ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID

- PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES

NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN W ASHINGTON, D.C. INTERNATIONAL

C A L I F O R N I A O F F I C E 5 0 C A L I F O R N I A S T R E E T , S U I T E 5 0 0 S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A 9 4 1 1 1

T : 4 1 5 . 2 1 7 . 2 0 0 0 F : 4 1 5 . 2 1 7 . 2 0 4 0 C A O F F I C E @ E A R T H J U S T I C E . O R G W W W . E A R T H J U S T I C E . O R G January 22, 2015

Via Email Wienke Tax Air Planning Office, AIR

- 2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105

- 3901 tax.wienke@epa.gov

RE: Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM 2.5 Standards; California

— South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements,” EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2014

- 0708.

Dear Ms. Tax,

On behalf of Communities for a Better Environment , Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Physicians for Social Responsibility

– Los Angeles (collectively, “Health Advocates”) , we submit the following comments on EPA’s Proposed Rule, “Cle an Data Determination for 1997 PM 2.5 Standards; California

— South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements,” EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2014

- 0708, 79 Fed. Reg. 72999 (Dec. 9, 2014) (“Clean Data Determination ”)

. Health Advocates disagrees with the determination f or the following reasons.

I. 2014 Monitoring Data Demonstrates that the South Coast is Out of Attainment with the 1997 PM 2.5 Standards , and Must Continue to Adopt Measures to Come Into Attainment.

EPA indicates that no 2014 data was included in the pr oposed Clean Data Determination, but that “EPA will review the preliminary 2014 data prior to taking final action to ensure that they are consistent with the determination of attainment.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 73003. Because 2014 data shows that the South Coast is not in attainment, EPA can not make the proposed Clean Data Determination.

The 2014 data uploaded onto the California Air Resources Board’s monitoring website indicates that several monitoring sites exceeded the 1997 PM 2.5 Standards, and therefore t he South Coast was not in attainment of these standards in 2014. 1 These sites include Central Los

1 EPA’s AirData database does not yet have complete data for 2014.2

Angeles, Metropolitan Riverside County

- Rubidoux, Riverside

- Magnolia, Mira Loma, Burbank, and San Bernardino Upland.

Site 2014 Annual Mean ( μ g/m 3 ) Central Los Angeles

– Los Angeles (Main St.) 2 18.8

Metropolitan Riverside County

– Rubidoux 3 15.6

Riverside

- Magnolia 4 16.3 Mira Loma

– Mira Loma (Van Buren) 5 19.2

Burbank W Palm Ave (Jan

- March) 6 19.8

San Bernardino Upland 7 17.9

2 Data pulled from CARB’s air monitoring database for monitoring site 2899, monitors “l” and “

- “, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2899&monitor=I&ptype=aqd , and http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2899&monitor=

- &ptype=aqd

. 3 Data pulled from CARB’s air monitoring database for mon itoring site 2596, monitors “

- “ and “F”, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/pickdownload.php?p aram=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SIT E1YR&statistic=DAVG&site=2596&monitor=

- &ptype=aqd

, and http://ww w.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2596&monitor=F&ptype=aqd

. 4 Data pulled from CARB’s air monitoring database for monitoring site 233, monitors “C” and “

- “, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2333&monitor=

- &p type=aqd , and http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &sta tistic=DAVG&site=2333&monitor=C&ptype=aqd

. 5 Data pulled from CARB’s air monitoring database for monitoring site 3702, monitors “C” and “

- “, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=3702&monitor=

- &ptype=aqd , and http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site =3702&monitor=C&ptype=aqd

. 6 Data pulled from CARB’s air monitoring database for site 2492, monitors “C” and “

- “, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2492&monitor=C&ptype=aqd , and http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2492&monitor=

- &ptype=aqd

. 7 Data pulled from CARB’s monitoring database for site 2485, monit ors “A” and “

- “, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?param=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&re port=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2485&monitor=A&ptype=aqd , and http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/display.php?pa ram=PM25HR&units=001&year=2014&report=SITE1YR &statistic=DAVG&site=2485&monitor=

- &ptype=aqd

.3

EPA notes that it proposes to suspend the obligations to submit S tate Implementation P l an revisions concerning Reasonable Further Progress (RFP), attainment demonstration, Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) , contingency measures, and other requirements related to nonattainment, only “for so lo ng as the area continues to attain the standard.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 73004. Because, as discussed above, the South Coast was out of attainment with the 1997 standard in 2014, suspending these requirements is inappropriate. C.f. Revocation of Determination of Attainment of Ozone Standard by the Pittsburgh

- Beaver Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area and Reinstatement of Applicability of Certain Reasonable Further Progress and Attainment Demonstration Requirements, 61 Fed. Reg. 28061 (Ju n. 4, 1996) (revoking attainment demonstration after finding exceedances over the preceding year).

