UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711

DEC r,ö'¿014,

MEMORANDUM

TO: EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0918

Air Quality Designations for the 2OI2PMz.sStandards

FROM: Liz P. Naess, Air Quality Assessment Division

US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OFFICE OF

AIR OUALITY PLANNING

AND STANDARDS

SUBJECT: Data Quality lssues in Florida Affecting Air Quality Designations for the 2012

PMz.s National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The purpose of this memorandum isto discuss PMz.s data quality issues identified in Florida as

a result of a technical systems audit (TSA) of the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection (FLDEP) ambient air monitoring program. TSAs are systematic and objective

examinations of a monitoring program to determine whether environmental data collection

activities and related results comply with regulatory requirements, the project's Quality

Assurance Project Plan and other planning documents, are implemented effectively, and are

suitable to achieve its data quality goals.

EPA RegioÅ 4 conducted a TSA in Septemb er 2OL4on the FLDEP including the FLDEP PMz.s

gravimetric laboratory and identified that laboratory humidity conditions were not being

correctly monitored and did not meet the requirements of the federal reference method for

PMz.s found in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. As a result, PMz.s filters were sometimes being

weighed outside of the allowable humidity ranges, and could be deemed invalid. Humidity

control ranges are among parameters identified as "critical criteria" in the federal reference

method for PMz.s found in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L. Accordingly, when filters are weighed

outside of ihese allowable ranges, the associated data should be considered invalid for

regulatory purposes unless there is a compelling reason and justification for not doing so. A

large portion of the PMz.s samples for some quarters in the 2OIL- 2013 time frame were

weighed under humidity conditions outside the required range. Since all of the PMz.s sites in

the state send samples to the same state laboratory, this problem has the potential to affect

the validity of the data collected in any of the Florida areas.

lntemet Address (URL) . http://www.epa.gov

Recycled/Hecyclable . Pñnted with Vegetable Oil Based lnks on Recycled Peper (Minimum 257o Postconsumer)
Region 4 has not completed their final assessment of the Florida data. Once the TSA findings

and data evaluations are completed and provided to FLDEP it is expected that additional

technical discussion will ensue before making a final data validity determination.   

Attachments:

1. Correspondence related to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s

monitoring program:

 November 17, 2014 memorandum to Paula Cobb and Justin B. Green, FLDEP

 November 24, 2014 letter to Jeaneanne Gettle, Region 4 EPA
Florida Department of

Memorandum Environmental Protection ___________________________________________________________________

To: Paula Cobb, Director

Air Resource Management

Justin B. Green, Deputy Director

Air Resource Management

From: Timothy W. Fitzpatrick, Administrator

Bureau of Laboratories

Date: November 17, 2014

Subject: Evaluation of Concerns Raised by EPA Regarding the Validity of the PM2.5 Laboratory Data for 

Attainment Cycle 2011-2013

During EPA’s September 2014 on-site assessment of the PM2.5 data generated for attainment years 2011-

2013, the assessor noted, particularly in September 2012, spikes in humidity above the range specified at 40 

CFR Part 50 (Appendix L Section 8.2) for filter conditioning. EPA noted that those data were not qualified for 

exceeding the humidity limits established for the operation of PM2.5 laboratories per the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) citation above and the DEP Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).

The FL DEP laboratory staff asserts that the preponderance of those reported values are valid and that the 

temperature and humidity control meets the requirements for filter conditioning cited in the CFR. Chapter 40 

CFR Part 50, Appendix L Section 8.0 references EPA’s Quality Assurance Guidance Document 2.12 for detailed 

guidance on filter weighing operations. Section 7.6 of that guidance document helps the laboratory interpret 

filter conditioning requirements and, specifically, spikes in temperature or humidity. The laboratory is 

instructed to evaluate relevant data, and in particular filter blanks, before deciding “if spikes are significant 

enough to compromise the conditioning period”. Furthermore, the document states that experience 

evaluating the performance of filter blanks should allow the laboratory to estimate which spikes are too big 

and might affect filter weight based on the timing of the spikes relative to the time of weighing.

