Proposed Rule: Air Programs: Consolidated Federal Air Rule Revisions&#8212 California

Monday,
August 27, 2007
Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
State of California; PM–10; Affirmation of
Determination of Attainment for the San
Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area;
Proposed Rule
rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:46 Aug 24, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\27AUP2.SGM 27AUP2
49046 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 165 / Monday, August 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the II. EPA’s Proposed Actions
AGENCY Sierra Club, Latino Issues Forum and III. Summary of Litigation and
others. Administrative Proceedings
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 IV. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule
DATES: Written comments must be V. EPA’s Evaluation of Flagged Exceedances
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0583; FRL–8459–2] received on or before September 26, A. September 22, 2006 Exceedances at
2007. Corcoran, Bakersfield and Oildale
Approval and Promulgation of 1. Procedural Requirements
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
Implementation Plans; Designation of 2. Technical Criteria
identified by docket number EPA–R09– 3. Mitigation Requirements
Areas for Air Quality Planning
OAR–2006–0583, by one of the B. October 25, 2006 Exceedances at
Purposes; State of California; PM–10;
following methods: Corcoran and Bakersfield
Affirmation of Determination of
(1) Federal eRulemaking portal: 1. Procedural Requirements
Attainment for the San Joaquin Valley
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 2. Technical Criteria
Nonattainment Area
on-line instructions. 3. Mitigation Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection (2) E-mail: lo.doris@epa.gov. C. December 8, 2006 Exceedances at
Agency (EPA). (3) Mail or deliver: Doris Lo (AIR–2), Corcoran and Bakersfield
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1. Procedural Requirements
ACTION: Proposed rule.
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 2. Technical Criteria
SUMMARY: In a final rule published in Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 3. Mitigation Requirements
the Federal Register on October 30, Instructions: All comments will be VI. EPA Evaluation of September 14,
September 20 and October 26, 2006
2006, EPA determined that the San included in the public docket without Exceedances Recorded at the Santa Rosa
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area (SJV change and may be made available Rancheria
or the Valley) in California attained the online at www.regulations.gov, A. Evaluation Under Principles Established
National Ambient Air Quality Standards including any personal information in 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix E
(NAAQS) for particulate matter with an provided, unless the comment includes B. Evaluation Under the Exceptional
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal Confidential Business Information (CBI) Events Rule
to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–10). or other information whose disclosure is 1. Procedural Requirements
Since that final determination of restricted by statute. Information that 2. Technical Criteria
attainment, the State has flagged several you consider CBI or otherwise protected 3. Mitigation Requirements
exceedances of the PM–10 standard in VII. Summary of Exceedances from 2004
should be clearly identified as such and through 2006
2006 as being caused by exceptional should not be submitted through the VIII. Petitions for Reconsideration and
events, i.e., high winds, and requested www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Withdrawal
that these data be excluded from www.regulations.gov is an anonymous A. Winds and Wildfires on September 22
attainment determinations. EPA is access system, and EPA will not know and October 25, 2006
proposing to concur with the State’s your identity or contact information B. Notice/Comment on September 22 and
request to flag these exceedances and unless you provide it in the body of October 25, 2006 Exceedances
thus to exclude that data from use in your comment. If you send e-mail C. Wind Conditions in the Valley
determining PM–10 attainment for the directly to EPA, your e-mail address D. EPA’s Natural Events Policy
SJV. EPA is also proposing to exclude 1. BACM Implementation
will be automatically captured and 2. District’s Natural Events Action Plan
from use in determining attainment for included as part of the public comment. E. Harvest Activities
the SJV exceedances recorded at a If EPA cannot read your comment due F. Exceedances at Corcoran and Stockton
monitor located at the Santa Rosa to technical difficulties and cannot in 2004, Bakersfield in 2005 and the
Rancheria, tribal lands within the contact you for clarification, EPA may Santa Rosa Rancheria in 2006
boundaries of the SJV, on two bases: not be able to consider your comment. IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
The exceedances occurred while the Docket: The index to the docket for
I. Background
monitor was operating in very close this action is available electronically at
proximity to construction activities and, www.regulations.gov and in hard copy On October 17, 2006, EPA finalized
as such, the monitor was not properly at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, its determination that the SJV attained
sited during that time for purposes of San Francisco, California. While all the NAAQS for PM–10, and on October
comparison to the NAAQS; and the documents in the docket are listed in 30, 2006, EPA published this
exceedances were caused by an the index, some information may be determination in the Federal Register.
exceptional event. EPA is proposing to publicly available only at the hard copy 71 FR 63642. This determination was
concur with the Santa Rosa Rancheria location (e.g., copyrighted material), and based upon monitored air quality data
Tribe’s request to flag these exceedances some may not be publicly available in for the PM–10 NAAQS 1 during the
as due to an exceptional event. As a either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the years 2003–2005 and all available
result, EPA is proposing to affirm its hard copy materials, please schedule an quality-assured data through July 31,
determination that the SJV has attained appointment during normal business 2006. For a more detailed discussion of
the PM–10 standard based on EPA’s hours with the contact listed directly the related background for the SJV,
evaluation of quality-assured data below. please refer to the proposed and final
through December 2006. In addition to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
rules at 71 FR 40952 (July 19, 2006) and
providing the public with an Doris Lo, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 71 FR 63642. Shortly before EPA issued
opportunity to comment on EPA’s 3959, lo.doris@epa.gov. the determination of attainment, EPA
evaluation and proposed concurrence learned of preliminary data indicating
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
on flagged exceedances that occurred that exceedances had occurred on
Throughout this document, wherever
through the end of calendar year 2006, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 1 EPA’s final determination of attainment
EPA is in this proposed rule addressing EPA. addressed both the 24-hour and annual PM–10
issues raised in petitions for standards; however, on October 17, 2006, effective
reconsideration and withdrawal of Table of Contents on December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the annual
EPA’s 2006 determination of attainment, I. Background PM–10 standard. 71 FR 61144.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 165 / Monday, August 27, 2007 / Proposed Rules 49047
September 22, 2006, at several monitors, proceed with its determination of Since the October 2006 final
and that the State intended to flag 2 attainment at that time. EPA further determination of attainment, EPA has
them as caused by natural events and to indicated that once quality-assured data obtained information regarding the PM–
request that EPA concur with these were available EPA would review those 10 exceedances summarized in Table 1,
flags. EPA stated that because the data data and consider whether the which were recorded at various
were preliminary and because they may determination of attainment should be monitors within the boundaries of the
qualify as natural events, EPA would withdrawn. SJV:
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF EXCEEDANCES EVALUATED FOR TODAY’S PROPOSED RULE

Concentra-
Date of exceedance Monitor location (type(s)) tion
(µg/m3)
September 22, 2006 ................................... Corcoran (FRM, FEM)* .................................................................................................. 215, 261
Bakersfield-Golden (FRM, FEM) ................................................................................... 157, 170
Oildale (FRM) ................................................................................................................. 162
October 25, 2006 ....................................... Corcoran (FEM) ............................................................................................................. 304
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway (FEM) ..................................................................... 193
December 8, 2006 ...................................... Corcoran (FEM) ............................................................................................................. 162
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway (FEM) ..................................................................... 213
September 14, 2006 ................................... Santa Rosa Rancheria (FRM) ....................................................................................... 190
September 20, 2006 ................................... Santa Rosa Rancheria (FRM) ....................................................................................... 158
October 26, 2006 ....................................... Santa Rosa Rancheria (FRM) ....................................................................................... 157
* FRM = Federal Reference Method; FEM = Federal Equivalent Method.3
On April 24, 2007, the State September 22, October 25 and December attainment determination. We will also
submitted to EPA documentation 8, 2006 as being caused by exceptional publish our determination as to whether
supporting its claim that the September events, i.e., high winds, and thus to we will exclude the exceedances at the
22, 2006 exceedances were caused by exclude these data from use in Santa Rosa Rancheria as a result of the
high winds and wildfires. This determining PM–10 attainment for the monitor siting. EPA is not taking
submittal was supplemented with SJV. EPA is also proposing to exclude comment in these proposed actions on
additional documentation on July 10, exceedances recorded at the Santa Rosa any issues that were the subject of the
2007. On May 1, 2007, the State Rancheria, tribal lands within the SJV, 2006 attainment determination
submitted to EPA documentation on September 14, September 20 and rulemaking except to the extent that
supporting its claim that the October 25, October 26, 2006 from use in they affect EPA’s ability to determine
2006 exceedances were caused by high determining attainment for the SJV, on that the SJV continued to attain the PM–
winds. On June 12, 2007, the State two bases: (1) The exceedances occurred 10 standard through 2006.
