons 

per 

annual 

day)

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020

Fresno 29.9 24.3 14.6 8.7 6.8 5.6 1.0 32.1 7.0 25.4

 13 The county-specific budgets are set forth in attachment A to CARB Resolution 15-50. Attachment A constitutes 

the SIP revision adopted by CARB on October 22, 2015 and submitted on November 13, 2015. CARB provided 

information and analysis supporting the SIP revision in a staff report titled Updated Transportation Conformity 

Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley Ozone, PM2.5, and PM10 State Implementation Plans, release date September 21, 

2015. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

13

Kern

(SJV) 26.8 22.4 12.9 6.9 5.7 4.8 0.8 28.8 7.4 23.3

Kings 5.5 4.7 2.7 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.2 5.9 1.8 4.8

Madera 5.5 4.5 2.7 2.0 1.6 1.3 0.2 6.0 2.5 4.7

Merced 10.3 8.5 5.1 2.7 2.1 1.7 0.3 11 3.8 8.9

San

Joaquin 14.1 11.3 7.3 6.4 5.1 4.3 0.6 15.5 4.6 11.9

Stanislaus 11.3 9.2 5.8 4.1 3.2 2.7 0.4 12.3 3.7 9.6

Tulare 10.3 8.1 4.9 4.0 3.1 2.5 0.4 11.2 3.4 8.4

Note: CARB calculated the revised budgets for the SJV plans by taking the sum of the countyby-county emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest 

whole ton for NOx and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC, PM2.5 and PM10; then re-allocating 

to the individual counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then 

rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding 

method.

A. Review of Revised Budgets for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

Tables 2 and 3 below compare the current EPA-approved NOx and VOC budgets 

developed using EMFAC2007 with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The 

budgets are provided by subarea and apply to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

14

Table 2. Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for NOx for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard (tons per

summer day)

County

Subarea

2017 2020 2023

Current Revised Net 

Change Current Revised NetChange Current Revised Net Change

Fresno 22.6 29.9 7.3 17.7 24.3 6.6 13.5 14.6 1.1

Kern (SJV) 31.7 26.8 -4.9 25.1 22.4 -2.7 18.6 12.9 -5.7

Kings 6.7 5.5 -1.2 5.3 4.7 -0.6 4.0 2.7 -1.3

Madera 5.8 5.5 -0.3 4.7 4.5 -0.2 3.6 2.7 -0.9

Merced 12.4 10.3 -2.1 9.9 8.5 -1.4 7.4 5.1 -2.3

San Joaquin 15.6 14.1 -1.5 12.4 11.3 -1.1 10.0 7.3 -2.7

Stanislaus 10.6 11.3 0.7 8.4 9.2 0.8 6.4 5.8 -0.6

Tulare 10.1 10.3 0.2 8.1 8.1 0.0 6.2 4.9 -1.3

Totals 115.5 113.7 -1.8 91.6 93.0 1.4 69.7 56.0 -13.7

Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and 

rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOx and nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the individual 

counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton 

using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the 

county level.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 2016. We have taken steps to ensure the 

accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

15

Table 3. Comparison of San Joaquin Valley Ozone Budgets for VOC for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard (tons per 

summer day)

County

Subarea

2017 2020 2023

Current Revised Net 

Change Current Revised Net Change Current Revised Net Change

Fresno 9.3 8.7 -0.6 8.3 6.8 -1.5 8.0 5.6 -2.4

Kern (SJV) 8.7 6.9 -1.8 8.2 5.7 -2.5 7.9 4.8 -3.1

Kings 1.8 1.4 -0.4 1.7 1.1 -0.6 1.6 0.9 -0.7

Madera 2.2 2.0 -0.2 2.0 1.6 -0.4 1.9 1.3 -0.6

Merced 3.2 2.7 -0.5 2.9 2.1 -0.8 2.8 1.7 -1.1

San Joaquin 7.2 6.4 -0.8 6.4 5.1 -1.3 6.3 4.3 -2.0

Stanislaus 5.6 4.1 -1.5 5.0 3.2 -1.8 4.7 2.7 -2.0

Tulare 5.8 4.0 -1.8 5.3 3.1 -2.2 4.9 2.5 -2.4

Totals 43.8 36.2 -7.6 39.8 28.7 -11.1 38.1 23.8 -14.3

Note: CARB calculated the revised ozone budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county emissions results from EMFAC and 

rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for NOx and to the nearest tenth of a ton for VOC; then re-allocating to the 

individual counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s emissions to the 

nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously approved budgets for ozone were rounded up to the 

nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

16

The revised NOx and VOC budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023 are intended to replace the 

