63642 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

1On September 21, 2006, EPA signed a final rule 

revoking the annualPM–10 standard. That 

revocation will be effective 60 days from 

publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 

Since the revocation will not be effective until after 

our attainment determination for the SJV, we are 

taking final action determining that the area has 

attained both the annual and 24-hour PM–10 

standard. 

2 24-hour PM–10 exceedances were also recorded 

on September 22, 2006 with the automated 

equivalent (Beta Attenuation Mass/Tapered 

Element Oscillating Microbalance) PM–10 analyzers 

operated at the Bakersfield-Golden and Corcoran 

sites, as well as the Beta Attenuation Mass monitor 

at the Tracy site. See response to comment 15 

below. 

3EPA’s NEP Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to 

Regional Air Directors, ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 

Natural Events’’, May 30, 1996. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0583, FRL–8234–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Designation of 

Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; State of California; PM–10; 

Determination of Attainment for the 

San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment 

Area; Determination Regarding 

Applicability of Certain Clean Air Act 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its 

determination that the San Joaquin 

Valley nonattainment area (SJV or the 

Valley) in California has attained the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10). 

This determination is based upon 

monitored air quality data for the PM– 

10 NAAQS during the years 2003–2005. 

The SJV continues to attain the PM–10 

NAAQS in 2006 based on the latest 

available quality assured data. EPA is 

also finalizing its determination that, 

because the SJV has attained the PM–10 

NAAQS, certain Clean Air Act (CAA or 

the Act) requirements are not applicable 

for as long as the SJV continues to attain 

the PM–10 NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective October 30, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the docket for this action at EPA’s 

Region IX office during normal business 

hours by appointment at the following 

locations: 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Room B–102, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW. (Mail Code 

6102T), Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Proposed and Final Actions 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

A. Environmental Justice 

B. The Clean Data Policy 

C. New Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS 

D. EPA Policy on Special Purpose 

Monitoring Data 

E. Adequacy of the SJV Monitoring 

Network 

F. Data Not Included in Determining 

Attainment 

1. Data From September 3, 2004 High Wind 

Event 

2. Data From BAM and TEOM Monitors 

G. Representativeness of Data 

H. Other Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Effective Date of This Final Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Summary of Proposed and Final 

Actions 

On July 19, 2006, EPA proposed to 

determine that the SJV has attained the 

24-hour and annual NAAQS for PM–10 

(71 FR 40952).1 The proposed 

determination was based upon 

monitored air quality data during the 

years 2003–2005 which indicated that 

there were no violations during that 

time. This data is summarized in table 

1 in the proposed rule. 71 FR at 40953– 

54. EPA also based its proposed 

determination on monitored air quality 

data indicating the area continued to 

attain in 2006. EPA also proposed to 

determine that certain Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act) requirements were not 

applicable for as long as the SJV 

continued to attain the PM–10 NAAQS. 

Specifically, for the SJV, EPA proposed 

to determine that the CAA section 

172(c)(9) contingency measure 

requirement for the area is suspended. 

For a more detailed discussion of the 

related background for the SJV and of 

the proposal, please refer to the 

proposed rule. 

In this notice EPA is finalizing its 

determination that the SJV has attained 

the NAAQS, based upon three years of 

complete, quality-assured monitored air 

quality data for 2003–2005, and based 

upon its determination that the area 

continues to attain the PM–10 NAAQS 

in 2006 based on quality assured data 

submitted to EPA’s AQS Database 

through July 31, 2006. See AQS Report 

AMP350 titled ‘‘SJV PM–10 SLAMS 

Raw Data Report January 2003–July 

2006’’ included in the docket for this 

notice. In finalizing its determination, 

EPA has also reviewed preliminary 

monitoring data for monitors in the SJV 

that has become available since July 31, 

2006. 

EPA learned recently of preliminary 

data indicating that exceedances of the 

standard were monitored on September 

22, 2006 at State and Local Air 

Monitoring Station (SLAMS) monitors 

in Corcoran (215 μg/m3), BakersfieldGolden State Hwy. (157 μg/m3), and 

Oildale (162 μg/m3).2 The California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) and the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (District) have informed EPA 

that, based on preliminary analysis, they 

believe that these exceedances are due 

to high wind and wildfire natural 

events. CARB notified EPA that it 

intends to flag these data as caused by 

natural events and to request that EPA 

concur with these flags. As such the 

data would not be included for 

consideration in a determination of 

attainment for the SJV, pursuant to 

EPA’s Natural Events Policy.3 Because 

these data, which were collected using 

manual reference method samplers, are 

preliminary and have not been qualityassured, and because EPA believes that 

they may qualify as caused by natural 

events, and thus be excluded from 

consideration in an attainment 

determination, EPA is proceeding to 

finalize its determination that the area is 

in attainment. If, after the data is 

quality-assured, and after further 

evaluating CARB’s request with respect 

to these data, EPA determines that the 

data do not qualify for exclusion under 

EPA’s natural events policy, and EPA 

further believes that if included that 

they would establish that the area is in 

violation of the NAAQS, EPA will 

proceed with appropriate rulemaking 

action to withdraw its determination of 

attainment. 

EPA is also finalizing its 

determination that, because the SJV has 

attained the PM–10 NAAQS, certain 

requirements, and specifically the 

contingency measure requirement of 

section 172(c)(9) of the Clean Air Act, 

do not apply to the SJV area for so long 

as the area continues to attain the 

NAAQS. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA received one comment letter in 

support of our proposal from the District 

stating that the determination is a result 

of ‘‘nearly two decades of intense efforts 

to reduce emissions of PM–10 and its 

precursors.’’ The District also states that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63643 

‘‘emissions of PM–10 and its precursors 

have decreased by about 24% since 

1990’’ which is significant given the 

population growth. Finally the District 

states that this determination ‘‘does not 

in any way imply or allow the District 

or CARB to relax air quality strategies’’

and will allow the District to better 

dedicate resources for upcoming plans 

that will focus on PM–2.5 and ozone 

attainment. 

EPA received one adverse comment 

letter from Earthjustice, representing 

Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, 

Sierra Club, Latino Issues Forum, 

Steven and Michele Kirsch Foundation, 

the Center for Biological Diversity, El 

Comite para el Bienestar de Earlimart/ 

The Committee for the Well Being of 

Earlimart, Fresno Metro Ministry and 

the Coalition for Clean Air. EPA also 

received approximately 2000 adverse 

comment letters from individual 

citizens. Many of these comments were 

form letters that contained identical 

comments. EPA addresses all of the 

specific comments raised by 

Earthjustice in its responses to 

comments numbers 1 to 24. EPA is 

responding to many of the individual 

citizens’ comments in responses to 

comments numbers 25 and 26 and in 

the context of the responses to 

Earthjustice, since they raised many of 

the same issues. 

A. Environmental Justice 

Comment 1: EPA received comments 

arguing that its process for making this 

determination did not adequately 

consider EPA’s environmental justice 

mission: ‘‘[t]o achieve equal 

environmental protection so no segment 

of the population, regardless of race, 

ethnicity, culture or income bears an 

undue burden of environmental 

pollution and to ensure that the benefits 

of environmental protection are shared 

by everyone.’’ The principal 

environmental justice commenter, 

Earthjustice, argues that most sources of 

PM–10 pollution in the Valley are 

located in agricultural areas where 

population densities are low, but 

percentages of minority and low-income 

residents are high. The comment claims 

that EPA has not adequately 

investigated whether such areas, 

particularly in the western part of the 

Valley, are in attainment and is not 

adequately monitoring those areas. 

Without more thorough investigation 

and monitoring of air quality in the 

western part of the Valley, the comment 

concludes, EPA cannot ‘‘carry out its 

environmental justice mandate.’’

Response: EPA is committed to 

environmental justice, and a November 

2005 memorandum by Administrator 

Johnson has reiterated EPA’s ‘‘ongoing 

commitment to ensure environmental 

justice for all people, regardless of race, 

color, national origin, or income.’’ EPA 

believes that this attainment 

determination is fully consistent with 

that commitment, and ensures 

environmental protection for all 

residents of the Valley, including 

residents of the western part of the 

Valley, and regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income. 

The gist of the environmental justice 

argument is that EPA has not adequately 

investigated and analyzed air quality in 

minority and low-income communities 

in the western part of the Valley. 

Although that is framed as an 

environmental justice argument, it is 

really a challenge to the adequacy of the 

legal basis for EPA’s determination that 

the entire Valley is in attainment. As 

explained more fully elsewhere, EPA 

has an adequate factual and legal basis 

for that determination, and has assessed 

air quality through monitored data that 

is representative of all areas of the 

Valley, including the west side, 

minority and low income communities 

addressed in the comment. Thus, the 

commenter is mistaken in claiming that 

EPA failed to investigate those areas 

adequately, or that such a purported 

failure prevented the Agency from 

adequately implementing 

environmental justice. 

Similarly, EPA rejects claims that the 

monitoring conducted by the State and 

District is deficient. As explained more 

fully elsewhere, the District’s 

monitoring network provides for 

adequate and accurate assessments of 

air quality throughout the Valley, 

including minority and low income 

communities in the western area. 

Comment 2: Commenters, principally 

Earthjustice, assert that low income and 

minority populations were not provided 

an adequate opportunity to comment on 

the rule. Earthjustice asserts that ‘‘the 

concerned people of the Valley’’ sought 

an ‘‘opportunity to be heard,’’ and 

unsuccessfully requested that EPA hold 

a hearing. That comment also points out 

that many west side residents ‘‘do not 

speak English, do not own computers, 

and do not have the time or expertise to 

draft public comments.’’

Response: EPA believes that 

interested parties were given adequate 

opportunities to comment on the 

proposed determination of attainment. 

Section 553(c) of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA), which governs 

informal rulemaking actions, such as 

determinations of attainment, does not 

require EPA to provide for a hearing. 

Section 553 (c) states that: 

The agency shall give interested persons an 

opportunity to participate in the rulemaking 

through submission of written data, views, or 

arguments with or without opportunity for 

oral presentation. 

EPA does not, as a matter of standard 

practice, conduct hearings on 

determinations of attainment. EPA does 

not believe a hearing was needed in this 

case, or would have been an appropriate 

use of the Agency’s limited resources. 

EPA also does not agree with the 

commenters’ implicit suggestion that, 

without a hearing, Valley residents had 

no forum for expressing their concerns. 

EPA believes that the opportunity to 

provide written comments was 

sufficient for providing input from the 

public. That gave interested parties an 

opportunity to present data, views and 

arguments through written comments. 

No showing has been made that the 

opportunity to provide written 

comments precluded meaningful public 

participation. To the contrary, EPA 

received comments that identified and 

expansively discussed the concerns of 

minority and low income communities 

in the Valley. Thus, EPA does not agree 

with the suggestion that Valley 

residents, or anyone else, did not have 

adequate input into Agency decision 

making. 

B. The Clean Data Policy 

Comment 3: The commenter contends 

that EPA cannot use its Clean Data 

Policy to exempt the District from 

subpart 4 requirements. The commenter 

notes that EPA cites to two EPA 

memoranda incorporated into EPA’s 

Phase 2 8-hour ozone implementation 

rule, and relies on other attainment 

findings and redesignations that 

interpret the Clean Data Policy to justify 

waiving CAA requirements for PM–10 

areas. The commenter argues that EPA 

provides none of its own analysis for 

proposing that the attainment 

determination will relieve the District of 

the obligation to comply with CAA 

requirements for reasonably available 

control measures (‘‘RACM’’), attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress (‘‘RFP’’) and contingency 

measures. The commenter also alleges 

that EPA improperly expands the Clean 

Data Policy by claiming that the District 

will no longer be subject to the RACM 

requirements of the Act. The commenter 

further contends that even if one were 

to accept EPA’s argument, it would not 

apply to the SJV because as a serious 

PM–10 nonattainment area the Valley is 

subject to the BACM requirements of 

section 189(b)(1)(B). The commenter 

notes that EPA’s Addendum to the 

General Preamble makes clear that 

unlike RACM, determinations of BACM 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63644 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

4These briefs are in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

are not tied to what is necessary for 

attainment. The commenter points out 

that the proposal correctly omits BACM 

from the list of CAA requirements 

waived under the Clean Data Policy, but 

requests that the final rule should be 

explicit that the BACM requirement is 

maintained. 

Response: As noted in the proposal, 

EPA has previously approved all of the 

serious area PM–10 attainment plan 

requirements for the SJV except for the 

contingency measure requirements of 

CAA section 172(c)(9). See 69 FR 30006 

(May 26, 2004) approving the 2003 PM–

10 Plan for the SJV. In that action, EPA 

approved the RFP, attainment and 

RACM/BACM demonstrations for the 

SJV. Thus the issue of whether these 

requirements should be suspended is 

not before us, except insofar as our 

reasoning for why the contingency 

measures requirement is suspended 

rests on the rationale for suspending the 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements. Nevertheless, as 

explained below, EPA believes that once 

the area attains the standards the RFP, 

attainment and RACM demonstrations 

would not be needed even though they 

have already been approved. 

That said, EPA is correct in applying 

the Clean Data Policy in its 

determination of attainment in the SJV, 

and affirms the Agency’s interpretation 

of subparts 1 and 4 of part D of the CAA. 

As EPA noted in its proposal, the Clean 

Data Policy has been applied in the 

context of the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone 

standards as well as in a number of PM–

10 rulemakings. EPA’s discussion of the 

application of the Clean Data Policy is 

set forth at length in its proposed 

rulemaking on Weirton, West Virginia 

71 FR 27440, 27443–27445 (May 11, 

2006), as well as in the memoranda and 

rulemakings cited therein. As we 

explained in that notice, the reasons for 

relieving an area that has attained the 

relevant standard of certain part D, 

subpart 1 and 2 obligations, apply 

equally as well to part D, subpart 4, 

which contains specific attainment 

demonstration and RFP provisions for 

PM–10 nonattainment areas. 

EPA’s analysis of the Clean Data 

Policy as it applies to PM–10 areas was 

contained in the documents cited in the 

proposal. Contrary to commenter’s 

contention, the fact that EPA’s analysis 

was provided in prior memoranda and 

rulemakings does not detract from the 

fact that it is EPA’s own analysis. 

Indeed, EPA’s consistency in the 

application of its interpretation lends it 

added weight. We reiterate here that 

EPA’s analysis of its legal interpretation 

can be found in its ‘‘Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 

2’’ (Phase 2 Final Rule) 70 FR 71612, 

71645–71646 (November 29, 2005) and 

the rulemakings and memoranda cited 

therein, the May 10, 1995 memorandum 

from John S. Seitz, entitled ‘‘Reasonable 

Further Progress, Attainment 

Demonstration, and Related 

Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment 

Areas Meeting the Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ the 

December 14, 2004 memorandum from 

Stephen D. Page, entitled, ‘‘Clean Data 

Policy for the Fine Particle National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’ and 

rulemakings concerning the application 

of the policy to PM—10 areas—71 FR 

6352, 6354 (February 8, 2006); 71 FR 

13021, 13024 (March 14, 2006); and 71 

FR 27440, 27443–27444 (May 11, 2006). 

Furthermore, three U.S. Circuit Courts 

of Appeals have upheld EPA 

rulemakings applying EPA’s 

interpretation of subparts 1 and 2 with 

respect to clean data for ozone. Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 

1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 

(7th Cir. 2004); Our Children’s Earth 

Foundation v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th 

Cir. June 28, 2005) (Memorandum 

Opinion). EPA has also set forth its legal 

rationale for the Clean Data Policy in 

briefs filed in these cases, and hereby 

incorporates those briefs insofar as 

relevant here. See Sierra Club v. EPA, 

No. 95–9541 (10th Cir.), Sierra Club v. 

EPA, No. 03–2839, 03–3329 (7th Cir.), 

Our Children’s Earth Foundation v. 

EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th Cir.).4

As EPA noted in those memoranda 

and rulemakings, EPA believes it is 

reasonable to interpret the provisions 

regarding attainment demonstrations, 

reasonable further progress, RACM 

requirements, contingency measures, 

and other related requirements as being 

suspended and as not requiring further 

submissions to achieve attainment for so 

long as the area is in fact attaining the 

standards. Under the policy, EPA is not 

granting an exemption from any 

applicable requirements under part D. 

Rather, EPA has interpreted these 

provisions as not requiring submissions 

for so long as the area remains in 

attainment with the standard. This is 

not a waiver of requirements that by 

their terms apply; it is a determination 

that certain requirements are written so 

as to be operative only if the area is not 

attaining the standards. Thus, in making 

its determination of attainment, EPA is 

also concluding that certain subpart 4 

and subpart 1 requirements are no 

longer applicable for so long as the area 

remains in attainment. 