submitted to EPA documentation while the monitor was operating in very In this proposed rule we are also
supporting its claim that the December close proximity to construction addressing relevant issues raised in the
8, 2006 exceedances were caused by activities and, as such, the monitor was petition for reconsideration and petition
high winds. The State believes that all not properly sited during that time for to withdraw the determination of
of these exceedances qualify as natural purposes of comparison to the NAAQS; attainment filed by the Latino Issues
events and that the data should thus be and (2) the exceedances were caused by Forum and others.
excluded from consideration in the an exceptional event, i.e., construction In our 2006 attainment determination
attainment determination. activity in very close proximity to the we stated that if, after the September 22,
On July 9, 2007, EPA met with a monitor. The Tribe has flagged those 2006 data were quality-assured, and
representative of the Santa Rosa exceedances, and EPA is proposing to after further evaluating the State’s
Rancheria EPA to discuss exceedances concur with those flags. request for exclusion of these data, we
recorded on September 14, September As a result, EPA is proposing to affirm determine that the data do not qualify
20 and October 26, 2006. The Tribe has its October 2006 attainment for exclusion and we believe that if
flagged these exceedances as being determination based on its evaluation of included that they would establish that
caused by an exceptional event related quality-assured data from September 14 the area is in violation of the NAAQS,
to construction activities and EPA has through December 31, 2006. After EPA would proceed with appropriate
compiled documentation to support that receiving and considering all relevant rulemaking action to withdraw its
claim. public comments on our proposed rule, determination of attainment. 71 FR
we will publish our final determination 63642. Both EPA’s natural/exceptional
II. EPA’s Proposed Actions as to whether we will concur with the events policies and its exceptional
In this proposed rule, EPA is State’s and Tribe’s requests to flag the events rule anticipate that the Agency
proposing to concur with the State’s exceedances discussed above as affected will concur or nonconcur on a state’s
request to flag exceedances of the PM– by exceptional events and to exclude request to exclude data by letter rather
10 standard within the SJV on them from consideration in our than rulemaking.
2 Once air quality data have been submitted to measurements for which special attention or follows the procedures detailed in the appendices
EPA, it is possible to ‘‘flag’’ specific values for handling is warranted. These include, but are not to 40 CFR part 50. A federal equivalent method
various purposes. ‘‘Data flagging’’ refers to the act limited to, those measurements that are influenced (FEM) is an air sampling collection and analysis
of making a notation in a designated field of an by exceptional events. See 71 FR 12592, 12598 method which does not follow the reference
electronic data record. The principal purpose of the (March 10, 2006). procedures in 40 CFR part 50, but has been certified
data flagging system in the Air Quality System 3 A federal reference method (FRM) is an air and designated by the EPA as obtaining
(AQS) data base is to identify those air quality sample collection and analysis method which ‘‘equivalent’’ results.
Generally we would initiate as amended by section 6013 of the Safe December 31, 2007 to complete the
rulemaking following an attainment Accountable Flexible Efficient- transition from the policies to the rule.
determination for an area only if we had Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for However, unless the state in the
preliminarily concluded that a Users (SAFE–TEA–LU) of 2005. In the circumstances described above,
withdrawal of that determination would rule, EPA establishes procedures and specifically requests that EPA evaluate a
be appropriate. That is not the case here. criteria related to the identification, natural or exceptional event
However, in this instance both because evaluation, interpretation, and use of air demonstration under the guidance
EPA had indicated in its final action quality monitoring data related to the documents, EPA will presume that the
that it would reassess the attainment ozone and particulate matter NAAQS rule applies.
determination once it had quality- where states petition EPA to exclude
Under 40 CFR 50.14(j), an
assured data for the September 22, 2006 data that are affected by exceptional
‘‘exceptional event,’’ with specified
exceedances and because of the issues events from certain regulatory actions
exceptions not relevant here, is defined
raised by the petitions pending before under the CAA. The rule is codified at
as one ‘‘that affects air quality, is not
the Agency and discussed below, we are 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14, and 51.920. 72 FR
reasonably controllable or preventable,
proposing to concur with the State’s and at 13580–13581.
In the preamble to the final rule, EPA is an event caused by human activity
Tribe’s requested flags and affirm our
also addresses its applicability to Indian that is unlikely to recur at a particular
2006 attainment determination via
Tribes. Where, as here, the Santa Rosa location or a natural event, and is
notice and comment rulemaking.
Because we generally make Rancheria Tribe operates an air quality determined by the Administrator in
determinations of attainment on a monitor only in order to gather data for accordance with 40 CFR 50.14
calendar year basis, our proposed rule informational purposes but does not [‘treatment of air quality monitoring
addresses quality assured exceedances implement other programs such as data influenced by exceptional events’]
from September 14 through December mitigating the effects of exceptional to be an exceptional event.’’ A ‘‘natural
31, 2006. Moreover the petitions address events, it is EPA’s responsibility to event’’ is defined as one ‘‘in which
exceedances within this timeframe. ensure that any exclusion or human activity plays little or no direct
discounting of data in Indian country causal role.’’ 40 CFR 50.14(k).4
III. Summary of Litigation and areas comports with the rule’s The rule establishes a multi-step
Administrative Proceedings procedures and requirements. EPA process for identification by states,
Earthjustice filed three petitions intends to work with tribes on the tribes and local agencies of data and
related to EPA’s determination of implementation of the rule. 72 FR at submission of the requisite
attainment for the SJV. On December 27, 13563. demonstrations to EPA. 72 FR at 13571.
2006, Earthjustice, on behalf of Latino In 1986 and 1996 EPA issued In short, a state must notify EPA of its
Issues Forum, Medical Advocates for guidance to address the use of data intent to exclude measured exceedances
Healthy Air and Sierra Club, filed in the influenced by exceptional and natural of a NAAQS as being due to an
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit events: ‘‘Guidance on the Identification exceptional event by ‘‘flagging’’ the data
a petition for review of EPA’s October and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by in EPA’s AQS database. 40 CFR
2006 determination under the Clean Air Exceptional Events’’ (July 1986) and 50.14(c)(2)(i). For PM–10, the state
Act that the SJV has attained the PM– ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 Natural should submit the flags, accompanied
10 standard. Latino Issues Forum v. Events,’’ May 30, 1996. CAA Section by an initial description of the event, by
EPA, No. 06–75831 (9th Cir.). On 319, as amended by SAFE–TEA–LU, July 1st of the calendar year following
December 29, 2006, Earthjustice also states that these guidance documents the year in which the flagged
filed with EPA a petition for continue to apply until the effective measurement occurred. 40 CFR
reconsideration of our attainment date of a final regulation promulgated 50.14(c)(2)(iii). A state that has flagged
determination. In the petition, under section 319(b)(2). See CAA data as being due to an exceptional
Earthjustice alleges, among other things, Section 319(b)(4). SAFE–TEA–LU did event and is requesting its exclusion
that EPA improperly ignored September not however address those situations must, after notice and opportunity for
22, 2006 PM–10 exceedances in the SJV where EPA had not made a public comment, submit a
that were not subject to public notice determination prior to the effective date demonstration that to EPA’s satisfaction
and comment. Finally, on March 21, of the rule whether an exceptional event shows that the flagged event caused a
2007, Earthjustice filed a petition for had occurred after a state had flagged specific concentration in excess of the
withdrawal of our attainment data and submitted a demonstration in NAAQS at the particular location to
determination. In this petition, a timely manner to show that such data justify data exclusion. This
Earthjustice alleges that the attainment reflected NAAQS exceedances that were demonstration must be submitted to
determination must be withdrawn caused by an exceptional event. In these EPA within 3 years of the calendar
because, among other things, the circumstances, EPA believes that in the quarter following the event, but no later
exceedances that occurred in September interests of equity and administrative than 12 months prior to an EPA
and October 2006 do not qualify as efficiency, a state seeking to exclude regulatory decision. A state must submit
exceptional events. EPA addresses data affected by exceptional events the public comments it received along
issues raised in both of these should, for a limited period of time, be with its demonstration to EPA. 40 CFR
administrative petitions in this able to choose to comply with either the 50.14(c)(3)(i).
proposed rule. provisions of the rule or those of the
guidance documents for a limited
IV. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule 4 In the preamble to the final rule, EPA discusses
period of time. This approach would specific types of natural events, including high
On March 22, 2007, EPA issued a have some advantages, such as allowing wind events (i.e., those that affect ambient
final rule governing the review and the state to avoid duplicating its particulate matter concentrations through the
handling of air quality data influenced demonstration process and completing raising of dust or through the re-entrainment of
material that has been deposited). See 72 FR at
by exceptional events. 72 FR 13560. The the decisionmaking process already 13565–13566 and 13576–13577. EPA’s
rule became effective on May 21, 2007 underway. EPA believes that it is interpretation of the rule with respect to high winds
and implements section 319 of the CAA, reasonable to use this approach until is addressed in section V. below.