EPA-approved NOx and VOC budgets in 2007 Ozone Plan developed for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. A comparison of the current budgets with the revised budgets is shown in tables 2 and 

3. The tables show that the NOx and VOC totals for the revised budgets are less than the current 

budgets for all years, except 2020 for NOx, which shows a slight increase of 1.4 tpd or 1.4% 

when compared to the prior budget.

First, we note that the 2007 Ozone Plan relied upon motor vehicle emissions inventories, 

from which the budgets14 were derived, to demonstrate compliance with RFP and attainment 

requirements. With respect to the RFP requirement, we found that the 2007 Ozone Plan provided 

a significant surplus of NOx emissions reductions beyond those necessary to meet the RFP 

requirement. See table 11 of our proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan (76 FR 57862, 

September 16, 2011). As shown in tables 2 and 3, with one exception, the revised regional total 

motor vehicle emissions estimates submitted by CARB for VOC and NOx for 2017, 2020 and 

2023 are lower than the corresponding estimates from the plan as approved in 2012. As such, the 

replacement of the older budgets with the revised budgets would not change the conclusion that 

the 2007 Ozone Plan meets the requirements for RFP. The exception, the 1.4 tpd of NOx in 2020, 

is too minor to affect the conclusion that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to meet the RFP 

requirement in that year given the significant surplus in NOx emissions reductions in that year. 

 14 In San Joaquin Valley plans, the motor vehicle emissions inventories are essentially the same as the budgets. 

Historically, CARB has set the budget for the SJV MPOs by rounding the motor vehicle emissions estimate to the 

nearest tenth of a ton. With more recent plans and for the revised budgets, CARB rounds the regional total motor 

vehicle emissions inventories up to the nearest whole ton (for NOx) or the nearest tenth of a ton (for ROG, PM2.5 and 

PM10) and then re-allocates the emissions to the various counties based on the ratio of the county-specific motor 

vehicle emissions to the regional total. The re-allocated county-specific emissions estimate is rounded 

conventionally to the nearest tenth of a ton, which then constitutes the budget. See the attachment to CARB’s staff 

report included in the November 13, 2015 submittal in support of the SIP revision (i.e., the revised budgets). 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

17

Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of the revised budgets 

and contained in the staff report included with the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. In 

that analysis, CARB prepared updated NOx and VOC emissions inventories from all sources 

(i.e., stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) in the SJV for 2017, 2020, and 2023. These 

updated inventories provide a basis for comparison with the corresponding inventories from the 

2007 Ozone Plan. We would expect that most current emissions estimates from all sources in 

SJV in 2017, 2020, and 2023 would be lower than those included in the 2007 Ozone Plan 

because they reflect control measures adopted since the plan was approved, and as shown below 

in tables 4 and 5, the updated regional emissions for 2017, 2020, and 2023, including the revised

budgets, are approximately 20 tpd, 15 tpd, and 34 tpd lower for NOx and 0 tpd, 4 tpd, and 12 tpd 

lower for VOCs, respectively, than the corresponding figures in the EPA-approved plan. The 

most significant differences between the inventories are from large decreases in the actual 

reported emissions for several point source categories (i.e., cogeneration, oil and gas production, 

food and agriculture, glass manufacturing and composting), compared to their projected 

emissions in the EPA-approved plan.

15 Other significant differences include updates to: (1) 

agricultural acreage burned; (2) CARB’s off-road source emissions using a newer suite of 

category-specific models developed to support recent CARB regulations; and (3) animal 

population estimates and VOC emission factors for livestock operations. The current emissions 

estimates for 2023 (161 tpd of NOx, and 327 tpd of VOC) are consistent with the attainment 

target level16 for the 1997 ozone standard (141 tpd of NOx, and 342 tpd of VOC) given the 

continued implementation of the long-term element of the control strategy of the 2007 Ozone 

 15 Comparing the Emission Inventories for the San Joaquin Valley State Implementation Plans, CARB, March 30, 

2016. Attachment to email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9, March 30, 2016. 16 See table 9 on page 57858 of our proposed approval of the 2007 Ozone Plan at 76 FR 57846 (September 16, 

2011).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

18

Plan to develop new technologies or to improve existing control technologies as approved by 

EPA under section 182(e)(5).

