## 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation for the San Joaquin Valley Unified

## Air Pollution Control District



# Air Resources Board Staff Report Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan

# State of California

Staff Report 

# Analysis of the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan

Release Date: October 12, 2007 Scheduledfor Consideration: October 25-26, 2007

### This document has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendationfor use. Electronic copies from this document are available for download from the Air Resources Board's Internetsite at: http://www.arb.ca.qov/planning/sip/sivpm07/s~vpm07.htm. In addition, written copies may be obtained from the Public Information Office, Air Resources Board, 

## 1001 1 Street, 

## 1'' Floor, Visitors and Environmental Services Center, Sacramento, California 

## 95814,(91 6)322-2990. For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, audiocassette or computer disk. Please contact ARB's Disability Coordinator at 

## (916) 323-4916by voice or through the Califorria Relay Services at 

## 71 

## 1,to place your requestfor disability services. If you are a person with limited English and would like to request interpreter services, please contact ARB's Bilingual Manager at 

## (91 6)323-7053.
For questions, contact: 

### Ms. Sylvia Morrow or Patricia Velasco, Ph.D. Manager, PM Analysis Sect,ion Project Lead Phone: 

## (916)324-71 63 Phone: 

## (91 6)323-7560 Email: smorrow@arb.ca.~ov Email: pvelasco@arb.ca.gov P.O. Box 

## 2815 Sacramento, California 

## 95812

### PRINCIPALAUTHOR Patricia Velasco, Ph.D., Project Lead PROJECT MANAGERS Sylvia Morrow, Manager, Particulate MatterAnalysis Section Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch CONTRIBUTORS Air Qualitv and Transportation Planning Kurt Karperos, P.E., Air Quality and Transportation Planning Branch Jon Taylor, P.E., Manager, Motor Vehicle Assessment Section Jeff Lindberg, Planning Liaisonto the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District John Nguyen, Air Pollution Specialist DennisWade, Air Pollutions Specialist Air Qualitv Data Branch Theresa Najita, Air Pollution Specialist Eugene Kim, Ph.D., Air Resources Engineer Emission lnventorv Karen Buckley-Fitts, Manager, Emission InventorySystems Section MartinJohnson, P.E., StaffAir Pollution Specialist

October 12,2007

### TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY

# .................................................................................................I I

# . BACKGROUND

# ......................................................................................................I 

### II

# . REDESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS

# .....................................................................2 Ill

# . PLAN EVALUATION

# .............................................................................................. 2 A

# . The Valley Attains the PM10 Standards


## ............................................................2 

### B


## . U.S. EPAApproved the 2003 Valley PMlO SIP and the State Has Met Applicable Act Requirements


## ............................................................................. 5 C


# . Improvement in the Valley's PMlOAir Quality is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions


## ............................................................ 5 D


## . Maintenance Plan


## ........................................................................................... 7 1


## . Attainment Emission Inventory


## ....................................................................... 7 

### 2


## . MaintenanceDemonstration


## .......................................................................... 8 3


## . PM10 Monitoring Network


## ............................................................................ 10 4


## . Verification of ContinuedAttainment


## ............................................................ 10 

### 5


## . Contingency Plan


## .......................................................................................... I0 

### 6


## . Transportation Conformity Budgets


## ............................................................. 11 IV

# . STAFFRECOMMENDATION

# .............................................................................. 13 APPENDIX A 

# . PMIO Exceptional Events Recorded in The Valley from 2004 

# ........... through 2006 

# ....................................................................................... 14 APPENDIX B


## . Emission Inventory

# ............................................................................17

October 12. 2007

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposal The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (District or Valley) is designated as a nonattainmentarea, with a classificationof "serious" for the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standards) for particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PMI0). In June 2003, the San Joaquin Valley District adopted the 2003 PMI 0 Attainment Plan setting the control strategy for attainingthe standards by December 31,2010. As a mid-course review, the District adopted the 2006 PMI0 Plan, reaffirming the control strategy in the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan. Due to the adoption of ARB and District rules in the 2003 PMIO Plan, the Valley's air quality has improvedto the point that the District now attains the PMIO standards, ahead of the 201 0 attainment deadline. In October 2006, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (US. EPA) determined the Valley attained the PMIO standards, based on 2003-2005 ambient monitoring data (71 FR 63642, 2006 clean data finding). InAugust 2007, U.S. EPA followed with a proposed affirmationof attainment, based on the evaluation of 2006 monitoring data (72 FR 49046). These U.S. EPA actions, however, do not constitute redesignation of the Valley to attainment, since further Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements need to be met. The District prepared the 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan to address these requirements and request official redesignationto attainment. On September 20, 2007, the District adopted the 2007 Maintenance Plan. The plan officially requests the Valley be redesignatedto attainment for the PMIO NAAQS and charts the course to maintain attainment for these standards. The staff of the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) has reviewedthe 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and is recommending that the Board approve the plan and submit itto U.S. EPA as a revision to the State lrr~plementation Plan (SIP). Plan Addresses Act Requirements The 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan addresses both the 24-hour and the rescinded annual PMI0 standards, and includes the following components: 2005 attainment inventory consistingof annual and winter emission estimates for directly emitted PM 1 0 and nitrogen oxides (NOx), the limiting precursor for secondary PM 1 0 in the Valley; Demonstration that PMIO attainment concentrations at all monitoringstations in the Valley will be maintainedthrough 2020; Commitment to ongoing monitoring network operation for continued verification of attainment; and Contingency provisions to address any fut~~re violations.
October 12,2007

### In addition, eight years after the Valley is redesignated as attainment, the District is requiredto submit a revised PMlO Maintenance Plan, providing for continued attainment for an additional ten years. Adopted Rules Providefor Continued Attainment 

### Sincethe adoption of the Valley's 2003 PMlO Attainment Plan, direct PM10 and NOx emissions that form PMlO have been reduced significantly. The District now attains the PMlO standards ahead of the 2010 attainment deadline. ARB adopted State measures for mobile sources achieve the 10tpd of NOx and 0.5 tpd of direct PMlO 2010 emission reductions commitment in the Valley's 2003 PMlOAttainment Plan. The District has also adopted all of the rules committedto inthe 2003 PM10 Attainment Plan and will not remove, replace, or suspend any emission reduction measure commitments in the plan, even after the Valley is redesignated as attainment. Air quality modeling based on these err~ission reductio~is demonstrates that the Valley will continueto demonstrate attainment through 2020. In addition, ARB and the district are on track to achieve additional reductions in pollutantsthat form PMlOfrom the recently adopted 2007 Ozone Attainment Plan. The Monitoring Network isAdequate 

### The District's PMlO monitoring network consists of 15 monitoring sites distributed throughout the San Joaquin Valley. In the approval of the 2003 Amended PMlO Attainment Plan, U.S. EPA found that the Valley's PMlO monitoring network "meets all applicable regulatory requirements and is adequate to support the technical evaluation of the PMI0 problem." Inthe October 2006 determination that the District attains the PMlO nationalstandards, U.S. EPA's concludes that the Valley's PMlO monitoring network provided adequate data to support the attainmentfinding. Contingency Process Addresses Any FutureViolations 

### The District's proposesthe following mechanismto address any exceedances that might occur after redesignationto attainment: Analyze causes of exceedance or sequence of concentrations just below the 24-hour exceedance level. If event is not due to a natural or exceptional event, determine if ongoing emission reductionsfrom rules in approved plans will prevent future exceedances. If further emission reductions are needed, identifyapplicable control measures from the District's recently adopted 2007 Ozone Attainment Plan or, if applicable, the 2008 PM2.5 Attainment Plan, currently under development.

October 12,2007

### Updated Conformity Budgets 

### The Valley transportation agencies need new PMIO Plan transportation conformity budgets (budgets) based on the updatedversion of the model used to estimate emissionsfrom motor vehicles (EMFAC2007). Updated budgets for PMIO must be approved by U.S. EPA by January 2008. Delay in approval beyond this date could hinder local transportation projects and restrict federal transportation funding. Duringthe development of the 2007 PMI0 Maintenance Plan, the Valley tra~isportation agencies provided updated transportation activity for use in calculating conformity budgets. This informationwas not available in time for the Districtto incorporate it into the adopted plan. ARB staff worked with the transportation agencies and the Districtto reflectthe updated activity data in conformity budgets, and post the budgets for the required 30-day public review. Inthe Resolution approvingthe 2007 PMI 0 Maintenance Plan, the District recognizedthe need for technical refinementsto the conforn'lity budgets after adoption of the 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan. ARB staff proposes ARB adoption of the updatedtransportation conformity budgets for the region. Staff Recommendation 

### ARB staff concurs with the 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and Requestfor Redesignationand the District's supporting technical analysis. ARB staff recommends that the Board approve the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan, including updated transportation conformity budgets, emission inventory, and maintenance demonstrationas a revisionto the California SIP for subm~ittal to U.S. EPA. In addition, ARB staff recommendsthat the Board approve the District's redesignation requestfrom nonattainmentto attainmentfor the federal PMIO standard.

October 1 2,2007

--=- 

# - --. 

# -

### 1. BACKGROUND Covering nearly 25,000 square miles, the Valley is one of the dominant features in California's landscape. One of the fastest growing regions in the State, the Valley is hometo morethan 3.6 million people. The Valley has four large cities, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield, each with a population greater than 200,000. Numerous smaller cities and towns inthe Valley are separated by large expanses of agricultural lands. However, as urbanizationinthe Valley continues to increase, more land is converted to non-agricultural uses. Open to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in the North, the Valley is surrounded bythe Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, the Pacific Coast range to the west, and the Tehachapi Mountainsto the south. The climate and geography of the Valley create optimal conditions for forming and trapping air pollution. Inthe Valley, PMI0 is a complex mixture of primary or directly emitted particles (dust and soot), and secondary particles or aerosol droplets formed in the atmosphere from precursor gases. PMI0 includes the subset of fine particleswith a diameter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5). The nature and levels of PMI0 concentrations inthe Valley typically differ by season. Duringthe fall, higher PMIO concentrations occur between October and November, during relatively stable atmospheric conditions priorto rainfall, and are mostly driven by directly emitted PMIO. Duringthe winter, higher PMIO concentrations occur between late November and January during extended periodsof stagnant weather with cold, damp, foggy conditions, which are conduciveto the formation of secondary particulates. At these times, PMIO is dominated by ammonium nitrate formed from NOx and ammonia emissions. Winter PMIO also containswood smoke and directly emitted particles. Duringthe winter, PMI0 is mostly comprised of particleswithin the PM2.5 size range. In 1987, U.S. EPA adopted national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for PM10, with a 24-hour PMIO standard of 150 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m3) and an annual standard of 50 pg/m3. The Valley is designated as nonattainmentwith a classification of "serious" for these standards. U.S. EPA revokedthe annual PMIO standard effective December 18, 2006. In June 2003, the San JoaquinValley District adopted the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan setting the control strategy for attaining the standards by December 31, 2010. As a mid-course review, the District adopted the 2006 PMIO Plan, reaffirming the control strategy in the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan. Dueto the adoption of ARB and District rules in the 2003 PMIO Plan the Valley's air quality has improvedto the point that the District now attains the PMIO standards, ahead of the 2010 attainment deadline. In October 2006, U. S. EPA determined the Valley attained the PMIO standards, based on 2003-2005 ambient monitoring data (71 

### FR 63642, 2006 clean data finding). In August 2007, U.S. EPA followed with a proposed affirmationof attainment, based on 1 October 1 2,2007

### the evaluation of 2006 monitoring data (72 

## FR 49046). These 

### U.S. EPA actions, however, do not constitute redesignation of the Valley to attainment, since further Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requirements need to be met. The District prepared the 2007 PMI0 Maintenance Planto address these requirements and request official redesignationto attainnient.