With respect to the requirement for 

attainment demonstrations, EPA 

believes that the statutory requirement 

for an attainment demonstration—a SIP 

revision which identifies the level of 

future reductions needed to achieve the 

NAAQS and any additional adopted 

measures needed to achieve these 

reductions ‘‘ is written so as to be 

inapplicable once the NAAQS is 

attained. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires 

that the plan provide for ‘‘a 

demonstration (including air quality 

modeling) that the [SIP] will provide for 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date. * * *’’ Section 189(b)(1) further 

requires that serious PM–10 

nonattainment areas submit: 

(A) A demonstration (including air quality 

modeling)—

(I) that the plan provides for attainment of 

the national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable attainment date, or (ii ) for any 

area for which the State is seeking, pursuant 

to section 188(e), an extension of the 

attainment date beyond the date set forth in 

section 188(c), that attainment by that date 

would be impracticable, and that the plan 

provides for attainment by the most 

expeditious alternative date practicable. 

If an area is already monitoring 

attainment, EPA believes that Congress 

intended no requirement for an area to 

make a further submission containing 

additional measures to achieve 

attainment. Since the SJV area is already 

in attainment, there is no need for it to 

submit a plan demonstrating how the 

area will reach attainment had it not 

already done so. This is consistent with 

the interpretation of the section 

172(c)(1) attainment demonstration 

requirement that EPA provided in the 

General Preamble and the Page 

memorandum, and of the section 182(b) 

and (c) requirements set forth in the 

Seitz memorandum. As EPA stated in 

the General Preamble, no other 

measures to provide for attainment 

would be needed by areas seeking 

redesignation to attainment since 

‘‘attainment will have been reached.’’ 57 

FR at 13564. 

We note that the commenter offered 

no specific critique of EPA’s 

interpretation of the Clean Data Policy 

with regard to the attainment 

demonstration requirement. In addition, 

EPA’s conclusion is consistent with the 

rule of statutory construction that 

statutes should be construed to avoid 

absurd results and favor public 

convenience. Because the SJV has 

already reached attainment based on 

existing measures, no additional 

measures to demonstrate attainment are 

required. Thus, under the language of 

section 172(c)(1), section 189(a)(1)(B) 

and section 189(b)(1), an attainment 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63645 

demonstration would be the empty set. 

EPA therefore believes that, in the 

context of evaluating whether the 

contingency measure requirement is 

suspended, because the SJV area is 

attaining the standard, the attainment 

demonstration requirement would also 

be suspended for so long as the area 

remains in attainment, had it not 

already been approved. 

As for the suspension of the RACM 

requirement, it does not have 

significance in the context of the SJV, 

because, as the commenter notes, 

BACM, which goes beyond RACM, has 

already been approved for the SJV, and 

BACM would not be suspended by the 

determination of attainment because as 

petitioner notes the BACM requirement 

is not tied to attainment needs. Thus 

EPA need not further address whether 

the requirement for RACM is suspended 

in accordance with the Clean Data 

Policy. 

Comment 4: The commenter alleges 

that EPA relies heavily on the proposed 

redesignation of Weirton, West Virginia, 

to provide the analysis for waiving the 

RFP requirements for PM–10 areas. The 

requirements for PM–10 areas are found 

in CAA section 189(c)(1). The 

commenter argues that EPA’s analysis 

ignores the plain language of the CAA. 

The commenter claims that the 

decisions in Our Children’s Earth 

Foundation v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th 

Cir. June 28, 2005) (Memorandum 

Opinion) and Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 

F.3d 1551, 1555 (10th Cir. 1996) upheld 

EPA’s interpretation based on the 

Court’s finding of ambiguity in the 

statutory language in sections 172(c)(1), 

(2), and (9) and section 182(b)(1)(A)(I). 

The commenter asserts that, unlike 

those provisions, the language of section 

189(c)(1) is perfectly clear. The 

commenter contends that milestones are 

to be set to show reasonable further 

progress and an area is required to 

submit revisions demonstrating that it 

has achieved those milestones every 

three years until the area is 

‘‘redesignated.’’ The commenter 

concludes that there is no ambiguity 

and that appeals to policy objections 

cannot rewrite clear language into 

something ambiguous. 

The commenter adds that references 

in the Weirton notice to other 

provisions in section 189 are unavailing. 

Section 189(c)(3) requires areas that fail 

to achieve a milestone to submit 

revisions to assure the next milestone 

will be met. The commenter asserts that 

this obligation continues through the 

final milestone. Where there is ‘‘no next 

milestone’’ the final revision must 

ensure that the area will attain the 

NAAQS. The commenter states that 

nothing in these requirements is 

internally inconsistent or prevents areas 

from complying with the plain language 

of section 189(c)(2). 

The commenter contends that 

arguments that this amounts to 

‘‘overcontrol’’ are without merit. The 

commenter argues that a key distinction 

between a finding of attainment and 

redesignation is that a redesignation 

requires EPA to find that ‘‘the 

improvement in air quality is due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions.’’ CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E)(iii). The commenter argues 

that since EPA is not making such a 

finding, it is rational for Congress to 

have insisted that an area continue to 

reduce emissions until that showing can 

be made and the area can be 

redesignated. 

Response: EPA’s interpretation does 

not ‘‘waive’’ requirements nor does it 

ignore the plain language of the statute. 

With respect to RFP, it has been EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation that the 

general provisions of part D, subpart 1 

of the Act (sections 171 and 172) do not 

require the submission of SIP revisions 

concerning RFP for areas already 

attaining the ozone NAAQS. In the 

General Preamble, we stated: 

[R]equirements for RFP will not apply in 

evaluating a request for redesignation to 

attainment, since, at a minimum, the air 

quality data for the area must show that the 

area has already attained. A showing that the 

State will make RFP toward attainment will, 

therefore, have no meaning at that point. 

57 FR at 13564. EPA believes that the 

same reasoning applies to the PM–10 

provisions of part D, subpart 4. 

Section 171(1) (section 7501 (1)) states 

that for purposes of part D of title I, RFP 

‘‘means such annual incremental 

reductions in emissions of the relevant 

air pollutant as are required by this part 

or may reasonably be required by the 

Administrator for the purpose of 

assuring attainment of the applicable 

national ambient air quality standard by 

the applicable date.’’ Thus, whether 

dealing with the general RFP 

requirement of section 172(c)(2), the 

ozone-specific RFP requirements of 

sections 182(b) and (c), or the specific 

RFP requirements for PM–10 areas of 

part D, subpart 4, section 189(c)(1), the 

stated purpose of RFP is to ensure 

progress towards attainment by the 

applicable attainment date. Section 

189(c)(1) states that: 

Plan revisions demonstrating attainment 

submitted to the Administrator for approval 

under this subpart shall contain quantitative 

milestones which are to be achieved every 3 

years until the area is redesignated to 

attainment and which demonstrates 

reasonable further progress, as defined in 

section 7501a(1) of this title, toward 

attainment by the applicable date. 

Although this section states that 

revisions shall contain milestones to be 

achieved ‘‘until the area is redesignated 

to attainment,’’ it further specifies that 

these are milestones that ‘‘demonstrate 

reasonable further progress, as defined 

in section 7501(1) of this title, toward 

attainment by the attainment date.’’

They are also to be included in ‘‘plan 

revisions demonstrating attainment.’’

Thus such milestones have the purpose 

of showing reasonable further progress 

‘‘toward attainment by the applicable 

date,’’ as defined in section 171. It is 

therefore clear from the language of the 

statute that once the area has attained 

the standard, no further milestones are 

necessary or meaningful. By definition, 

the ‘‘reasonable further progress’’

provision requires only such reductions 

in emissions as are necessary to attain 

the NAAQS by the attainment date. This 

interpretation is supported by language 

in section 189(c)(3), which mandates 

that a state that fails to achieve a 

milestone must submit a plan that 

assures that the state achieve the next 

milestone or attain the NAAQS if there 

is no next milestone. Section 189(c)(3) 

assumes that the requirement to submit 

and achieve milestones does not 

continue after attainment of the 

NAAQS. Thus, once attainment has 

been reached, there are no further 

milestones to be achieved, even though 

the area has not yet been redesignated 

to attainment, for so long as the area 

remains in attainment. The commenter 

is therefore incorrect in asserting that 

section 189(c)(1) is ‘‘perfectly clear’’ in 

requiring additional RFP milestones 

after attainment has been reached. 

In the General Preamble, we noted 

with respect to section 189(c) that ‘‘the 

purpose of the milestone requirement is 

to ‘provide for emission reductions 

adequate to achieve the standards by the 

applicable attainment date’ (H.R. Rep. 

No. 490 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 267 

(1990)).’’ 57 FR 13539 (April 16, 1992). 

If an area has in fact attained the 

standards, the stated purpose of the RFP 

requirement will already have been 

fulfilled—the only milestones that are 

required are those that demonstrate 

reasonable further progress toward 

attainment, as defined by section 171. 

Thus we believe that it is a distinction 

without a difference that section 

189(c)(1) speaks of the RFP requirement 

as one to be achieved until an area is 

‘‘redesignated to attainment,’’ as 

contrasted to section 172(c)(2), which is 

silent on the period to which the 

requirement pertains, or the ozone 

nonattainment area RFP requirements in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63646 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

sections 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), which 

refer to the RFP requirements as 

applying until the ‘‘attainment date,’’

since section 189(c)(1) makes clear that 

the milestones that are to be achieved 

are those that demonstrate RFP toward 

attainment by the applicable attainment 

date, and since section 189(c)(1) defines 

RFP by reference to section 171(1) of the 

Act. Reference to section 171(1) makes 

clear that, as with the general RFP 

requirements in section 172(c)(2) and 

the ozone-specific requirements of 

section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), the PMspecific RFP requirements may only be 

required ‘‘for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable national 

ambient air quality standard by the 

applicable date.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7501(1). EPA 

interprets the RFP requirements, in light 

of the language of section 189(c)(1) and 

the definition of RFP in section 171(1) 

incorporated therein, to be a 

requirement that no longer applies so 

long as the standard has been attained. 

Similarly, the requirements of section 

189(c)(2) with respect to milestones no 

longer apply so long as an area has 

attained the standard. Section 189(c)(2) 

provides in relevant part that: 

Not later than 90 days after the date on 

which a milestone applicable to the area 

occurs, each State in which all or part of such 

area is located shall submit to the 

Administrator a demonstration * * * that 

the milestone has been met. 

Where the area has attained the 

standard and there are no further 

milestones, there is no further 

requirement to make a submission 

showing that such milestones have been 

met. As noted above, this is consistent 

with the position that EPA took with 

respect to the general RFP requirement 

of section 172(c)(2) in the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble and also in the May 

10, 1995 Seitz memorandum with 

respect to the requirements of sections 

182(b) and (c). In the May 10, 1995 Seitz 

memorandum EPA also noted that 

section 182(g), the milestone 

requirement of Subpart 2, which is 

analogous to provisions in section 

189(c), is suspended upon a 

determination that an area has attained. 

The memorandum, also citing 

additional provisions related to 

attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements, stated 

Inasmuch as each of these requirements is 

linked with the attainment demonstration or 

RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 

182(c)(2), if an area is not subject to the 

requirement to submit the underlying 

attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it 

need not submit the related SIP submission 

either. 

1995 Seitz memorandum at 5. 

That the requirements for 

redesignation of an area require EPA to 

find that the improvement in air quality 

is due to permanent and enforceable 

emission controls does not undermine 

EPA’s interpretation that when EPA 

determines an area is in attainment, the 

requirement for further emission 

reductions beyond that necessary for 

attainment is suspended for so long as 

the area remains in attainment. EPA 

does not contend that a determination of 

attainment is equivalent to a 

redesignation, which requires additional 

showings beyond the fact of attainment 

before changing the designation of an 

area from nonattainment to attainment. 

A determination of attainment merely 

suspends certain requirements for so 

long as the area remains in attainment. 

That permanent emission reductions are 

required for a redesignation does not 

indicate that Congress intended an area 

to keep reducing emissions beyond the 

attainment level until an area is 

redesignated. There is no statutory 

support for the proposition that an area 

must keep reducing emissions below the 

level needed for attainment until that 

area is redesignated. EPA’s construction 

of the statute recognizes the public 

interest in reducing burdens on states 

and sources within states associated 

with adopting and implementing 

additional control measures that are no 

longer necessary to attain the NAAQS. 

EPA has construed the statutory 

provisions as not requiring certain 

additional emission reductions above 

and beyond what was needed to attain 

the NAAQS. 

EPA again notes that it has already 

approved a demonstration of reasonable 

further progress for the SJV. In the 

context of considering whether a 

determination of attainment suspends 

the contingency measures requirement 

of section 172(c)(9), however, EPA 

concludes that the RFP requirements of 

sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c) would also 

be suspended for so long as the SJV 

remains in attainment, had they not 

already been approved. 

Comment 5: The commenter contends 

that contingency measures are needed to 

ensure both reasonable further progress 

and attainment. Waiver of the 

requirement for these measures in 

section 172(c))(9) was premised on the 

argument that the RFP requirement of 

section 172(c)(2) was tied to attainment 

and thus with an attainment finding 

there was no longer a purpose for 

contingency measures. The commenter 

asserts that because the RFP 

requirements of section 189(c)(2) cannot 

be waived for PM–10 nonattainment 

areas, the contingency measure 

requirements of section 172(c)(9) 

continue to have purpose. The 

commenter claims that they are needed 

as interim, stop gap measures to protect 

public health pending the SIP revisions 

required under section 189(c)(3). See 59 

FR 42015. 

Response: CAA Section 172(c)(9) 

provides that SIPs in nonattainment 

areas: 

Shall provide for the implementation of 

specific measures to be undertaken if the area 

fails to make reasonable further progress, or 

to attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date 

applicable under this part. Such measures 

shall be included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in any 

such case without further action by the State 

[or EPA]. 

This requirement is referred to as ‘‘the 

contingency measures’’ requirement, 

and is inextricably tied to the 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress requirements. Where sufficient 

progress has been made based on 

existing controls so that an area has 

already achieved attainment by the 

attainment date, it has no need to rely 

on ‘‘contingency measures’’ to come 

into attainment by the attainment date, 

or to assure progress towards 

attainment. 

We have thus interpreted the 

contingency measures requirement of 

sections 172(c)(9) (and 182(c))(9) in 

subpart 2 of part D) as no longer 

applying when an area has attained the 

standard because those ‘‘contingency 

measures are directed at ensuring RFP 

and attainment by the applicable date.’’

57 FR at 13564; May 10, 1995 Seitz 

memo at 5–6. As explained at length in 

the responses to comments above and in 

the memoranda and rulemakings cited 

above, the requirements for RFP and 

attainment demonstrations no longer 

apply once an area has attained the 

standard. Thus it follows that the 

requirement for contingency measures 

to be triggered in the event RFP or 

attainment is not reached is also 

suspended for as long as the area attains 

the standard. As EPA stated in its 

Addendum to the General Preamble for 

Serious PM–10 Areas, ‘‘[s]ection 

172(c)(9) requires that SIP’s provide for 

the implementation of specific measures 

to be undertaken if the Administrator 

finds that the nonattainment area has 

failed to make RFP toward attainment or 

to attain the primary NAAQS by the 

applicable statutory deadline.’’ 59 FR 

42014–42015 (August 16, 1994). Where 

the area has attained the standards, as 

EPA has shown in responses to 

comments above, the attainment 

demonstration requirements and RFP 

requirement under section 189(c)(1) and 

(2) are suspended, and thus the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63647 

contingency measure requirements of 

section 172(c)(9) are also suspended. 

The commenter is incorrect in its 

assertion that the RFP provisions under 

section 189 remain applicable despite a 

determination that the area has attained 

the standards. As EPA has demonstrated 

in its response to comment 4 above, 

once the area has attained the standards, 

the RFP milestone requirements in 

section 189 are suspended for so long as 

the area remains in attainment. Thus no 

contingency measures are required to 

assure those requirements are met. 

Because EPA is finalizing its 

determination that the SJV area has 

attained the standards, it is also 

finalizing its determination that the 

requirement for contingency measures 

under section 172(c)(9) is suspended for 

so long as the area remains in 

attainment. 

C. New Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS 

Comment 6: The commenter argues 

that the most troubling implications of 

EPA’s proposed finding is EPA’s 

proposal to revoke the PM–10 standards 

altogether and eliminate monitors in 

areas that are found to be in attainment. 