In the preamble to the final rule, EPA evidence approach, that exceedances or procedural requirements and the
explained that it will generally review violations of applicable standards technical criteria for showing that the
the state’s demonstration and provide a would not have occurred ‘‘but for’’ the exceedances are exceptional. We will
concurrence or nonconcurrence on the influence of exceptional events. 40 CFR discuss whether the State’s submittal
flag in the AQS database within 60 days 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(D). 72 FR at 13570– and the exceedances at Santa Rosa
of the state’s complete submission. EPA 13571. Finally, states must demonstrate Rancheria meet each of these
expects that, in most cases, this time that they have provided an opportunity requirements and criteria separately. For
period should be sufficient to review for public comment and must submit each of the exceedances being discussed
and provide a concurrence or any public comments it received to in today’s proposal, EPA bases its
nonconcurrence regarding a state’s EPA. 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(i) and (iv). evaluation on the procedural
request to exclude data affected by an States, tribes, or local agencies must requirements and technical criteria and
exceptional event. However, for more also demonstrate that the claimed mitigation requirements of the
complex demonstrations, EPA may exceptional event meets the other Exceptional Events Rule, as discussed
require additional time to make its requirements of § 50.1(j)—that the event above and summarized below:
decision and will notify the state of the is not reasonably preventable or Procedural Requirements:
additional time required. 72 FR at controllable and that the event is either • Data are flagged in EPA’s AQS
13571. Upon its concurrence on a flag, caused by human activity that is database.
EPA will exclude the data from use in unlikely to recur at a particular location • Public had an opportunity to review
determinations of NAAQS exceedances or is a natural event. In this instance, and comment on the state’s
and violations. 40 CFR 50.14(b). the claimed events are high winds, i.e. documentation.
The requirements for the natural events, and construction, i.e., an • The documentation was submitted
demonstration to justify data exclusion event caused by human activity that is to EPA.
that the state must submit, in this unlikely to recur at the particular • EPA concurs with the state’s
instance, to EPA are set forth at 40 CFR location. demonstration.
50.14(a), (b)(1), and (c)(3)(iii). In order to In order to concur on a state’s request Technical Criteria:
be considered for exclusion, the state to exclude data, EPA must determine • The state must show that the event
must show that the event satisfies the that the state’s submission is complete satisfies the criteria in 40 CFR 50.1(j).5
criteria in section 50.1(j), there is a clear and demonstrates to EPA’s satisfaction • There is a clear causal connection
causal connection between the that the exceptional event caused the between the exceedance and the
exceedances and the claimed exceedances. Although states must meet claimed exceptional event.
exceptional event, the event is the minimum requirements (e.g. ‘‘but • The event is associated with
associated with measured concentration for’’ test), EPA did not specify a measured concentration in excess of
in excess of normal historical minimum level of documentation in the normal historical fluctuations including
fluctuations including background and rule because the facts and circumstances background.
there would have been no exceedance could vary depending on, among others, • There would have been no
‘‘but for’’ the event. 40 CFR meteorology, and geography. Instead, exceedances ‘‘but for’’ the event.
50.14(c)(iii)(A)–(D). EPA illustrated through examples the Mitigation Requirements:
One of the requirements of section kind of information that states could • Provide for prompt public
50.1(j) is that the exceptional event must consider in meeting the demonstration notification of exceedance events.
be shown to affect air quality, which is requirements of the rule. In describing • Provide for public education on
met by establishing that the event is the documentation process and how to minimize exposure.
associated with a measured exceedance requirement, EPA also stated that • Provide for the implementation of
in excess of normal historical acceptable documentation would be appropriate measures to protect the
fluctuations, including background. 40 determined through consultation with public.
CFR 50.14(c)(iii)(B). In addition, as the EPA regional offices. 72 FR at 13573.
noted above there must be a clear causal Finally, under 40 CFR 51.930, a state A. September 22, 2006 Exceedances at
relationship between the measurement requesting to exclude air quality data Corcoran, Bakersfield, and Oildale
under consideration and the event that due to exceptional events must take The 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS was
is claimed to have affected the air appropriate and reasonable actions, exceeded at three monitoring locations
quality in the area. 40 CFR including public notification, public on September 22, 2006: The Corcoran
50.14(c)(iii)(C). Air quality impact and education and implementation of monitoring site recorded concentrations
causal connection may be shown measures, to protect public health from of 215 µg/m3 and 261 µg/m3 with a FRM
through a number of methods including exceedances or violations of the sampler and a FEM automated
modeling and speciation analysis. EPA NAAQS. continuous analyzer,6 respectively; the
will evaluate whether an event affected
air quality and caused a particular V. EPA’s Evaluation of Flagged 5 Section 50.1(j) provides the regulatory definition
concentration using the weight of Exceedances of an exceptional event. ‘‘Exceptional event’’ means
The State and Tribe have not an event that affects air quality, is not reasonably
available evidence and considering the controllable or preventable, is an event caused by
historical frequency of such measured specifically requested that EPA evaluate human activity that is unlikely to recur at a
concentrations. States must compare the September 14 through December 31, particular location or a natural event, and is
contemporary concentrations with 2006 exceedances (which occurred determined by the Administrator in accordance
before the effective date of the with 40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. It
distribution of historical values and does not include stagnation of air masses or
Exceptional Events Rule) under EPA’s
these may be presented on a seasonal or meteorological inversions, a meteorological event

other temporal basis. 40 CFR 50.14(a)(2) natural events policy or exceptional involving high temperatures or lack of
and (c)(3)(iii)(A) and (C); 72 FR at events policy. Therefore we are precipitation, or air pollution relating to source
evaluating the State’s submittals and the noncompliance.
13569. 6 The FEM monitor currently operated at the
Also, air quality data may not be Santa Rosa Rancheria exceedances Corcoran site is an automated continuous analyzer
excluded except where states, tribes, or under the Exceptional Events Rule to known as a Tapered Element Oscillating
local agencies show, through a weight of determine whether they meet both the Microbalance (TEOM).
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway Station.8 EPA finds that the submitted to the California Air
monitoring site recorded concentrations documentation lacks data linking the Resources Board (CARB) ‘‘Natural Event
of 157 µg/m3 and 170 µg/m3 with its fires to the concentrations given the Documentation, Corcoran, Oildale and
FRM sampler and FEM (TEOM) distance of the fires and the lack of Bakersfield, California, September 22,
analyzers, respectively; and the Oildale corroborating speciation data and 2006,’’ SJV Unified Air Pollution
monitoring site recorded a satellite photographs of the smoke, and Control District, April 20, 2007 (NED for
concentration of 162 µg/m3 with its newspaper reports do not rise above September 22, 2006) and posted it on its
FRM sampler. general or anecdotal evidence to Web site.