### II. REDESIGNATION REQUIREMENTS ARB staff reviewedthe District's 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan within the context of the Act, which identifies the following requirements an area must meetto be redesignated to attainment: A. The PMIO standards have been attained; B. The District has an approved State Implementation Plan and the State has met all applicable Act requirements for PMIO in the Valley; C. The improvement in PMIO air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions; and D. 

### U.S. EPA has approved a maintenance plan. The Act also sets the generalframework for maintenance plans'. The 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan providesfor continued maintenance of the PMI0 standards for 10years after redesignation and includes the following components: 1. Attainment emission inventory; 2. Maintenance demonstration; 

### 3. Commitment to continue the monitoring network operation; 4. Commitment for verification of continued attainment; and 5. Contingency plan to promptly correct any violation of the PMI 0 NAAQSthat occurs after the Valley has been redesignated. Ill. 

### PLAN EVALUATION Based on review of the 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and the District's supporting technical analysis ARB staff concurs with the Plan. The following sections describethe major elements of the Plan and the redesignation request. A. The Valley Attains the PMIO Standards PMIO concentrations are measured at fifteen monitoring stations located throughout the Valley (Figure 1). 

### Table I lists air quality data for the 2004-2006 periodwhich demonstrate that the Valley meets both the 24-hour and annual PMI0 standards. The values used for assessing attainment are based on quality assured federal reference

1 Calcagni, John, Memorandum, Procedures for Processing Requeststo RedesignateAreas to Affainrnent, Office ofAir Quality Planningand Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 4, 1992. 

### 2 October 1 2,2007

### (FRM) or federal equivalent monitors (FEM). Dueto regulatory rounding conventions, a 24-hour PMI 0 concentration exceeds the standard if it measures 155 micrograms per cubic meter (Clg/m3) or over. The 24-hour standard is met when the estimated nl-~mber of exceedances measured over a three-year period averages one or less per year. The annual standard is met when the annual average averaged over three years is less than or equal to 50 ug/m3. 

### Figure 

### 1. PMlO Monitoring Stations in the San Joaquin Valleya

a. The monitor at Tracy started operating in 2006.


## 3 October 12,2007

### Table 1. San Joaquin Valley PMl 

### 0 Data from 2004 to 2006 (based on filter-based monitoring)



# I Ave 

# I 1 I I Three-Year Annual Averagk

,,

, 

## (pg/m3):.
44 

### ~onitoring Station Name
Bakersfield-California



# I Street 

# I I I I

Bakersfield-Golden State Clovis-NorthVilla Ave Corcoran-Patterson Ave ~resno-1 St 

### Street Fresno-Drummond 

### 0bserved Three-Year

24-hour. 'Maximuma (pg/m3)

153"



# ( Modesto-14thstreet 96 0 30 

## :Estimbtecf'

24-Hour Exceqdance" DPys 0 1

54b 1 04 140 117 132 Hanford-S. Irwin Street Merced-2334 M Street 

# 1 Stockton-Wagner-Holt 69 0 23 0 0 0 

### 0 0 142 94 Oildale-Manor Stockton-Hazelton Street 47 34 43 34 41

a. Data do not include PMlO concentrations caused by natural/exceptionalevents which are excluded from regulatory consideration. b. Because of regulatory rounding conventions, a measured 24-hour PMlO concentrationexceeds the standard when it is equal to or over 155 pg/m3. 

### 0 0 145 82 

# ' School

Turlock-S Minaret Street Visalia-N Church Street

On four days over the last three years (2004-2006), the 24-hour standard was exceeded due to extrenie wind conditions that are excluded under the federal rule for natural events. The Act allows areas to exclude approved natural events in regulatory findings, since they are not reasonably preventable or controllable. The four events were submitted to U.S. EPA to be flagged as natural events (Table 

### 2). A more detailed description of each of these natural events is found in Appendix A to this report. 43 29

In the 2006 clean data finding, U.S. EPA had already approved the exclusion of the Septerr~ber 3, 2004 event. Inthe 2007 proposed affirmation of attainment, U.S. EPA has also proposed concurrence with the exclusion of the three natural events recorded in 2006. 0 0
97 145

October 12,2007 - 

### 44 30
0 0 3 1 44

### Table 2. Natural Events Recoded in the Valley during the 2003-2006 Period

6. 

### U.S. EPA Approved the 2003 Valley PMIO SIP and the State Has Met Applicable Act Requirenients Date Sept. 3,2004 Sept. 22,2006

- 

### Oct. 25,2006

Dec. 8,2006

U.S. EPA approved the amended 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan on May 26,2004, except for the contingency measures. On October 2006, U.S. EPA determined that the Valley attainsthe PMIO NAAQS and, under ,theClean Data Policy, suspended the contingency measure requirement. Therefore, ARB and the District have met all of the Act requirements applicablefor a serious PMIO nonattainmentarea to be consideredfor redesignation. C. Improvement in the Valley's PMIO Air Quality is Due to Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Location

Concentration, Monitor Type Corcoran

217 pg/m3, FRM Corcoran

215 pg/m3, FRM 261 pg/m3, FEM Bakersfield-Golden

157 pg/m3, FRM 170 pg/m3, FEM Oildale Corcoran 304 pg/m3, FEM Bakersfield-Golden

193 pg/m3, FEM Corcoran

162 pg/m3, FEM Bakersfield-Golden 213 pg/m3, FEM

ARB adopted measures achieve the 10tpd NOx and 0.5 tpd direct PMIO 2010 emission reductions commitment from State mobile sources in the Valley's 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan. The District has adopted all of the rules committed to in the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan and will not remove, replace, or suspend any emission
5 

### October 12,2007 Cause
Dust resulting froni high speed winds north of Corcoran Transported dust resulting from dry conditions throughout the Valley and strong winds north of Co rcoran 

# 0 Transported dust resulting from dry conditions throughout the Valley and high winds northwest of Corcoran Transported dust resulting from dry conditions throughout the Valley and high winds in the southeastern portion of the Valley U.S. EPA Approval Status Approved Proposed

Proposed

Proposed

### reduction measure commitments in the plan, even after the Valley is redesignatedas attainment. Over the past 15years, PMI0 air quality in the Valley has improved as control measures in air quality plans have been adopted. The severity and frequency of PMIO episodes have significantlydecreased. Inthe early 1 99OYs, maximuln 24-hour concentrationssurpassed 250 pg/m3,over 40 estimated PMIO exceedancesoccurred, and annual average concentrationswere close to 80 pg/m3. In comparison, from 2003-2006, there were no violations of the 24-hour PMIO standard and the maximum three-year average concentrationwas 47 pg/m3. Figure 2 illustrates the downward trends in the maximum 24-hour PMIO concentrations recorded in the Valley and the maximum three-year averages. ARB staff evaluated these trends based onthe nonparametric statisticaltest, know as the Theil test, that U.S. EPA uses in national air quality trend analyses2. This method tests for whether upward or downward trends are real (significant) or a chance product of year-to-year variation (not significant). Theil test results indicate the 1990to 2006 downward trends in maximum 24-hour and three-year annual PMIO concentrations are statistically significant. As shown in Figure 2, the 24-hour maximum PMIO concentration in 2006 is close to the level of the standard. However, it is still below the standard. Figure 2. San Joaquin Valley Trends in Maximum24-hour and Three-Year Average PMI0 

### Concentrations

Data do not include measurements identifiedas naturallexceptional events

2 U.S. EPA, NationalAir Qualityand Emissions Trends Report, Publication No. EPA454lR-03-005. Office of Air Quality and Standards,Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 2003. htt~://www.epa.~ovlairIairtrends/aatrnd031 

### 6 October 1 2,2007

### During this period, the Valley has undergone rapid economic growth and even with continuous increases in population and vehicle travel, PMIO and PMIO precursor emissions have decreased. For example, between 2000 and 2005 pop~~lation grew by 14% and vehicle miles traveled by 28%)yet PMIO emissions decreased by 10% and NOx emissions by 12% (Table 3), as the result of ongoing control programs. Table 3. 

### Valley Trends in Emissions, Population, and Vehicle Miles Traveled

Based on qualitative analyses of long-term air quality and weather variables 

# - including temperature, rainfall, wind speed, and atmospheric stability

# - the District found no conclusive evidence that meteorological conditions during 2003-2006 were unusually favorable to lower PMIO levels. 'The District points out that in the last two decades PMI0 air quality has improved even though weather regimes have cycled between those favorable and unfavorable to PMIO buildup.

. 

### NOx Emissions (tpd) PMI0 Emissions (tpd)



### D. Maintenance Plan The 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan addresses both the 24-hour as well as the rescinded annual PMIO standards and includesthe following components: attainment emission inventory; maintenance demonstration; commitmentto continue monitoring network operation; commitmentfor verification of continued attainment; and contingency plan. Average DailyVehicle Miles Traveled11 000 77,176 98,950 28 2000 

### 677 324



### 1. Attainment Emission Inventory An emission inventory is a critical tool used to evaluate, control, and mitigate air pollution which is comprised of a systematic listing of the sources of air pollutants along with the amount of pollutantsemitted from each source or category over a given period of time. Emission inventoriesare estimates of the air pollutant emissions released into the environment 

## -they are not direct ambient concentration measurements. To determine the expected emissions in future years, emission inventories incorporate the effects of growth and existing regulations (baseline inventories). An attainment inventory identifies the level of emissions during the periodwhen air quality data show attainment. 2005 

### 606 284



### U.S. EPA first determined PMIO attainment in the Valley based on 2003-2005 air quality data and has proposed continued affirmation based on 2006 data. The District selected the 2005 emission inventory

# - the third year ofthe periodwhen air quality first showed Reduction 

### (%) 10 12 Increase (Yo)

7 October 12,2007

### attainment in the Valley 

# - as the attainment inventory inthe PMIO Maintenance Plan. ARB staff has updated the attainment inventory presented in the District's 2007 PMIO Plan to reflect emission reductions achieved by ARB adopted measures that had not been accountedfor. Table 4 presents the updated 2005 attainment inventoryof direct PMIO and NOx precursor emissions in the Valley split by broad source category. Appendix B includes the detailed 2005 attainment inventory (annual and winter), prior year 2000 emissions, plus projected er~issions for 2010 and 2020. Table 4. San Joaquin Valley: 2005 Attainment Emission Inventory

2. Maintenance Demonstration Source Category 

### Stationary and Area-wide On-Road Mobile Vehicles Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment Total



### In the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan, the District used a combination of chemical mass balance (CMB) receptor modeling, photochemical modeling, and the linear rollback technique to demonstrateattainment. Inthe maintenance demonstration for the 24-hour PMIO standard, the Districtfollowed updated 