The commenter contends that the 

reasonableness of EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy is premised in part on the 

assurance of the Clean Air Act that EPA 

will eventually demonstrate that air 

quality has been permanently resolved 

due to the controls being implemented 

and that contingency measures will be 

in place as part of a plan to maintain 

clean air once an area has been 

redesignated to attainment. The 

commenter argues that under EPA’s 

then current proposal for coarse PM, 

these assurances will be eliminated. The 

commenter states that EPA proposes to 

revoke the PM–10 standard 

‘‘everywhere except in areas where 

there is at least one monitor that is 

located in an urbanized area with a 

minimum population of 100,000 people 

and that violates the 24-hour PM–10 

standard based on the most recent three 

years of data.’’ 71 FR at 2674. The 

commenter further states that, with the 

proposed attainment finding, EPA is 

making the determination that the PM–

10 standard will be revoked in the 

Valley without the Act’s protections. 

The commenter is also concerned about 

the potential for EPA to refuse to 

consider data collected by monitors in 

rural areas. The commenter believes that 

EPA should provide an explanation as 

to why its determination is reasonable 

when there will be no safety net to 

recover from the decision if EPA is 

wrong. 

Response: The commenter’s concerns 

are misplaced. First, EPA’s responses to 

comments above indicate that its 

decision is reasonable, in accordance 

with its prior interpretations of the 

CAA, and in accordance with the 

statute. EPA reiterates that a 

determination of attainment results 

merely in a suspension of requirements 

for so long as the area remains in 

attainment. If the area violates the 

standard, then the requirements and 

protections of the Act again apply to 

ensure that the area attains and makes 

reasonable further progress towards 

attainment. 

Second, as noted above, on September 

21, 2006, the EPA Administrator signed 

a final rulemaking which, among other 

things, revoked only the annual PM–10 

standard, but left intact the 24-hour 

PM–10 NAAQS. The EPA did not 

finalize its proposal to revoke the 24- 

hour PM–10 NAAQS. The final 

rulemaking did not revoke any 

designations under the 24-hour PM–10 

standard, and all requirements for the 

24-hour standard and all designations 

under that standard remain in place. 

Based on the most recent three years of 

data, all areas that monitored 

nonattainment for the annual standard 

also monitored nonattainment for the 

24-hour standard. Thus the commenter 

is incorrect in contending that the 

determination of attainment would 

relieve the SJV of the protections of the 

PM–10 NAAQS. Should EPA determine 

that the SJV violates the 24-hour PM–10 

NAAQS, it would again become subject 

to any requirements that had been 

suspended during its period of 

attainment. In addition, the area would 

still retain the incentive to be 

redesignated to attainment for the 24- 

hour ‘PM–10 NAAQS in order to be 

relieved of nonattainment NSR offset 

requirements and to avoid further 

attainment planning requirements 

should the area monitor a violation of 

the standard in the future, and the 

provisions for a maintenance plan 

pursuant to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) 

and 175A would still apply to any 

redesignation request. Thus these 

assurances of and motivation for 

continued attainment are not 

eliminated, and the ‘‘safety net’’ cited by 

the commenter remains in place. 

The commenter also cites to a portion 

of the proposed rule on Ambient Air 

Monitoring which discusses a five-part 

suitability test to determine whether 

potential PM–10–2.5 monitoring sites 

were suitable for comparison to the 

proposed NAAQs. 71 FR 2710, 2736 

(January 17, 2006). In the final 

monitoring rule signed September 27, 

2006 and available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/air/particles/actions.html, 

EPA is not adopting the five-part 

suitability test or the proposed PM–10–

2.5 monitoring network design. EPA had 

proposed the five-part suitability test 

along with certain minimum monitoring 

requirements and monitor placement 

criteria for the primary purpose of 

determining compliance with the 

proposed PM–10–2.5 particulate 

NAAQS. EPA proposed as the indicator 

for the NAAQS any ambient mix of PM–

10–2.5 that is dominated by 

resuspended dust from high-density 

traffic on paved roads and PM generated 

by industrial sources and construction 

sources, but excluded any ambient mix 

of PM–10–2.5 that is dominated by rural 

windblown dust and soils and PM 

generated by agricultural and mining 

sources. The proposed level for the PM–

10–2.5 NAAQS was selected so as to be 

of equal stringency to the 24 hour PM–

10 NAAQS. However, in its recent rule 

revising the NAAQS EPA stated that it 

is not adopting the proposed PM–10–2.5 

standard and instead, will be retaining 

the current 24 hour PM–10 standard. 

Therefore, EPA also did not adopt the 

proposed PM–10–2.5 monitoring 

network design, including the five-part 

suitability test to which the commenter 

cites above. Thus the commenter’s 

concerns about this aspect of the rule 

have not been realized. 

D. EPA Policy on Special Purpose 

Monitoring Data 

Comment 7: The commenter states 

that EPA’s use of an August 22, 1997 

memorandum from John Seitz on the 

use of special purpose monitoring data 

is based on an illogical reading and is 

an insufficient substitution for a 

reasoned determination. The commenter 

states that nothing in the CAA provides 

for this intermediate step of an 

attainment determination to be made 

independently of a redesignation under 

CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). The 

commenter contends that to the extent 

such a determination can be defended, 

it is subject to the rational basis 

standard of the Administrative 

Procedures Act. The commenter cites 

language from the 1997 Seitz 

memorandum that discusses the types 

of data EPA must consider before 

redesignating an area from 

nonattainment to attainment and 

concludes that the Agency cannot 

reasonably ignore data that falls short of 

specific part 58 requirements without 

explaining why those requirements 

undermine the validity of the data. 

Response: The commenter contends 

that an ‘‘attainment determination is a 

beast of EPA’s own creation’’ and that 

it must be defended on a rational basis. 

In fact, attainment determinations have 

a basis in the statute: see e.g., section 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63648 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

107(d)(3)(E)(i), as well as sections 

179(c), 188(b)(2) and 181(b)(2), but there 

is nothing that restricts EPA to making 

determinations of attainment in the 

context solely of those provisions. 

Indeed, as noted earlier, both the 9th 

and 10th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals 

have upheld EPA’s authority to make 

attainment determinations outside the 

context of redesignation proceedings, 

and have also upheld EPA’s 

interpretation of the statutory 

consequences of such determinations. 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 99 F.3d 1551 (10th 

Cir. 1996), Our Children’s Earth 

Foundation v. EPA, No. 04–73032 (9th 

Cir. June 28, 2005 (memorandum 

opinion). Nothing in the Act compels 

EPA to wait until an area meets all the 

requirements for redesignation before 

EPA makes a determination that the area 

is in attainment with the standard with 

the effect that the requirements for 

certain statutory provisions relating to 

attainment are suspended by their own 

terms. Indeed, section 179(c) of the Act 

requires EPA to make an attainment 

determination within six months after 

an area’s applicable attainment date 

whether or not EPA has made a finding 

with respect to redesignation. EPA’s 

interpretation of the Act’s provisions 

not to require, once attainment has been 

reached, certain plan submissions 

whose purpose is to assure attainment, 

is not at odds with the requirements for 

redesignation. EPA’s rationale for 

issuing attainment determinations is set 

forth at length in the responses to 

comments on the Clean Data Policy, 

above. In making determinations of 

attainment, which are subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking, EPA is 

governed by the Clean Air Act and its 

regulations. 

Similarly, in identifying the data that 

should be considered in making a 

determination of attainment, EPA is 

subject to regulatory provisions that set 

forth criteria defining what constitutes 

an adequate monitoring schedule, 

methodology, and quality assurance for 

data that will justify reliance upon it. 40 

CFR 58.14 applies to Special Purpose 

Monitors (SPMs), and requires that if 

intended to be used for purposes of 

demonstrating attainment or 

nonattainment, they must meet the 

requirements for State and Local Air 

Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) set forth 

in 40 CFR 58.13 and 58.22 as well as in 

appendices A and E of part 58. While 

EPA cited to the Seitz memorandum in 

its proposal, EPA is not, as commenters 

contend, hiding behind a non-binding 

policy memorandum. Rather, that 

memorandum cited to the regulations 

applicable to data from special purpose 

monitors intended for use in attainment 

determinations. These regulations are 

designed to ensure that the data is 

accurate and reliable enough to be the 

basis for a formal determination as to 

whether an area has attained the 

relevant standard. The 1997 Seitz 

memorandum states that ‘‘[the] Agency 

policy on the use of special purpose 

monitoring data for any regulatory 

purpose, with the exception of fine 

particulate matter data (PM–2.5) is that 

all quality assured and valid data 

meeting 40 CFR part 58 requirements 

must be considered within the 

regulatory process.’’ 1997 Seitz 

memorandum at 1. EPA’s regulations 

under 40 CFR part 58 provide for 

quality assurance and control 

requirements to ensure that regulatory 

decisions are based on reliable and 

accurate information. 

Conversely, it follows that data that 

does not meet these quality assurance 

criteria should not be considered, since 

basing regulatory decisions on data that 

has not been shown to be reliable would 

not further the public interest nor be 

consistent with EPA regulations on 

special purpose monitors. See 40 CFR 

58.14. As set forth below in other 

responses to comments, EPA’s decision 

to consider data from monitors that 

meets quality assurance criteria and its 

concomitant decision to exclude data 

that does not meet these criteria is based 

on its regulations, has a rational basis, 

and is designed to result in 

determinations that reflect accurate and 

reliable data. 

Here, the data from certain SPMs did 

not meet the quality assurance 

requirements of part 58, and therefore 

were not included for consideration in 

the determination of attainment. If in 

the future additional data that has been 

quality assured demonstrate that the 

area is in fact not attaining the standard, 

EPA will withdraw its determination of 

attainment. Until that time, there is no 

compelling reason for EPA not to 

proceed with an attainment finding 

based on all quality assured data where 

such data demonstrates that the SJV has 

attained the PM–10 standard. 

In EPA’s Revisions to Ambient Air 

Monitoring Regulations, a final rule 

signed on September 27, 2006, EPA 

issued revised regulations concerning 

SPMs, and clarified that data from such 

monitors would not be used for 

attainment/nonattainment 

determinations if the monitors had not 

met the requirements of appendix A. 

Section 58.20(b) of the revised 

regulation provides in part: 

[a]ny SPM data collected by an air 

monitoring agency using a Federal reference 

method(FRM), Federal equivalent method 

(FEM), or approved regional method (ARM) 

must meet the requirements of section 58.11, 

section 58.12, and appendix A to this part or 

an approved alternative to appendix A to this 

part * * * 

Section 58.20 (c) provides that: 

[a]ll data from an SPM using an FRM, FEM 

or ARM which has operated for more than 24 

months is eligible for comparison to the 

relevant NAAQS, subject to the conditions of 

section 58.30, unless the air monitoring 

agency demonstrates that the data came from 

a particular period during which the 

requirements of appendix A or an approved 

alternative, appendix C, or appendix E were 

not met in practice. 

Thus EPA’s new monitoring regulations 

make plain that SPM data from a period 

during which appendix A is not 

complied with are not eligible for 

comparison to the NAAQS and EPA 

action in this case is consistent with 

that requirement. 

E. Adequacy of the SJV Monitoring 

Network 

One commenter and numerous 

individual citizens raised a number of 

issues regarding the adequacy of the 

PM–10 monitoring network in the SJV. 

In a final rule approving the serious area 

PM–10 attainment plan for the SJV, EPA 

evaluated the adequacy of this network 

and concluded that it meets all 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and is adequate to support 

the technical evaluation of the PM–10 

nonattainment problem in the plan. 69 

FR 30006, 30032–30033. EPA supported 

this conclusion in a technical support 

document accompanying the final rule, 

‘‘Evaluation of the Adequacy of the 

Monitoring Network for the San Joaquin 

Valley, California for the Annual and 

24-Hour PM–10 Standards’’; Bob 

Pallarino, EPA Region 9, Air Division; 

September 22, 2003 (2003 TSD). 

Nevertheless, EPA responds below to 

the specific comments raised regarding 

the network in connection with its 

proposed attainment determination for 

the SJV. 

Comment 8: The commenter states 

that CAA Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires 

States to establish appropriate air 

monitoring networks and that appendix 

D of 40 CFR part 58 identifies a 

minimum of six objectives that a 

SLAMS network should be designed to 

meet, as well as spatial 

representativeness criteria in developing 

the network. The District fails to address 

all six criteria in its annual Monitoring 

Network Reports (leaving out 

monitoring for regional pollutant 

transport and for impacts on rural and 

remote places) and the existing monitors 

represent only two of the six spatial 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63649 

5 ‘‘SLAMS/NAMS/PAMS Network Review 

Guidance’’ EPA–454/R–98/003, March 1998, 

section 1.0. 

6The six monitoring objectives as discussed in 40 

CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1 are (1) to 

determine highest concentrations expected to occur 

in the area covered by the network; (2) to determine 

representative concentrations in areas of high 

population density; (3) to determine the impact on 

ambient pollution levels of significant sources or 

source categories; (4) to determine general 

background concentrations; (5) to determine the 

extent of regional transport among populated areas; 

and in support of the secondary standards; and (6) 

to determine the welfare-related impacts in more 

rural and remote areas (such as visibility 

impairment and effects on vegetation). 

7See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1, for 

a discussion of spatial scales and their applicability 

in monitoring network design. 

8The NAMS area subset of the SLAMS ambient 

air quality monitoring network. 

9While Table 6 in 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, 

section 5 could be interpreted to mean that three 

spatial scales are required for PM–10 NAMS sites, 

EPA’s purpose here was to summarize the spatial 

scales which would be appropriate for NAMS sites, 

i.e. microscale, middle scale, and neighborhood 

scale sites are appropriate scales for PM–10 NAMS 

sites, but urban and regional scale sites are not. This 

is because the objectives for NAMS sites are to 

monitor in areas where the pollutant concentration 

and population exposure are expected to be the 

highest. Furthermore, EPA’s recently signed rule 

revising the monitoring regulations at 40 CFR part 

58, reiterates EPA’s intention that urban and 

regional scales are not appropriate for PM–10 

monitoring and the most important spatial scales 

for monitoring PM–10 are the middle and 

neighborhood scales. 

scales established in the regulations 

when three are required. Since the 

District fails to meet these basic 

requirements, EPA should address the 

adequacy of the monitoring network 

before making an attainment 

determination, including whether 

system audits were conducted as 

required by 40 CFR 58.2.5 (sic). EPA’s 

only evaluation of the network was in 

the 2003 TSD in which EPA identified 

several deficiencies in the Valley’s PM–

10 monitoring network but signed off on 

the network in spite of the deficiencies. 

Response: Pollutant monitoring 

networks are designed to serve a 

number of purposes. While the primary 

purpose of a monitoring network is to 

determine an area’s attainment status 

with regard to the NAAQS, there are a 

variety of other purposes networks 

serve, including determining maximum 

concentration locations; determining the 

effectiveness of air pollution control 

programs; evaluating the effects of air 

pollution levels on public health; 

tracking the progress of SIPs; providing 

dispersion modeling support; 

developing responsible, cost-effective 

control strategies; reconciling emission 

inventories; and developing air quality 

trends.5

The six monitoring objectives 6 in 

EPA’s regulations were developed to 

assist in designing monitoring networks 

to meet these various objectives. Clearly, 

monitoring to ‘‘determine the welfarerelated impacts in more rural and 

remote areas (such as visibility 

impairment and effects on vegetation)’’

or monitoring to assess regional 

transport of pollution are not directly 

related to determining whether or not an 

area is in attainment of the NAAQS. 

These are important objectives in terms 

of maximizing the utility of the 

monitoring network. However, when 

determining whether the SJV is 

attaining the PM–10 NAAQS, it is more 

important to demonstrate that the PM–

10 network has monitors sited to 

capture the maximum concentrations 

expected to occur in the Valley and the 

representative concentrations of PM–10 

throughout the area that the population 

of the SJV are breathing. As discussed 

in the 2003 TSD, the SJV PM–10 

SLAMS network meets the two primary 

and most important objectives by siting 

most of its monitors to assess 

representative concentrations in areas of 

high population and monitoring in the 

area where the maximum PM–10 

concentrations are expected to occur. 

Thus the fact that the District did not 

address the two objectives above is not 

a significant factor in determining 

whether the SJV is in attainment of the 

PM–10 NAAQS. 

The commenter states that EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

D, require networks to use at least three 

spatial scales 7 in establishing a 

monitoring network. However, the 

regulations do not in fact require the use 

of any minimum number of spatial 

scales for PM–10 SLAMS or National 

Air Monitoring Station (NAMS) 8

networks. Section 1 of appendix D 

discusses the relationship between 

monitoring objectives and spatial scales 

of representativeness. As our regulations 

state in this section, ‘‘[p]roper siting of 

a monitoring station requires precise 

specification of the monitoring objective 

which usually includes a desired spatial 

scale of representativeness.’’

Table 1 of appendix D ‘‘illustrates the 

four basic monitoring objectives and the 

scales of representativeness that are 

generally most appropriate for that 

objective.’’ Emphasis added. Appendix 

D, section 1, table 1. It is clear from this 

language that EPA did not intend to 

dictate specific spatial scales for each 

objective. However, it is important to 

ensure that the spatial scale of the site 

is appropriate for the monitoring 

objective that site is intended to meet. 