The State concludes that three sources establish a clear causal relationship SJVAPCD thereafter provided
of PM–10 contributed to exceedances of between the exceedances on September additional information to CARB in
the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS on this day: 22, 2006 and the emissions from ‘‘Addendum, Natural Event
Wind-entrained dust from sources in the wildfires. Documentation, Corcoran, Oildale and
central and southern SJV, which is Similarly, EPA believes that the Bakersfield, California, September 22,
identified as the primary source of PM– State’s documentation that regional 2006,’’ SJV Unified Air Pollution
10; wind-entrained dust from regional sources of entrained dust impacted Control District, May 23, 2007 (NED
sources from the northern SJV; and monitors in the Corcoran and Addendum for September 22, 2006) and
emissions related to several wildfires Bakersfield areas does not show a clear posted it on its Web site.
which are identified as secondary causal relationship between the
exceedances and regional transport of The District indicated that no public
sources of PM–10.7 Based on the comments were received during the
evidence submitted, EPA agrees with PM–10 from the northern SJV. EPA
bases this conclusion on its review of public process.
the State’s demonstration that high
wind-entrained dust from sources in the the documentation which indicates that c. The Documentation Was Submitted to
central and southern SJV caused the while there were high hourly averaged EPA
exceedances at the three monitoring winds and gusts in the northern central
valley of California, the State did not The NED for September 22, 2006 and
locations on September 22, 2006. the NED Addendum for September 22,
We do not however agree with the present any facts, corroborating
evidence or any convincing argument to 2006 were subsequently submitted by
State that emissions from wildfires or
demonstrate how PM–10 from this area the State to EPA on April 24, 2007 and
regionally transported dust from the
could have reached the southern SJV in July 10, 2007, respectively, and are the
northern SJV were significant
concentrations sufficient to contribute documents upon which EPA is basing
contributors.
to an exceedance of the 24-hour PM–10 its evaluation below.
After evaluating the State’s
demonstration under the technical NAAQS. d. EPA Concurs With the State’s
criteria established in the Exceptional Because EPA does not agree with the Demonstration
Events Rule, EPA finds that for the State’s conclusions with respect to
Corcoran, Bakersfield and Oildale areas, regional transport of PM–10 from the In this proposed rule, EPA is
the State does not demonstrate that northern SJV and with respect to proposing to concur with the State’s
emissions from wildfires had a wildfires, in the following discussion demonstration in the NED for
significant impact on the PM–10 regarding the September 22, 2006 September 22, 2006 and the NED
concentrations recorded on September exceedances we refer only to the State’s Addendum for September 22, 2006 that
22, 2006. None of the fires cited in the conclusion that these exceedances were high wind-entrained dust from the
documentation was within the caused by wind-entrained dust from central and southern SJV caused the
boundaries of the SJV. Further, an sources in the central and southern SJV. exceedances at the three monitoring
independent review of PM–2.5 locations on September 22, 2006.
1. Procedural Requirements
speciation data collected at Bakersfield 2. Technical Criteria
and Fresno on the days preceding and a. Data Are Flagged in EPA’s AQS
Database a. Did this event satisfy the criteria in
after September 22 shows no unusual
All of the September 22, 2006 section 50.1(j) of the Rule?
concentrations of carbon. See http://
www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/htmSQL/ exceedances were flagged in EPA’s AQS The State needs to show that the
mxplorer/query_spe.hsql. If the fires had database as of July 2007. September 22, 2006 event, wind-
had a significant effect on PM–10 b. Public Had an Opportunity To entrained dust from sources in the
concentrations, there would have been Review and Comment on the State’s central and southern SJV, affected air
evidence of increased carbon (one of the Documentation quality in the Corcoran and Bakersfield
chemical constituents of wood smoke) areas,9 was not reasonably controllable
in the speciation data. The In February 2007, the SJV Air or preventable, was a natural event, and
documentation submitted by the State Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or is determined by EPA through the
includes mostly anecdotal evidence of District) notified the public in local process established in the Rule to be an
the wildfires’ impact and satellite newspapers and on its Web site of the exceptional event. We believe the State
photographs showing smoke over parts availability of the document entitled has supported its claims that wind-
of California. The anecdotal evidence ‘‘Natural Event Documentation, High driven dust from sources of PM–10 in
consists of newspaper reports of Winds, Corcoran and Bakersfield, the central and southern SJV was the
reduced visibility due to smoke and the California, September 22, 2006,’’ SJV cause of the September 22, 2006
odor of wood smoke, as well as Unified Air Pollution Control District, exceedances, as discussed in detail
observations from trained weather February 2007 and requested public below.
observers at Lemoore Naval Air comments by March 5, 2007.
The SJVAPCD subsequently revised 9 The Bakersfield-Golden State Highway and
7 ‘‘NaturalEvent Documentation, Corcoran, the February 2007 document and Oildale monitors are approximately 3.5 miles apart.
Oildale, and Bakersfield, California, September 22, For the purposes of this discussion, the analysis for
2006’’, April 20, 2007 (NED for September 22, 2006) 8 NED for September 22, 2006 at 11, Table 3, 14 the Bakersfield-Golden State Highway and Oildale
at 10. and 37–44. monitors is the same.
i. Affected Air Quality iii. Was a Natural Event 3 of the State’s submittal indicates the
In the preamble to the Exceptional winds at Corcoran at 10 a.m. were 9
For an event to qualify as an mph with gusts to 12 mph.16 These
exceptional event, the state must show Events Rule EPA states that ambient
particulate matter concentrations due to wind speeds, though not sufficient to
that the event affected air quality. This erode dust, were sufficient to keep the
dust being raised by unusually high
criterion can be met by establishing that entrained and transported dust from the
winds will be treated as due to
the event is associated with a measured high winds at Lemoore suspended for
uncontrollable natural events where (1)
exceedance in excess of normal the period during which the
the dust originated from
historical fluctuations, including exceedances occurred.
nonanthropogenic sources, or (2) the
background, and there is a causal
dust originated from anthropogenic iv. Determined by EPA To Be an
connection between the event and the
sources within the State, that are Exceptional Event
exceedance. The demonstration of a determined to have been reasonably
clear causal relationship is necessary to well-controlled at the time that the Finally, EPA must determine through
establish that the event affected air event occurred, or from anthropogenic the process established in the
quality and is also a separate statutory sources outside the State. 72 FR at Exceptional Events Rule whether an
requirement as discussed above. 13576. In the preamble EPA also exceptional event occurred. We believe
In the NED for September 22, 2006 explains that ‘‘[s]tates must provide that the State has met the procedural
and the NED Addendum for September appropriate documentation to requirements of the rule including
22, 2006, the State provides substantiate why the level of wind flagging of the data, submission of
documentation that the measured speed associated with the event in demonstration, evidence of the public
exceedances on September 22, 2006 question should be considered unusual opportunity to review and comment on
were in excess of normal historical for the affected area during the time of the demonstration and mitigation
fluctuations. See subsection c. below. year that the event occurred.’’ Id. at requirements as discussed in section
The State also establishes a causal 13566. V.A.1. and 3. of this proposed rule. We
connection between the high winds On September 22, 2006, the wind- further believe that the State has also
recorded at Lemoore and the high entrained dust originated from met the technical criteria in the
concentrations recorded at the Corcoran, anthropogenic sources within Exceptional Events Rule as discussed in
Bakersfield, and Oildale monitors. The California, i.e., from usual dust- section V.A.2. Therefore, we are
State’s demonstration of the clear causal generating activities such as agricultural proposing to concur with the State’s
relationship between the event and the and industrial operations.12 We discuss determination that an exceptional event,
exceedances on this day is discussed in the fugitive dust control measures in i.e., a high wind event, occurred
greater detail in subsection b. below. place in the SJV on September 22 above. resulting in the exceedances on
With respect to the wind speed, EPA September 22, 2006.17
ii. Not Reasonably Controllable or concurs with the State’s demonstration
Preventable that the wind speeds in the central SJV b. Does the State’s documentation show
were unusually high on September 22, a clear causal connection between the
Section 50.1(j) of the Exceptional 2006.13 Meteorological data show that exceedances and the claimed
Events Rule requires that for an event to the winds at Lemoore reached speeds of exceptional event?
qualify as an exceptional event, whether 29 mph with gusts of approximately 40
natural or anthropogenic, a state must Under 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(B), a
mph. According to the State, the state’s demonstration must establish a
show that the event was not reasonably Department of Water Resources’ extreme
preventable or controllable. Here this clear causal relationship between the
annual wind statistics indicate that the measured exceedance and the claimed
requirement is met by demonstrating mean annual peak gust for Lemoore is
that despite reasonable and appropriate exceptional event. In addressing this
42 mph.14 Thus wind gusts observed at requirement for the September 22, 2006
measures in place, the September 22, Lemoore were unusually high because
2006 wind event caused the exceedances, the State identifies a
they are close to the typical highest source region for the PM–10, an area
exceedances. During this event there annual value of 42 mph. The State also
were no other unusual dust-producing northwest of Corcoran around the area
provides documentation that shows that of Lemoore. The State provides a
activities occurring in the SJV and winds of approximately 18 mph will
anthropogenic emissions were convincing demonstration showing that
entrain and transport dust.15 Winds the winds in the area of the central SJV
approximately constant before, during greater than this speed occurred at
and after the event. In addition, the were of sufficient speeds to erode soils
Lemoore and Kettleman Hills, and were and entrain dust and that the wind
State shows that reasonable and responsible for transporting this
appropriate measures were in place, direction moved the PM–10 southeast
entrained dust. Meteorological data towards Corcoran and further to the
including Regulation VIII (the District’s indicate that the wind direction was
general fugitive dust rules) and Rule Bakersfield area.