### U.S. EPA modeling guidance in using modeling results in a relative manner, to estimate future year PMIO concentrations. The District estimated the rate of change in PMIO concentrations at individual monitoring sites from the concentrations modeledfor 2005 and 2020 and applied the resulting rate of change to measured 2006 PMIO concentrations. CMB is a statistical model using information on the chemical composition of ambient air samples collected at monitoring sites and information on the compositionof source emissions to apportion each source's contribution to the measured ambient sample. The 2003 PMI0 Attainment Plan includes CMB receptor modeling analysis for the eleven monitoring sites that, at the time, were nonattainment for the 24-hour standard, the annual standard, or both standards. Regional photochemical models are used to predict how emissions, weather, and terrain iniluence future levels of PMIO, based on monitoringdata, emission inventories, and atmospheric chemistry. To determine how precursor emission reductions reduce PMIO concentrations in the Valley, the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan used regional photochemical modeling with data collected during the 1995 particulate matter intensive monitoring field study. The modeling indicates that a 1.5 percent reduction in NOx emissions leads to a 1 percent reduction in the ammonium nitrate concentration. Annual



### (trd)

8 October 12,2007 PMIO 

### 259.8

14.8 9.9 284.5 Winter 

### (tpd) 

### NOx 1

24.0 328.0 154.0 606.0 PMIO 

### 232.6

14.9 8.8 256.3 

### NOx 122.5 342. 

### I 141.O 

### 605.6

### To demonstrate maintenance of 24-Iiour and annual standards, the District used the CMB analysis results and the 1.5 to 1 ratio of NOxto nitrate resulting from the photochemical modeling in combination with linear rollback. Linear rollback assumes that future PMIO levels above background concentrations will decrease in proportionto projected emission reductions. Inthe linear rollbackfor each site, CMB source categories are matchedto the appropriateemission inventory categories. The District conducted linear rollback analysesfor episodic and annual conditions using 2005 and 2020 baselineemission inventories. Tables 5 and 6 list the projected 2020 values for the 24-ho~~r and the annual PMIO standards, which demonstrate continued attainment throughout the Valley. Table 5. Projected Maintenance of 24-hour PMIO NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Site Name 

# 1 Bakersfield-California Ave 

# I 153 128

Winter Episode Observed Concentration during 2006 

### Episode 2020 

### Projected Concentration (pg/m3)
Bakersfield-Golden State Clovis- North Villa Ave (pg/m3)

Corcoran-PatersonAve. Fresno-1 St 

### Street 154 97
Fresno-Dn~mmond Street Hanford-S. Irwin Street Merced-2334 M Streeta Modesto-1 4'"treet oildale-~ano? Stockton-Hazelton Streeta Stockton-Wagner-Holt Schoola 134 80 136- 117



# 1 Turlock-S Minaret Streeta 

# 1 Visalia-N Church Street 1 24 97 132 142 69 96 no data 79 62

Fall Episode Corcoran-Patterson Ave.

a. Analysis was not conducted for sites recording concentrations below 90 yg/m3

## - 60% the level of the standard 

### - during the 2006 winter episode. b. Duringthe winter episode, concentrations at Oildale were assumed to be consistentwith concentrations at Bakersfield-California 

### 114 120

.



# - 79 128



# - - 83 145 

# I Hanford-S. Irwin Street I



### October 12,2007 

## - 122
137 124 134 121

### Table 

### 6. Projected Maintenanceof Annual PMIO NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley Site Name 2005 Annual Average 

# 1 2020 ProjectedAnnual 

# I

I Visalia-N Church Street 44.3 40.2

Fresno-Drl-~mmond Street

-The Valley is projected to maintain attainment with the PMIO standards due to ARB, District, and other state and local control measures already in place. In addition, future emissions in PMIO precursors are projectedto decrease even further as controls resulting from the implementation of the 2007 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Plan as well as the 2008 PM2.5 Attainment Plan, now under development, phase in. 3. 

### PMIO Monitoring Network Concentration 

### (vg/m3)

38.7

The District.commitsto continue PMI0 monitori~ig to verify sustained attainment of the PMIO standards. Figure 1 shows the geographical distribution of the PMIO monitoring sites throughout the Valley. U.S. EPA1s approval of the 2003 PMIO Attainment Plan states that the Valley's PMIO monitoring network "meets all applicable regulatory requirementsand is adequate to support the technical evaluation of the PMI0 problem" (69 FR 30033). In addition, in the October 2006 clean data finding, U.S. EPA concludes that the Valley's PMI0 monitoring network provided adequate data to support the attainmentfinding. Average Concentration 

### (1.1g/m3)

34.9 Bakersfield-Golden State Hanford-S. Irwin Street

4. 

### Verification of ContinuedAttainment 

### To verify continued attainment of the PMIO standards, the District commitsto complete annual reports on the progress made infulfilling commitments in PM2.5 and ozone plans. The District will make the reports public and will present them to the District's Governing Board beginning in 2008. The reports will include air quality data showing continued PMIO standard attainment; updates on the development, adoption, and implementation of control measures in ozone and PM2.5 attainment plans; and emission reductionsstatus. 43.2 40.3

5. Contingency Plan 

### 39.9 36.7

The Act requires the maintenance plan to include contingency provisions for prompt correction of any PMIO standard violation that might occur after the area has been redesignated to attainment. The maintenance plan is not required to contain fully adopted contingency measures that will go into effect without further State action as is required in nonattainment SIPS. Instead, for maintenance plans, the area must have a 

### plan to ensure that contingency measures are adopted once they are triggered. I0 October 12,2007

### The District is selecting the level of the 24-hour PMI0 standard (1 55 pg/m3)or a sequence of levels just below the standard as trigger to determine when contingency measures need to be implemented. If after examination, the event is not classified as due to a natural or exceptional event, the Districtwill analyze the event to determine its causes. The District will determine if emission reductionsfroni rules adopted as part of or committed to in approved planswould prevent any future violation. If further emission reductions are needed, the Districtwould identify applicable control measures from the District's recently adopted 2007 Ozone Attainment Plan or the 2008 PM2.5 Attainment Plan, currently under development. 6. 

### TransportationConformity Budgets Under section 176(c) of the Act, transportation activitiesthat receive federal funding or approval must befound to be fully consistentwith the SIP. U.S. EPAYs transportation rule, found in 40, CFR parts 51 and 

### 93, details requirementsfor establishing motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in SIPSfor the purposeof ensuring the conformity of ,transportationplans and programs with the SIP attainment or maintenance demonstration. The budgets act as a "ceiling"for future on-road mobile source emissions. Exceedances of the budgets indicate an inconsistencywith the SIP, and could jeopardize the flow of federal funds for transportation improvements in the region. Projected regional on-road mobile source emissions are compared to these budgets during the periodic updates of regional transportation plans and programs. The federal transportation conformity regulation3requires SIPSto specify the levels of on-road motor vehicle emissions that are consistent with attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. To receivefederal approval of funding, transportationagencies must demonstrate that emissions from transportation plans, programs, and projects conform with these "emission budgets." The Valley transportation agencies require new PMIO budgets based on ARB'S latest on-road mobile source emjssionfactor model EMFAC2007

# - released by ARB on November 1,2006 

# - to amend Transportation Improvement Plans and implement project changes. The currently approved PMIO budgets are based on EMFAC2002 emission projections, which are lowerthan PMIO budgets based on EMFAC2007, due to better understanding of emissions. The Valley transportation agencies require EMFAC2007as the basis for conformity determinations for plan amendments scheduledfor Winter 2008. Updated PMIO budgets must be approved by U.S. EPA by January 2008 to replace existing budgets. Delay in approval beyond this date would hinder local transportation projects and restrictfederal transportationfunding. Duringthe development of the 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan, the Valley transportation agencies provided updatedtransportation activity for use in calculating conformity budgets. This information was not available in time for the District to incorporate it into

3 U.S. EPA maintains online informationon its transportation conformity program, including access to relevant rulemakings, policy guidance, and reports at: htt~://www.epa.nov/otaaltrans~ltrawonf.htm. 

### 11 October 12,2007

### the adopted plan. ARB staff worked with the transportation agencies and the District to reflect the updated activity data in conformity budgets, and post the budgets for the required 30-day public review. In the Resolution approvingthe 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan, the District recognized the need for technical refinements to the conformity budgets after adoption of the 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan. ARB staff proposes ARB adoption of the updated transportation conformity budgetsfor the region. On-road motor vehicle emission budgetsfor transportation conformity were established for the years 2005 and 2020. The new emission budgets for NOx and PMIO are shown in Table 7. The budgets are derived with EMFAC2007 projections and matched to activity data reported by the eight county Councils of Government usingARB'Svehicle miles traveled (VMT) matching methodology. These results are adjustedto account for any baseline emission reductions not included in the model, and any err~issions that the model does not project (e.g. PMIO err~issions from road constructionactivities, reentrained paved road dust, and reentrained unpaved road dust). The conformity budgets are based on the average annual daily emissions. The District determined that they are applicablefor both the annual and 24-hour PMIO standards. Conformity assessmentsconducted by the transportationagencies against these budgets will use the emission factors in this Planwith updated activity.
Table 

### 7. MotorVehicle Emission Budgetsfor PMIO inthe San Joaquin Valley, Annual Average 

### (tons per day)

Fugitivedust emissions from roads will continue to grow due to growth in VMT. Section 93.124 of the federal conformity rule, in particular 93.124(c), allows the Planto establish trading mechanisms between budgetsfor pollutantsor precursors. The basic idea is to allow conformitydemonstrations for analysis years to use NOx reductions beyond the attainment level to offset PMIO increasesfrom this VMT growth. The emission budgets established in this Planfulfill the requirements of the Act and 

### U.S. EPA regulations to ensure that transportation activities support progress and attainment of the PMI0 standards. With the upcoming implementationof the niore
12 October 12,2007

### health protective federal eight-hour ozone and PM2.5 standards, we recognize that the motorvehicle budgets associatedwith those SIPSmust reflect additional reductions. Directly emitted PMIO poses a unique challengethat is not experienced with ozone or PMl0 precursors. As mentioned above, directly emitted PMl 0 from paved roads has a linear relationship with VMT. Thus, as VMT grows, paved road dust also grows. Since the opportunities for controlling paved road dust emissions are limited, ARB will continue to work closely with the District, the Councils of Government, and other transportationagencies to address the emissions growth. 

### IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION ARB staff has reviewed the Valley's 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation and consultedwith the District staff during this review. ARB staff finds that the Valley 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan meets all applicableAct requirements. ARB staff believethat implementation of this Planwould continue to maintain PMIO levels below the national air quality standards throughoutthe Valley. Therefore, we recommend that the Board adopt the San Joaquin Valley 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan, including updated transportation conformity budgets, emission inventory, and maintenance demonstration as a revision to the California SIP for submittalto U.S. EPA. In addition, ARB staff recommendsthat the Board approve the District's redesignation request from nonattainment to attainment for the federal PMIO standard.