For example, a site that is intended to 

represent typical population exposure 

should be a neighborhood or urban scale 

site, not a microscale site. While a 

microscale site can be used to monitor 

for highest concentration, a middle or 

neighborhood scale site would also 

satisfy this monitoring objective.9

With respect to the system audit 

programs described in 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix A, section 2.5, it is important 

to note that this type of audit, 

commonly referred to as a technical 

system audit (TSA, is a qualitative 

review of an agency’s overall air 

monitoring operations designed to 

determine whether what the monitoring 

organization says is going to be 

performed in its quality management 

plan, quality assurance project plan, and 

standard operating procedures are 

performed as specified. A TSA is 

required to be ‘‘on site’’ in the sense of 

taking place at the monitoring 

organization facilities, either at one or 

more locations where monitoring 

activities are performed or where 

monitoring-related documents and 

records are kept, but it need not involve 

a visit to an actual monitoring site. 

When a discrepancy is identified, EPA 

asks the monitoring organization to 

correct the discrepancy and tracks the 

monitoring organization’s efforts until 

the correction is made. Significantly, 

EPA does not disqualify any data 

already collected based on the results of 

a TSA, although the monitoring 

organization in principle might do so 

itself. See ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Handbook for Air Pollutant 

Measurement Systems, Volume II, Part 

1, section 15 (EPA–454/R–98–004, 

August 1998) and ‘‘EPA Requirements 

for Quality Assurance Project Plans’’

(EPA/240/B–01/003 March 2001) at B–

4. 

In contrast, the measurement quality 

checks described in appendix A, 

sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4, are quality 

control checks in which quantitative 

data generated by quality control 

samplers or independent standards are 

compared against the routine monitors 

operated by the air monitoring agency in 

order to evaluate instrument 

performance or laboratory procedures. 

Id. at B–3. When determining whether 

data generated by air quality monitors 

can be considered to be valid and 

accurate for the purpose of determining 

whether an area has attained the 

NAAQS, measurement quality checks 

are critical. 

As a mechanism for helping to ensure 

that data generated by air quality 

monitors is valid and accurate and thus 

suitable for determining whether an area 

has attained the NAAQS, it is the 

measurement quality checks that are 

most important. These checks create an 

incentive for continuous attention to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63650 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

10These guidance documents include ‘‘PM–10 

SIP Development Guideline’’, EPA–450/2–86–001, 

June 1987; ‘‘Network Design and Optimum Site 

Exposure Criteria for Particulate Matter’’, EPA–450/ 

4–87–009/ May 1987; ‘‘Guidance For Network 

Design and Optimum Site Exposure For PM–2.5 

and PM–10’’, EPA–454/R–99–022, December 1997; 

‘‘SLAMS/NAMS/PAMS Network Review 

Guidance’’, EPA–454/R–98–003, March 1998. 

proper operation and maintenance of 

each monitor, can identify problems 

with specific monitors so that the 

problems can be corrected, and provide 

a basis for the monitoring organization 

to disqualify data already collected if 

specific audit findings are found to be 

outside of acceptable limits. EPA 

discusses these evaluations with respect 

to the SJV monitoring network below in 

response to comment 13. 

EPA Regional Offices are required by 

appendix A to perform TSAs of State 

reporting organizations once every three 

years. A reporting organization, as 

defined in 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, 

section 3.0.2, is a State, subordinate 

organization within a State, or other 

organization that is responsible for a set 

of stations that monitors the same 

pollutant and for which data quality 

assessments can be pooled. States must 

define one or more reporting 

organizations for each pollutant such 

that each monitoring station in the State 

SLAMS network is included in one, and 

only one, reporting organization. 

California has designated four 

reporting organizations within the State: 

CARB, the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, the Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District, and the 

San Diego Air Pollution Control District. 

All other air quality districts in the 

State, including the San Joaquin Valley 

Air Pollution Control District, are 

included in the CARB reporting 

organization. CARB and the Districts in 

its reporting organization represent one 

of the largest and most experienced air 

quality reporting organizations in the 

nation. 

EPA has audited certain aspects of the 

CARB monitoring program recently. 

EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS) performed 

measurement quality checks and TSAs 

of the CARB PM laboratories in October 

2002 and March 2004. These 

evaluations and audits confirmed that 

the laboratories used by CARB and the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District for weighing PM filters 

were operating consistently with 

appendix A requirements. No 

deficiencies for the PM lab were noted. 

Overall good laboratory practices were 

observed during this TSA. See 

Technical Memorandum on CARB 

Laboratory Audit to Jim Homolya, EPA, 

OAQPS, from Michael S. Clark, National 

Air and Radiation Environmental 

Laboratory, February 26, 2003 and 

Technical Memorandum on CARB 

Laboratory Audit to Jim Homolya, EPA, 

OAQPS, from Eric Boswell, National Air 

and Radiation Environmental 

Laboratory, dated April 22, 2004. 

Moreover, CARB Quality Assurance 

Section also conducts its own internal 

audits of the PM laboratory. 

In October 2004, EPA Region 9 

performed a technical evaluation of the 

CARB ‘Through-the-Probe’ (TTP) audit 

program for gaseous pollutants to 

establish system equivalence between 

the CARB and EPA TTP programs and 

to independently review the CARB TTP 

program. See ‘‘Review of California Air 

Resources Board’s ‘Through-the-Probe’

Audit Program’’, October 6–7, 2004. The 

TTP audit is a procedure for performing 

measurement quality checks of gaseous 

analyzers and is the primary tool used 

by CARB to fulfill its audit 

responsibility for these types of 

analyzers in 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

A, section 3.2. While EPA’s audit of the 

CARB TTP program focused on gaseous 

pollutant performance audits, the audit 

served as an on-site TSA with respect to 

CARB’s corrective action procedures 

used by CARB following a performance 

audit failure of a PM–10 monitor, as 

CARB’s corrective action procedures are 

common to all pollutants including PM–

10. We have since evaluated the CARB 

TTP program three additional times in 

June 2005, October 2005 and April 

2006. See memorandums to Catherine 

Brown, USEPA Region 9 from Kevin 

Woodruff, ESAT TTP Task Manager, 

dated July 8, 2005, May 8, 2006, and 

May 18, 2006. 

CARB has conducted its own TSAlike assessment of the District’s 

monitoring program. CARB’s oversight 

includes routine annual performance 

audits of PM–10 SLAMS monitors, 

verification that sites meet EPA siting 

criteria and periodic assessments of the 

District’s air monitoring program. See 

the CARB’s Annual Data Quality 

Reports and the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District Program 

Review, Report of Findings and 

Recommendations, by CARB Stationary 

Source Division, October 2005. Audit 

information for individual monitoring 

stations in the CARB reporting 

organization is available at the CARB 

Web site http://www.arb.ca.gov/qaweb/. 

The Web site includes maps of each site, 

site photographs, and a detailed survey 

of the physical parameters and 

conditions at each site. These activities, 

while performed by CARB, are very 

similar to the field operation portion of 

EPA’s TSAs. 

Region 9 continues to keep informed 

of CARB and its Districts’ monitoring 

program developments through our 

ability to review revisions to quality 

assurance (QA) documents and the 

other information described above on 

the CARB QA Web site. EPA believes 

that these activities as well as the onsite activities described above, EPA’s 

evaluation in the 2003 TSD, and the 

performance audits described below, 

can and should be considered to 

substantially meet the requirements of 

appendix A and are sufficient to ensure 

that the data produced by the PM–10 

SLAMS network operating in the SJV is 

adequate for EPA to base our finding of 

attainment. 

Furthermore, the District and CARB 

annually certify that the data in EPA’s 

Air Quality System (AQS) database is 

correct and accurate. EPA also annually 

reviews the precision and accuracy data 

(precision and accuracy data are 

discussed in more detail in the response 

to comment 13 below) submitted along 

with the PM–10 concentration data by 

CARB and the District. 

As stated above, in the 2003 TSD EPA 

determined that the PM–10 monitoring 

network for the SJV, which includes 

monitors operated by both CARB and 

the District, meets all applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

EPA Region 9 uses the following four 

criteria to evaluate whether agencies 

operate approvable networks: (1) The 

SLAMS network used EPA approved 

samplers to collect data, (2) the agency 

has a quality assurance plan in place 

that meets EPA requirements, (3) the 

agency operates the required number of 

monitoring sites designated as NAMS, 

and (4) the monitoring network is 

designed in accordance with the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58, 

appendices D and E. These criteria are 

based on requirements in 40 CFR part 

58 and on EPA guidance documents.10

The only deficiency in The District’s 

PM–10 network that EPA has identified 

relates to the number of sites designated 

as NAMS. In the 2003 TSD at 5, we 

stated: 

According to EPA regulations, the [District] 

should have a minimum of 11 sites 

designated as NAMS sites, based on the 

average PM–10 concentrations during the 

years 1999–2001 and the 2000 census 

population data. * * * The number of 

monitoring sites in the [SJV] designated as 

NAMS is less than that required in EPA 

regulations. However * * * EPA has been 

de-emphasizing the difference between 

NAMS and SLAMS sites. * * * EPA is 

planning to revise the regulations at 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix D, which discusses the 

NAMS requirement, to eliminate the 

designation of sites as either NAMS or 

SLAMS. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63651 

11See also ‘‘SLAMS/NAMS/PAMS Network 

Review Guidance’’ EPA–454/R–98/003, March 

1998, section 2.1.2. 

12See ‘‘State and Local Air Monitoring Network 

Report—2005’’ San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. Planning Division, 

August 2005. 

In footnote 3 in the 2003 TSD, EPA 

explained that: 

EPA, in partnership with State and local 

air agencies, has been developing a National 

Monitoring strategy which no longer makes 

a distinction between NAMS and SLAMS 

sites. The strategy, once codified in EPA 

regulations, will simply establish a certain 

minimum number of monitoring sites in a 

metropolitan area, still based on population 

and pollutant concentration severity. The 

current network in the [SJV] will easily meet 

these minimum requirements. 

At the time we evaluated the SJV PM–

10 monitoring network, we believed, in 

light of the de-emphasis on the 

difference between NAMS and SLAMS 

sites, that it would be unreasonable to 

find the network inadequate because of 

this technical deficiency which EPA 

was planning to eliminate. In fact, in 

our final Ambient Air Monitoring rule 

signed on September 27, 2006 that 

amends 40 CFR part 58 we did 

eliminate the NAMS designation 

requirement completely. Elimination of 

the NAMS requirement does not affect 

the number of monitors operating in the 

PM–10 network. Sites designated as 

NAMS simply convert to SLAMS sites. 

Based on the above, we believe the data 

produced by the SLAMS network is 

technically sound and can be used to 

determine the SJV’s attainment status. 

EPA wants to emphasize, however, that 

the action today is simply an assessment 

of the data collected at the District’s 

PM–10 monitoring stations from 2003–

2005, and continuing into 2006. This 

attainment determination does not 

preclude any future assessments of the 

PM–10 monitoring network, addition of 

new monitoring sites, or shut down of 

any existing sites. 

Comment 9: The commenter states 

that the monitoring network does not 

meet the basic objectives laid out by 

federal regulation and leaves vast 

portions of the Valley completely 

unmonitored. The commenter asserts 

that EPA must address this deficiency 

before making an attainment 

determination. The commenter states 

that the majority of the PM–10 

monitoring takes place along the 

Highway 99 corridor which captures 

most of the SJV’s major urban centers, 

but entirely overlooks the eastern and 

western portions of the SJV. The 

western portion of the SJV should be of 

particular concern to the District and 

EPA as it is an area of widespread 

poverty and environmental injustice, as 

well as being an area of intense 

agricultural activity. 

Response: We disagree with the 

commenter’s contention that the 

network fails to meet the basic 

monitoring objectives described in 40 

CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1. EPA 

regulations do not prescribe the size of 

an area’s PM–10 monitoring network or 

the exact placement of monitors. 40 CFR 

part 58, appendix D, section 1, ‘‘SLAMS 

Monitoring Objectives and Spatial 

Scales’’ states: 

It should be noted that this appendix 

contains no criteria for determining the total 

number of stations in SLAMS networks 

* * *. The optimum size of a particular 

SLAMS network involves trade offs among 

data needs and available resources that EPA 

believes can best be resolved during the 

network design process.11

It is unreasonable and cost prohibitive 

to require a monitoring agency to 

operate a monitoring station in every 

location expected to have high levels of 

a particular pollutant. The District 

operates SLAMS in a variety of areas 

that represent typical emission 

scenarios in the SJV including urban 

areas of dense population, industrial 

areas, and rural areas dominated by 

agricultural emission sources. See 2003 

TSD at 5. 

The monitoring network in the SJV 

has both neighborhood and middle scale 

sites. As stated previously in this notice 

(see response to comment 8 and 

footnote 7), these spatial scales are the 

most important in monitoring for PM–

10. Monitoring sites that are 

representative of middle scale impacts 

cannot only represent the area 

immediately around the monitoring site 

but also areas of similar emission 

characteristics. Similarly, neighborhood 

scale sites can represent not only the 

immediate neighborhood but also 

neighborhoods of similar types in the 

city or area. Furthermore, neighborhood 

stations provide the most relevant 

information about trends and 

compliance with standards because they 

often represent conditions in areas 

where people commonly live and work 

for periods comparable to those 

specified in the NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

part 58, appendix D, sections 2.8.0.4 

and 2.8.0.5. 

Most of the monitors in the SJV 

network are neighborhood scale sites 

with the objective of assessing 

population exposure. Since the majority 

of the SJV’s population resides in 

urbanized areas along the Highway 99 

corridor and since many of the emission 

sources are mobile or traffic-related, we 

believe this is an appropriate focus of 

the monitoring network. 2003 TSD at 

page 5. 

The District also monitors in locations 

in addition to the Highway 99 locations, 

e.g. Corcoran, Taft, and Hanford.12

Thus, the District network does 

represent the source types that make up 

the majority of emission sources in the 

western and eastern portions of the SJV. 

The monitoring locations at Corcoran 

and Hanford are both rural locations 

surrounded by agricultural sources of 

PM–10. Since it is not feasible for the 

District to monitor in every rural 

location, these sites can be viewed as 

representative of other unmonitored 

locations in the Valley. 

Comment 10: The commenter points 

out that back in the 1990s, there were 

at least four monitoring sites in what 

can be considered the rural west side. 

These sites, located at Los Banos, Five 

Points, Kern Wildlife Refuge, and 

Kettleman City, were all shut down in 

the mid-1990s with little or no 

explanation, consultation with EPA or 

public notification, as required by 40 

CFR 58.26(e). These monitors were 

mentioned in passing in the District’s 

1994 Air Monitoring Network Report as 

‘‘not necessary’’ and ‘‘resource 

intensive’’ and were to be closed to 

‘‘redirect resources.’’ The commenter 

notes that the Five Points monitor 

monitored sizeable violations until 

1993, the year it disappeared from the 

District’s network. 

Response: The public notification 

requirement in 40 CFR 58.26(e) cited by 

the commenter was part of the 

monitoring regulation revisions made to 

implement the PM–2.5 NAAQS (62 FR 

38833 (July 18, 1997)) and applies only 

to that pollutant: 

After 3 years following September 16, 1997 

or once a monitoring area has been 

determined to violate the NAAQS, then 

changes to an MPA monitoring network 

affecting the valuating locations shall require 

public review and notification. 

‘‘MPA’’ stands for ‘‘Monitoring Planning 

Area’’ and ‘‘means a contiguous 

geographic area * * * having a common 

area that is used for planning 

monitoring locations for PM 2.5’’

Emphasis added. 40 CFR 58.1. 

Moreover, EPA generally defers to a 

State or local agency’s judgment in 

determining which SLAMS to operate in 

a network as long as the overall 

monitoring objectives in our regulations 

are being met. However, EPA would 

object if an agency discontinued a 

design value site or a site with unique 

source characteristics that is violating 

the NAAQS. 

In 1993–1994 the District and CARB 

operated 18 monitoring sites in the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63652 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

13The Corcoran site has had multiple PM–10 

monitoring instruments in operation during its 

history, including three federal reference method 

(FRM) high volume samplers, a beta attenuation 

mass (BAM) analyzer, and a tapered element 

oscillating microbalance (TEOM) analyzer. At 

present, the site operates three FRM high volume 

samplers and a TEOM analyzer. The BAM and 

TEOM analyzers are not FRMs but have been 

designated as federal equivalent method (FEM) 

monitors by EPA. Two of the three FRM samplers 

have been designated by the District as the primary, 

or SLAMS, samplers for the Corcoran monitoring 

site. The third FRM is operated for quality control 

purposes. 