During the days where transient humidity spikes were observed, the laboratory explicitly followed the 

guidance offered in Section 7.6 of EPA QA Document 2.12 as directed by 40 CFR Part 50 (Appendix L Section 

8.2). The transient spikes were less than 30 – 40 minutes in duration and typically occurred 4 or more hours 

before filter weighing commenced. During all of those periods where filter weights were reported, the filter

blanks were in good control and satisfied method requirements. Transient humidity spikes, if significant, 

would have led to a high bias in the weights of field filters and the filter blanks. No such bias was observed in 

the blanks. Each week, conditioning controls for pre-sampling and post-sampling gravimetric operations were 

evaluated for bias and none was observed. Therefore, the laboratory determined, based on guidance cited in 

the CFR, that the transient spikes had no effect on the conditioning of the filters.

It should also be stressed that the filter blanks, in addition to providing controls for detecting particulate 

contamination, also serve to assess bias induced by humidity differences encountered during the conditioning 

periods for the pre-sampling and the post-sampling gravimetric operations. All of the sample filters 

conditioned and weighed pre-sampling are identical to the filter blanks. Subsequent conditioning and 
weighing of the filter blanks during the post-sampling operations would reveal bias induced by differences in 

relative humidity between the pre- and post-sampling conditioning periods. No effect of humidity differences 

during conditioning periods have been noted in any of the reported filter blank data. 

More recently, laboratory staff performed a study to evaluate the effect of a much longer humidity spike on 

the weights of actual field samples. A series of pre-conditioned field filters were deliberately exposed to >70% 

RH for a duration of 2.5 hours, nearly 4 times the duration of the typical spike. After the 2.5 hour exposure, 

weighing commenced at a rate of one filter per minute. The study demonstrated three results: all the filters 

exhibited modest weight gains immediately after exposure; none of the gains exceeded the variability 

requirements of the method (± 15 μg or ± 0.015 mg); and, within 6 minutes after exposure, the filters were 

within ± 5 μg of their pre-exposure weights. 

In addition to the study described above, we implemented a plan to re-weigh field samples originally analyzed 

on days when humidity excursions occurred during conditioning. The lab archives field filters in individual 

petri dishes that are double-bagged and held in a dedicated refrigerator at 4 0C. The integrity of the archived 

filters is considered to be excellent. Therefore, a total of 60 field samples plus associated duplicates and filter 

blanks were selected from batches originally weighed on 10/08/2012 and 10/29/2012. These dates represent 

some of the largest excursions of humidity recorded by the laboratory’s continuous monitoring system.

The original recorded weights and the weights obtained recently are shown in tables below. During the reweighing, temperature and humidity control was maintained well within the controls cited by the CFR and the 

DEP QAPP (see table below). As the data demonstrate, within the bounds of precision defined for laboratory 

duplicates (± 15 μg or ± 0.015 mg), there is no difference between the original filter weights and the weights 

for both field samples and blanks obtained up to two years later, when the conditioning room was held in 

rigorous control. All records supporting this study are available for inspection. The findings of this study are 

consistent with the conclusions of recent publications1,2 and support the lab’s assertion that the data reported 

originally are valid and of high quality despite some transient humidity excursions.

In summary, while humidity spikes could conceivably cause a high bias in subsequent weight measurements, 

data from filter blanks, conditioning controls, and a controlled study demonstrated that the transient spikes 

that occurred had no significant effect on filter weights obtained following the conditioning period. Therefore, 

per guidance cited in the CFR for filter weighing, those data were not qualified by the laboratory and we 

believe the preponderance of the data reported should be considered valid for their intended use. This 

contention is fully supported by data obtained through re-weighing archived filters. 

We have added improvements in the temperature and humidity controls within the laboratory and in the 

documentation trail for gravimetric operations. In order to increase transparency, the laboratory commits to 

qualifying data that do not meet the requirements of the DARM QAPP. 