October 12,2007

### APPENDIX A
PMI 0 

### Exceptional Events Recorded inthe San Joaquin Valley from 2004 

### through 2006 

### The U.S. EPA has established criteria for the handling and review of air quality data influenced by exceptional events. Exceptionalevents are defined as events that are unusual or naturallyoccurring, that affect air quality, and are not reasonably controllable. The concentrationsgenerated by these events must be in excess of normal historical fluctuations, including background. In addition, demonstrationof a clear causal relationship between the high concentration recorded at the monitoring site and the exceptional event must be shown, as well as corroboration that 'but-for' the event, there would not have been an exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
2004 PM10 Exceptional Events September 3, 2004 Monitoring Site, Concentration, MonitorType: Corcoran, 21 7 pg/m3, FRM Ab~iormally high wind speeds (over 3 standard deviations) were reported throughoutthe Central Valley on September 2nd and 3rd. These northwesterly winds entrained dust in the northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley, upwind of Corcoran. The plume moved southward, depositing dust at the Corcoran monitoring site which peaked in the late morning, gradually decreasing throughout the day. This event met the EPA's criteriafor determinationof an exceptional event. The concentrations were in excess of background and normal historicalvariations. Only 3 to 5% of daily averaged PMIO concentrations in September have exceeded I00ug/m3 between 2000 and 2006. A clear and causal relationship betweenthe event and the monitoring site concentrationswas established based on the magnitude and timing of peakwinds which were associated with the ho~~rs of elevated PMIO concentrations. In addition, the substantial increase in concentrationson September 3, during a time when ar~thropoger~ic emissions activity was constant, demonstrated that "but for" the natural windblown dust emissions, no exceedance would have occurred.

October 12,2007

### 2006 PM10 Exceptional Events September 22,2006 Monitoring Site, Concentration, MonitorType: Corcoran, 21

### 5 pg/m3,FRM Corcoran, 261 pg/m3,FEM Bakersfield-Golden, 157 pg/m3, FRM Bakersfield-Golden, 170 yg/m3, FEM Oildale, 162 yg/m3, FRM 

### Dry conditions throughout the San Joaquin and Southern SacramentoValleys coupled with high winds, allowed for the entrainment of dust to the north of Corcoran. Transported southward by the same high winds, the dust reached Corcoranon the morning of September 22, 2006, where lower wind speeds allowed for deposition at the monitoring site. Continuingto move southeast, additional PMIOwas entrained into ,the atmosphere, reachingthe Bakersfield and Oildale area by early afternoon. Without the arid conditions, high winds, and subsequent entrained dust, the measured concentrations measured at Corcoran, Oildale, and Bakersfield-Golden on September 22, 2006 would have been below the national standard. This event met the EPA's criteria for determination of an exceptional event. The concentrationswere in excess of background and normal historicalvariations. Only 3 to 5% of PMI0 concentrations in September have exceeded 100 ug/m3 since 2000. A clear and causal relationship betweenthe event and the monitoring site concentrations was established based on the magnitude and timing of peakwinds which were associated with the hours of elevated PMIO concentrations. In addition, the substantial increase in concentrations on September 22, during a time when anthropogenic emissions activitywas constant, demonstrated that "but for" the natural windblown dust emissions, no exceedance would have occurred. October25,2006 MonitoringSite, Concentration, MonitorType: Corcoran, 304 pg/m3, FEM Bakersfield-Golden, 193 pg/m3,FEM Dry conditions throughout the San Joaquin Valley, brought on by below nornial precipitation, combined with high winds northwest of Corcoran, allowed for the entrainmelit of dust into the atmosphere. Lower wind speeds in the Central and Southern portions of the San Joaquin Valley accounted for the subsequent deposition of dust at Corcoran on the morning of October25. Concentrations remained high in Corcoranfor most of the day. The dust cloud spread toward Bakersfield by the afternoon, resulting in high concentrations - 

### although lower than those seen in Corcoran. PMIO levels remained elevated at both sites the

15 October 12,2007

### next day, but the daily averages were below both the State and National standards. This event met the EPA's criteria for determination of an exceptional event. The concentrations on October 25 were in excess of both background and normal historical variations. Historically, both the wind speeds seen during the event and the concentration levels recorded at Corcoran and Bakersfieldwere considered unusually high. Boththe magnitude of these concentrations and the timing of the peak winds helped establish a clear and causal relationship between the event and monitol-ingsite concentrations. The substantial increase in concentrations on October 25, during a time when anthropogenic emissions activity was constant, demonstrated that "but for" the natural windblown dust emissions, no exceedancewould have occurred. December 8,2006 Monitoring Site, Concentration, MonitorType: Corcoran, 162j~glm~, FEM Bakersfield-Golden,213 j~~lm~, FEM Continued dry conditions in the San JoaquinValley, coupled with high winds, particularly southeast of Bakersfield, allowed for the entrainment and subsequent transport of dust to the monitoring sites in Bakersfield beginning in the morning hours. Strong winds west-northwest of Corcoran increased PM10 transport from Bakersfield and the areas between to the northern portions of the Valley. Concentrations increased at several sites, including an hourly high of 645 uglm3 at Fresno, although Corcoranwas the only site north of Bakersfield to exceed the NAAQS. This event met the EPA's criteria for determination of an exceptional event. The concentrations were in excess of background and normal historicalvariations. PMlO concentrations at Corcoran or Bakersfield have exceeded 100j~~lrn~ only 10times in December since 1997. In addition, fugitive dust dominated events in December are rare. A clear and causal relationship between the event and the monitoring site concentrationswas established based on both the magnitude and timing of peak winds associatedwith the hours of elevated PMl0 concentrations. In addition, the substantial increase in concentrations on December 8, during a time when anthropogenic emissions activitywas constant, denionstrated that "but for" the natural windblown dust emissions, no exceedance would have occurred.

16 October 12,2007

### APPENDIX 

### B Emission Inventory 

### This Appendix contains emission inventorytables for directly emitted PM10, NOx, ROG, and SOX. The emission inventory reflects reductions due to all ARB measures adopted through Decerr~ber 31, 2006. The tables list annual and winter average emissions in tons per day (tpd) for 2000,2005,2010, and 2020.

17 October 12,2007

# 1 WOOD AND PAPER 

# 1 0.50 

# 1 0.54 

# 1' 0.61 

# 1 1.11 

# 1 0.50 

# 1 0.53 

# 1 0.60 

# 1 1.08 

# 1 18 October 

### 12,2007ARCHITECTURAL COATINGSAND RELATED GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) Stationary Subtotal AREA-WIDE SOURCES CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 I I I I I I I I 1.05 0.83 27.15

PROCESS SOLVENTS PESTICIDESIFERTILIZERS ASPHALT PAVING 1 ROOFING RESIDENTIAL FUEL 

# 1 CONSTRUCTIONAND 

# I I I I 

# 1 1. I 1 I

COMBUSTION FARMING OPERATIONS 1.08 0.14 23.48

0.00 0.00 0.00

FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN 11.85 84.30 DEMOLITION PAVEDROADDUST UNPAVED ROAD DUST



### 19 

### October 

### 12,2007 1.18 0.16 24.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 11.34 61.52 11.62 41.67 46.70 1.42 0.19 26.39

0.00 0.00 0.00 9.70 61.69 10.88 44.56 42.30 1.08 0.84 26.78

0.00 0.00 0.00 9.04 62.70 11.94 46.82 41.55 1.08 0.14 23.41

0.00 0.00 0.00 22.84 64.58 11.79 58.43 43.08 1.18 0.15 23.82

0.00 0.00 0.00 1.42 0.18 26.31

21.84 51.05 10.64 39.34 35.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

- 18.64 51.43 9.97 42.06 31.57 17.34 52.84 10.94 44.19 31.01 10.80 55.14 31.97

### SAN JOAQUIN 

## VALLEYAIR BASIN

# -- DIRECT PMIO 

## EMISSlQNS

, . 

## (tpd)

# - : , i ,-.



## .. * 

### (continuation) ,. , , r I‘- 

### . a



# I DIESEL TRUCKS 

## - 1 

# 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I 3. 

### SUBCATEGORY MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (MHDV) HEAVY HEAV? DUTY GAS TRUCKS (HHDV) LIGHT HEAVY DUTY *. 

### ANNUAL- .~, 2000 

# 1 

# : 2005.1 2010 

# 1 .:?2020
0.02 0.01 (LHDV1) LIGHT HEAVY DUTY 

### WINTER , $*, '



### . -,

.ZOOO:~- 

## .zoos

# -1. '. 2o$6:I2 

## 'iozo:

MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) HEAVYHEAVYDUTY DIESELTRUCKS (HHDV) MOTORCYCLES (MCY)

OTHER 

## MOKE SOURCES AlRCRAFT 11.111 1.361 1.451 1.751 1.111 1.361 1.451 1.75 0.01 0.01
0.01

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES (UB) HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN BUSES (UB) SCHOOL BUSES (SB) OTHER BUSES (OB) MOTOR HOMES (MH) On-Road Subtotal

TRAINS 

# 1 0.641 0.661 0.581 0.591 0.64) 0.661 0.581 0.59 I I I I I I I I 0.64 11.77

0.02 0.01 0.01
0.09

0.04 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.02 15.49 0.71 10.28

0.06

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS RECREATIONAL BOATS OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT FARM EQUIPMENT FUEL STORAGEAND HANDLING Other Mobile Subtotal



### October 12.2007 0.02 0.01
0.06

0.04 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.02 14.81

GRAND TOTAL 0.62 8.78 0.05

0.07 0.59
0.09 4.39 3.88 0.00 10.76 0.02 0.01
0.05

0.04 0.00 0.11 ,0.02 0.02 13.52

324.03 0.46 4.23 0.04

0.06 0.64
0.08 3.87 3.25 0.00 9.91 0.01 0.01
0.01

0.05 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.02 9.71

284.49 0.64 11.83

0.02

0.04 0.83
0.09 2.97 2.50 0.00 8.46 0.01 0.01
0.09

0.04 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.02 15.55

282.10 0.02 0.01

0.71 10.34

0.06

0.04 1.38
0.11 1.25 0.95 0.00 6.08 0.06

0.04 0.00 0.10 0.03 0.02 14.86

'* 

### -. 290.00 0.05

\ 0.62 8.82 0.05

0.07 0.22
0.10 4.38 3.03 0.00 9.54 0.46 4.25 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.02 13.57

283.63 0.05 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.02 9.72

0.06 0.24
0.09 3.86 2.54 0.00 8.79

256.28 0.03 0.31
0.11 2.97 1.95 0.00 7.41 0.04 0.51
0.12 1.26 0.74 0.00 5.02

252.72 J< * 259.41

### October 

### 12,2007 PRODUCTION

INCINERATORS SOIL REMEDIATION OTHER (WASTE DISPOSAL) LAUNDERING DEGREASING COATINGSAND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 

## 1 PRINTING

ADHESIVES AND SEALANTS OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS) OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION PETROLEUM REFINING PETROLEUMMARKETING OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTION AND MARKETING) CHEMICAL FOODAND AGRICULTURE MINERAL PROCESSES 

### 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.11 0.02
0.00 0.23 9.79 2.44 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.25 0.02
0.00 0.30 9.11 2.33 METAL PROCESSES WOOD AND PAPER 

### 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.02
0.00 0.35 8.96 2.55 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.03
0.00 0.41 8.79 3.05 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.1 0.02
0.00 0.22 9.42. 