Therefore, we find that the 2007 Ozone Plan will continue to meet applicable 

requirements for RFP and attainment when the previously-approved EMFAC2007-based budgets

are replaced with the revised EMFAC2014-based budgets, and that the changes in the growth 

and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall 

conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan. As such, we find that approval of the revised NOx and VOC 

budgets for the 2007 Ozone Plan for 2017, 2020 and 2023 as shown in table 1 would not 

interfere with attainment or RFP or any other requirement of the Act and would thereby comply

with section 110(l), and we propose to approve them on that basis.

Table 4. Comparison of NOx Inventories Associated with Current and Revised Budgets for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard (tons per summer day) 17

Inventory 

Category

Emissions Inventory in 

Approved Ozone Plan

Updated Emissions

Inventory Net Change

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023

Stationary

and Area 55 53 53 36 36 35 -19 -17 -18

On-road 115 91 69 113 92 55 -2 1 -14

Non-road 89 80 73 89 82 70 0 2 -3

Totals 259 225 195 239 210 161 -20 -15 -34

Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the 

net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in emissions, and a positive number 

indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan.

 17 The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from appendix A-3 and B-3 of CARB’s 2011 update to the 

2007 Ozone Plan titled “Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical Revisions to 

the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basins” (release date: June 20, 2011). CARB’s updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB’s staff 

report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

19

Table 5. Comparison of VOC Inventories Associated with Current and Revised Budgets 

for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard (tons per summer day) 18

Inventory 

Category

Emissions Inventory in 

Approved Ozone Plan

Updated Emissions

Inventory Net Change

2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023 2017 2020 2023

Stationary

and Area

229 235 244 255 263 272 26 28 28

On-road 43 39 37 36 29 24 -7 -10 -13

Non-road 57 57 57 38 35 32 -19 -22 -25

Totals 329 331 339 329 327 327 0 -4 -12

Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the

net change, a negative number indicates a reduction in emissions, and a positive number 

indicates an increase in emissions relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

B. Review of Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard

Table 6 below compares the current direct PM2.5 and NOx budgets developed using 

EMFAC2011 that were recently found adequate for transportation conformity purposes with the 

revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The budgets are provided by subarea and apply to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard.

Table 6. Comparison of San Joaquin Valley 2017 PM2.5 Budgets for PM2.5 and NOx

for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard (tons per winter day)

County

Subarea

Direct PM2.5 NOx

Current Revised Net 

Change Current Revised NetChange

Fresno 0.9 1.0 0.1 25.2 32.1 6.9

Kern (SJV) 1.0 0.8 -0.2 34.4 28.8 -5.6

Kings 0.2 0.2 0.0 7.2 5.9 -1.3

 18 The emissions shown for the approved ozone plan are from appendix A-3 and appendix B-3 of CARB’s 2011 

update to the 2007 Ozone Plan titled Proposed 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Revisions and Technical 

Revisions to the PM2.5 State Implementation Plan Transportation Conformity Budgets for the South Coast and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basins (release date June 20, 2011). CARB’s updated emissions inventory is presented in 

CARB’s staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 2015 SIP revision submittal.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

20

Madera 0.2 0.2 0.0 7.0 6.0 -1.0

Merced 0.4 0.3 -0.1 13.7 11 -2.7

San Joaquin 0.6 0.6 0.0 15.9 15.5 -0.4

Stanislaus 0.5 0.4 -0.1 12.0 12.3 0.3

Tulare 0.4 0.4 0.0 10.7 11.2 0.5

Totals 4.2 3.9 -0.3 126.1 122.8 -3.3

Note: CARB calculated the revised PM2.5 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county 

emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for 

NOx and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM2.5; then re-allocating to the individual 

counties based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each 

county’s emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The 

existing adequate PM2.5 budgets were calculated in the same manner.

The revised 2017 direct PM2.5 and NOx budgets are intended to replace the adequate 2017 

PM2.5 and NOx budgets in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan developed for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. A 

comparison of the prior budgets with the revised budgets, as shown in table 6, indicates that the 

totals for the revised direct PM2.5 and NOx budgets are less than the current budgets. 