from the north and northwest and hence
4550 which limits fugitive dust the entrained dust at that wind speed Meteorological measurements in
emissions specifically from agricultural was transported towards Corcoran. Lemoore show that this area had the
operations through Conservation Winds at Corcoran were not as intense highest hourly averaged winds in the
Management Practices.10 Moreover, EPA during the peak hours at Lemoore. Table SJV that day, peaking at 10 a.m. with a
has approved the District’s best speed of 29 mph from the NNW and
available control measure (BACM) 12 NED for September 22, 2006 at 32–33. gusts at the same time reaching 37
demonstration for all significant sources 13 NED for September 22, 2006 at 29; NED
of PM–10 in the SJV as meeting CAA Addendum for September 22, 2006 at section 4. 16 NED Addendum for September 22, 2006 at 11,
section 189(b)(1)(B).11
14 NED for September 22, 2006 at 29. Table 3.
15 NED for September 22, 2006 at 13; David Bush, 17 Generally EPA concurs or nonconcurs by letter
T&B Systems Contribution to CRPAQS Initial Data with requests to flag data as caused by exceptional
10 NED for September 22, 2006 at 32. Analysis of Field Program Measurements, Final events. See our explanation in section II. above
11 69FR 30006, 30035 (May 26, 2004); 71 FR 7683 Report Contract 2002–06PM Technical & Business regarding why we are proceeding by a rulemaking
(February 14, 2006). Systems, Inc., November 9, 2004 (Bush Report). here.
mph.18 Lemoore is approximately 25 winds were also consistently from the hourly PM–10 concentrations recorded
miles northwest of Corcoran. northwest, which demonstrates that the in the Bakersfield area.29
Meteorological measurements were also coarse particles which impacted The State also includes the results of
obtained from a site at Kettleman Hills, Corcoran originated in the areas a basic meteorological model known as
which showed a peak hourly wind at 11 northwest of the monitor, e.g. Lemoore Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian
am of 20 mph from the NNW with gusts where the winds were unusually high. Integrated Trajectory model
up to 32 mph.19 Kettleman Hills is Using the threshold wind speed in the (HYSPLIT).30 It is important to note that
approximately 28 miles west of 2002 CRPAQS study, the State shows while this modeling is not meant to
Corcoran. The wind speed, direction, that most of the PM–10 was generated quantify the particle concentration
time and distance from monitors upwind of the Corcoran site and then recorded in the Bakersfield area, it does
indicate that the high winds at Lemoore transported to the Corcoran area.25 offer support of the State’s
entrained the dust carrying it toward Based on available data, wind speeds at demonstration that the winds on
Corcoran.20 The State cites a 2002 Corcoran were not high enough to September 22, 2006 were of the
California Regional PM–10/PM–2.5 Air generate dust on their own but were appropriate intensity and direction to
Quality Study (2002 CRPAQS study) high enough to sustain the entrainment move a plume of dust from the central
that established a dust-generating wind of PM–10 from upwind areas. SJV to the Bakersfield area.
speed threshold of 17.8 mph to support The wind-driven dust from sources in c. Did the State demonstrate that the
its conclusion that these wind speeds the central and southern SJV, beginning event is associated with measured
were sufficient to erode soils and in Lemoore, also impacted the concentration in excess of normal
entrain dust into the atmosphere as well Bakersfield area on September 22, 2006. historical fluctuations including
as to exacerbate the entrainment of dust The State provides the analysis and background?
from the anthropogenic activities.21 supporting information needed to
At about 9:30 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. the For EPA to concur with a state’s claim
demonstrate that the winds between the
District received complaints about dust that an exceptional event caused an
Corcoran and Bakersfield areas were of
emissions in Lemoore.22 This was at the exceedance, one of the requirements
sufficient intensity to transport the
time of peak winds in Lemoore. The that the state must meet is to show that
plume of PM–10 from Corcoran to the
District followed up on the complaints the event is associated with
Bakersfield and Oildale monitors. The
but did not issue notices of violation. concentrations that are beyond the
Bakersfield area monitors began to
The State indicates that there were PM– normal historical fluctuations. See 40
record hourly concentrations in excess
10 generating activities in the area of CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(C).
of the level of the 24-hour PM–10
Lemoore on the morning of September The NED for September 22, 2006 and
NAAQS two hours after the peak
22, 2006 but that these activities were NED Addendum for September 22, 2006
Corcoran hourly PM–10 concentration,
typical for the area and subject to the include sections that show the
with the Bakersfield hourly PM–10
District’s fugitive dust regulations.23 unusualness of the concentrations
concentrations peaking five hours after
The State shows a clear relationship recorded on that date. Section 4 of the
the Corcoran peak hourly PM–10
between the wind speeds at Lemoore Addendum includes Figure A–5 that
concentration. In order to transport a
and Kettleman Hills and increased compares the peak 24-hour PM–10
plume of dust from Corcoran to the
concentrations at the Corcoran concentrations recorded at Corcoran,
Bakersfield area, approximately 55
monitoring site. The documentation Bakersfield and Oildale during the
miles, wind speeds would have to
clearly shows that as hourly average month of September for the years 2000
average approximately 11 mph in order
wind speeds increased at the three through 2006.31
for the maximum amount of PM–10 to
meteorological sites, hourly The FRM monitor at the Corcoran site
impact the Bakersfield area monitors
concentrations at Corcoran also has mostly operated on a once-in-every-
five hours later.26 The winds at
increased. The peak hourly three-days schedule since 2000.32 The
Alpaugh, which is located between
concentrations at Corcoran were at 10 Corcoran FRM has collected 786
Corcoran and Bakersfield, averaged 11
a.m. and 11 a.m. (725 µg/m3 and 695 µg/ samples since 2000 and has recorded
mph.27 As would be expected, the
m3, respectively).24 These only four exceedances of the 24-hour
concentration of PM–10 in the
concentrations coincide with the PM–10 NAAQS.33 A further analysis
Bakersfield area was lower than in
highest winds at Lemoore and shows that, with the exception of a
Corcoran, but still significant enough to
Kettleman Hills. flagged natural event in 2004, 24-hour
exceed the NAAQS. The lower PM–10
The winds at Corcoran showed the
concentrations at Bakersfield are likely
same pattern of increasing wind speeds 29 The Oildale monitoring site does not record
due to the dispersion of the dust plume hourly PM–10 concentrations but uses a manual
but at a lower intensity. Hourly average
and possibly deposition of a portion of PM–10 sampler that provides only 24-hour average
winds at Corcoran peaked at 8 a.m. at concentrations. The Bakersfield-Golden State
the dust particles along the path from
11 mph with a peak average minute gust Highway monitoring site utilizes both a manual
the Corcoran area to Bakersfield.
of 15 mph. While these wind speeds sampler for average 24-hour PM–10 concentrations
were not high enough to erode and The State’s demonstration for and a continuous PM–10 analyzer to provide hourly
September 22, 2006 includes concentrations. Since the Bakersfield-Golden State
entrain soil, based on the wind speed Highway site and the Oildale site are relatively
threshold referenced above, they were information on wind speed and close to each other (see footnote 9 above), we
sufficient to keep the coarse particles direction 28 that shows the correlation believe it is appropriate to use the Bakersfield-
suspended in the atmosphere. The between the hourly wind speeds at Golden State Highway continuous analyzer to
meteorological sites in Alpaugh and characterize the temporal distribution of hourly
concentrations at both sites.

18 NED for September 22, 2006 at 11, Table 3. Bakersfield-Meadows Airfield and the 30 NED Addendum for September 22, 2006 at 10.