### ------ 2.28 0.04 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.25 0.02
0.00 0.30 9.06 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.25 0.02
0.00 0.34 8.93 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.25 0.03
0.00 0.41 8.77GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 8.73 9.38 8.37 10.13 8.94 9.38 8.37 10.12 OTHER (INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES) 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.16 Stationary Sources Subtotal 136.11 105.85 100.49 103.67 126.09 97.28 92.42 96.48 AREA-WIDE SOURCES CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS AND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PESTICIDESIFERTILIZERS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ASPHALT PAVING 

### I ROOFING I 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RESIDENTIAL FUEL 

# ' COMBUSTION 6.72 6.34 5.96 5.73 10.14 9.61 8.95 8.44

FARMING OPERATIONS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CONSTRUCTIONAND DEMOLIl'ION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAVEDROADDUST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNPAVED ROAD DUST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FUGI-1-IVEWINDBLOWN DUST 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 FIRES 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.0-3

MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL 12.12 11.93 11.72 11.30 15.94 15.66 15.35 14.72 COOKING 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OTHER (NIISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area-Wide Sources Subtotal 18.87 18.30 17.71 17.07 26.11 25.29 24.33 23.19 ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES LIGHT DUTY PASSENGER 

## I (LDA) 40.58 22.17 14.54 5.80 43.92 23.95 15.70 6.25 LIGHT DUTYTRUCKS 

## - 1 (LDT2) 

# 1 29.81 19.78 

# 1 13.81 

# 1 6.54 

# 1 32.37 

# 1 21.40 

# 1 14.93 

### ( 7.06 MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS 

## I

22 October 

### I 

### 2.2007 (MDV) 15.75 13.42 9.46 4.82 17.11 14.52 10.22 5.20 LIGHT HEAWDUTY GAS TRUCKS 

## - 1 (LHDVI) LIGHT HEAWDUTY GAS TRUCKS 

## - 2 (LHDV2) MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (MHDV) 5.31 1.25 2.85 4.72 1.03 2.17 4.00 0.97 1.72 3.75 0.86 0.85 5.67 1.34 3.06 5.02 1.09 2.32 4.22 1.02 1.84 3.94 0.90 0.90(LHDV1) 

# 1 0.33 

# 1 5.41 

## ( 3.44 

# 1 1.94 

# 1 0.34 

# 1 5.58 

# 1 3.54 

# 1 1.99 LIGHT HEAVY DLlTY HEAVYHEAVYDUTYGAS TRUCKS (HHDV) LIGHT HEAVY DUTY
1 DIESEL TRUCKS 

## - 1


# 1 DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) 

# 1 19.60 21.31 

# 1 16.79 

# 1 7.02 

# 1 20.26 

# 1 22.02 

# 1 17.35 

# 1 7.25 

# 1

3 2.98

DIESELTRUCKS

# - 2 (LHDV2) 

## 1 MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY 

# 1 HEAVY HEAVY DUTY 

# I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 2.54

2.37

DIESELTRUCKS (HHDV) MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 1.92

3.34

HEAVY DUTY DIESEL URBAN BUSES (UB) HEAVY DUTY GAS URBAN



### October 12, ,2007 192.84 0.45

BUSES (LIB) SCHOOL BUSES (SB) OTHER BUSES (OB) MOTOR HOMES (MH) On-Road Mobile Sources Subtotal 1.46

2.67

1.99 213.43 1.44

0.23 2.06 0.67 1.49 338.76 3.22

1.38

2.24 191.89 1.48

0.28 2.40 1.09 1.4 327.91 5.23 21.46

1.49 1.43
0.34 31.29 15.00

0.00 76.25 OTHER MOBILE SOLIRCES 2.75

2.44

2.33 79.69 1.64

0.31 2.48 0.98 0.97 276.42 2.06

3.44

2.46

3.04 23.64

0.99 1.27
0.16 70.80 41.05

0.00 140.95 1.57

198.81

0.49

0.40 2.27 0.54 0.52 124.66 4.34 20.04

1.03 1.39
0.19 55.96 32.57

0.00 115.52 5.24 21.46

1.50 3.61
0.28 31.14 19.18

0.00 82.41 4.34 20.04

1.04 3.50
0.18 55.68 41.66

0.00 126.43 AIRCRAFT TRAINS SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL BOATS RECREATIONAL BOATS OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT FARM EQUIPMENT FUEL STORAGE AND HANDLING Other Mobile Sources Subtotal 2.75

2.05

2.45 30.51

1.7 0.88
0.14 79.18 49.74

0.00 164.08 1.42

220.22 1.57

0.25 2.13 0.70 1.62 355.43 2.46 30.51

1.19 2.20
0.13 78.75 63.60

0.00 178.84 2.31

3.05 23.64

1.00 3.18
0.15 70.42 52.48

0.00 153.92 197.99 1.61

0.30 2.48 1.14 1.22 342.06 81.55 1.78 

# I 2.40 0.34 2.55 1.03 1.04 287.75 2.53 0.44 2.34 0.56 0.55 129.16

# I STATIONARY SOURCES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 0.23 0.48 0.51 0.58 0.21 0.44 0.47 0.53 COGENERATION 0.29 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.29 0.43 0.44 0.46 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION (COMBUSTION) 2.10 3.29 3.24 3.32 2.10 3.29 3.24 3.32 PETROLEUM REFINING (COMBUSTION) 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.43 0.22 0.30 0.32 0.36
- FOOD AND

AGRICULTLIRAL PROCESSING 2.27 2.32 2.27 2.20 2.10 2.14 2.10 2.03 SERVICE AND COMMERCIAL 0.28 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.49 0.50 0.52 OTHER (FUEL COMBUSTION) 0.16 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.07 SEWAGE TREATMENT 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 LANDFILLS INCINERATORS SOIL REMEDIATION OTHER (WASTE

PRINTING 

# 1 1.48) 1.651 1.811 2.16) 1.48 

# 1 1.65 

# 1 1.80 

# 1 2.15 ADHESIVES AND DISPOSAL) LAUNDERING DEGREASING COATINGSAND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS 1.43 0.00 0.08 0.47 0.05 11.05

8.16
SEALANTS OTHER (CLEANING AND SURFACE COATINGS) OIL AND GAS



### October 12,2007 1.59 0.00 0.07

PRODUCTION PETROLEUM REFINING PETROLEUM MARKETING OTHER (PETROLEUM PRODUCTIONAND 0.54 0.06 1.47 7.62
0.72 2.80 1.74 0.00 0.08

33.15

1.75 7.34 0.58 0.07 1.49 8.57
3.20 3.39 2.01 0.00 0.10

27.93

0.66 7.55
0.00 3.06 11.32

0.46 0.33 0.01 0.49 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.15 0.00 

## -- 0.00 0.70 0.08 1.61 10.47

3.45 3.97

CHEMICAL FOOD AND AGRICULTURE MINERAL PROCESSES METAL PROCESSES WOOD AND PAPER GLASS AND RELATED PRODUCTS 1.42 0.00 0.08

26.78

0.66 8.20 0.47 0.05 11.05

8.12
4.08 4.99

2.48 .11.03

0.39 0.20 0.00 0.10 1.59 0.00 0.07

23.99

0.67 9.49 0.54 0.06 1.47 7.57
0.72 2.79

2.35 11.35

0.37 0.35 0.01 0.37 1.74 0.00 0.08

33.14

1.72 7.33 2.01 0.00 0.10 0.58 0.07 1.49 8.52
3.19 3.38

2.60 11.79

0.41 0.37 0.01 0.41 0.70 0.08 1.61 10.41

27.92

0.66 7.54 3.45 3.97

3.07 12.84

0.49 0.43 0.01 0.49 4.08 4.99 26.77

0.66 8.20 23.98 0.67 9.49

2.47 9.79 0.33 0.20 0.00 0.10 2.35 9.98 0.35 0.28 0.01 0.37 2.59 10.37

0.38 0.29 0.01 0.41ROOFING 

# 1 2.24 

# 1 2.35 

# 1 2.39 

# 1 2.45 

# 1 1.64 

# 1 1.72 

# 1 1.75 

# 1 1.79 1 RESIDENTIAL FUEL

AREA-WIDE SOURCES CONSUMER PRODUCTS ARCHITECTURAL COATINGSAND RELATED PROCESS SOLVENTS PESTlClDESlFERTlLlZERS ASPHALT PAVllVG 

### I
COMBUSTION FARMING OPERA1-IONS CONSTRUCTIONAND
UNPAVEDROADDUST 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 

# 1 0.00 FUGITIVE WINDBLOWN DEMOLITION PAVED ROAD DUST 24.68
11.27 25.24

6.32 59.83

(LDT2) 

## ( 19.67 

### ( 14.01 

# 1 11.06 

# 1 7.05 

# 1 20.93 

# 1 14.93 

# 1 11.85 

# 1 7.48 MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS 0.00 0.00
DUST 

# 1 FIRES 

# 1 MANAGED BURNING AND DISPOSAL COOKING OTHER (MISCELLANEOUS PROCESSES) Area-Wide Sources Subtotal

- 23.48
9.41 23.49 28.39
10.84 21.56

5.94 65.41



## 25 October 

### 12,2007 23.48
7.73 25.15 23.62



### - 9.82 22.38 24.68
9.25 26.87

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.09 16.57

0.43 0.00

- 146.66

(MDV) LlGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

### - 1 (LHDVI) LIGHT HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS 

## - 2 (LHDV2) MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY GAS TRUCKS (MHDV) HEAVYHEAVYDUTYGAS TRUCKS (HHDV) LlGHT HEAVY DUTY. DIESEL TRUCKS 

## - 1 LHDVI ( 

### ) 4.91 71.01

ON-ROAD MOBILE SOURCES 23.61
8.06 23.97

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.09 16.32

0.44 0.00 146.94

9.63 6.93 1.71 5.25 2.01
0.02 28.38
8.90 23.07

4.41 85.89

8.03 3.67 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.10 16.05

0.48 0.00 1 50.74
18.37 7.45

7.89 5.38 1.26 3.35

- 1.39
0.19 12.15 59.80

LlGHT DUTY PASSENGER (LDA) LlGHT DUTY TRUCKS 

## - 1 (LDT1) LlGHT DUN TRUCKS 

## - 2 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.11 15.47

0.55 0.00 1 69.66
47.02 18.23

6.26 3.15 0.89 11.41 65.38

27.22 10.49 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.09 19.39

0.43 0.00 154.30
7.89 3.44 17.67

6.98

4.47 2.27 0.48 9.40 70.98 8.42 85.86 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.09 19.02

0.44 0.00 1 54.42
49.72 19.50

10.22

7.47 1.86 0.64 0.36
0.13 2.15 2.39 0.00 0.00

28.58 11.18

0.86
0.16 0.00 0.10 18.62

0.48 0.00 1

56.98

8.37 5.78 1.37 0.00 0.1 1 17.78

0.55 0.00 174.86

0.34
0.13 6.67 3.40 0.96 4.72 2.47 0.53

2.21
0.02 1.49
0.19 0.91
0.16DIESEL TRUCKS 

## - 2 (LHDV2) MEDIUM HEAW DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) HEAWHEAVYDUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) MOTORCYCLES (MCY) HEAVY DUTY DIESEL