First, we note that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan relied upon motor vehicle emissions inventories, 

from which the budgets were derived, for year 2017 to demonstrate compliance with RFP 

requirements for that year. In our proposed partial approval of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, we proposed 

to approve the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(2) for 

year 2017 based on emissions projections in the plan for that year that reflect full implementation 

of a control strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control requirements (i.e., RACM/RACT at 

a minimum). See 80 FR 1816, at 1834-1837 (January 13, 2015). We deemed such a showing to 

be sufficient to meet the RFP requirement in an area that cannot practicably attain the PM2.5

standard by the applicable Moderate area attainment date. The revised motor vehicle emissions 

estimates used to develop the revised budgets continue to reflect full implementation of a control 

strategy that satisfies the Moderate area control requirements, and as such, replacement of the 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

21

EMFAC2011-based motor vehicle emissions budgets from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan with the revised 

EMFAC2014-based motor vehicle emissions budgets would not change the proposal to approve 

the RFP demonstration for 2017 in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

Second, we have reviewed the analysis that CARB prepared in support of the revised 

budgets and contained in the staff report included with the November 13, 2015 SIP revision 

submittal. In that analysis, CARB included a comparison of the estimated direct PM2.5 and NOx

emissions inventories from all sources (i.e., stationary, area, on-road and non-road sources) for 

2017 with those from the 2012 PM2.5 Plan. As shown below in table 7, the total emissions for 

2017 associated with the revised budgets are approximately 7 tpd lower for direct PM2.5 and 6 tpd 

lower for NOx when compared to the total emissions inventory in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan containing 

the current budgets. The differences include updates to: agricultural acreage burned; locomotive 

and recreational boat emissions; and farming operations. 

Therefore, we find that the 2012 PM2.5 Plan continues to meet applicable requirements

for RFP in 2017 when the EMFAC2011-based budgets are replaced with the new EMFAC2014-

based budgets, and that the changes in the growth and control strategy assumptions for nonmotor vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions regarding the 2012 PM2.5 Plan’s 

demonstration of RFP for 2017. As such, we find that approval of the revised direct PM2.5 and 

NOx budgets for the 2012 PM2.5 Plan for year 2017 as shown in table 1 would not interfere with 

attainment or RFP or any other requirement of the Act and would thereby comply with section 

110(l), and we propose to approve them on that basis.

In addition, we have reviewed the revised direct PM2.5 and NOx budgets for compliance 

with the adequacy criteria and find that, in addition to being consistent with the 2017 RFP 

demonstration, they are clearly identified and precisely quantified and meet all of the other 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

22

criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(i)-(vi). See the EPA memorandum documenting review of the 

budgets for compliance with the criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e) that has been placed in the docket 

for this rulemaking.

Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect our January 13, 2015 proposal, 

or rationale therein, to approve the trading mechanism as described on page C-32 in appendix C 

of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan as enforceable components of the transportation conformity program in 

the SJV for the 2006 PM2.5 standard with the condition, as explained in our January 13, 2015 

proposal, that trades are limited to substituting excess reductions in NOx for increases in PM2.5. 

See 80 FR at 1816, at 1841 (January 13, 2015). 

Table 7. Comparison of 2017 PM2.5 and NOx Inventories Associated with Current and 

Revised Budgets for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 Standard (tons per winter day)19

Inventory 

Category

2017 Emissions 

Inventory in 2012

PM2.5 Plan

Updated 2017 

Emissions Inventory Net Change

PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx PM2.5 NOx

Stationary 8.9 27.4 8.7 28.5 -0.2 1.1

Area 46.8 15.6 41.2 11.7 -5.6 -3.9

On-road 4.2 125.6 3.7 122.3 -0.5 -3.3

Non-road 3.6 64.3 4.1 62.9 0.5 -1.4

Totals 63.6 232.9 57.7 225.4 -5.9 -7.5

Note: Because of rounding conventions, totals may not reflect individual subcategories. For the 

net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number indicates an increase

relative to the corresponding figure in the 2012 PM2.5 Plan.

C. Review of Revised Budgets for the 24-Hour PM10 Standard

 19 CARB’s updated emissions inventory is presented in CARB’s staff report submitted as part of the November 13, 

2015 SIP revision submittal.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

23

Table 8 below compares the current EPA-approved direct PM10 and NOx budgets 

developed using EMFAC2007 with the revised budgets developed using EMFAC2014. The 

budgets are provided by subarea and apply to the 24-hour PM10 standard.