FRMs are manual samplers that pull air through 

a filter for 24 hours (midnight to midnight). The 

filters are then weighed in a lab and a PM 

concentration is calculated based on the mass 

increase of the filter and the volume of air drawn 

through it. The two primary FRMs operate on a 

staggered one in six day schedule such that a 

sample is collected once every three days. 

14The original Corcoran site was located on Van 

Dorsten Avenue and ran from 1986 to 1998. The 

current Corcoran site at Patterson Avenue began 

monitoring in 1997 and continues at this time. The 

Patterson Avenue site is approximately 1.1 miles 

north of the Van Dorsten Avenue site and has 

similar site characteristics. 

15CARB recommends that Districts perform 

‘‘parallel monitoring’’ when proposing to relocate a 

monitoring site. While parallel monitoring is not a 

required activity when relocating a site, parallel 

monitoring data is often the best way to determine 

if important monitoring objectives for the existing 

site will be satisfactorily continued at the 

replacement site. See the document ‘‘Site 

Relocation and Parallel Monitoring Guidelines’’

June 1997, California Air Monitoring and Technical 

Advisory Committee. 

16Two sites shut down were in violation of the 

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. Fresno Five Points, which 

was discontinued in 1993, had recorded a single 

exceedance of 190 μg/m3 in 1993, but had no 

exceedances in 1991 and 1992. Crows Landing in 

Stanislaus County, which was discontinued in 

1991, had a single exceedance in 1990 of 

180 μg/m3, but recorded no exceedances in 1989 or 

1991. 

Valley. Three sites were shut down at 

the end of 1993: Los Banos, Kern 

Wildlife Refuge, and Five Points. Los 

Banos and Kern Wildlife Refuge were 

never in violation of the PM–10 NAAQS 

so the District’s decision to shut them 

down for any of the reasons cited by the 

commenter would not have been 

questioned by EPA. 

The Kettleman City monitor 

continued to run until 1996. This 

monitor did record 5 exceedances of the 

24-hour PM–10 NAAQS during the 

period 1990 to 1993 but was in 

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS from 

1994 to 1996 when it was discontinued. 

While Five Points was a violating 

monitor, it was not unique in that there 

were other monitors in the Valley that 

operated in areas subject to the same 

type of agricultural emission sources. In 

the year that it was shut down there 

were significantly higher and more 

frequent exceedances of the NAAQS at 

the Corcoran monitoring site. 

Consequently, there was no restriction 

preventing the District from 

discontinuing it. In addition, because 

this site was in a largely uninhabited 

area it was not as useful as other sites 

in the network for assessing population 

exposure to PM–10 air pollution. 

The Corcoran monitoring site has 

always been one of the highest-reading 

sites 13 in the District’s PM–10 network 

and that site has run continuously 14

since the PM–10 NAAQS has been in 

existence. The Corcoran site is very 

similar to the Five Points site in terms 

of the surrounding land use 

(agricultural). During the period 1986 to 

1993 the Five Points site recorded six 

exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS, 

and only one year that exceeded the 

annual NAAQS (1988 with a 52 μg/m3). 

In comparison, during the same time 

period, Corcoran showed 21 observed 

exceedances of the 24-hour NAAQS and 

exceeded the annual NAAQS every year 

during that time period (the maximum 

annual concentration was 70.2 μg/m3 in 

1991). The Corcoran site also monitors 

in an area where there is greater 

population, which makes it a more 

desirable site. 

Comment 11: The commenter and 

other individual citizens state that the 

unmonitored (since mid-1990s) west 

side of Highway 99 is a large area of the 

SJV where monitoring is needed in 

order to understand the impacts of PM–

10 pollution on the rural communities 

affected by intense agricultural 

operations and to fulfill federal 

monitoring objectives. 

Response: As stated previously, the 

District does monitor in areas of intense 

agricultural activity that are similar to 

and thus representative of conditions in 

other rural communities, including the 

western portion of the District. There 

may be site-specific reasons to monitor 

on the west side of the Valley for 

reasons beyond measuring attainment of 

the NAAQS, e.g. reporting more specific 

air quality information for people living 

and working in the western portion of 

the Valley for other health-related 

purposes. However, EPA believes that 

for the purposes of determining 

attainment, the current monitoring 

network, since it meets the requirements 

and objectives of the federal monitoring 

regulations, is representative of 

conditions throughout the Valley and 

thus is adequate for making an 

attainment determination. 

Comment 12: The commenter asserts 

that while the District claims that PM–

10 levels in the SJV have greatly 

improved, these improvements come 

from a monitoring network that has 

gotten significantly smaller. In 1993, the 

commenter claims that there were 22 

sites monitoring for PM–10 across a 

wider swath of the SJV, while today 

there are only 15 sites concentrated 

along Highway 99. Given this narrow 

slice of the SJV under surveillance, it is 

unreasonable for EPA to declare the area 

in attainment of PM–10 without first 

making a meaningful evaluation of the 

adequacy of the monitoring network. 

Response: As stated above, EPA 

evaluated the SJV PM–10 monitoring 

network in 2003 and found it to be 

adequate under EPA regulations and 

guidance. 2003 TSD. That said, the 

District’s claim that PM–10 levels in the 

Valley have improved is correct. The 

improvement in air quality is clearly 

evident from an examination of the air 

quality data for the last 19 years. The 

document ‘‘United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Quicklook Criteria Parameters’’ dated 

October 5, 2006 provides a summary of 

PM–10 data collected in the SJV since 

1987. 

While the monitoring network has 

seen a reduction in the number of sites 

over this time period, from a high of 23 

monitoring sites in 1990 to the current 

15 sites that have made up the District 

network since 1999, most monitoring 

networks evolve over time and vary in 

size. Most of the sites shut down by the 

District during the past 19 years were in 

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS for the 

previous three years. Some 

discontinued sites were replaced by 

new, nearby sites (Fresno, Drummond 

replaced Fresno, Olive; Fresno, 1st 

Street replaced Fresno, Cal State; 

Bakersfield, California Ave. replaced 

Bakersfield, Chester Street; Taft College 

replaced Taft, 10th Street; Corcoran, 

Patterson replaced Corcoran, Van 

Dorsten; Hanford, Irwin replaced 

Hanford, Lacey; Merced, M Street 

replaced Merced, E Street; Modesto, 

14th Street replaced Modesto, City 

Center).15 Some sites were shut down 

and not replaced (Fresno Five Points, 

Kern Wildlife Refuge, Kettleman City, 

Madera Library, Madera Health Dept., 

Los Banos, Modesto I street, Crows 

Landing). Generally these sites were in 

attainment of the PM–10 NAAQS.16

Other new sites were established where 

previously there were no monitors. 

(Fresno, Clovis; Bakersfield, Golden 

State Hwy.; Stockton, Wagner; Turlock). 

The following table summarizes the 

monitoring sites in the Valley that have 

been operational over the past 19 years 

and illustrates that the monitors in the 

current network are not less 

representative of air quality throughout 

the SJV than the network that existed in 

1993. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63653 

Site 

Year 

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 

Fresno Olive X X X X 

Fresno Drummond X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Fresno 1st St X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Fresno Cal State X X X X 

Fresno Five Points X X X X X X X 

Fresno Clovis X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Bakersfield Chester X X X X X X X X 

Bakersfield Golden X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Bakersfield CA Ave X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Oildale X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Kern Wildlife Refuge X X X X X 

Taft 10th Street X X X X 

Taft College X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Cocoran Van Dorsten X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Corcoran Patterson X X X X X X X X X X 

Hanford Lacey X X X X X X X 

Hanford Irwin X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Kettleman City X X X X X X X X X X 

Madera Library X X X X X X X X X 

Madera Health Dept. X X 

Los Banos X X X X X X 

Merced E Street X X X X X X X X X 

Merced M Street X X X X X X X 

Stockton Hazelton X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Stockton Wagner X X X X X X X X X X 

Modesto I Street X X X X X X X X X X 

Modesto City Center X X X X 

Modesto 14th Street X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Turlock X X X X X X X X X X X X 

Crows Landing X X X X 

Visalia X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

X indicates the site was operational in that year. 

Source: EPA’s AQS Database. 

Comment 13: The commenter states 

that, in addition to their failure to 

demonstrate the adequacy of the 

network, EPA and the District have also 

failed to provide records attesting to the 

proper functioning and maintenance of 

the particular monitors used to 

determine attainment. While EPA uses 

claims of improper maintenance to 

ignore data from continuous monitors, it 

never establishes that the data it is 

considering is in fact reliable and comes 

from a properly maintained network. 

The commmenter further claims that the 

record before EPA fails to demonstrate 

that the network complies with 40 CFR 

part 58 and therefore EPA must collect 

additional information as required by 

regulations and provide it to the public 

before it can cherry pick the data to be 

used for the attainment determination. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63654 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

17All equipment designated by EPA as approved 

for NAAQS comparisons can be found in the 

document ‘‘List of Designated Reference and 

Equivalent Methods’’, USEPA, National Exposure 

Research Laboratory, July 26, 2006 available at the 

Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ 

ambient/criteria/ref0706.pdf. 

18For the purposes of EPA quality assurance 

requirements, the California PM–10 SLAMS 

network is defined as those PM–10 monitors 

designated as SLAMS in the CARB document 

‘‘California State and Local Air Monitoring Network 

Plan—2005’’ Planning and Technical Support 

Division, Air Quality Branch, October 2006 with the 

exception of PM–10 SLAMS monitors operated by 

the South Coast AQMD, the Bay Area AQMD, and 

the San Diego APCD. 

Response: Contrary to the 

commenter’s contention, the FRM data 

on which EPA is basing its attainment 

decision is reliable and from 

instruments that are properly 

functioning and maintained in 

accordance with 40 CFR 58 and its 

appendices. EPA’s confidence in the 

data is based on records submitted by 

the State that demonstrate that the 

network operations which produced the 

data meet, or in some cases exceed, the 

requirements in our regulations at 40 

CFR part 58. 

EPA and its regulations provide for 

different types of requirements to assure 

the quality of data, depending upon the 

types of equipment used to measure 

PM–10. There are two categories of 

instruments that can be used to measure 

PM–10 concentrations in the ambient 

air, manual reference method samplers 

and automated equivalent method or 

continuous analyzers.17

A manual reference method sampler 

provides a 24 hour average 

concentration value for PM–10 in the 

ambient air. A manual reference method 

sampler uses a filter medium through 

which ambient air is drawn at a near 

constant flow rate for a period of 24 

hours (midnight to midnight). This flow 

rate through the filter is an important 

parameter and must be recorded 

accurately. Monitoring the actual flow 

rate to verify that the designed flow rate 

is being maintained during the 24-hour 

period is important because the inlet of 

the sampler will ensure the needed 

separation of particles 10 microns or 

less in diameter from larger particles 

only if the proper flow rate is 

maintained. Also, the flow rate 

measurement provides us with the total 

volume of air drawn through the filter 

during the 24-hour period. The total 

volume of air is needed to calculate the 

PM–10 concentration. 

The filters used in PM–10 manual 

reference method samplers are weighed 

in a laboratory before they are installed 

in the sampler and weighed again after 

air has been drawn through the sampler 

for 24 hours. The pre-sampled mass of 

the filter is subtracted from the postsampled mass and the result is the total 

mass of PM–10 collected. This total 

mass is divided by the total volume of 

air to determine the 24 hour average 

PM–10 concentration. In the best case a 

manual sampler can provide a 24 hour 

average concentration in about two days 

from the day a sample was collected. In 

practice and depending on a number of 

factors (e.g. how many filters the lab has 

to process, the distance between the 

laboratory and the monitoring site, on 

what day of the week a sample was 

taken) processing the filters in a 

laboratory and calculating the 

concentration can take a few weeks, on 

average. 

Automated equivalent methods or 

continuous analyzers, such as Beta 

Attenuation Mass (BAM) or Tapered 

Element Oscillating Microbalance 

(TEOM) monitors, use one of two 

alternative measurement approaches 

(beta ray attenuation or mass-dependent 

oscillation frequency) to avoid the need 

to collect PM–10 on a filter medium that 

must subsequently be weighed in a 

laboratory. Continuous analyzers report 

PM–10 concentrations over short 

intervals in near real time. The 

analyzers can be (and typically are) 

configured to report the average 24 hour 

PM–10 concentration just as a manual 

reference method does. 

As discussed elsewhere in this action, 

the SJV PM–10 SLAMS network 

consists of 15 monitoring sites using 

manual reference method samplers. 

These samplers operate on a once every 

six day schedule except for the site at 

Corcoran, which operates once every 

three days because it has two samplers 

operating on staggered once every six 

day schedules. Corcoran’s sampling 

frequency is twice that of other sites in 

the SJV PM–10 SLAMS network because 

it is historically the highest reading PM–

10 site in the network. 

One of the goals in any data collection 

effort is to be able to quantify 

measurement uncertainty. Measurement 

uncertainties are the errors associated 

with the ambient air monitoring agency, 

including errors associated with the 

field, preparation and laboratory 

measurement phases. At each 

measurement phase, errors can occur, 

that in most cases are additive. Air 

quality monitoring agencies aim to 

control measurement uncertainty to an 

acceptable level through the use of 

various quality control and evaluation 

techniques. Two of the primary checks 

used to evaluate measurement 

uncertainty are precision and accuracy 

checks. We will discuss each of these 

procedures below in more detail. An 

important point to understand is that in 

addition to allowing an evaluation of 

the uncertainty in the data that has been 

collected, these checks can reveal 

equipment or procedural problems that 

can be corrected. They can also lead a 

monitoring agency to disqualify or 

withdraw data collected in a period 

before a check revealed a problem, on 

the reasonable assumption that the data 

was affected by the problem. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix A, section 3.0.1 states that 

‘‘All ambient monitoring methods or 

analyzers used in SLAMS shall be tested 

periodically, as described in this 

section, to quantitatively assess the 

quality of the SLAMS data.’’ Precision 

checks are a measurement of mutual 

agreement among individual 

measurements of the same property 

usually under prescribed similar 

conditions, expressed generally in terms 

of standard deviation. There are 

different ways to determine the 

precision of PM–10 monitoring 

networks depending on whether the 

network utilizes manual reference 

methods or automated equivalent 

methods. Precision checks of manual 

and automated methods are addressed 

in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A, sections 

3.3 and 3.1, respectively. 

The SJV PM–10 SLAMS network is a 

subset of the larger California PM–10 

SLAMS network.18 Section 3.3 of 

Appendix A discusses how to establish 

the precision of a PM–10 network made 

up of manual method samplers, which 

applies to the SJV PM–10 SLAMS 

network. The requirement is to operate 

a certain number of collocated 

monitoring sites, i.e., duplicate 

samplers, depending on the total 

number of samplers in the network: 1 

collocated site for networks consisting 

of up to five sites, 2 collocated sites for 

networks consisting of 6 to 20 sites, and 

3 collocated sites for networks of 20 or 

more sites. These collocated samplers 

must run on the same days as the 

primary samplers and must be run on at 

least a once every six days schedule. 

The California State PM–10 SLAMS 

network consists of 97 monitoring sites 

and has five collocated sites located at 

Bakersfield, Visalia, Taft, Corcoran, and 

Sacramento. The first four of these listed 

collocated monitoring sites are located 

in the SJV. If the SJV PM–10 network 

was evaluated separately from the rest 

of the State network, EPA regulations 

would only require two collocated 

precision sites. From this perspective, 

there are twice the number of collocated 

precision sites as required by EPA 

regulations. Each of these samplers will 

produce a pair of concentrations on a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63655 

19Because it operates on a one in three day 

sampling schedule and is also a collocated 

precision site, the Corcoran monitoring site has 

three manual reference method samplers in 

operation, two that run concurrently and a third 

that runs on the staggered one in six day schedule 

that enables the site to produce data every three 

days. 

20State of California Air Resources Board, Air 

Monitoring Quality Assurance, Volume I, Quality 

Assurance Plan, Monitoring and Laboratory 

Division, June 2005. 

21 In this case, 25 percent of the network applies 

to the California State PM–10 SLAMS network not 

the SJV PM–10 SLAMS network. 

given sampling day.19 These 

concentrations must be greater than 20 

μg/m3 in order to be used in 

determining the precision of the 

network. According to the CARB QA 

manual, if concentrations are below 80 

μg/m3, the two paired values must be 

within 5 μg/m3 of each other, or further 

investigation and corrective action are 

required. If the concentrations are 

greater than 80 μg/m3 they must be 

within ±7 percent of each other.20 These 

acceptance criteria are consistent with 

EPA criteria in the guidance document 

‘‘Quality Assurance Handbook for Air 

Pollution Measurement Systems, 

Volume II: Part 1, Ambient Air Quality 

Monitoring Program Quality System 

Development’’, (EPA–454/R–98–004, 

August 1998). 