TRAINS 

# 1 1.591 1.641 1.541 1.581 1.59 

# 1 1.64 

# 1 1.54 

# 1 1.58

FARM EQUIPMENT 

# 1 12.97 

# 1 10.85 

# 1 8.28 

# 1 3.45 

# 1 10.67 

# 1 9.00 

# 1 6.90 

# 1 2.88 FUEL STORAGE AND OTHER MOBILE SOURCES AIRCRAFT 

# 1 5.81 

# 1 6.75 

# 1 6.47 

# 1 7.24 

# 1 5.79 

# 1 6.73 

# 1 6.46 

# 1 7.23 0.09 0.43 15.82 2.63

SHIPS AND COMMERCIAL 

## I BOATS RECREATIONAL BOATS OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT 

## I 0.15 0.53 16.13

5.76

0.12 14.86

5.26 21.97
HANDLING Other Mobile Sources Subtotal



### October 

### 12,2007 s1 GRAND TOTAL 0.14 0.50 15.71

5.06

0.12 13.18

6.89 19.76
4.74 67.32

433.38 0.10 0.36 8.45 5.03

0.09 11.86

7.87 15.35
3.53 62.72

382.651' 0.09 0.43 15.95 2.79

0.09 11.03
10.35 10.28
2.08 53.54

356.36

# ' e0.15 0.53 16.25

6.02

0.12 7.69
5.66 22.07
1.36 45.38

341.76 0.14 0.50 15.83

5.23

0.11 7.68
7.35 19.84
4.51 58.10 0.10 0.36 8.55 5.08

837?91 0.08 7.42
8.37 15.40
3.40 55.75 0.09 7.76
10.45 10.18



## - 386129: 1.92 48.10 1.23 41.42



## , - I ' 

### Zr' 23 

### $358.65 ",% ' 

### ,;? $ 

## "5 9, 3i3.5f

# 1 STATIONARY SOURCES

ILAND GAS PRODUCTION ETROLEUM REFINING

PRODUCTIONAND



### October 

## 12,2007

### 28 October 

### 12,2007 TRUCKS 

## - 1 (LHDVI) LIGHT HEAW'DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS 

## - 2 (LHDV2) MEDIUM HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (MHDV) HEAVY HEAVY DUTY DIESEL TRUCKS (HHDV) MOTORCYCLES (MCY) 

### 0.02 0.17 1.46 0.00 0.03 0.23 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.02 0.17 1.45 0.00 0.03 0.23 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.31 0.00DIESEL 

### URBAN

FUEL STORAGE 

### AND



### October 

### 1 2,2007

## 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation for the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District



# Transportation Conformity Budgets and Documentation

### Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for 

### PMIO San Joaquin Valley, Annual Average, Tons per Day

### ...

lubjectTop Page: Conformity Budgets for 2007 San JoaquinValley http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/sj~udge.,.


## CONFORMITY BUDGETS FOR 

## 2007 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY PMIO MAINTENANCE PLAN Thispage updated September24,2007 

# Supporting Documentation Calculation Methodology for 

# 2005 Budgets (pdf)



### 2007 San Joaquin Valley PMlO Maintenance Plan
The Board is one of six boards, departments, and offices under the umbrella of the California Environmental ProtectionAgency.

CallEPA 

### I ARB 

### I ClWMB ( DPR 

### I DTSC 

### I OEHHA 

### 1 SWRCB

- 

### - - - - 

### - ...........................................................................
:-

### 2020

............................................................... 

### 2020 ,- ............................. 

### 2020 ?-
.......................................................... ,-

### 2020

....................................................................................

,-

### 2020

.....



### _...........................................................................

!-

### 2020

.. ........................................... ..-

................................ 

### 2020

........... .................................... :

/

' !

lofl 11/8/2007 12:35 PM


### - j.............................. - 

### Vehicle Activity 1

................................................................................ I 

### Fresno 

### i

....................................................................... 

### I i 

### Kern

................................................ ._ ......... / 

### Kings

............................................................. I 

### Madera 

## i

............................................................ .... ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................

. !

..................................................... ..-.I 

### 2005 '

.............................................. -.. ; 

### 12005 

## :

.......................................................................................................................... 

### 12005 ' 

### 1

-
..........................................................

,-

### 2005 

## : "........................................................ ............I



### Tulare 

### i

... ............................. 8 

### 2005

............................................................... ..... .... ................................................................



# ;F *. 

### Merced !- I

...

..".

................................................................... .J ..................... ............................................................... ._ 6.. 

### San Joaquin 

## !

............................................................................. ......, 

### Stanislaus 

## j

.................................................................... .........,

### .-2005 ;

......................................................................................... .i 

### 2005. !

......................................................................................... +[Fresno COG] TransportationActivity Data 2005

Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled peripdsavailablefrom your model. If you only have daily then only providedaily. Models with peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins. VMT bySpeed Bin Model Periods

### - See note below

VMT by Facility Type(Daily Only)

Do not include external gateways Arferials includeexpressways, state highways that are notfreewaysandfreeway ramps Freeways only EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Do notforget to include intrazonal VMT in the localvmt AM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT % 168 0.0044% 1,817 0.0472% 168,503 4.3750%

12,650 0.3285% 59.619 1.5480% 265,466 6.8926% 420.752 10.9245% 519,463 13.4874% 387,747 10.0675% 530.224 13.7668% 391,627 10.1683% 522.423 13.5643% 224.435 5.8273% 346,564 8.9983%

lGneMiles 

## 1 5911 

## I VMT Speed Bins

Actual

3,851,458100.0000%~4.882,802 100.0000% 11,536,906 100.0000% 3,651,458100.0000% 4,882,802 100.0000% 11,536,906 100.0000% PM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT % Average Daily VMT % Off Peak (if available) VMT % 0.0

## - 7.50 7.51 - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 

### - 22.50 22.51

## - 27.50 27.51 - 32.50 32.51

## - 37.50 37.51

### - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61

### - 52.50 52.51 - 57.50 57.51 

## - 62.50 62.51

### - 67.50 67.51 

### - 72.50 72.51 - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51- 92.50 Total 20,271.166 1,821 0.0373% 0 0.0000% 5,187 0.1062% 0 0.0000% 244,168 5.0006% 627,483 5.4389% 20.800 0.4260% 13,642 0.1182% 82.271 1.6849% 117,561 1.0190% 368.196 7.5407% 629,720 5.4583% 664.121 13.6012% 1,003,326 8.6967% 596.636 12.2191% 1,884.837 16.3375% 487.974 9.9937% 1,085,693 9.4106% 616.119 12.6182% 1,341,862 11.6310% 435.490 8.9189% 1,007,295 8.7311% 772,816 15.8273% 852,836 7.3922% 146,836 3.0072% 1,808,932 15.6795% 440.368 9.0187% 1.163.718 10.0869%[Fresno COG], Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT bySpeed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See note below



# L I Total ( 5.350.269 100.0000% 6,819,307 100.0000%' 16,087,164 100.0000%] 28.256.740 5,350.269 100.00000/0 6,819,307 100.0000% 16,087,164 100.0000% EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Notes: 

## - Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily.
, Models with peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonalVMT and Speeds lntramnal VMT and speeds shall be included intheir respective speed bins.

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51 - 17.50 17.51

### - 22.50 22.51 - 27.50 27.51 - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61 - 52 50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51 - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51

### - 87.50 87.51 - 92.50

highway. that are notfreeways andfreewayramps

Do notforget to include intrazonal VMT inthe localvmt Lane Miles 

### 1 6781 

# I Average Daily VMT % 6.477 0.121 1% 8.403 0.1232% 7.604 0.0473% 19,277 0.3603% 11,230 0.1647% 5,035 0.0313% 244.916 4.5776% 373,641 5.4792% 883.250 5.4904% 31.483 0.5884% 79,353 1.1637% 22.473 0.1 397% 109.097 2.0391% 196,132 2.8761% 183,279 1.1393% 404.363 7.5578% 624.503 9.1579% 882.951 5.4885% 656.077 12.2625% 868,507 12.7360% 1,581,870 9.8331 % 704.573 13.1689% 839.158 12.3056% 2,553,966 15.8758% 529,901 9.9042% 685.466 10.0518% 1,556,927 9.6781% 761,077 14.2250% 892,336 13.0854% 1,644,272 10.2210% 509.445 9.5219% 655.699 9.6153% 1,779.884 11.0640% 713.802 13.3414% 913.368 13.3939% 1.276.373 7.9341% 215,664 4.0309% 105.312 1.5443% 2.214.454 13.7653% 444,116 8.3008% 566,198 8.3029% 1,494.827 9.2920%


### I PM 3 Hour Peak

(ifavailable) VMT % AM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT X Off Peak (if available) VMT %[Kern COG] 2005 Transportation Activity Data VMT bySpeed Bin Model Periods

## - See note below

Notes: 

## - Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods availablefrom yourmodel. If you only have daily then only provide daily. Modelswith peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respective speed bins.

VMT byFacility Type(Daily Only)

1173956 Do not indude externalgateways 380150 Arterials include expressways, state highways that are not freeways andfreeway ramps 8497661 Freeways only 17181709 AM 2 Hour Peak (if available) VMT Ye

2121 0.0918% 7879 0.3411% 86333 3.7374% 50431 2.1832% 102408 4.4333% 230367 9.9727% 182381 7.8954% 171747 7.4350% 97746 4.231 5% 178842 7.7422% 143361 6.2062% 228521 9.8928% 48387 2.0947% 779445 33.7427%

2309969 IOO.M)OO% Average Daily VMT %

13427 0.0781% 59326 0.3453% 690862 4.0209% 391630 2.2793% 791378 4.6059% 1764104 10.2673% 1378813 8.0249% 1301537 7.5751% 700364 4.0762% 1311501 7.6331% 1017592 5.9225% .I659184 9.6567%

366579 2.1335% 5735411 33.3809%

17181708 100.0000%

*->->-- 

## - EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Donotforget to include intrazonalVMT in the localvmt VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 -22.50 22.51-27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51-37.50 37.51 -42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61-52.50 52.51-57.50 57.51-62.50 62.51-67.50 67.51 -72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51 

## - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total

Lane Miles 

## I 4790 

# I
1998 Mid3 Hour Peak (ifavailable) VMT D/.

2875 0.0828% 12812 0.3688% 160574 4.6226% 90034 2.5919% 186203 5.3604% 406833 11.71 18% 312667 9.0009% 293797 8.4577% 147325 4.241 1% 265850 7.6532% 193040 5.5572% 335892 9.6695% 75628 2.1772% 990185 28.5051%

3473716 100.0000% PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT %

2869 0.0684% 13212 0.3151% 164018 3.9113% 93455 2.2286% 191900 4.5762% 422584 10.0773% 332686 7.9335% 322272 7.6852% 170680 4.0702% 323861 7.7231% 248541 5.9269% 391838 9.3441% 87289 2.0816% 1428228 34.0587%

4193434 100.0000% Off Peak (if available) VMT YO

5562 0.0772% 25423 0.3529% 279936 3.8855% 157709 2.1890% 310866 4.3148% 704320 9.7760% 551079 7.6490% 513721 7.1305% 284614 3.9505% 542948 7.5361% 432650 6.0052% 702934 9.7568% 155275 2.1552% 2537553 35.2213%

7204589 100.0000%[Kern COG] Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT by Speed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See note below EYFAC Speed Bin

Name

Notes: 

# - Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods availablefrom your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily. Models with peak and off peak periodsshould provide them. lntrazonalVMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) 0.0

### - 7.50 7.51 - 12.50 12.51 - 17.50 17.51 

### - 22.50 22.51 

## - 27.50 27.51 - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 - 47.60 47.61

### - 52.50 52.51 

## - 57.50 57.51 

## - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51 

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51

### - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total

Do not include externalgateways VMT Speed Bins

Actual

highways Average Daily VMT % AM 2 Hour Peak (if available) VMT %

:thal ' are Mid 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT %

! notfreeways andfreeway ramps

Do notforget to Include infrazonalVMTinthe localvmt PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT %

l~ane Miles I 5682 

### 1 Off Peak (if available) VMT %Kings County (KCAG) Transportation Activity Data 2005 VMT bySpeed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See note below

Nofes: ' Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily. Modelswith peak and off peak periods should providethem. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respectivespeed bins.