Citations

1. NPL Report DQL-AS 015; Ambient Air Particulate Matter: Quantifying Errors in Gravimetric 

Measurements (January 2005); http://publications.npl.co.uk/npl_web/pdf/dql_as15.pdf) 

2. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 13: 137–147, 2013; Comparing the Performance of Teflon and Quartz 

Membrane Filters Collecting Atmospheric PM: Influence of Atmospheric Water

Cinzia Perrino, Silvia Canepari, Maria Catrambone
Comparison of Filter Weights Originally Reported and Weights Obtained Recently From 

the Archived Filters

Filter ID Sample 

Type

Original 

Weighing Date

Original 

Weight (mg)

Re-Weiging Date Re-Weighing 

Value (mg)

Difference 

(mg)

300mg MR 10/08/2012 09:00 300.001 11/05/2014 15:30 300

500 mg MR 10/08/2012 09:01 500.001 11/05/2014 15:31 500.003

T1555802 SF 10/08/2012 09:02 389.376 11/05/2014 15:32 389.376 0

T1555804 SF 10/08/2012 09:03 385.222 11/05/2014 15:33 385.218 0.004

T1555805 SF 10/08/2012 09:04 385.753 11/05/2014 15:34 385.76 -0.007

T1555806 SF 10/08/2012 09:05 384.921 11/05/2014 15:35 384.919 0.002

T1555807 SF 10/08/2012 09:06 382.993 11/05/2014 15:36 382.995 -0.002

T1555808 SF 10/08/2012 09:07 385.203 11/05/2014 15:37 385.199 0.004

T1555809 SF 10/08/2012 09:08 386.958 11/05/2014 15:38 386.958 0

T1555810 SF 10/08/2012 09:09 391.073 11/05/2014 15:39 391.068 0.005

T1555811 SF 10/08/2012 09:10 384.251 11/05/2014 15:40 384.245 0.006

T1555813 SF 10/08/2012 09:11 386.291 11/05/2014 15:41 386.289 0.002

300mg MR 10/08/2012 09:12 300 11/05/2014 15:42 299.999

500 mg MR 10/08/2012 09:13 500 11/05/2014 15:43 500.002

T1555814 SF 10/08/2012 09:14 387.489 11/05/2014 15:44 387.487 0.002

T1555815 SF 10/08/2012 09:15 388.481 11/05/2014 15:45 388.477 0.004

T1555816 SF 10/08/2012 09:16 382.465 11/05/2014 15:46 382.459 0.006

T1555817 SF 10/08/2012 09:17 386.803 11/05/2014 15:47 386.796 0.007

T1555818 SF 10/08/2012 09:18 383.59 11/05/2014 15:48 383.588 0.002

T1555819 SF 10/08/2012 09:19 386.956 11/05/2014 15:49 386.948 0.008

T1555821 SF 10/08/2012 09:20 383.917 11/05/2014 15:50 383.913 0.004

T1555822 SF 10/08/2012 09:21 384.455 11/05/2014 15:51 384.45 0.005

T1555823 SF 10/08/2012 09:22 384.317 11/05/2014 15:52 384.312 0.005

T1555824 SF 10/08/2012 09:23 386.175 11/05/2014 15:53 386.171 0.004

300mg MR 10/08/2012 09:24 300 11/05/2014 15:54 300

500 mg MR 10/08/2012 09:25 500.001 11/05/2014 15:55 500.002

T1555825 SF 10/08/2012 09:26 389.935 11/05/2014 15:56 389.929 0.006

T1555826 SF 10/08/2012 09:27 403.244 11/05/2014 15:57 403.238 0.006

T1555827 SF 10/08/2012 09:28 399.577 11/05/2014 15:58 399.586 -0.009

T1555829 SF 10/08/2012 09:29 395.252 11/05/2014 15:59 395.249 0.003

T1555830 SF 10/08/2012 09:30 399.734 11/05/2014 15:60 399.735 -0.001

T1555831 SF 10/08/2012 09:31 399.431 11/05/2014 15:61 399.44 -0.009

T1555832 SF 10/08/2012 09:32 400.703 11/05/2014 15:62 400.699 0.004

T1555833 SF 10/08/2012 09:33 395.531 11/05/2014 15:63 395.526 0.005

T1555834 SF 10/08/2012 09:34 401.534 11/05/2014 15:64 401.525 0.009

T1555835 SF 10/08/2012 09:35 393.162 11/05/2014 15:65 393.161 0.001

T1555801 LB 10/08/2012 09:36 382.61 11/05/2014 15:66 382.612 -0.002

T1555802 BD 10/08/2012 09:37 389.38 11/05/2014 15:67 389.378 0.002

300mg MR 10/08/2012 09:38 300.001 11/05/2014 15:68 300.002

500 mg MR 10/08/2012 09:39 500 11/05/2014 15:69 500.005

Average Difference 0.002

Maximum Difference 0.009

Minumum Difference -0.009
Notes: MR – Mass Reference

SF – Sample Filter

LB – Lab Blank

BD – Batch Duplicate

Filter ID Sample 

Type

Original 

Weighing Date

Original 

Weight (mg)