EPA’s QA guidance cited above 

provides a target for the system-wide 

precision performance, taken across all 

pairs of collocated data. EPA regulations 

at 40 CFR part 58, appendix A section 

5.3 requires 95 percent upper and lower 

probability limits be used to evaluate 

the collocated data. The target given in 

the guidance for the 95th percentile 

upper and lower limits for reporting 

organizations is 15 percent. The annual 

precision summary statistics for the 

CARB PM–10 SLAMS network meet 

these requirements as shown in the AQS 

Report ‘‘P/A Reporting Organization 

Summary, AMP 240.’’

Establishing precision for automated 

equivalent method analyzers, such as 

BAM or TEOM monitors, consists of 

performing a bi-weekly one point 

precision check of an analyzer’s 

operational flow rate. See 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A, section 3.1. The check 

is made using a flow rate transfer 

standard. The actual flow rate measured 

by the transfer standard and the 

indicated flow rate of the analyzer (the 

flow rate as measured by the analyzer’s 

own flow rate meter) are reported to the 

AQS database. In the case of the 

automated equivalent analyzers 

operated by the District as special 

purpose monitors rather than as SLAMS 

monitors, these precision checks were 

not made in accordance with Appendix 

A section 3.1 and therefore EPA cannot 

have the same confidence in these data 

as we have in the SLAMS data. Without 

performing the precision checks, the 

District may have overlooked 

operational problems and allowed them 

to affect the data from the special 

purpose monitors, and without the 

precision check data we have no way to 

evaluate the acceptability of the data. 

The other primary data quality control 

(QC) check for proper operation and 

maintenance of a monitor is the 

accuracy check. As with the precision 

checks, there are two different 

procedures for determining the accuracy 

of PM–10 monitors depending on 

whether we are checking a manual 

reference method or an automated 

equivalent (continuous) analyzer. These 

two procedures are addressed in 40 CFR 

part 58, Appendix A, sections 3.4 and 

3.2 respectively. 

For the SJV PM–10 SLAMS network 

that used manual reference method 

samplers, the procedures in section 3.4 

are used to determine accuracy. The 

procedure entails auditing the flow rate 

of each sampler annually such that 25 

percent of the network 21 is audited each 

calendar quarter. An independent 

auditor (i.e., not the person who 

regularly operates the sampler) using 

dedicated equipment (i.e., not the flow 

meter built into the sampler) audits the 

flow rate of the sampler and reports the 

actual flow rate and the indicated 

(sampler) flow rate. Two measurement 

quality parameters are calculated from 

these measurements: The percent 

difference in the flow rate 

measurements by the sampler’s own 

flow rate meter and the auditor’s 

dedicated flow rate meter, and the 

percent difference between the actual 

flow rate created by the sampler and the 

flow rate it was designed to have. 

Percent differences beyond acceptance 

limits can cause an incorrect 

measurement of PM–10 concentrations. 

As the QA oversight agency, CARB’s QA 

section performs the accuracy audits of 

the SJV PM–10 SLAMS network. These 

accuracy audits were performed by 

CARB as required by EPA regulations, 

and showed that the monitors were 

operating within the accepted control 

limits, i.e., the flow rates had not 

deviated enough from their design flow 

rates to require any corrective action on 

the part of the CARB or District 

monitoring staff. The results of the 

accuracy checks performed by CARB 

were submitted to EPA and are shown 

in the AQS Report ‘‘P/A Reporting 

Organization Summary, AMP 240.’’ The 

following table summarizes the 

accuracy results for the individual 

audits of the PM–10 monitors in the 

SJV. The table shows the date of each 

audit (one per year) the differences in 

the flow rate measurement by the 

sampler’s own flow rate meter (% Diff.) 

and the difference between the actual 

flow rate created by the sampler and the 

flow rate it was designed to have (% 

Diff. Design). This information shows 

that the monitors operated in the SJV 

PM–10 SLAMS network are performing 

within the acceptance criteria 

established by EPA in its QA guidance, 

which sets a target confidence interval 

for the 95th percentile upper and lower 

limits aggregated across the reporting 

organization of 20 percent, over a three 

year period. The CARB PM–10 SLAMS 

network easily meets this target based 

on the small differences shown in the 

table below. CARB’s performance of 

these audits at the required frequencies 

and subsequent submittal of the results 

of the audits to EPA’s AQS database 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 

58, appendix A, section 3.4. 

Audit date Sampler ID % Diff. % Diff. 

design 

Bakersfield-Golden .......................................................................................................... 6/4/2003 

7/13/2004 

10/5/2005 

4121 

2456 

4121 

0.0 

6.8 

5.3 

¥6.8 

¥4.3 

¥5.7 

Clovis ............................................................................................................................... 6/18/2003 

7/29/2004 

11/7/2005 

7380 

4040 

4040 

¥2.2 

¥2.9 

0.3 

0.7 

3.0 

¥0.5 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63656 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Audit date Sampler ID % Diff. % Diff. 

design 

Corcoran-Patterson .......................................................................................................... 2/4/2003 

2/4/2003 

2/4/2003 

3/11/2004 

3/11/2004 

3/11/2004 

1/26/2005 

1/26/2005 

1/26/2005 

1885 

4645 

4120 

1885 

4645 

4120 

1885 

4645 

4120 

¥2.6 

2.0 

¥8.0 

¥0.7 

1.3 

¥0.7 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

7.0 

¥2.0 

3.0 

0.5 

¥1.5 

0.5 

¥0.7 

¥1.0 

0.0 

Fresno—Drummond ........................................................................................................ 2/19/2003 

2/25/2004 

3/1/2005 

4069 

4069 

4069 

1.8 

¥2.3 

4.3 

¥2.2 

¥0.7 

¥1.0 

Hanford ............................................................................................................................ 2/4/2003 

3/10/2004 

1/25/2005 

3048 

1884 

1884 

¥8.7 

2.5 

0.0 

¥2.5 

¥1.3 

¥3.8 

Merced-M St. ................................................................................................................... 3/4/2003 

2/26/2004 

1/25/2005 

4756 

4756 

4756 

¥5.3 

2.8 

6.8 

7.5 

¥3.5 

¥8.0 

Stockton—Wagner—Holt ................................................................................................. 6/18/2003 

12/16/2004 

11/28/2005 

3519 

3519 

3519 

0.0 

0.3 

4.8 

0.5 

¥2.2 

¥7.0 

Taft ................................................................................................................................... 2/3/2003 

2/3/2003 

3/15/2004 

3/15/2004 

3/14/2005 

3/14/2005 

8008 

7787 

8008 

7787 

8008 

7787 

¥11.7 

¥5.4 

¥9.0 

¥4.3 

5.2 

3.6 

7.2 

6.5 

¥2.2 

9.5 

¥4.0 

¥2.5 

Turlock ............................................................................................................................. 3/11/2003 

3/2/2004 

2/24/2005 

4161 

4161 

3519 

¥1.0 

¥8.5 

0.0 

¥1.8 

6.3 

¥3.8 

Bakersfield-CA ................................................................................................................. 3/11/2003 

3/11/2003 

3/16/2004 

3/16/2004 

3/8/2005 

3/8/2005 

20018176 

20018177 

20018176 

20018177 

20018176 

20018177 

¥0.2 

0.0 

¥2.2 

¥2.2 

0.3 

1.0 

2.0 

2.2 

3.8 

3.8 

¥0.3 

¥0.7 

Fresno-First ...................................................................................................................... 6/16/2003 

7/28/2004 

7/26/2005 

20018504 

7660 

7660 

1.0 

¥1.7 

0.7 

2.5 

4.3 

1.5 

Modesto-14th St .............................................................................................................. 3/3/2003 

3/3/2004 

2/23/2005 

20003727 

20003727 

20003727 

¥1.3 

¥2.0 

0.5 

¥3.0 

2.5 

0.0 

Oildale .............................................................................................................................. 3/12/2003 

3/17/2004 

3/10/2005 

20004244 

20004244 

20004244 

1.8 

¥1.0 

1.0 

¥0.3 

2.8 

¥1.0 

Stockton-Hazelton ............................................................................................................ 11/19/2003 

12/16/2004 

12/1/2005 

20004282 

20004282 

20004282 

1.0 

0.5 

0.8 

0.5 

0.0 

¥1.8 

Visalia .............................................................................................................................. 6/12/2003 

6/12/2003 

7/27/2004 

7/27/2004 

7/28/2005 

7/28/2005 

7471 

7678 

7471 

7678 

7471 

7678 

0.0 

1.3 

¥1.7 

¥1.4 

0.5 

2.8 

1.3 

0.0 

4.7 

4.3 

2.2 

0.0 

The accuracy audit for the automated 

equivalent analyzer is similar to that for 

manual reference methods. See 40 CFR 

part 58, appendix A, section 3.2.2. Like 

the audit performed for the manual 

reference methods the audit required for 

automated analyzers is a field audit. 

However, as discussed in this notice, no 

accuracy audits of the automated 

analyzers operated by the District were 

performed, and therefore EPA cannot 

assess the accuracy of these monitors. 

Because the flow-related components of 

the manual reference method samplers 

and of the automated equivalent 

analyzers are different in design and 

materials, the good performance of the 

manual samplers cannot be extrapolated 

to the automated analyzers. 

Additionally, annual certifications of 

quality control standards (e.g., a flow 

rate meter) are critical in order to insure 

that the checks and measurements being 

made are traceable to National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

standards. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

A, section 2.3.3. This certification is 

achieved by transferring the accuracy or 

authority of a primary standard to a 

field-usable standard. Also, calibrations 

of the internal flow rate meters of PM–

10 samplers, which are generally 

performed annually or after sampler 

repairs, also ensure that these meters are 

functioning correctly. The following 

table lists the calibration dates of the 

internal flow rate meters of the SLAMS 

monitors in the SJV network. 

Calibrations of the flow rate meters are 

usually performed when a sampler is 

first installed at a site or after repair. 

While EPA regulations and guidance do 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63657 

not specify a frequency for performing 

calibrations of flow rate meters, 

performing them annually regardless of 

whether the instrument required it 

demonstrates a good operation practice 

by the District and CARB. 

Sample ID Cal. date 

Bakersfield-Golden .................................................................................................................................................. 4121 

2456 

4121 

2/27/2003 

5/25/2004 

12/15/2004 

Clovis ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7380 

4040 

4040 

3/13/2003 

7/27/2004 

10/6/2005 

Corcoran-Patterson .................................................................................................................................................. 1885 

4645 

4120 

1885 

4645 

4120 

1885 

4645 

4120 

10/28/2002 

1/30/2003 

10/28/2002 

11/12/2003 

12/9/2003 

12/9/2003 

10/5/2004 

1/5/2005 

9/2/2004 

Fresno-Drummond ................................................................................................................................................... 4069 

4069 

4069 

11/12/2002 

2/24/2004 

12/21/2004 

Hanford .................................................................................................................................................................... 3048 

1884 

1884 

10/14/2002 

10/15/2003 

8/4/2004 

Merced-M St ............................................................................................................................................................ 4756 

4756 

4756 

10/9/2002 

2/10/2004 

12/9/2004 

Stockton-Wagner—Holt ........................................................................................................................................... 3519 

3519 

3519 

2/20/2003 

9/10/2004 

7/20/2005 

Taft ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8008 

7787 

8008 

7778 

8008 

7778 

11/19/2002 

10/25/2002 

2/26/2004 

2/26/2004 

8/18/2004 

8/18/2004 

Turlock ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4161 

4161 

3519 

1/23/2003 

7/16/2003 

2/23/2005 

Bakersfield—CA ....................................................................................................................................................... 20018176 

20018177 

20018176 

20018177 

20018176 

20018177 

3/7/2002 

3/7/2002 

3/9/2004 

3/9/2004 

6/3/2004 

6/16/2004 

Fresno—First ........................................................................................................................................................... 20018504 

7660 

7660 

6/13/2003 

1/21/2004 

2/28/2005 

Modesto—14th St .................................................................................................................................................... 20003727 

20003727 

20003727 

1/17/2003 

2/10/2004 

2/11/2005 

Oildale ...................................................................................................................................................................... 20004244 

20004244 

20004244 

2/27/2003 

1/8/2004 

1/31/2005 

Stockton—Hazelton ................................................................................................................................................. 20004282 

20004282 

20004282 

11/12/2003 

12/9/2004 

11/9/2005 

Visalia ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7471 

7678 

7471 

7678 

7471 

7678 

5/20/2003 

5/20/2003 

5/20/2003 

5/20/2003 

11/24/2004 

11/24/2004 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63658 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

22EPA regulations require the submittal of 

precision and accuracy data on a quarterly basis, as 

it does for the pollutant concentration data. See 40 

CFR 58.35 and 40 CFR part 58, appendix A, section 

4.1. 

23The District did perform some precision checks 

of the BAM monitor at Corcoran but these were 

considerably fewer than required in EPA 

regulations. See response to comment 15. Section 

3.1.2 requires the checks to be performed at a 

designated frequency and the data submitted to the 

AQS database. 

24See memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to 

Regional Air Directors, ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 

Natural Events,’’ May 30, 1996. 

25EPA determines attainment of the 24 hour PM–

10 NAAQS based on the number of ‘‘expected’’

exceedances in a given year. Because most manual 

PM–10 samplers do not operate every day but on 

a one in six day schedule, EPA regulations at 40 

CFR part 50, Appendix K require an adjustment to 

the observed or actual number of exceedances to 

account for days that are not sampled. In the 

simplest case, when a monitor operating once every 

six days, with 100% data capture, records a single 

observed exceedance, that exceedance would be 

adjusted to six expected exceedances. In the 

specific case of the Corcoran monitoring site and its 

one in three day schedule, EPA calculated the 

expected exceedances, based on the single observed 

exceedance on September 3, 2004, to be three over 

a three year period which averages to one 

exceedance per year. This expected exceedance rate 

of one per year shows that the Corcoran site is still 

in attainment of the 24-hour NAAQS. See 40 CFR 

part 50, Appendix K, section 3.1 for a complete 

discussion on how EPA adjusts data. 

As detailed above, CARB has certified 

and submitted quarterly 22 to EPA’s 

AQS database, all the supporting QA 

data for the SJV SLAMS PM–10 

network, including data collected by the 

collocated precision network and all 

required audit data. This data shows 

that the operation and maintenance of 

the SLAMS network met the 

requirements of sections 3.3 and 3.4 of 

Appendix A Part 58. By contrast the 

required number of precision checks 

and independent flow rate audits were 

not performed on the automated 

equivalent (BAM and TEOM) method 

monitors pursuant to sections 3.1.2 and 

3.2.2 nor was data on the precision 

checks that were performed on the BAM 

monitors submitted to the AQS database 

as required by 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

A, section 4.1.23 Thus EPA is not, as the 

commenter contends, ‘‘cherry picking’’

data, but rather relying for its 

determination on data that has met the 

requirements for reliability under its 

regulations. 

F. Data Not Included in Determining 

Attainment 

1. Data From September 3, 2004 High 

Wind Event 

Comment 14: The commenter 

questions the validity of waiving the 

September 3, 2004 exceedance as a 

Natural Events Action Plan (NEAP) 24

event and states that there is no 

technical basis for ignoring the 

exceedance and that best available 

control measures (BACM) were not 

being implemented for the largest 

sources of dust in the Valley on that 

date. The commenter notes that removal 

of the flag puts the Valley right at the 

limit of violations allowed under the 

NAAQS and should make EPA wary to 

find the PM–10 problem solved in the 

Valley. 

Response: The exceedance in question 

occurred at the Corcoran-Patterson 

Avenue monitoring site. EPA notes in 

its proposed rule that ‘‘[t]his exceedance 

was flagged by CARB as a high wind 

natural event [and] EPA concurred with 

CARB’s request to exclude this data 

from consideration in attainment 

findings on July 7, 2005.’’ However, 

‘‘even if EPA had not concurred with 

the exclusion of this data, the Corcoran 

site would still attain the 24-hour 

NAAQS because the expected number 

of exceedances 25 is less than or equal to 

one per year, averaged over the three 

year period 2003–2005.’’ 71 FR 40952, 

40954. In other words, EPA believes that 

it need not address here the issue of 

whether or not the September 3, 2004 

exceedance should be flagged, because 

in any event the SJV would still be 

attaining the PM–10 standards. In 

addition, whether the SJV is ‘‘at the 

limit’’ of exceedances allowed under the 

NAAQS is not a criterion for making an 

attainment determination. Areas are 

either attaining or not attaining. EPA 

found that the area would still be 

attaining even if this exceedance were 

included, and on that basis determined 

that the area was in attainment. As 

noted above, EPA believes that 

preliminary data indicating a September 

22, 2006 exceedance at the Corcoran 

monitor should also not be included in 

this attainment determination for the 

reasons stated previously relating to 

quality assured data and natural events. 