VMT by ~acilit~ ~~~e(~ail~ only) EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Do not include external gateways Arterials includeexpressways, state highways that are notfreeways andfreeway ramps Freewaysonly PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT %



# 1 ~otall 3360822 

# I
Do notforget to include intrazonalVMT inthe localvmt Lane Miles 

## I 2664 

# I
2008 2677 Off Peak (if avaflable) VMT % VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0

### - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51

### - 17.50 17.51

### - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51

## - 37.50 37.51

### - 42.50 42.51 -47.60 47.61

## - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51

### - 67.50 67.51

### - 72.50 72.51

## - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51

### - 92.50 Total Average Daily VMT % 660 0.0196%

24 0.0007% 233,712 6.9540%

7,935 0.2361% 30.971 0.9215% 113,201 3.3682% 162,645 4.8394% 120,940 3.5985% 154,337 4.5922% 637,038 18.9548% 669.718 19.9272% 263.91 1 7.8526% 965,730 28.7349% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0. 0.0000% 3,360,822100.0000%

.- --- AM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT %



### .Kings County (KCAG) Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT bySpeed Bin ModelPeriods

## - See note below

Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily. Models with peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonalVMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respectivespeed bins.

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

RoadwayClass 

### 1 VMT Local

. 

### I 382035 Do not include external gateways VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 

## - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 

### - 22.50 22.51 

## - 27.50 27.51 

## - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61

### - 52.50 52.51 

## - 57.50 57.51 

## - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51 

## - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

## - 82.50 82.51 

## - 87.50 87.51 

## - 92.50 Total Average Daily VMT %

1,305 0.0278% 2.158 0.0460% 354,265 7.5509%

10,879 0.2319% 46,715 0.9957% 167,149 3.5627% 199.072 4.2431% 205.391 4.3778% 446.998 9.5275% 587.056 12.5127% 1 ,I

28,828 24.0602% 335,065 7.1417% 1,206,791 25.7220% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 4,691,672 100.0000%



### --. . 

### ----. ..--338 Major Arterial 

### I 1764645 Arferials include expressways, state AM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT %

I 

# I Totall 4691672 Donotforget to include intrazonal VMT in the localvmt 

### pway

## 1 1354654 I highways PM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT %

Freewaysonly that are "of Off Peak (if available) VMT %

' freeways andfreeway ramps

l~ane Miles 1 2856 

### 1MADERA COUNTY TransportationActivity Data 2005 VMT bySpeed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See note below

Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods availablefrom your model. Ifyou only have dailythen only provide daily. Models with peak and off peak periods should providethem. lntrazonalVMT andSpeeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respective speed bins.

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 AM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT %

I 

# I Totall 4,557,089 

# I
Do notforget to include intraronal VMT inthe localvmt llaneMiles 

### I 2.144 

### I VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51

### - 17.50 17.51 

## - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51

## - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42,51 

### - 47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51

## - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51 

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51

## - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT % Average Daily VMT % 0 0.0000% 2,769 0.0608% 306,616 6.7283%

17,790 0.3904% 91,099 1.9991% 370.462 8.1293% 352.392 7.7328% 643.570 14.1224% 389,372 8.5443% 891.078 19.5537% 828,429 18.1789% 659.717 14.4767%

3,796 0.0833%

4,557,090 100.0000%

50not include externalgateways Arterials include expressways, state highways that are notfreeways andfreeway ramps Freewaysonly Roadway Class Local Collector Major Arterial Freeway Off Peak (if available) VMT %

VMT 304,001 927,902 1.470.077 1,855.1 09MADERA COUNTY Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT by Speed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See nofe below



### Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily. Modelswith peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respective speed bins.

VMT by FacilityType(Dai1y Only) EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Do not include external gateways expressways, state highwaysthaf are notfreeways andfreewaymmps Average Daily VMT % 0 0.0000% 17,780 0.2428% 510,545 6.9708% 50,161 0.6849% 133.469 1.8223% 719,721 9.8268% 504.664 6.8905% 337.908 4.6137% 1.421.357 19.4067% 2,363,303 32.2678% 1,030,679 14.0725%

232.745 3.1778%

1.707 0.0233%

7,324,038100.0000% VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0

## - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51

## - 17.50 17.51 

### - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 - 42.50 42.51

### - 47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51

### - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51

### - 87.50 87.51

## - 92.50 Total

Do notforget to include intrazonalVMT inthe kcal vmt Lane Miles 

## I 2,263 

# 1 AM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT % PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT % Off Peak (if available) VMT %

### Merced County MCAG Transportation Activity Data 2005 VMT bySpeed Bin Model Periods

### - See note below

Notes: 

# - Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. If you only have dailythen only provide daily. Modelswith peak and off peak periods should providethem. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins.
VMT byFacility Type(Daily Only) EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Do not include externalgateways Arterials includeexpressways, state Freeways only Average Daily VMT % 0 0.0000% 14396 0.2000% 309521 4.3000% 172756 2.4000% 316719 4.4000% 410296 5.7000% 41 7494 5.8000% 827789 11.5000% 870978 12.1000% 640637 8.9000% 1921911 26.7000%

93576 1.3000% 323918 4.5000% 878176 12.2000% 3 0.0000% 3 0.0000% 3 0.0000% 3 0.0000% 7198179 100% VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 

### - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51

### - 32.50 32.51

## - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 - 47.60 47.61 

## - 52.50 52.51 

## - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51 - 72.50 72.51

### - 77.50 77.51

### - 82.50 82.51 

## - 87.50 87.51

### - 92.50 Total

highwaysthat are not Off Peak (if available) VMT % not available AM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT % not available

freeways PM 3 Hour Peak

(ifavailable) VMT % not available

and freeway ramps

Do not forget to include intrazonal VMTinthe local vmt Lane Miles 

## 1 2550 

# 1Merced 

### County MCAG TransportationActivity Data 2020 VMT bySpeed Bin Model Periods

### - See note below

Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods Modelswith oeak and off available from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily. peak periods should providethem. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respective speed bins.

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) AM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT % not available Average Daily VMT %

14025 0.1291% 48059 0.4423% 499096 4.5933% 290994 2.6781% 672967 6.1934% 703818 6.4774% 920505 8.4716% 897955 8.2640% 1567891 14.4296% 1340559 12.3374% 1584275 14.5804% 407331 3.7487% 1557841 14.3371% 360506 3.3178% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 10865822 100% EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0

### - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51

### - 17.50 17.51

### - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51

### - 32.50 32.51 

### - 87.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51 

## - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51

### - 82.50 82.51 - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total

I I Total110865822

### 1 

# 1
Do notforgef to include intrazonal VMT inthe local vrnt PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT % not available

Lane Miles 

## 1 2706 

# 1 Off Peak (if available) VMT % not available

Do notinclude externalgateways Arterials inclrrde expressways, state highways that are notfreewaysandfreeway tamps Freeways only Roadway Class Local Collector Major Arterial Freeway VMT 348714 2131167 4987209 3398732SanJoaquin County SanJoaquin Council ofGovernments Transportation Activity Data 2005 VMT bySpeed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See note below EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20. 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

Notes: 

## - Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. If you only have daily then only provide daily, Modelswith peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonalVMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins. Average Daily VMT %

8012 0.0455% 12893 0.0733% 22710 0.1290% 100556 0.5714% 1461924 8.3070% 1899408 10.7928% 1586970 9.0175% 1982419 11.2645% 1245825 7.0790% 836253 4.7518% 1594346 9.0594% 3182889 18.0858% 1827060 10.3817% 1837517 10.4412% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 O.M)OO% 0 0.0000% VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 

## - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 

### - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51

### - 72.50 72.51

## - 77.50 77.51 - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51 

## - 92.50 Total

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) Roadway Class 

### 1 VMT d Local 

### I 768971 AM I Hour Peak (7-8 AM) VMT 70 264 0.0183% 1728 0.1201% 5410 0.3760% 16048 1.1153% 145361 10.1020% 162363 11.2835% 176417 12.2602% 169258 11.7627% 87379 6.0725% 102594 7.1298% 127729 8.8766% 140617 9.7723% 188395 13.0926% 115376 8.0181% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000%



# TI Do not includeexfernal sateways 769409 Arterials include expressways, state highways thaf are notfreewaysandfreeway ramps Freewaysonly PM 1 Hour Peak (5-6 PM) VMT 70

7748 0.4557% 9408 0.5533% 9776 0.5750% 25695 1.51 13% 181179 10.6562% 198652 11.6839% 166870 9.8146% 159783 9.3978% 154238 9.0716% 121572 7.1504% 151627 8.9181% 199310 11.7226% 216272 12.7202% 98093 5.7694% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000%

Do notforget to include intrazonal VMT inthe localvmt Off Peak (if available) VMT % 0 0.0000% 1757 0.0122% 7524 0.0520% 58813 0.4067% 1135384 7.8521% 1538393 10.6392% 1243683 8.6011% 1653378 11.4344% 1004208 6.9449% 612087 4.2331% 1314990 9.0942% 2842962 19.6614% 1422393

. 9.8370% 1624048 11.2316% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000%

\Lane Mites 

### I 5171 I 

### I Lane Miles 5274 

### I '2008 Lane MilesSan Joaquin Councilof Governments Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT by Speed Bin Model Periods

### - See note below



### Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. If you only have dailythen only provide daity. Modelswith peak and off peak periods should providethem. lntrazonalVMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins. EMFAC Speed Bin

Name t 5 10 15 20 ' 25

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

90

VMT by FacilityType(Daily Only) VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 -22.50 22.51-27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51-42.50 42.51-47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51 -62.50 62.51-67.50 67.51