19 Id.
31 NED Addendum for September 22, 2006 at 14.
20 Id. 25 Id. at 13; Bush Report. 32 From September 1, 2000 to March 22, 2001 the
21 Id. at 13; Bush Report. 26 NED Addendum for September 22, 2006 at 7. Corcoran monitor operated on a once-in-every-six-
22 NED for September 22, 2006 at 33, Table 15. 27 Id. at 8, Table A–1. days schedule.
23 Id. at 5 and 32–33. 28 NED Addendum for September 22, 2006 at 8, 33 PM–10 Raw Data Report Corcoran 2000–2006,
24 Id. at 11, Table 3. Table A–1. EPA AQS Database, July 30, 2007.
PM–10 concentrations exceeded a level estimate of the estimated air quality for September 22 are consistent with the
of 100 µg/m3 only three times during the impact from the event. 72 FR at 13570. aforementioned historical September
month of September for a seven year To meet this ‘‘but for’’ criterion, the levels which rarely exceeded 100 µg/m3,
period, i.e, when we look at the 59 State first shows that there were no showing that very few days in
samples collected during the September unusual activities occurring in the Bakersfield and Corcoran over the
for the past seven years, a concentration affected areas in the Valley on period 2000–2006 exceeded the level of
greater than 100 µg/m3 occurred only September 22, 2006 that could have 100 µg/m3.
five percent of the time.34 Exceedances resulted in the exceedances. In addition, the NED for September
of the NAAQS have occurred twice in Specifically, based on information from 22, 2006 includes Table 2 that lists the
September, which is less than four District field staff and discussions with PM–10 24-hour average concentrations
percent of the days sampled. representatives of agricultural and recorded using continuous analyzers for
Comparisons for the month of industrial operations in the Valley, the days immediately preceding and
September are more relevant than for anthropogenic emissions were after September 22, 2006.42 This table
the entire year because September has approximately constant in the Valley indicates that 24-hour average PM–10
the highest concentration of dust but immediately before, during and after the concentrations at Corcoran were over
does not typically have the highest PM– event. The State indicates that there 100% higher on September 22 as
10 concentrations, which occur in the were PM–10 generating activities, such compared to September 20, 21, 23, and
winter season. Dust is typically less as agricultural and construction 24. At Bakersfield, concentrations on
than 50% of the PM–10 during operations, in the area of Lemoore on September 22 were over 100% higher
September.35 During the winter season the morning of September 22, 2006. than on September 20 and September 24
nitrates are the largest contributor, These types of activities are typical for and 86% higher than on September 21.
particularly in the southern part of the the area.38 Compared to September 23 the increase
central valley. The State next indicates that the was 14%.
For Bakersfield, which utilizes a FRM greatest fraction of PM–10 at the Finally, as discussed above, there
operating on a once-in-every-six-days Corcoran and Bakersfield sites on were reasonable and appropriate
schedule, 413 samples were collected September 22 consisted of particles in measures in place to control PM–10 in
since the year 2000. During this time the the size fraction between PM–10 and the SJV on September 22, 2006,
NAAQS was exceeded three times. PM–2.5.39 This information indicates Regulation VIII and Rule 4550.43
Again, when we look at data collected that geologic dust, as opposed to Moreover, EPA has approved the
during the September months from 2000 secondary PM or PM from combustion District’s BACM demonstration for all
to 2006, only one day out of 33 days sources, was the primary contributor to significant sources of PM–10 in the SJV
sampled recorded a level greater than the exceedances. The fraction of coarse as meeting CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).44
100 µg/m3 (128 µg/m3 on September 18, particles at Corcoran and Bakersfield on Furthermore, District staff performed 46
2003), three percent of the time.36 September 22 was 89% and 79% inspections in the Valley on September
respectively.40 These values must be 22 to ensure that regulated sources were
For Oildale, also operating a FRM on
a once-every-six-days schedule, 432 compared to the typical geologic values complying with the District’s fugitive
samples were collected from 2000 to for the Valley during September of dust rules.45 The District’s Natural
2006. The PM–10 NAAQS was exceeded approximately 30 µg/m3 which are less Events Action Plan, discussed below,
once during this seven-year period. than 50% of the measured PM–10.41 also addresses the reasonable and
During the September months, only one Based on the reported 89% value, the appropriate measures that the District
day out of 35 days sampled recorded a estimated geologic material for Corcoran has implemented to address high wind
level greater than 100 µg/m3 (111 µg/m3 was approximately 190 to 230 µg/m3 for events in the SJV.
on September 14, 2006), less than three September 22, 2006. The corresponding Based on the weight of evidence
percent of the time.37 values for Bakersfield were 123–134 µg/ presented, EPA concludes that the
m3. Compared to the typical September State’s documentation demonstrates that
d. Did the State demonstrate that there value of approximately 30 µg/m3, the the exceedances at Corcoran, and
would have been no exceedance ‘‘but September 22, 2006 values represent an Bakersfield and Oildale on September
for’’ the event? excess geologic contribution of 22, 2006 would not have occurred but
As discussed above, to qualify as an approximately 160 to 200 µg/m3 for for the wind event on this day.
exceptional event the state must also Corcoran and approximately 94 to 104
for Bakersfield. If the typical value of 30 3. Mitigation Requirements
demonstrate that there would have been
no exceedance ‘‘but for’’ the event. 40 µg/m3 were used instead of the high Under 40 CFR 51.930, a state
CFR 50.14 (c)(3)(iii)(D). To meet this estimated geologic values derived from requesting to exclude air quality data
‘‘but for’’ criterion, states must include the PM–10–2.5 size fraction, the due to exceptional events must take
analyses to demonstrate that an resulting ‘‘adjusted’’ PM–10 values for appropriate and reasonable actions,
exceedance or violation would not have Corcoran and Bakersfield would be 50– including public notification, public
occurred but for the event. Such 65 µg/m3. This result favorably education, and implementation of
analyses do not require a precise compares to the typical average measures, to protect public health from
September concentration of less than 60 exceedances or violations of the
34 138 µg/m3 on September 9, 2004, a 102 µg/m3 µg/m3. Allowing for a PM–10 geologic NAAQS.
on September 24, 2004 and a 112 µg/m3 on value of 60 µg/m3, which is twice the The SJVAPCD adopted the ‘‘Natural
September 23, 2006; See Id. September norm, would only yield an Events Action Plan for High Wind
35 ‘‘What are the Sources of Particulate Matter’’,

‘‘adjusted’’ concentration of 84 to 96 µg/ Events in the San Joaquin Valley Air
Presentation by Karen L. Magliano, California Air
Resources Board, May 17, 2006 (Magliano
m3. All of these sets of adjusted values
42 NED for September 22, 2006 at 9.
Presentation).
38 NED for September 22, 2006 at 32–33. 43 Id.
36 PM–10 Raw Data Report Bakersfield Golden at 32.
39 Id. at 32, Figure 13.
2000–2006, EPA AQS Database, July 30, 2007. 44 69 FR 30006, 30035 (May 26, 2004); 71 FR 7683
37 PM–10 Raw Data Report Oildale 2000–2006, 40 Id. (February 14, 2006).
EPA AQS Database, July 26, 2007. 41 Magliano Presentation. 45 NED for September 22, 2006 at 45–46.
Basin’’ (NEAP) on February 16, 2006. demonstration to show that these high b. Public Had an Opportunity To
The NEAP provides the SJVAPCD’s winds generated and transported PM–10 Review and Comment on the State’s
approach to forecasting high wind from the area of Lemoore to Corcoran, Documentation
events, notifying the public prior to the causing an exceedance of the 24-hour In February 2007, the SJVAPCD
event and educating the public on how PM–10 NAAQS. Winds between notified the public in local newspapers
to minimize exposure during high wind Corcoran and the Bakersfield area were and on its Web site of the availability of
events. The document also discusses sufficient to transport the dust that the document entitled ‘‘Natural Event
measures that are in place to help originated in the Lemoore area such that Documentation, High Winds, Corcoran
minimize exposure to elevated PM–10 they caused the monitors at Bakersfield- and Bakersfield, California, October 25,
levels. EPA believes that the detailed Golden State Highway and Oildale to 2006,’’ SJV Unified Air Pollution
processes and measures described in the also exceed the NAAQS. The Control District, February 2007 and
NEAP satisfy the mitigation documentation submitted by the State requested public comments by March 5,
requirements under 40 CFR 51.930. 2007.
demonstrates that but for the high winds
a. Provide for Prompt Public in the area of Lemoore, the Corcoran, The SJVAPCD subsequently revised
Notification of Exceedance Events Bakersfield and Oildale monitors would the February 2007 document and
not have exceeded the 24-hour PM–10 submitted to CARB the ‘‘Natural Event
Section 6 of the NEAP provides the Documentation, Corcoran and
meteorological forecasting criteria that NAAQS on September 22, 2006.