Nevertheless, EPA notes that the 

attainment determination does not mean 

the air quality problem is solved in the 

SJV. In order to be redesignated as a 

PM–10 attainment area, the District and 

CARB will need to address CAA section 

107(d)(3)(E) requirements. In addition, 

the SJV is nonattainment for the PM–2.5 

and 8-hour ozone standards and will 

need to achieve substantial further 

reductions in pollution levels to attain 

these NAAQS. The commenter’s 

implicit concern is that EPA’s action 

will somehow allow the SJV to relax its 

efforts to reduce air pollution; however, 

EPA does not believe that is the case. 

2. Data From BAM and TEOM Monitors 

Comment 15: The commenter states 

that there are four Beta Attenuation 

Mass (BAM) monitors (designated by 

EPA as federal equivalent methods and 

also referred to as ‘‘special purpose 

monitors’’) in the Valley that monitor 

PM–10 concentrations and that two of 

these monitors (Bakersfield-Golden 

State Highway and Corcoran-Patterson 

Avenue) have recorded multiple 

exceedances of the Federal PM–10 

standard from 2003 to 2005. The 

commenter states that all valid data 

from special purpose monitors must be 

considered within the regulatory 

process and that EPA’s rationale (that 

the District did not perform quality 

control checks every two weeks and that 

CARB did not perform independent 

field audits of the BAM sampler) for not 

considering data from the Corcoran 

BAM monitor is not adequate. 

Response: The District and CARB 

have operated automated equivalent 

(continuous) method monitors in the 

SJV at a number of PM–10 SLAMS sites. 

The following table summarizes the 

type (BAM or TEOM), location and 

history of operation of the PM–10 

continuous monitors operated in the 

Valley. 

Monitoring site BAM operational period TEOM operational period 

Bakersfield Golden State Hwy ........................... 7/28/2005–8/8/2006 ......................................... 8/27/2006–Present. 

Corcoran ............................................................. Before 1/1/2003–7/22/06 ................................. 1/1/2003–3/31/2005. 

8/24/2006–Present. 

Fresno 1st Street ................................................ Before 1/1/2003–Present ................................. Before 1/1/2003–Present. 

Stockton .............................................................. NA .................................................................... Before 1/1/2003–June 28, 2005. 

Tracy ................................................................... 10/25/2005–9/26/2006 ..................................... 10/1/2006–Present. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63659 

26While it is necessary to have three years of 

representative monitoring data to demonstrate that 

a monitor is attaining the standard, 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, section 2.3(c) states that there are less 

stringent data requirements for showing that a 

monitor has failed to attain. Since the 24-hour PM–

10 standard is violated once a monitor averages 

more than one expected exceedance per year 

(averaged over three years), a monitor with four or 

more observed or expected exceedances has 

violated the 24-hour NAAQS even if there is less 

than three years of data (four exceedances divided 

by three years is greater than one per year). 

27As noted previously the District and CARB 

have informed EPA that they believe that 

exceedances recorded on September 22, 2006 are 

due to high wind and wildfire natural events. 

28An exceedance is defined as a daily value that 

is above the level of the 24-hour standard (150 μg/ 

m3) after rounding to the nearest 10 μg/m3 (i.e. 

values ending in 5 or greater are to be rounded up. 

See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section 1.0. 

29Under 40 CFR 58.14, because the District did 

not intend that data from these continuous monitors 

would be used for determining attainment or 

nonattainment, flow rate checks and audits were 

not required to be conducted. See May 8, 2006 letter 

to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 9, from Catherine Witherspoon, Executive 

Officer, CARB with attached letter dated April 24, 

2006 to Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer, 

CARB from Seyed Sadredin, Executive Director/Air 

Pollution Control Officer, San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District. 

EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, section 2.3 address the data 

requirements that must be met in order 

for EPA to determine the attainment 

status of a particular monitoring site. In 

general EPA needs three years worth of 

monitoring data in order to declare a 

site in attainment of the NAAQS. Of the 

four BAM monitors operated in the 

Valley, only Fresno 1st Street and 

Corcoran have been in operation long 

enough to have accumulated three years 

of data.26 The Bakersfield-Golden State 

Highway site operated a BAM monitor 

from July 28, 2005 to August 8, 2006. 

The BAM was replaced by a TEOM 

monitor on August 27, 2006. The Tracy 

site operated a BAM monitor from 

October 26, 2005 to September 26, 2006. 

The Tracy BAM was replaced by a 

TEOM monitor on October 1, 2006. 

EPA’s attainment determination is based 

on three complete years of data from 

2003–2005. Therefore, the data from 

these BAM and TEOM monitors at 

Bakersfield Golden State Highway and 

Tracy cannot be used to determine that 

these sites are in attainment. 

Furthermore, the BAM monitor at 

Tracy did not record any exceedances of 

the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS in 2005, 

though an exceedance was recorded on 

September 22, 2006 (160 μg/m3). The 

Bakersfield-Golden State Highway 

automated equivalent monitors recorded 

three exceedances of the NAAQS during 

their operation, a value of 156 μg/m3 on 

November 22, 2005 and a value of 180 

μg/m3 on November 23, 2005 (recorded 

on BAM monitors). Another exceedance 

(169 μg/m3) was recorded by the 

Bakersfield-Golden State Highway 

TEOM on September 22, 2006.27 Under 

40 CFR 50.6, ‘‘[t]he standards are 

attained when the expected number of 

days per calendar year with a 24-hour 

average concentration above 150 μg/m3

* * * is equal or less than one.’’

Therefore, because neither the Tracy nor 

the Bakersfield-Golden State Highway 

BAM monitor has averaged more than 

one exceedance per year, the 

exceedances recorded at these monitors 

do not show that the area is in violation 

of the 24-hour NAAQS. Even if the 

Bakersfield-Golden State Highway BAM 

and TEOM data are considered together 

(and even if they were quality-assured 

data not subject to natural events), the 

exceedances recorded at these monitors 

would not show that the area is in 

violation of the standard. See Responses 

18 and 19. 

Automated equivalent analyzers are 

also operated at the Fresno 1st site and 

the Corcoran site. See table on BAM and 

TEOM operating histories above. The 

Fresno 1st site has operated both a BAM 

monitor and a TEOM monitor for long 

enough that there is a three year data set 

for both analyzers. Neither the BAM nor 

the TEOM operated at Fresno 1st Street 

recorded any exceedances of the 24- 

hour NAAQS during the 2003–2005 

period, and both continue to show 

attainment through October 11, 2006. 

The Corcoran site operated both a 

BAM monitor and a TEOM monitor 

during its history. See the table above 

on BAM and TEOM operating histories. 

The automated equivalent analyzers 

operated at the Corcoran site did record 

exceedances 28 as summarized in the 

following table: 

CORCORAN AUTOMATED EQUIVALENT ANALYZER—PM–10 EXCEEDANCES 2003–2006 

Date 

(type of analyzer) 

Concentration 

(μg/m3) 

10/10/2003 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 182 

10/18/2003 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 156 

10/21/2003 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 157 

10/28/2003 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 158 

9/3/2004 (BAM) .............................................................................................................................................................................. *217 

11/21/2005 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 166 

11/22/2005 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 177 

11/23/2005 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 185 

11/26/2005 (BAM) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 166 

2/27/2006 (BAM) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 179 

9/22/2006 (TEOM) ......................................................................................................................................................................... **261 

*The manual reference method monitor at Corcoran also recorded an exceedance of the NAAQS on this day that the State flagged as a high 

wind event under EPA’s Natural Events Policy. 

**As noted previously the District and CARB have informed EPA that they believe that exceedances recorded on September 22, 2006 are due 

to high wind and wildfire natural events. 

However, the data was not considered 

by EPA in its attainment determination 

because the District did not perform the 

flow rate checks of the BAM monitors 

as required by EPA regulations at 40 

CFR part 58, appendix A, section 3.1.2 

and CARB did not perform independent 

flow rate audits as required by 40 CFR 

part 58 appendix A, section 3.2.2. See 

Response to comments 7 and 13 

above.29

In determining which data to use in 

regulatory actions, EPA needs to 

determine whether the data meets our 

basic requirements. If it does not then 

we cannot use the data in regulatory 

decisions. During the three-year period 

of 2003–2005, the District only 

performed 10 of the 78 required biweekly flow rate checks and CARB 

never performed an independent audit 

of the BAM monitor’s flow rate, which 

is required annually. While the 

commenter implies that this is a minor 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63660 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

deficiency, EPA believes the lack of QA/ 

QC raises significant questions about the 

reliability of the Corcoran BAM monitor 

data and therefore concluded that it 

would not be appropriate to rely on data 

from this monitor that did not meet our 

regulatory requirements. 

Comment 16: The commenter states 

that EPA cannot ignore the Corcoran 

BAM monitor data due to the lack of 

precision check of the flow meter. The 

commenter states that 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix A, section 3.1.2.2 offers an 

alternative procedure at section 3.1.2.2.1 

for complying with the section 3.1.2 

requirement for a precision check of the 

operational flow rate of the analyzer. 

The alternative procedure involves 

checking the BAM monitor’s internal 

flow meter (vs. using an external flow 

rate transfer standard) and requires an 

external audit of the flow rate at least 

every six months, records of the past 

three audits showing that the flow meter 

is stable, and no indication of improper 

operation. Section 3.1.2.2.2 even allows 

for the precision check to be carried out 

remotely. The commenter states that 

EPA has not analyzed whether the 

District properly maintained the 

Corcoran-Patterson Avenue BAM 

monitor in accordance with section 

3.1.2.2 and that the District’s 

maintenance records show regular 

weekly maintenance, including checks 

of the on-screen flow rate, and also 

show regular external flow audits. 

Response: As stated above, there are 

two routine quality assurance checks 

that need to be made to monitoring 

instruments to ensure that the data they 

are producing is reliable. One of these 

is a precision check. The precision 

check for automated PM–10 analyzers, 

of which the BAM monitor is one, is 

addressed in 40 CFR part 58, appendix 

A, section 3.1.2. See response to 

comment 13. This section requires a 

one-point precision check to be 

performed at least once every two 

weeks. There are two procedures that 

can be used to satisfy this requirement. 

The standard procedure is explained in 

section 3.1.2.1 of appendix A and the 

alternative procedure is explained in 

section 3.1.2.2 of appendix A. One of 

our reasons for not using data from the 

Corcoran BAM monitor is that the 

District did not perform the precision 

checks of its BAM monitor and submit 

the resulting QA data to the AQS 

database. The District performed neither 

the standard procedure nor the 

alternative procedure. 

The commenter implies that EPA 

rejected the Corcoran BAM monitor data 

even though the District had performed 

the sanctioned alternative procedure. 

This is not true. EPA reviewed all the 

maintenance records from the CorcoranPatterson Avenue site and found that 

neither precision check was being 

performed. While the operator did 

check the BAM monitor’s internal flow 

rate indicator routinely, the other 

requirements of 40 CFR part 58, 

appendix A, section 3.1.2.2 were not 

being met, i.e., the flow rate meter was 

not audited every six months and there 

was no documentation that the flow 

meter is stable, verifiable, and accurate 

to ±4 percent (sections 3.1.2.2.1.1, 

3.1.2.2.1.2, 3.1.2.2.1.3). See also 

response to comment 13 above. As 

stated in that response the precision 

check is one of the critical measurement 

quality checks that are needed to ensure 

that the device is performing as 

designed. 

Comment 17: The commenter states 

that EPA also cannot dismiss the 

Corcoran BAM data because CARB did 

not perform independent field audits as 

described in section 3.2.2 without 

explaining why these audits are 

important in determining the 

reasonableness of the data. Moreover, 

the commenter also states that EPA 

must demonstrate that the FRM 

monitors were appropriately audited or 

explain why it is reasonable for the FRM 

monitors to not be audited while 

excluding the BAM monitor data due to 

this oversight. EPA needs a compelling 

rational basis for continuing to exclude 

all of the BAM data or EPA must 

consider the data in determining the 

Valley’s attainment status. 

Response: Regular audits of 

monitoring equipment are important in 

establishing the validity and accuracy of 

the data collected by an agency. Section 

2.11.7.0 of EPA’s QA Guidance 

document ‘‘Quality Assurance 

Handbook,’’ Volume II, Part II, 

September 1997, states that: 

[t]he primary goal of an auditing program 

is to identify system errors that may result in 

suspect or invalid data. The efficiency of the 

monitoring system (i.e., labor input vs. valid 

data output) is contingent upon effective 

quality assurance (QA) activities. This true 

assessment of the accuracy and efficiency of 

the PM–10 measurement system can only be 

achieved by conducting an audit under the 

following guidelines: 

• Without special preparation or 

adjustment of the system to be audited. 

• By an individual with a thorough 

knowledge of the instrument or process being 

evaluated, but not by the routine operator. 

• With accurate, calibrated NIST-traceable 

transfer standards that are completely 

independent of those used for routine 

calibration and QC flow checks. 

• With complete documentation of audit 

information for submission to the operating 

agency. The audit information includes, but 

is not limited to, types of instruments and 

audit transfer standards, instrument model 

and serial numbers, transfer-standard 

traceability, calibration information, and 

collected audit data. 

The audit procedures described in this 

section produce two quantitative estimates of 

a PM–10 sampler’s performance: The audit 

flow-rate percentage difference and the 

design flow-rate percentage difference. The 

audit flow-rate percentage difference 

determines the accuracy of the sampler’s 

indicated flow rate by comparing it with a 

flow rate from the audit transfer standard. 

The design flow-rate percentage difference 

determines how closely the sampler’s flow 

rate matches the inlet design flow rate under 

normal operational conditions. 

It is not clear to EPA why the 

commenter believes the FRM 

monitoring network operations do not 

meet EPA requirements. As discussed 

previously, the PM–10 SLAMS 

monitoring network meets EPA’s QA 

requirements, including the requirement 

for independent field audits. See also 

Response to Comment 13 above. 

Comment 18: The commenter states 

that neither EPA nor the District 

addresses the violations recorded at the 

Bakersfield BAM monitor. No attempt is 

made to discredit the data coming from 

that BAM monitor and no rational basis 

is provided by EPA for completely 

disregarding those data. 

Response: The Bakersfield Golden 

State Highway BAM monitor never 

recorded any violations of the NAAQS. 

As explained above, the Bakersfield 

Golden State Highway automated 

equivalent method analyzers recorded 

three exceedances since the District 

began operation of these monitors at the 

site in July 28, 2005 while sampling 

every day. According to 40 CFR part 50, 

appendix K, this does not constitute a 

violation of the NAAQS and therefore 

we did not discuss it in our proposal. 

Since there are no violations at this 

BAM monitor, EPA did not need to 

determine whether the data was usable 

in making the attainment determination 

for the SJV. See response to comment 

15. 

Comment 19: The commenter states 

that EPA does not justify ignoring data 

from the three tapered element 

oscillating microbalance (TEOM) 

monitors that were operated in the 

Valley during the 2003–2005 time 

period. 

Response: The three TEOM monitors 

operated during the 2003–2005 period 

were located at Fresno 1st Street, 

Stockton Hazelton Street, and Corcoran 

Patterson Avenue. The TEOMs at Fresno 

and Stockton were operated by CARB as 

special purpose monitors that 

supplement the SLAMS high volume 

FRM samplers. The Corcoran TEOM 

was operated by the District, also as a 

special purpose monitor. In addition, as 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63661 

30The Tracy TEOM began monitoring on October 

1, 2006. 

31The redesignation of an area to attainment 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) is a separate 

process from a finding of attainment. Unlike an 

attainment finding where we need only determine 

that the area has had the prerequisite number of 

clean years, a redesignation requires multiple 

determinations. Under section 107(d)(3)(E) these 

determinations are: (1) We must determine, at the 

time of the redesignation, that the area has attained 

the relevant NAAQS; (2) The state must have a fully 

approved SIP for the area; (3) We must determine 

that the improvements in air quality are due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 

resulting from implementation of the SIP and 

applicable federal regulations and other permanent 

and enforceable reductions; (4) We must have fully 

approved a maintenance plan for the area under 

section 175A; (5) The state must have met all the 

nonattainment area requirements applicable to the 

area. 

discussed in response to comment 15 

above, the District now operates TEOMs 

at its Tracy, Bakersfield-Golden State 

Hwy. and Corcoran monitoring sites. 

CARB has submitted and certified the 

TEOM data from the Stockton site to 

EPA’s AQS database up to the date June 

28, 2005, which is when CARB 

discontinued the operation of this 

TEOM. During the 2003 to 2005 period, 

the TEOM at Stockton recorded a single 

exceedance of the 24-hour NAAQS. 