Table 8. Comparison of San Joaquin Valley PM10 2020 Budgets for Direct PM10 and 

NOx for the PM10 Standard (annual average tons per day)

County

Subarea

Direct PM10 20 NOx

Current Revised Change Current Revised Change

Fresno 16.1 7.0 -9.1 23.2 25.4 2.2

Kern (SJV) 14.7 7.4 -7.3 39.5 23.3 -16.2

Kings 3.6 1.8 -1.8 6.8 4.8 -2.0

Madera 4.7 2.5 -2.2 6.5 4.7 -1.8

Merced 6.4 3.8 -2.6 12.9 8.9 -4.0

San Joaquin 10.6 4.6 -6.2 17.0 11.9 -5.1

Stanislaus 6.7 3.7 -3.0 10.8 9.6 -1.2

Tulare 9.4 3.4 -6.0 10.9 8.4 -2.5

Totals 72.2 34.2 -38.0 127.6 97.0 -30.6

Note: CARB calculated the revised PM10 budgets by taking the sum of the county-by-county 

emissions results from EMFAC and rounding the SJV-wide total up to the nearest whole ton for 

NOx and to the nearest tenth of a ton for direct PM10; then re-allocating to the individual counties 

based on the ratio of each county’s contribution to the total; and then rounding each county’s 

emissions to the nearest tenth of a ton using the conventional rounding method. The previously 

approved budgets for PM10 were rounded up to the nearest tenth of a ton at the county level.

The revised direct PM10 and NOx budgets for 2020 are intended to replace the EPAapproved PM10 and NOx budgets developed using EMFAC2007 for the 2007 PM10 Plan.

First, we note that the 2007 PM10 Plan relied upon motor vehicle emission inventories, 

from which the budgets were derived, to demonstrate maintenance of the PM10 standard through 

2020. Maintenance through 2020 was demonstrated in the 2007 PM10 Plan using a combination 

of chemical mass balance receptor modeling to identify emission source contributions by 

 20 The direct PM10 budgets include PM10 emissions from paved road dust, unpaved road dust, and road construction 

dust, as well as PM10 from vehicle exhaust and brake and tire wear.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

24

chemical species and rollback techniques. See pages 6-11 of the 2007 PM10 Plan. Given the 

modeling methods used to demonstrate maintenance, it is not possible to precisely calculate the 

change in concentration associated with the substitution of the approved budgets with the revised 

budgets. However, given that the revised budgets, when summed for the SJV region, are lower 

than the regional sum for the approved budgets, replacement of the approved budgets with the 

revised budgets would not undermine the maintenance demonstration in the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

Second, we have reviewed the analysis CARB prepared in support of the revised budgets. 

To further demonstrate that the changes to the direct PM10 and NOx budgets are consistent with 

the 2007 PM10 Plan for the 24-hour PM10 standard, CARB’s analysis included a comparison of 

the estimated direct PM10 and NOx emissions inventories from all sources (including stationary, 

area, on-road and non-road sources) for 2020. As shown below in table 9, the total emissions for 

2020 associated with the revised budgets are approximately 10.2 tpd lower for direct PM10 and 

121.0 tpd lower for NOx when compared to the total emissions inventory in the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

The lower estimates for NOx are primarily due to greater reductions in NOx from stationary 

sources than had been assumed in the 2007 PM10 Plan.21

The primary differences between the inventories in the 2007 PM10 Plan and the 

supporting documentation for the revised budgets are from: (1) new or revised CARB mobile 

source measures (e.g., heavy-duty truck retrofit requirements and new or revised emissions 

standards for transportation refrigeration units, portable diesel engines, and large spark ignition 

engine regulation, among other categories) and new or revised San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District (SJVAPCD or “District”) stationary and area source measures (e.g., regulations 

 21 The 2007 PM10 Plan estimated a reduction in stationary source emissions of NOx from 106 tpd to 103 ptd from 

2005 to 2020. See CARB’s staff report titled “Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,” 

appendix B. Instead, controls on such sources, as well as corrections and updates to inventory methods, are now 

expected to reduce such emissions 30 tpd. 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

25

affecting open burning; boilers, steam generators and process heaters; dryers, dehydrators and 

ovens; and internal combustion engines, among others); (2) corrections to the Manufacturing and 

Industrial and Food and Agriculture categories; (3) updates to agricultural and managed burned 

acreage and the reclassification of Wildfire Use as a natural source category; and (4) updates to 

CARB’s emission estimation models for locomotives, commercial and recreational boats, 

transportation refrigeration units, construction equipment, oil drilling and workover equipment, 

cargo handling equipment, and farm equipment.