Bakersfield, California, October 25,
the SJVAPCD uses to determine whether Because EPA believes that the State has
2006,’’ San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
or not to declare NEAP episodes. When satisfied the provisions of the Pollution Control District, April 23,
the criteria indicate that a NEAP Exceptional Events Rule, EPA proposes 2007 (NED for October 25, 2006), and
episode should be declared, the to concur with the State’s request to flag posted it on its Web site.
SJVAPCD has a public notification these exceedances as being due to The SJVAPCD indicated that no
program, discussed in Section 7 of the exceptional events and to exclude the public comments were received during
NEAP, which involves informing the data from consideration in determining its public process.
local media, SJVAPCD staff and whether the area has attained the PM–
community groups. 10 standard. c. The Documentation Was Submitted to
Epa
b. Provide for Public Education on How B. October 25, 2006 Exceedances at
To Minimize Exposure The NED for October 25, 2006 was
Corcoran and Bakersfield submitted by the State to EPA on May
Section 7 of the NEAP provides a list 1, 2007 and is the document upon
of precautions that can be taken to limit On October 25, 2006, the SJV
which EPA is basing its evaluation
exposure during a NEAP episode. The recorded exceedances of the 24-hour
below.
list includes keeping windows shut, PM–10 NAAQS at two sites, Corcoran
using air conditioners or heaters on the and Bakersfield-Golden State Highway, d. EPA Concurs With the State’s
recycle/recirculating air mode, limiting using continuous PM–10 analyzers Demonstration
strenuous activity, and other designated as FEM monitors.46 The 24- In this proposed rule, EPA is
precautions. Section 8 of the NEAP hour average concentrations recorded proposing to concur with the State’s
discusses the SJVAPCD’s general public were 304 µg/m3 at Corcoran and 193 µg/ demonstration in the NED for October
outreach program on NEAP episodes m3 at Bakersfield-Golden State 25, 2006 that high wind-entrained dust
which includes developing and Highway. The conditions that caused the exceedances at the two
providing a brochure and information contributed to these exceedances were monitoring sites.
about NEAP episodes by means of very similar to those that occurred on
community events, health fairs, schools 2. Technical Criteria
September 22, 2006. Based on the
and civic engagements. evidence submitted, EPA agrees with a. Did this event satisfy the criteria in
the State’s demonstration that high section 50.1(j) of the Rule?
c. Provide for the Implementation of
Appropriate Measures To Protect the wind-entrained dust from the central i. Affected Air Quality
Public and southern SJV caused the For an event to qualify as an
Section 10 of the NEAP discusses the exceedances at the two monitoring exceptional event, the state must show
SJVAPCD’s measures that reduce PM–10 locations on October 25, 2006. that the event affected air quality. This
emissions. These measures, including 1. Procedural Requirements criterion can be met by establishing that
those approved by EPA as BACM for the the event is associated with a measured
SJV, in combination with the a. Data Are Flagged in EPA’s AQS exceedance in excess of normal
SJVAPCD’s process for declaring NEAP Database historical fluctuations, including
episodes and educating the public on background, and there is a causal
The October 25, 2006 exceedances connection between the event and the
how to minimize their exposure during
were flagged in EPA’s AQS database as exceedance. The demonstration of a
a NEAP episode, meet the requirements
for appropriate measures to protect the of July 2007. clear causal relationship is necessary to
public during high wind exceptional establish that the event affected air
events. 46 The District operates Tapered Element quality and is also a separate statutory
Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM) continuous requirement as discussed above.
Conclusion automated analyzers at these two sites in addition In the NED for October 25, 2006, the
EPA believes that the high winds in to the manual high-volume Federal Reference State provides documentation that the
Method (FRM) monitors. The FRMs operate at a less
the area of Lemoore on September 22, measured exceedances recorded on
than everyday schedule, as allowed by EPA
2006 were an exceptional event as regulations, but neither of the FRM monitors was October 25, 2006 were in excess of
defined in 40 CFR 50.1(j). EPA also operating on October 25, 2006. The District operates normal historical fluctuations. See
believes that the State has provided a the continuous analyzers so that they may report subsection c. below. The State also
sufficient weight of evidence daily PM–10 air quality data to the public. establishes a causal connection between
the high winds recorded at Lemoore and usual dust-generating activities such as V.B.1. and 3. of this proposed rule. We
the high concentrations at the monitors agricultural and industrial operations.49 further believe that the State has also
recorded at Corcoran and Bakersfield. We discuss the fugitive dust control met the technical criteria of the Rule as
The State’s demonstration of the clear measures in place in the SJV on October discussed at section V.B.2. of this
causal relationship between the 25 above. proposed rule. Therefore we are
exceptional event and the exceedances With respect to the wind speed, EPA proposing to concur with the State’s
on this day is discussed in greater detail concurs with the State’s demonstration determination that an exceptional event,
in subsection b. below. that the wind speeds in the central SJV i.e., a high wind event, occurred
were unusually high on October 25, resulting in the exceedances on October
ii. Not Reasonably Controllable or
2006.50 Table 1 of the NED for October 25, 2006.
Preventable
25, 2006 lists the wind speeds in the
Section 50.1(j) requires that for an b. Does the State’s documentation show
Hanford and Lemoore areas. The peak
event to qualify as an exceptional event, a clear causal connection between the
hourly averaged winds were in the exceedances and the claimed
whether natural or anthropogenic, a range of 29 to 31 mph at Lemoore, with
state must show that the event was not exceptional event?
gusts reaching 40 mph. Peak hourly
reasonably preventable or controllable. winds at Hanford were lower, in the Under 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(B), a
Here this requirement is met by range of 17 to 18 mph, but still in line state’s demonstration must establish a
demonstrating that despite reasonable with the threshold wind speed of 17.8 clear causal relationship between the
and appropriate measures in place, the mph. Hanford also recorded peak gusts measured exceedances and the claimed
October 25, 2006 wind event caused the of 22 to 30 mph during the 10 a.m. to exceptional event. In addressing this
exceedances. During this event, there 12 noon period.51 Tables 8, 9, and 11 of requirement for the October 25, 2006
were no other unusual dust-producing the NED for October 25, 2006 also exceedances, the NED for October 25,
activities occurring in the SJV and include information on wind speeds 2006 submitted by the State identifies
anthropogenic emissions were throughout the central valley of the area northwest of Corcoran as the
approximately constant before, during California and the central and southern source of PM–10 during the October 25,
and after the event. In addition, the SJV.52 The documentation also states 2006 event. Winds in the Lemoore area
State showed that reasonable and that wind speeds of these intensities are were again in excess of the threshold
appropriate measures were in place, relatively rare in the southwestern part wind speed for eroding and entraining
including Regulation VIII (the District’s of the SJV and occur less than 5% of the dust as discussed above. Table 1 of the
general fugitive dust rules) and Rule time, based on long-term monitoring NED for October 25, 2006 shows a clear
4550 which limits fugitive dust records.53 correlation between the wind speeds in
emissions specifically from agricultural EPA concurs with the State’s the Hanford and Lemoore areas and the
operations through Conservation demonstration in the NED for October increased hourly concentrations at
Management Practices.47 Moreover, EPA 25, 2006 that the wind speeds occurring Corcoran.54 In fact the peak wind speeds
has approved the District’s BACM in the central SJV were unusually high at Lemoore and Hanford, which
demonstration for all significant sources on October 25, 2006. While the winds occurred between 10 a.m. and 12 noon
of PM–10 in the SJV as meeting CAA at Corcoran were not as high as those in at Lemoore, coincide with the peak
section 189(b)(1)(B).48 Lemoore and Hanford, as described in hourly concentrations at Corcoran. The
the State’s documentation, the winds at peak hourly averaged winds were in the
iii. Was a Natural Event range of 29 to 31 mph at Lemoore, with
Corcoran during the peak hourly PM–10
In the preamble to the Exceptional concentrations (8 a.m. to 11 a.m.) ranged gusts reaching 40 mph. Peak hourly
Events Rule, EPA states that ambient from 10 to 13 mph, which are unusual winds at Hanford were lower, in the
particulate matter concentrations due to for this time of year in that area. These range of 17 to 18 mph, but still in line
dust being raised by unusually high wind speeds, though not sufficient to with the threshold wind speed of 17.8
winds will be treated as due to erode dust, were sufficient to keep the mph. Hanford also recorded peak gusts
uncontrollable natural events where (1) entrained and transported dust from the during the 10 a.m. to 12 noon period of
the dust originated from high winds at Lemoore suspended for 22 to 30 mph. Figure 2 of NED for
nonanthropogenic sources, or (2) the the period during which the October 25, 2006 compares the hourly
dust originated from anthropogenic exceedances occurred. wind speed and PM–10 concentration
sources within the State, that are data from Corcoran with the hourly
determined to have been reasonably iv. Determined by EPA To Be an wind speed data from Lemoore in a
well-controlled at the time that the Exceptional Event graphical format.55 This graphic shows
event occurred, or from anthropogenic Finally, EPA must determine through the almost perfect correlation between
sources outside the State. 72 FR at the process established in the increased wind speeds at Corcoran and
13576. In the preamble EPA also Exceptional Events Rule whether an Lemoore with the increased PM–10
explains that ‘‘[s]tates must provide exceptional event occurred. We believe hourly concentrations at Corcoran.