EPA should continue to require the South Coast to adopt measures to ensure that the region comes into attainment with the 1997 PM 2.5 Standards. Indeed, because the region has been out of attainment for more than six years, EPA must go a step further, and reclassify the South Coast as a “serious” nonattainment area and require the South Coast to prepare a serious area plan. 42 U.S.C. § 7513(b)(2).

II. EPA Can not Make a Clean Data Determination Because the Data Excludes Near

Roadway Monitoring.

Se ction 107(a) of the Clean Air Ac t requires states to “assure[] air quality within the entire geographic area.” 42 U.S.C. § 7407(a). Congress provided no exemption for areas near highways

, where the evidence shows much higher levels of direct PM2.5 within 300 meters of the highway. 8 Thus, the inclusion of this data is necessary to protect the over 1

- million people who live, work, and g o to school

-- thus, breathe the ambient air

-- within 300 meters of a highway in the South Coast Air Basin. 9 Indeed, including near

- roadway data is critical where, as shown above, several existing sites exceeded the 1997 PM2.5 standard in 2014. Monitors nex t to highways in the same vicinity as those that exceed the standard are likely to show even higher concentrations of PM2.5 than the existing monitors. Therefore, EPA’s clean data determination

8 See e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (June 2007), at 11

- 2, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default

- source/clean

- air

- plans/air

- quality

management

- plans/2007

- air

- quality

- management

- pla n/2007

- aqmp

- final

- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 ; See also U.S. EPA, Final Technical Support Document and Response to Comments, Final Rulemaking Action on the South Coast 2007 AQMP for PM2.5 and the South Coast Portions of the Revised 2007 State Strategy (September 30, 2011) [Attached as Exhibit A ], at 55

- 5 6; Communities for a Better Environment et al.

, Comments on the 2011 Air Monitoring Network Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (June 30, 2011) [hereinafter “2011 Monitoring Plan Comments” ] [Attached

as Exhibit B ]. See also Gould, Greg, Draft Report

— Near Roadway Emissions: Measurement, Exposure, and Monitoring (June 21, 2011) [hereinafter “Gould report”] [Attach ed as Exhibit C ] ; E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc., Estimating Contributions of On

- Road Emissions to Near Highway PM2.5 Concentrations (April 16, 2009) [hereinafter “Pechan Report”] [Attached as Exhibit D ].
9 See 2011 Monitoring Plan Comments (Exhibit B ) at 1 0 , 16 ; Gould Report (Exhibit C) at 18, 26

- 27 ; Pechan Report (Exhibit D) at 2

.4

most likely excludes thousands of people who live, work, and go to school near highways and freeways from the protections of the Clean Air Act. 10

In addition, a s a result of the clear evidence of higher levels of PM2.5 near highways and freeways , s everal of the Health Advocates groups have a case pending in the Ninth Circuit in which the groups argue that the PM2.5 NAAQS determinations must include near

- roadway monitoring data

. 11 The case has been argued and is under submission. It is premature for EPA to make a “clean data” determination before the court has rul ed on this issue.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Forsyth Earthjustice 50 California Street, Ste. 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 415

- 217

- 2000 eforsyth@earthjustice .org
Maya Golden

- Krasner Staff Attorney Communities for a Better Environment 6325 Pacific Blvd., Suite 300 Huntington Park, CA 90255 323

- 826

- 9771 x. 121 maya@cbecal.org

10 In fact, in January 2013, EPA recognized that demonstrating attainment does require near

- roadway monitoring in areas with over one million people, and the D.C. Circuit upheld this determination. 78 Fed. Reg. 3086, 3238 (Jan. 15, 2013); Nat’l Ass’n of Mfr s. v. EPA , 750 F.3d 921 (DC Cir. 2014). EPA found that “[a] significant fraction of the population lives in proximity to major roads. These exposures occur in locations that represent ambient air for which the agency has a responsibility to ensure the publ ic is protected with an adequate margin of safety. Ignoring monitoring results from such areas (or not monitoring at all) would abdicate this responsibility. Put another way, monitoring in such areas does not make the standard more stringent, but rather a ffords requisite protection to the populations, among them
at

- risk populations, exposed to fine particulate in these areas. ” 78 Fed. Reg. at 3240; Nat’l Ass’n of Mfrs.

, 750 F.3d at 926.
11 Physicians for Social Responsibility

- LA et al. v. U.S. EPA , Case No. 12

- 70079. The groups include Physicians for Social Responsibility

- LA and Communities for a Better Environment.