Table 9 shows that CARB’s current estimates of NOx emissions for 2020 differ 

substantially from those projected in the 2007 PM10 Plan. The changes in growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources do not change the overall conclusions of the 

2007 PM10 Plan because they reflect, among other things, additional controls that support 

continued maintenance of the PM10 standard in the SJV beyond those assumed in the plan. While 

the changes in emissions estimates lend support to the conclusion that the 2007 PM10 Plan, with 

the revised budget, continues to meet the underlying purpose of the plan, i.e., to provide for 

maintenance of the PM10 standard through 2020, the EPA also reviewed the ambient PM10

concentration data collected over the past several years in the SJV to see if they too are

consistent with the continued maintenance of the standard. 

Table 9. Comparison of 2020 PM10 and NOx Emissions Reductions Associated with 

Current and Revised Budgets for the PM10 Standard (annual average tons per day) 22

Inventory 

Category

2020 Emissions 

Inventory in 

Approved PM10 Plan

Updated 2020

Emissions Inventory Net Change

 22 The 2020 emissions inventory in the approved 2007 PM10 Plan is from CARB’s Staff Report titled “Analysis of 

the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan,” appendix B, which was approved as part of the 2007 PM10

Plan. See 40 CFR 52.220(c)(356)(ii)(A)(2). The updated 2020 emissions inventory is attached to a December 15, 

2015 email from Dennis Wade, CARB, to John Ungvarsky, EPA Region 9.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

26

Direct 

PM10

NOx Direct 

PM10

NOx Direct 

PM10

NOx

Stationary 26.4 103.7 15.3 29.5 -11.1 -74.2

Area 247.8 17.1 251.7 8.4 +3.9 -8.7

On-road 9.7 124.7 7.6 96.7 -2.1 -28.0

Non-road 6.1 82.4 5.6 72.2 -0.5 -10.2

Totals 290.0 327.8 280.2 206.8 -10.2 -121.0

Note: For the net change, a negative number indicates a reduction, and a positive number 

indicates an increase relative to the corresponding figure in the 2007 PM10 Plan.

From our review of the available, quality-assured, and certified PM10 ambient air 

monitoring data in the EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS) for 2013 and 2014, along with 

preliminary data for 2015, we determined that the SJV PM10 maintenance area experienced 

multiple exceedances of the PM10 standard in 2013 and 2014. In response to the exceedances, the 

EPA evaluated whether the District implemented the contingency plan in its 2007 PM10 Plan. In 

its contingency plan, the District established an action level of 155 μg/m3 of PM10 over a 24-hour 

period. Should the action level be reached, the District committed to evaluating the exceedance 

and take appropriate action within 18 months of the event date. The following major steps 

comprise the District’s contingency plan:

Step 1. The District will examine the event and determine if it needs to be classified as a 

natural or exceptional event in accordance with the 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.

Step 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 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

27

from adopted rules or rule commitments in adopted and approved plans to see if emission 

reductions not used in demonstrating maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS would address the 

violation.

Step 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) 

completed to date that recommend future controls and prioritize development of the measures 

most relevant to reducing PM10 levels.

In a March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA,23 the District summarized the steps they had taken 

in response to the PM10 exceedances, including implementation of the contingency plan in their 

2007 PM10 Plan. Specifically, the District identified seventeen exceedances of the PM10 standard 

that occurred at five monitoring sites. Of these, the District characterized ten exceedances as high 

wind events that qualify as exceptional events per criteria in 40 CFR 50.1(j). CARB indicated 

they will be submitting to the EPA exceptional event documentation for some or all of these 

events; however, the EPA has not yet received the documentation in support of determining 

whether the ten exceedances qualify as exceptional events. The District characterized the 

remaining seven exceedances as exceptional events caused by “exceptional drought conditions” 

coinciding with stagnant air conditions, and indicated they will be submitting to CARB

exceptional event documentation for these events. On February 16, 2016, the District requested 

that CARB flag five exceedances in AQS as possible exceptional events caused by the drought 

conditions.