Re-Weighing 

Date

Re-Weighing 

Value (mg)

Difference 

(mg)

300mg MR 10/29/2012 11:00 300.003 11/10/2014 08:00 300.002

500 mg MR 10/29/2012 11:01 500.004 11/10/2014 08:01 500.002

T1556202 SF 10/29/2012 11:02 388.22 11/10/2014 08:02 388.223 -0.003

T1556203 SF 10/29/2012 11:03 395.094 11/10/2014 08:03 395.099 -0.005

T1556204 SF 10/29/2012 11:04 398.816 11/10/2014 08:04 398.811 0.005

T1556217 SF 10/29/2012 11:05 397.575 11/10/2014 08:05 397.569 0.006

T1556231 SF 10/29/2012 11:06 391.223 11/10/2014 08:06 391.223 0

T1556232 SF 10/29/2012 11:07 396.458 11/10/2014 08:07 396.452 0.006

T1556233 SF 10/29/2012 11:08 389.53 11/10/2014 08:08 389.535 -0.005

T1556234 SF 10/29/2012 11:09 390.143 11/10/2014 08:09 390.143 0

T1556235 SF 10/29/2012 11:10 391.053 11/10/2014 08:10 391.06 -0.007

T1556236 SF 10/29/2012 11:11 388.715 11/10/2014 08:11 388.712 0.003

300mg MR 10/29/2012 11:12 300.002 11/10/2014 08:12 300.001

500 mg MR 10/29/2012 11:13 500.005 11/10/2014 08:13 500.003

T1556237 SF 10/29/2012 11:14 390.665 11/10/2014 08:14 390.673 -0.008

T1556239 SF 10/29/2012 11:15 388.51 11/10/2014 08:15 388.517 -0.007

T1556240 SF 10/29/2012 11:16 393.83 11/10/2014 08:16 393.835 -0.005

T1556241 SF 10/29/2012 11:17 392.836 11/10/2014 08:17 392.835 0.001

T1556242 SF 10/29/2012 11:18 394.289 11/10/2014 08:18 394.29 -0.001

T1556243 SF 10/29/2012 11:19 393.426 11/10/2014 08:19 393.423 0.003

T1556244 SF 10/29/2012 11:20 391.818 11/10/2014 08:20 391.813 0.005

T1556245 SF 10/29/2012 11:21 390.512 11/10/2014 08:21 390.507 0.005

T1556247 SF 10/29/2012 11:22 389.434 11/10/2014 08:22 389.434 0

T1556248 SF 10/29/2012 11:23 382.407 11/10/2014 08:23 382.41 -0.003

300mg MR 10/29/2012 11:24 300.001 11/10/2014 08:24 300

500 mg MR 10/29/2012 11:25 500 11/10/2014 08:25 500.002

T1556249 SF 10/29/2012 11:26 386.773 11/10/2014 08:26 386.768 0.005

T1556250 SF 10/29/2012 11:27 386.055 11/10/2014 08:27 386.049 0.006

T1556464 SF 10/29/2012 11:28 387.264 11/10/2014 08:28 387.259 0.005

T1556465 SF 10/29/2012 11:29 392.253 11/10/2014 08:29 392.247 0.006

T1556467 SF 10/29/2012 11:30 381.168 11/10/2014 08:30 381.161 0.007

T1556468 SF 10/29/2012 11:31 398.214 11/10/2014 08:31 398.215 -0.001

T1556469 SF 10/29/2012 11:32 394.793 11/10/2014 08:32 394.793 0

T1556201 LB 10/29/2012 11:33 390.385 11/10/2014 08:33 390.384 0.001

T1556451 LB 10/29/2012 11:34 390.699 11/10/2014 08:34 390.7 -0.001

T1556202 BD 10/29/2012 11:35 388.215 11/10/2014 08:35 388.222 -0.007

300mg MR 10/29/2012 11:36 300 11/10/2014 08:36 300.002

500 mg MR 10/29/2012 11:37 500.001 11/10/2014 08:37 500.002

Average Difference 0.00

Maximum Difference 0.007

Minimum Difference -0.008
Filter Conditioning Parameters on 11/05/2014 for filter batches originally weighed on 10/08/2012