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50

100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total

Do notforget to include int~azonal WT inthe localvmt 

# I 0 0.0000%

# I I 77.51 - 82.50 

# 1 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 85 82.51

### - 87.50 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000%

Lane Miles 

## 1 5727 Average Daily VMT YO

17801 0.0741% 51959 0.2163% 73439 0.3057% 165329 0.6881% 1611550 6.7075% 2241604 9.3299% 2306936 9.6019% 2345456 9.7622% 1782172 7.4177% 1842809 7.6701% 2194857' 9.1354% 3710942 15.4456% 3156417 13.1375% 2524670 10.5081% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000%

# 1

0 0.0000% 24025941 100.0000%

Do not include external gateways Arterials include expressways, state highways that are not freeways andfreeway ramps Freeways only Roadway Class Local Collector Major Arterial Freeway VMT 969969 2502233 7853470 12700269 AM I Hour Peak (7-8 AM) VMT %

4886 0.2469% 20140 1.0177% 24291 1.2274% 63993 3.2336% 153017 7.7320% 223759 11.3066% 210642 10.6438% 2290'14 11.5721% 165217 8.3484% 208358 10.5283% 198481 10.0293% 241657 12.2109% 176742 8.9308% 58822 2.9723%

0 0.0000% 1979019 100.0000% PM I Hour Peak (5-6 PM) VMT %

10510 0.4560% 19908 0.8638% 27216 1.1809% 53315 2.3133% 208553 9.0491% 2621 19 11.3733% 280976 12.1915% 208338 9.0398% 227915 9.8892% 290315 12.5967% 265440 11.5174% 216096 9.3764% 175484 %6142% 58501 2.5384% 0 0.0000%

0 0.0000% 2304686 100.0000% Off Peak (if available) VMT %

2405 0.0122% 11911 0.0603% 21932 0.1111% 48021 0.2432% 1249980 6.3315% 1755726 8.8932% 1815318 9.1951% 1908104 9.6651% 1389040 7.0359% 1344136 6.8084% 1730936 8.7677% 3253189 16.4783% 2804191 14.2040% 2407347 12.1939% 0 0.0000%

0 0.0000% 19742236 100.0000%Stanislaus Council of Governments Transportation Activity Data 2005 VMT by Speed Bin ModelPeriods

### - See note below



### Note+: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods availablefrom your model. If you dn~y have daily then only provide daily. Models with peak and off peak pwiodsshould provide them. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included intheir respectivespeed dins. ' EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

VMT byFacility Type(Daily Only) Roadway Class I VMT I *.=.,=c m-..-a :..- Jude externalgateways Colle-.-.

., 

### ---, 

### -- . MajorAderial ( 

### . 6,471.592 Arterials includeexpressways, state highways that are notfreeways andfreeway ramps Freeway 1 2,842.377 Freeways only I VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

## - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51

## - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51 

### - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51

## - 47.50 47.61

## - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51 - 62.50 62.51 

## - 67.50 67.W 

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 - 82.50 82.51

### - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total

Do notforget to include intrazonalVMT inthe localvmt Average Daily VMT %

67,713 0.6255% 71.532 0.6608% 505.539 4.6699% 198.513 1.8338%

' 607,252 5.6095%

1.185.647 10.9524%

793.349 7.3286% 1,076,841 9.9473% 2,758,597 25.4826% 1,707,814 15.7760%

722,710 6.6761% 303.635

, 2.8048% 826,266 7.6327%

10,825,408 100.0000% AM 1 Hour Peak VMT Oh

12,321 1.3682% 3.690 0.4098% 43.047 4.7802% 15.315 1.7007% 50,691 5.6290% 75,564 8.3933% 77.384 8.5932% 66.610 7.3968% 229.175 25.4490% 89,526 9.9415% 91,208 10.1283% 48,849 5.4245% 97.126 10.7855%

' 900.526 99.9999%

Lane Miles 

### 1 3,513 PM 1Hour Peak VMT Oh.

35.989 3.1349% 25,747 2.2428% 73,707 6.4205% 42,462 3.6988% 87.062 7.5838% 91.695 7.9874% 101,313 8.8252% 102.221 8.9043% 286,134 24.9246% 105,154 9.159896 98.869 8.6123% 40,753 3.5499% 56.894 4.9559%

1,148,000 100.0001% Off Peak (if available) VMT % 19.403 0.221 1% 42,095 0.4796% 388,785 4.4296% 140.736 1.6035% 469.499 5.3493% 1,018.368 11.6028%

614,652, 7.0031% 908,010 10.3455% 2.243.288 25.5591% 1,513,134 17.2400%

532,633 6.0686% 214.033 2.4386% 672.246 7.6593% 

### - 0.0000% 

### - 0.0000% 

### - 0.0000% 

### - 0.0000% 

### - 0.0000% 87768821 100.000046Stanislaus Council of Governments Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT by Speed Bin ModelPeriods

## - See note below



### Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods available from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only provide daily. Models with peak and off peak periods should provide them. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins. EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

VMT by Facility Type(Daily Only) VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

## - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51 

## - 22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51 

## - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

## - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61 

## - 52.50 52.51 

## - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51 

## - 67.50 67.51 

## - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 Total

I 

# I Total1 14.502.068 

# 1 highways that are Average Daily VMT %

121,430 0.8373% 190,163 1.3113% 701,978 4.8405% 272,643 1.8800% 888,991 6.1301% 1,003,902 6.9225% 1,684,439 11.61 52% 1,800,638 12.4164% 4,325,294 29.8254% 1,563,878 10.783m

556,434 3.8369% 279,380 1.9265% 1 ,I 12,898 7.6741%

14,502,068 100.0000%

Do not include external gateways Arferials include expressways, state Freewaysonly Roadway Class Local Collector Major Arterial Freeway freeways VMT 584,676 1,17$084 8,654,190 4,090,118 and AM 1 Hour Peak VMT %

18,505 1.6664% 11,355 1.0226% 64,326 5.7928% 25,844 2.3273% 64,394 5~7989% 78,700 7.0872% 11

3,209 10.1949% 131,683 11 3585% 342.21 1 30.81 74% 11

5,440 10.3958% 11.180 1.0068% 35,502 3.1971% 98,099 8.8342%

1 ,I 10,448 100.0000%

freewc

Do notforget to include infrazonal VMTinthe kcal vmt PM 1 Hour Peak VMT %

78,752 5.0896% 43,626 2.8195% 96,976 6.2674% 65,068 4.2052% 95,354 6.1626% 130,455 8.431 1% 142,722 9.2239% 171,803 i1.1034% 420,492 27.1 758% 146,250 9.451 9% 59,349 3.8356% 21,556 1.3931% 74,902 4.8408%

1,547,305 100.0000%

Lane.Miles 

## I 3,794 Off Peak (if available) VMT %

24,173 0.2041% 135,182 1.1413% 540,676 4.5649% 181,731 1.5343% 729,243 6.1569% 794,747 6.7099% 1,428,508 12.0607% 1,497,152 12.6403% 3,562,591 30.0785% 1,302.188 10.9942%

485,905 4.1024% 222,322 1.8770% 939,897 7.9354%

11,844,315 1Tulare CountyAssociation of Governments (TCAG) Transportation Activity Data 2005 VMT bySpeed Bin ModelPeriods - See note below

10,034.023 Notes: 

## - Modeled Periods Provide modeled periods-availablefrom your model. If you only have dailythen only provide daily. Modelswith peak and off peak periods should providethem. lntrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respectivespeed bins. EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

VMT byFacilityType(Daily Only) AM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT % 0.0- 7.50 7.51

### - 12.50 12.51

### - 17.50 17.51 - 22.50 22.51 - 27.50 27.51 - 32.50 32.51 

### - 37.50 37.51 

## - 42.50 42.51 

### - 47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51

### - 57.50 57.51 

### - 62.50 62.51 - 67.50 67.51 

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51 - 92.50 Total

Do not include ewiernalgateways Arterials include expressways, state highways that are notfreeways andfreeway ramps Freeways only VMT Speed Bins

Actual

I Totall 10034023 Do notforget to include intrazonal VMT inthe localvmt PM 3 Hour Peak (if available) VMT YO Average Daily VMT %

Lane Miles 

## 1 4884 Excludes centroid connectors Off Peak (if available) VMT YOTulare CountyAssociationof Governments (TCAG) Transportation Activity Data 2020 VMT bySpeed Bin Model Penbds

### - See note below

14,915,553 Notes: Modeled Periods Provide modeled periodsavailable from your model. Ifyou only have daily then only providedaily. Models with peak and off peak periodsshould provide them. Intrazonal VMT and Speeds lntrazonalVMT and speeds shall be included in their respective speed bins. EMFAC Speed Bin

Name

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90

. .

VMT byFacilityType(Daily Only) Average Daily VMT %

4.204 0.0282% 14,508 0.0973% 28,340 0.1900% 802.762 5.3820%

95,733 0.6418% 560,433 3.7574% 1,199,624 8.0428% 1,820.416 12.2048% 3,027,767 20.2994% 1,891,998 12.6847%

594.479 3.9856% 2,934.299 19.6727% 1,940,990 13.0132% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% VMT Speed Bins

Actual 0.0 

### - 7.50 7.51 

### - 12.50 12.51 

### - 17.50 17.51-22.50 22.51 

### - 27.50 27.51-32.50 32.51-37.50 37.51 

### - 42.50 42.51 -47.60 47.61 

### - 52.50 52.51 

### - 57.50 57.51-62.50 62.51 

### - 67.50 67.51 

### - 72.50 72.51 

### - 77.50 77.51 

### - 82.50 82.51 

### - 87.50 87.51 

### - 92.50 .-. Total 

## 1 14,915,553 100.0000%12,605,235 100.0000%~ 3,528,333 100.0000%~ 8,781.985 100.0000%

Do not include externalgateways Arferials mclude expressways, state Freeways only 14,915,553 1 2,605,235 1 3,528.333 1 8,781,985 1

highways that are AM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT Ye 496 0.0190% 1.820 0.0699% 6,140 0.2357% 144.867 5.5606% 15.295 0.5871% 91,064 3.4954% 210,117 8.0652% 322,162 12.3660% 543.898 20.8771% 322.664 12.3852% 97,563 3.7449% 492.289 18.8962% 356,860 13.6978% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

not freewaysandfreeway PM 3 Hour Peak

(if available) VMT %

1,354 0.0384% 7,468 0.21 17% 10.074 0.2855% 189.088 5.3591% 27,931 0.7916% 174,106 4.9345% 304.805 8.6388% 569,148 16.1308% 640,706 18.1589% 388,642 11.0149% 229,310 6.4991% 616.556 17.4744% 369,144 10.4623% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

ramps Off Peak (if available) VMT %

2,354 0.0268% 5,220 0.0594% 12,127 0.1381% 468.806 5.3383% 52,507 0.5979% 295,263 3.3621% 684,702 7.7967% 929.106 10.5797% 1,843.163 20.9880% 1,180,693 13.4445%

267,606 3.0472% 1,825,453 20.7863% 1,214,986 13.8350% 0 0.0000% 0 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%

Do notforget to include intrazonalVMTinthe localvmt l~ane Miles 

## I 5198

## 2007 PMIO Maintenance Plan and Request for Redesignation for the San Joaquin Valley UnifiedAir Pollution Control District



# Public 

# Comments