24 On March 10, 2016, CARB responded to the District’s February 16, 2016 request 

 23 Letter, Samir Sheikh, Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer, SJVAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, March 11, 2016.

24 Email, Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, to Theresa Najita, CARB, February 16, 2016.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

28

and indicated that the five exceedances could not be flagged as exceptional events because they 

did not meet the definition of an exceptional event in 40 CFR 50.1(j).25

In their March 11, 2016 letter to the EPA, the District identified multiple rules and 

regulations that reduce PM10 or PM10 precursors beyond commitments in the 2007 PM10 Plan. 

Based on our analysis of the March 11 letter, the EPA has determined there is uncertainty 

regarding whether the rules and regulations identified by the District, when combined with the 

PM10 revised budgets, are sufficient for maintenance of the PM10 standard. Under section

110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA may conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment 

by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year 

after the EPA approval of the plan or plan revision. In this instance, the District indicated in their 

March 11, 2016 letter that adequate measures have been adopted to provide continued 

maintenance of the PM10 standard; however, the EPA has determined that the State’s revised 

budgets submittal and the District’s March 11, 2016 letter alone are not sufficient for the EPA to 

determine the area will maintain the 24-hour PM10 standard. To help remedy this situation, in an 

April 29, 2016 letter to the EPA, CARB committed to submit a SIP revision by June 1, 2017 that 

will provide additional documentation on the nature and causes of each of the recent PM10

exceedances. To the extent that data is available, the State committed to the following:

26

• Evaluation of PM10 filter-based and continuous data across the SJV to understand the 

local or regional nature of each exceedance;

• Analysis of PM2.5 data to determine whether fine or coarse particles are contributing to 

the exceedance;

 25 Email, Theresa Najita, CARB, to Shawn Ferreria, SJVAPCD, March 10, 2016. 26 For additional background on the District’s response to the 2013-2014 PM10 exceedances and the State’s April 29, 

2016 letter, please see the docket for today’s action.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

29

• Analysis of available chemical speciation data including additional filter speciation 

analysis as appropriate to assess potential source types contributing to each exceedance; and

• Analysis of wind speed and direction, along with geographic visualization tools to help 

identify the types of sources impacting each monitor.

Based on these analyses, CARB and the District will determine the appropriate remedy to 

address the nature of each exceedance. This may include submittal of documentation for 

exceptional events, or analysis and evaluation of the further emission reductions that will accrue 

from ongoing implementation of current control programs or development of new control 

measures as part of upcoming attainment plans.

For exceedances that qualify as natural or exceptional events, CARB and the District will 

follow the notification and data flagging process that is contained in the EPA's revised 

Exceptional Event Rule (“EE Rule”). This will include a commitment to notify the EPA by July 

1 of each year of the PM10 data that has been flagged. Subsequent submittal of documentation for 

each event will follow requirements specified in the EE Rule. In addition, CARB and the District 

commit to ensuring ongoing network adequacy and data completeness through existing 

mechanisms such as data certification and the annual network plan review.

Based on the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOx budgets in table 8 above, the updated 

inventory estimates in table 9 above, and the commitments in CARB’s April 29, 2016 letter, the 

EPA concludes that a conditional approval of the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOx budgets 

supports continued maintenance of the PM10 standard and is consistent with applicable CAA 

requirements; thus, we propose to conditionally approve the 2020 revised direct PM10 and NOx

budgets as a revision to the 2007 PM10 Plan.27 If we finalize this proposed conditional approval, 

 27 To comply with CAA section 175A(a), a maintenance plan must provide for the maintenance of standard (for 

which an area is being redesignated) for 10 years from redesignation to attainment, under CAA section 175A(b), 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

30

CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions it has committed to submit by June 1, 2017. If 

CARB fails to comply with this commitment, the conditional approval will convert to a 

disapproval.

Lastly, approval of the revised budgets would not affect the trading mechanism first 

included in the SJV Amended 2003 PM10 Plan and approved by the EPA at 69 FR 30006 (May 

26, 2004) and later carried forward and approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan. See pages 20-21 

of the 2007 PM10 Plan; 73 FR 22307, at 22317 (April 25, 2008); and 73 FR 66759, at 66772 

(November 12, 2008). That is, the trading mechanism approved as part of the 2007 PM10 Plan 

will remain available regardless of our action on the revised budgets.