Humidity (RH) Temperature (C)

24-hour Average 32% (± 0.67) 21 (± 0.08)

Minimum 30 20

Maximum 35 21

Filter Conditioning Parameters on 11/10/2014 for filter batches originally weighed on 10/29/2012

Humidity (RH) Temperature (C)

24-hour Average 32% (± 0.69) 21 (± 0.27)

Minimum 30 20

Maximum 39 21

Filter Conditioning Parameters for the 10/30/2014 Humidity Study (Prior to 70% RH Excursion)

Humidity (RH) Temperature (C)

24-hour Average 36% (± 1.7) 21 (± 0.23)

Minimum 32 20

Maximum 40 21

Filter Conditioning Parameters for the 10/30/2014 Humidity Study (After the 70% RH Excursion)

Humidity (RH) Temperature (C)

24-hour Average 35% (± 2.0) 21 (± 0.22)

Minimum 31 20

Maximum 39 21
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BOB MARTINEZ CENTER

2600 BLAIRSTONE ROAD

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2400

RICK SCOTT

GOVERNOR

CARLOS LOPEZ-CANTERA

LT. GOVERNOR

HERSCHEL T. VINYARD JR.

SECRETARY

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL 

November 24, 2014

Jeaneanne Gettle, Deputy Director

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division

Gettle.Jeaneanne@epa.gov

Re: PM2.5 Monitoring Data 

This letter is provided in response to recent conversations between the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency – Region 4 and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Division 

of Air Resource Management, regarding PM2.5 air monitoring data collected during calendar years 

2011-2013. EPA has expressed concerns that identified excursions in the Department’s contracted 

weighing lab might negatively affect EPA’s proposed designation of the entire State of Florida as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, the 

Department is confident that the data are valid, both from a scientific and regulatory perspective. 

This letter and the attached memorandum from the Lab provide proof of data quality and validity 

and should provide EPA additional comfort to move forward with its designation as proposed. 

During its September 2014 Technical Systems Audit, EPA identified transient relative humidity 

excursions in the Lab during September and October of 2012. Department records from specific 

days during that time period show excursions in relative humidity for periods of fewer than 30 to 

40 minutes during the night, and at least four hours prior to weighing. As we are all aware, the 

technical field and laboratory requirements for PM2.5 monitoring are very stringent, especially for 

a humid environment like Florida. The Department is committed to meeting these requirements 

and understands that doing so allows for quick and efficient approval of its submitted data. 

However, EPA guidance recognizes that excursions do occur and that they do not necessarily affect 

data quality or validity. Under Section 7.6 of EPA QA Document 2.12 (referenced in 40 CFR Part 

50), local operators are afforded discretion in assessing excursions to determine the extent to which 

the underlying data, analyses, or conclusions drawn from specific monitoring or measurement 

activities might, or might not, have been compromised. 

The attached memorandum from the Lab details how it used this discretion and concluded that the 

data were not compromised by the identified excursions. Specifically, the lab states: 

• It correctly used the discretion provided by Section EPA QA Document 2.12 to 

exclude excursions that were not “significant enough to compromise the (filter) 

conditioning period”;

• Filters were weighed while the laboratory was in proper control and after filters 

were properly conditioned;

www.dep.state.fl.us
Jeaneanne Gettle

November 24, 2014

Page 2 of 7

• A study conducted by the laboratory using filters of known weights exposed to 

excursions three to four times the length of the excursions in September-October 

2012 indicated no bias; and

• Recent reweighing of the filters at issue showed no significant differences in weight 

from when originally weighed.

In addition, other information fully supports the quality and validity of the data. The graph below 

shows recorded PM2.5 concentrations as collected by the Department’s continuous concentration 

monitors, plotted alongside the FRM PM2.5 data. The Department recognizes that continuous 

monitors generally are not used for regulatory purposes, but it is telling that the graph shows a 

strong correlation between concentrations recorded by the continuous monitors and concentrations 

indicated by the filters weighed by the Lab.

www.dep.state.fl.us
Jeaneanne Gettle

November 24, 2014

Page 3 of 7

The next chart shows the 2012 average PM2.5 FRM data plotted with the PM2.5 speciation 

concentration data analyzed by EPA’s contract laboratory, Research Triangle Institute. Here, too, 

the data are strongly correlated. 