Because of its everyday sampling 

schedule, this single exceedance at 

Stockton does not constitute a violation 

of the NAAQS. See response to 

comment 15. 

No data from any other TEOMs 

operating in the San Joaquin Valley PM–

10 network has been submitted to AQS. 

However, EPA has obtained data from 

these TEOMs from 2003–2005 as well as 

a portion of 2006 and these data show 

no violations of the PM–10 NAAQS 

have been recorded for this period. 

As discussed above in response to 

comment 15 EPA is aware of TEOMs 

currently operating at four monitoring 

sites in the San Joaquin PM–10 network: 

Bakersfield-Golden State Highway, 

Corcoran, Fresno 1st Street and Tracy. 

Two of these TEOMs, Fresno and 

Tracy,30 recorded no exceedances of the 

NAAQS. Two other TEOMS, Bakersfield 

and Corcoran, recorded exceedances on 

September 22, 2006, which, as noted 

above, is a date associated with a high 

wind and fire event. This is the only 

exceedance day we are aware of for 

these TEOMS. All data EPA has 

received from the District and CARB 

collected by BAMs and TEOMs have 

been included in the Docket. Thus, in 

sum these TEOM monitors would not 

show that the area is in violation of the 

standard. 

Comment 20: The commenter states 

that EPA must also consider all publicly 

available data, including ‘‘data available 

from other sources including those 

special purpose monitors operated by 

third parties’’ (1997 Seitz memo) and 

that EPA has not made any assertion 

regarding data from third party 

monitors. If such data exists, EPA must 

consider it or must explain why it is 

reasonable to exclude this information. 

Response: The commenter has not 

provided any data from any so-called 

‘‘third party monitors.’’ Nor is EPA 

aware of any data available from third 

parties that meets our regulatory 

requirements and could be used in this 

action. 

Comment 21: The commenter 

maintains that ‘‘[t]hese continuous 

monitors demonstrate an ongoing PM–

10 problem in the Valley’’ and that 

monitoring professionals within EPA 

and CARB know that these monitors 

provide the most accurate, realistic 

picture of Valley air quality. These 

monitors are used for detailed air 

quality studies, public health alerts, and 

modeling in the State implementation 

plan. In fact, CARB performed a 

comparison study of BAM technology 

versus FRM technology and found that, 

far from the dramatic picture the District 

paints of wildly inaccurate monitor 

readings, BAM monitors enjoy ‘‘good 

precision’’ and may actually capture 

certain semi-volatile pollutants that 

FRM monitors do not. 

Response: The CARB study cited by 

the commenter is one that compared 

PM–2.5 BAM and PM–2.5 FRM 

performance. PM–2.5 is a different 

pollutant from PM–10 even though both 

are based on particulates, but the type 

of particles that make up PM–10 versus 

PM–2.5 can be very different. The issue 

for EPA is not what type of equipment 

was used by the State or District to 

collect PM–10 data, but whether the 

data and the monitors used to collect it 

met EPA’s quality assurance 

requirements. 

The BAM monitor is a designated 

Federal equivalent method for PM–10. If 

the District had performed the 

appropriate QA procedures, as 

discussed elsewhere in this action, EPA 

would have considered the BAM data 

when making our attainment finding. 

Comment 22: If EPA now wants to 

ignore and dismiss this data, EPA needs 

to provide a reasonable explanation, not 

hide behind technicalities it picks and 

chooses in order to support its political 

agenda. EPA’s proposal provides none 

of the necessary technical analysis 

needed to give this reasonable basis. As 

a result, commenters are unable to 

provide meaningful comment on that 

basis. EPA must prepare a supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking to 

provide the missing analysis. 

Response: EPA did provide a 

reasonable explanation for not using the 

BAM data in its decision to find that the 

SJV has attained the PM–10 NAAQS. As 

set forth in the proposal to this action, 

the BAM data did not meet our QA/QC 

requirements. The SLAMS data from the 

FRM network met our requirements. 

Thus EPA believes it does not need to 

prepare a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking because the 

substance of its analysis was adequately 

included in its proposal. 

G. Representativeness of Data 

Comment 23: The commenter states 

that ‘‘EPA should determine whether 

conditions of [the] last three years are 

typical’’ or ‘‘whether conditions during 

this period are representative of normal 

conditions for the Valley.’’ The 

commenter points to a 1997 progress 

report and statements made by the 

District recommending caution 

regarding any improvements in 

monitored PM–10 levels in the SJV. The 

commenter also cites a PittsburghBeaver Valley, Pennsylvania area rule 

(61 FR 28061, 28063) in which EPA 

revoked an attainment determination 

and pointed to the varied number of 

exceedances over the preceding years 

and the failure of the area to adequately 

reduce emissions as grounds for not 

dismissing new data indicating a 

continued pollution problem. Finally, 

the commenter notes that the District 

recently argued to EPA and the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals that there was 

absolutely no way the SJV could attain 

the PM–10 standard by 2006, further 

emphasizing the need to evaluate 

whether the conditions of the last few 

years are an anomaly. 

Response: The requirement to 

determine that clean air is the result of 

permanent and enforceable emissions 

reductions is a criterion for the 

redesignation of an area to attainment 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E).31 This 

criterion need not be met for a 

determination of attainment or for the 

suspension of the associated RFP, 

attainment demonstration, and/or 

contingency measure requirements. 

That aside, we believe that the 

attainment determination itself 

addresses in part the concern about 

unusually favorable meteorological 

conditions. We have long recognized 

that yearly variations in meteorological 

conditions can have a profound effect 

on ambient PM–10 concentrations. In 

setting the PM–10 standards in 1987, we 

changed the form of the 24-hour and 

annual standards to a statistical form 

which is based on exceedances and 

annual averages over 3 consecutive 

years. EPA stated that ‘‘[t]he problem of 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63662 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

32 In addition, CARB or the District cannot revise 

their SIP to drop any SIP-approved strategies unless 

they can demonstrate that the revision will not 

‘‘* * * interfere with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress * * * or any other applicable requirement 

***’’ of the Act. See section 110(l) of the CAA. 

year-to-year variability is * * * reduced 

by averaging three years of data.’’ See 

proposed and final actions promulgating 

the PM–10 standards at 49 FR 10408, 

10413 (March 20, 1984) and 52 FR 

24635, 24639–24641 (July 1, 1987). 

In the case of the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley, Pennsylvania area rule (61 FR 

28061, 28063), EPA revoked an 

attainment determination due to 

violations of the ozone NAAQS that 

occurred after the determination was 

made. In response to a comment 

suggesting that EPA should ignore the 

violations due to year-to-year 

variability, EPA stated that ‘‘[b]ecause 

the area has not adequately reduced its 

VOC and NOX emissions, it is subject to 

ozone exceedances whenever 

meteorological conditions are conducive 

to ozone formation.’’ The commenter on 

our proposed attainment determination 

for the SJV implies that because EPA 

recognizes year-to-year variability in 

data and that both the SJV and the 

Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley areas had 

variable data over the years, EPA should 

address whether conditions were typical 

or normal before making the attainment 

determination for SJV. However, the SJV 

has 3 recent years (2003–2005) of clean 

data whereas the Pittsburgh-Beaver 

Valley area did not have clean data at 

the time of the attainment determination 

revocation. 

The 2003 PM–10 Plan demonstrates 

attainment of the PM–10 standards by 

2010. 69 FR 30006. The 2003 PM–10 

Plan’s attainment demonstration is 

based on air quality modeling of 

emissions reductions from State and 

District measures. As such it is a 

prediction of what ambient conditions 

will be in the future. In contrast, as 

discussed above, a determination of 

attainment, based on monitored air 

quality data, reflects actual ambient 

conditions over a three year period. 

Given the margin of error in air quality 

modeling, particularly for PM–10, a 

disparity between modeling and 

monitored data is not unusual. While, as 

stated above, the three year requirement 

does to a certain extent address 

anomalous meteorological conditions, 

an analysis of whether ‘‘* * * the 

improvements in air quality are due to 

permanent and enforceable reductions 

in emissions * * *’’ is primarily 

addressed as a prerequisite for 

redesignation of an area to attainment 

under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) to 

ensure that reductions will remain in 

place even where weather variations 

occur. 

Finally, the commenter also points to 

statements made in a SJV 1997 PM–10 

progress report in which the District 

discusses the favorable meteorological 

conditions (i.e., rain) during 1993–1998 

which may or may not have led to fewer 

PM–10 exceedances. However, our PM–

10 attainment determination is based on 

the years 2003–2005. Again, whether or 

not 2003–2005 was a period of normal 

conditions and whether the SJV could 

continue to demonstrate attainment 

under all predicted weather conditions 

is a criterion that must be addressed in 

connection with a redesignation, but not 

for an attainment determination. 

Comment 24: The commenter 

contends that EPA’s decision is not 

reasonable, and that EPA has never 

attempted to make an attainment 

determination based on so few years of 

monitoring and in the face of such 

countervailing evidence. The 

commenter further contends that EPA is 

motivated by a desire to avoid legal 

deadlines. 

Response: As set forth above, in 

responses to comments, EPA believes 

that its decision is a reasonable one, 

based on three complete years of 

quality-assured data, and supported by 

the evidence. Moreover, the commenter 

is wrong in alleging that EPA has never 

before based a determination of 

attainment on three years of data. EPA 

has in numerous instances done so. See, 

for example, 60 FR 37366 (July 20, 1995) 

(Grand Rapids), 66 FR 1925 (January 10, 

2001) and 66 FR 53094 (October 19, 

2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley), 66 FR 

27583 (May 17, 2001) and 66 FR 53655 

(October 23, 2001) (Louisville), 68 FR 

25418, 25429 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis), 

69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (Bay Area). 

The commenter’s speculation as to 

EPA’s motivation is irrelevant. EPA’s 

determination that the SJV area has 

attained the standards is, as shown 

elsewhere in this notice, supported by 

quality assured data and in compliance 

with statutory and regulatory 

requirements. 

H. Other Comments 

Comment 25: Approximately two 

thousand commenters sent letters (all 

via e-mail except one via postcard) to 

EPA stating that they are concerned 

about the attainment determination. All 

commenters were specifically 

concerned about the air quality in the 

Valley, about a monitoring network that 

reads only once every six days and does 

not account for the agriculture-heavy 

west side and about EPA ignoring 

violations from monitors. Commenters 

were also concerned that the finding 

would relieve EPA and the District of 

obligations to continue to address the 

particulate matter problem and air 

pollution problems in general. Many 

commenters provided personal accounts 

of health issues (e.g., asthma, difficulty 

breathing, hospital visits, use of 

inhalers) while living in the San Joaquin 

Valley. 

Response: As noted above, the 

comments of individual citizens raised 

many of the same issues set forth in the 

comments of Earthjustice, and EPA has 

addressed those comments in the 

context of its responses to Earthjustice. 

Like the commenters, EPA is concerned 

about the air quality of the SJV and the 

health of its residents. The SJV is a 

nonattainment area for ozone as well as 

for PM–10 and PM–2.5. In general in the 

SJV, ozone is a summertime problem 

and PM is a fall and wintertime 

problem. EPA has invested significant 

resources in developing clean air plans 

and measures to reduce the air pollution 

in the SJV to levels considered safe by 

Federal standards. EPA’s determination 

that the SJV has attained the PM–10 

standards does not in any way relieve 

the District, State, or EPA of any of the 

strategies currently in place to achieve 

cleaner air.32 CARB and the District 

have stated this in their request for an 

attainment determination (May 8, 2006 

letter to Wayne Nastri, Regional 

Administrator, EPA Region 9, from 

Catherine Witherspoon, Executive 

Officer, CARB) and the District has 

restated it in its comment letter in 

connection with this rulemaking 

(August 14, 2006 letter to Doris Lo, EPA 

Region 9, from Seyed Sadredin, 

Executive Director/Air Pollution Control 

Officer, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District). The 

measures and commitments approved 

by EPA in the 2003 PM–10 Plan 

continue to be implemented, and EPA 

expects more strategies and measures 

that will lead to further reductions as 

the District and CARB develop plans to 

meet the more stringent PM–2.5 NAAQS 

and the 8-hour ozone standard. 

Furthermore, while some monitors 

may only take ambient air quality 

readings once every six days, the data 

from these monitors is adjusted to 

account for the days that are not 

monitored. Thus, as a simplified 

example, if a one in six day monitor 

records an exceedance of the PM–10 

NAAQS, that exceedance must be 

multiplied by six to account for the days 

it did not monitor. In addition, EPA 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the agricultural sources of 

the western side of the Valley are not 

accounted for. The Corcoran monitoring 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63663 

site does monitor emissions from 

agricultural sources and is thus 

representative of air quality levels in the 

western portion of the Valley. In 

addition, the agricultural regulations for 

the SJV are applicable to sources 

throughout the Valley, including those 

in the western portion of the SJV. 

Finally, EPA does not ignore actual 

violations, but as discussed in response 

to comments above, certain data 

purporting to show exceedances of the 

PM–10 standard may be excluded in 

determining whether an actual violation 

has occurred for various reasons, 

including the need to assure that data 

are reliable and accurate. 

Comment 26: One commenter sent 

pictures of dust from combines on an 

agricultural field and stated that 

incentives were needed to help keep the 

dust on the ground. The commenter also 

discussed dusty conditions during the 

almond and cotton harvest in November 

2005 throughout the SJV. The 

commenter is a farmer and believes that 

farmers are doing a good job of keeping 

dust (laden with pesticides and other 

residues) on the ground during the 

growing season because it benefits the 

farmer, but that there are no incentives 

for controlling the dust from roads. 

Finally, the commenter is concerned 

that even with the new NAAQS in the 

future, the attainment determination 

will lead to relaxation of enforcement 

and monitoring when more progressive 

and innovative steps are needed. 

Response: The SJV has requirements 

that control dust from agricultural 

sources such as those discussed by the 

commenter. See District Rules 4550 and 

8081. These requirements cover almond, 

cotton and other types of farming 

operations in the SJV and include 

measures that reduce dust from roads. 

The new more stringent PM–2.5 

standards will lead to additional 

measures; however, even without these 

new standards, because the 24-hour 

PM–10 standard remains in effect, the 

enforcement of measures to reduce PM–

10 and monitoring of PM–10 will still be 

required (see also above response to 

comment 14). 

III. Final Action 

Based on 2003–2005 quality-assured 

data meeting the requirements of 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K, as well as data 

showing continued attainment, EPA is 

finalizing its determination that the SJV 

has attained the 24-hour and annual 

PM–10 NAAQS. The SJV continues to 

attain the PM–10 NAAQS in 2006 based 

on all available quality assured data. 

This action does not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3), because we do not yet 

have an approved maintenance plan as 

required under section 175(A) of the 

CAA or a determination that the area 

has met the other CAA requirements for 

redesignation. The classification and 

designation status in 40 CFR part 81 

remains serious nonattainment for this 

area until such time as California meets 

the CAA requirements for redesignation 

of the SJV to attainment. 

Consistent with the Agency’s Clean 

Data Policy and its interpretation that 

the attainment determination suspends 

certain requirements as set forth in 

detail above, EPA is also finalizing its 

finding that the contingency measure 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) 

no longer apply to the San Joaquin 

Valley PM–10 nonattainment area for so 

long as the area continues to attain the 

PM–10 NAAQS. If we subsequently 

determine, after notice and comment 

rulemaking in the Federal Register, that 

the area has violated the standard (prior 

to a redesignation to attainment), the 

requirement for contingency measures 

would once again be applicable. 

IV. Effective Date of This Final Action 

The EPA finds that there is good 

cause for this action to become effective 

immediately upon publication because a 

delayed effective date is unnecessary 

due to the nature of this action, which 

is a determination, based on air quality 

data, that certain Act requirements do 

not apply for so long as the area 

continues to attain the standard. The 

immediate effective date for this action 

is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(1) which provides that 

rulemaking actions may become 

effective less than 30 days after 

publication if the rule ‘‘grants or 

recognizes an exemption or relieves a 

restriction’’ and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), 

which allows an effective date less than 

30 days after publication ‘‘as otherwise 

provided by the agency for good cause 

found and published with the rule.’’

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely makes a 

determination based on air quality data, 

suspends certain requirements, and 

imposes no additional requirements. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule does not 

impose any additional enforceable duty, 

it does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

makes a determination based on air 

quality data and suspends certain 

requirements, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply because it would 

be inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when determining the attainment 

status of an area, to use voluntary 

consensus standards in place of 

promulgated air quality standards and 

monitoring procedures that otherwise 

satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air 

Act. This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3
63664 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 209 / Monday, October 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by December 29, 

2006. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this rule for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: October 17, 2006. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 06–8902 Filed 10–27–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_3