VI. Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

For the reasons discussed above, the EPA is proposing to approve the revised ozone and 

PM2.5 budgets and conditionally approve the revised PM10 budgets in California’s November 13, 

2015 submittal for the SJV area. The revised budgets are shown in table 1 and are based on

estimates from California’s EMFAC2014 model. 

More specifically, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to approve the 

revised VOC and NOx budgets for 2017, 2020, and 2023 for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

because replacement of the current approved budgets with the revised budgets would not 

interfere with the approved RFP and attainment demonstrations for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard in the SJV and because emissions changes in non-motor vehicle emissions categories do 

not change the overall conclusions of the 2007 Ozone Plan. 

 

states are required, within eight years of redesignation to attainment, to submit a revision to the SIP that provides for 

the maintenance of the standard an additional ten years after expiration of the initial 10-year period. For the SJV and 

PM10, California must submit a subsequent 10-year maintenance plan by December 12, 2016. We expect that the 

subsequent SJV PM10 maintenance plan will address the recent exceedances described in today’s action.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

31

Second, the EPA is also proposing to approve the revised direct PM2.5 and NOx budgets 

for 2017 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard because replacement of the current adequate 

budgets with the revised budgets would be consistent with our separate proposal finding that the 

2012 PM2.5 Plan demonstrates RFP for year 2017, because emissions changes in non-motor 

vehicle emissions categories do not change the overall conclusion of the 2012 PM2.5 Plan, and 

because the revised budgets meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi). 

Third, under CAA section 110(k)(4), the EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the 

revised direct PM10 and NOx budgets for 2020 for the 24-hour PM10 standard because, when 

combined with implementation of the contingency plan in the SIP-approved 2007 PM10 Plan and 

fulfillment of the commitments in the State’s April 29, 2016 letter, they will allow the SJV to 

continue to demonstrate maintenance of the 24-hour PM10 standard. If we finalize this proposed 

conditional approval, CARB must adopt and submit the SIP revisions that it has committed to 

submit by June 1, 2017. If CARB fails to comply with this commitment, the conditional approval 

will convert to a disapproval. Disapproval of the revised budgets for the 2007 PM10 Plan would 

reinstate the existing approved budgets as the budgets that must be used in transportation plan 

and TIP conformity determinations after the effective date of the disapproval. See 40 CFR 

93.109(c)(1). Because the submittal of the revised budgets is not a required submittal, 

disapproval would not trigger sanctions under CAA section 179(a)(2) but would nonetheless 

trigger a two-year clock for a federal implementation plan under CAA section 110(c), and it 

would not trigger a transportation conformity freeze because the disapproval does not affect a 

control strategy implementation plan as defined in the transportation conformity rule. See 40 

CFR 93.101 and 93.120(a).
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

32

Lastly, if the EPA takes final action to approve the revised budgets as proposed, the San 

Joaquin Valley MPOs and DOT must use the revised budgets for future transportation 

conformity determinations.

The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document or on 

other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. We will consider these comments before taking final action.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies 

with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 

52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to 

approve a state plan as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 

104-4); 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

33

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August 10, 1999); 

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those 

requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate 

human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” “Policies that have Tribal implications” is 

defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian 

Tribes.”

Eight Indian tribes are located within the boundaries of the San Joaquin Valley air quality 

planning area for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards: 

the Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono 
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

34

Indians of California, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California, the Picayune 

Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California, the Santa Rosa Rancheria of the Tachi Yokut 

Tribe, the Table Mountain Rancheria of California, the Tejon Indian Tribe, and the Tule River 

Indian Tribe of the Tule River Reservation.

The EPA’s proposed approval of the revised budgets submitted by CARB to address the 

1997 8-hour ozone, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1987 24-hour PM10 standards in the San Joaquin 

Valley would not have tribal implications because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 

reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the proposed SIP approvals do not have 

tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Therefore, 

the EPA has concluded that the proposed action will not have tribal implications for the purposes 

of Executive Order 13175, and would not impose substantial direct costs upon the tribes, nor 

would it preempt Tribal law. We note that none of the tribes located in the San Joaquin Valley 

has requested eligibility to administer programs under the CAA.
This document is a prepublication version signed by EPA Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Jordan on May 9, 

2016. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

35

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental regulations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

_______________________ _____________________________________

Dated: Alexis Strauss,

Acting Regional Administrator,

EPA Region 9