And, as indicated in the table below, the 2011-2013 design values calculated using the monitoring 

data analyzed by the Research Triangle Institute show attainment with the PM2.5 standard.

AQS Site 

Number

Site Name City Speciation 

Design 

Value 

(mg/m3)

FRM Design 

Value 

(mg/m3

)

12-011-1002 U of F 

Agricultural 

Research Center 

Fort 

Lauderdale

8.1* 7.1*

12-057-3002 Sydney Tampa 9.2 7.1

12-073-0012 Tallahassee 

Community 

College 

Tallahassee 10.4 8.9

* Substitution procedures were used to calculate the design value due to loss of data during 

construction.

Furthermore, declining emissions trends also support the air monitoring data collected by the 

Department. The three graphs below, based on Annual Operating Report data from CY2000 –

CY2013, show that emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM10 have decreased an aggregated 69%. 

Emissions reported during the time period at issue show that emissions remained at these reduced 

levels during 2011-2013. 

www.dep.state.fl.us
Jeaneanne Gettle

November 24, 2014

Page 4 of 7

www.dep.state.fl.us
Jeaneanne Gettle

November 24, 2014

Page 5 of 7

Regional data further support the Department’s air monitoring data. In the Southeast region, PM2.5

concentrations have declined 27% over the last ten years. Based on geography and historic 

monitoring data, Florida would be expected to have some of the lowest concentrations in the 

region. This is reflected in the chart below (Florida data is displayed in orange). 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

01-003-001001-033-100201-155-001001-073-002301-073-100901-073-200301-073-500201-073-300401-097-000301-101-100201-113-000101-121-000201-127-000212-011-100212-011-500512-013-003212-031-009912-057-300212-073-001212-086-101612-095-100412-099-000812-099-200512-103-100912-115-001312-127-500213-021-001213-051-009113-063-009113-067-000413-089-200113-115-000313-121-003913-135-000213-153-000113-215-000113-215-001113-245-000513-295-000213-319-0001

2011 - 2013 PM2.5 Design Values for Alabama, Florida and 

Georgia

www.dep.state.fl.us
Jeaneanne Gettle

November 24, 2014

Page 6 of 7

Finally, mobile source NOX and VOC emission reductions support the concentrations measured 

by the Department. 

If EPA ultimately finds that the data in question cannot be used to support its proposed attainment 

designation, the Department would advocate using EPA’s data substitution procedures. If the 

PM2.5 Design Values were determined using these procedures for the five areas in the state with 

required monitoring (with estimates of design values for the other three areas), all areas in the state 

would still show levels significantly below the 12 μg/m3 standard.

MSA Design Value Site Substitution 

Design Value

Original Design 

Value

Miami 12-086-1016 8.35 7.2

Tampa 12-057-3002 7.36 7.1

Orlando 12-095-2002 6.85 6.5

Jacksonville 12-031-0099 (2011 2Q missing 52%) 11.02 7.3

Sarasota 12-115-0013 (TEOM) 8 6.6

Lakeland 12-105-6006 7.33 6.8

Melbourne 12-009-0007 (2Q 2012 missing 54%) 6.89 6.1

Fort Myers 12-071-0005 6.90 6.6

Given the extensive information provided above, and in the Lab’s memorandum, the Department 

is confident that its data are more than sufficient to support EPA’s proposed designation. The 

Department prides itself on its robust air monitoring network and technical expertise and has 

already implemented actions to further strengthen laboratory procedures. 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

tons

Florida Mobile Source Emissions

(Highway and Off-road)

Volatile Organic Compounds Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)

www.dep.state.fl.us
Jeaneanne Gettle

November 24, 2014

Page 7 of 7

If you have any questions, please contact me at any time at (850) 717-9000 or 

Paula.Cobb@dep.state.fl.us.

Paula Cobb, Director

Division of Air Resource Management

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

c: Gregg Worley, EPA

Sandra Veazey, DARM

Thomas Frick, DEAR

www.dep.state.fl.us