appropriate documentation to that the State has met the procedural The dust plume that affected the
substantiate why the level of wind requirements of the Rule including Corcoran monitoring site on October 25,
speed associated with the event in flagging of the data, submission of 2006 continued moving south and
question should be considered unusual demonstration, evidence of the public ultimately impacted the continuous
for the affected area during the time of opportunity to review and comment on PM–10 analyzer operating at the
year that the event occurred.’’ Id. at the demonstration and mitigation Bakersfield-Golden State Highway
13566. requirements as discussed at section monitoring site. The State provides

The wind-entrained dust on October information on wind speed and
25, 2006 originated from anthropogenic 49 NED for October 25, 2006 at 29. direction from the Alpaugh
sources within California, i.e., from 50 Id. at sections 4 and 5. meteorological monitoring station,
51 Id. at 11.
47 NED for October 25, 2006 at 29. 52 Id. at 22–23. 54 NED for October 25, 2006 at 11.
48 69 FR at 30035; 71 FR 7683. 53 Id. at 24. 55 Id. at 12.
located between Corcoran and c. Did the State demonstrate that the no exceedance ‘‘but for’’ the event. 40
Bakersfield about 16 miles south event is associated with measured CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(D). To meet this
southeast of the Corcoran monitoring concentrations in excess of normal ‘‘but for’’ requirement, the state must
site.56 Between the hours of 9 a.m. and historical fluctuations including include analyses to demonstrate that an
4 p.m., wind speeds at Alpaugh background? exceedance or violation would not have
averaged about 12 mph.57 Since the For EPA to concur with a state’s claim occurred but for the event. Such
meteorological data measured at that an exceptional event caused an analyses do not require a precise
Alpaugh is taken at 2 meters Above exceedance, one of the requirements estimate of the estimated air quality
Ground Level (AGL), the average wind that the state must meet is to show that impact from the event. 72 FR at 13570.
the event is associated with To meet this ‘‘but for’’ requirement
speed at 10 meters AGL is about 15
concentrations that are beyond the the State first shows that there were no
mph.58 EPA believes this average wind unusual activities occurring in the
speed would have been sufficient to normal historical fluctuations. See 40
CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(C). affected areas in the Valley that could
keep the dust plume suspended, and have resulted in the exceedances.
that it facilitated the transport of the The State provides data on PM–10
levels on the days before and after Specifically, based on information from
dust plume to the Bakersfield area. District field staff and discussions with
October 25, 2006. PM–10 concentrations
The data in Table 1 of the NED for before and after October 25, 2006 were representatives of agricultural and
October 25, 2006 show the Bakersfield significantly lower than the industrial operations in the Valley,
hourly PM–10 concentrations beginning concentration recorded on October 25, anthropogenic emissions were
to exceed the level of the 24-hour PM– 2006. An EPA review of continuous approximately constant in the Valley
10 NAAQS at 11 a.m. (177 µg/m3) and PM–10 data from Corcoran and immediately before, during and after the
peaking between the hours of 2 p.m. and Bakersfield-Golden State Highway event. The District staff observed no
5 p.m. (415 µg/m3 and 416 µg/m3, showed that 24-hour average unusual emissions other than those
respectively). Figure 4 provides a graph concentrations from October 1, when associated with the wind event. The
of PM–10 hourly concentrations for the TEOM continuous analyzers began PM–10 generating activities were
three continuous PM–10 analyzers reporting data, through October 24 did BACM-controlled sources that are usual
operated by the District at Corcoran, not exceed 100, and while there were a for the area.63 District staff conducted 90
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway, and number of higher concentrations on the inspections throughout the SJV on
days after October 25, not counting the October 25 to ensure sources were in
Tracy.59 The graph shows hourly PM–
exceedances recorded on December 8, compliance with District air pollution
10 concentrations at Bakersfield-Golden
2006, which are discussed further below rules.64
State Highway slowly increasing The State notes in the NED for
through the morning hours of October in subsection d, the PM–10
concentrations at Corcoran and October 25, 2006 that the PM–2.5 to
25 until 8 a.m. Hourly concentrations PM–10 ratio on this day was very low,
Bakersfield-Golden State Highway fell
increase at a higher rate between 8 a.m. which indicates that mostly coarse PM
to mostly less than 100 again from
and 1 p.m., mirroring the increase at was present on the filter, supporting its
October 28 through June 30, 2007.61
Corcoran, but not as dramatic. As the Historically we can compare data claim that the concentrations recorded
Corcoran hourly concentrations are from these continuous analyzers only on this day were affected by a blowing
dropping between 11 a.m. 4 p.m. we see with the separate manual FRM samplers dust event.65
a corresponding sharp increase in operated at the sites. When we look at When we examine the typical make-
hourly concentrations at Bakersfield- typical PM–10 concentrations recorded up of PM–10 in the SJV during October
Golden State Highway. This behavior of in the month of October from 2000 to we generally see particle concentrations
the hourly concentrations supports the 2006 the maximum value recorded at that are mostly in the size fraction of
State’s explanation that the dust plume Bakersfield was 116 µg/m3 measured on PM–2.5, roughly 60–65%, with the
that first affected Corcoran traveled October 16, 2001 and the maximum remaining mass being particles in the
south over a period of several hours and non-exceedance value recorded at PM–10–2.5 size fraction.66 Typically,
then impacted the Bakersfield monitor. Corcoran was 150 µg/m3 measured on fugitive dust is the major constituent of
As with the September 22, 2006 October 31, 2006.62 These the PM–10–2.5 size fraction and makes
concentrations indicate that the up about 25 to 35% of the total PM–10.
event, the State includes for the October
exceedances recorded on October 25, When we look at a comparison of PM–
25, 2006 event the results of a basic
2006 were unusual and not 2.5 and PM–10 concentrations recorded
meteorological model known as the
representative of typical high on October 25, 2006, we find that the
Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian PM–10–2.5 portion of the total PM–10
concentrations recorded at these
Integrated Trajectory model represents about 93% of the total PM–
monitoring locations.
(HYSPLIT).60 It is important to note that 10 at Corcoran and 85 percent of total
while this modeling is not meant to d. Did the State demonstrate that there PM–10 at Bakersfield. This high
quantify the particle concentration would have been no exceedance ‘‘but percentage of PM–10–2.5, which is
recorded in the Bakersfield area, it does for’’ the event? mostly fugitive dust, is atypical for this
support the State’s demonstration that As discussed previously, to qualify as time of year and supports the State’s
the winds on October 25, 2006 were of an exceptional event the State must also demonstration that the PM–10
the appropriate intensity and direction demonstrate that there would have been concentrations on this day consisted of
to move a plume of dust from the mostly coarse geologic material.
central SJV to the Bakersfield area. 61 ‘‘Continuous PM–10 Data Collected with
We can also look at the days
TEOMs, Data Reported to EPA’s AIRNOW immediately preceding and following
56 Id.
Website,’’ July 30, 2007, Excel Spreadsheet, Bob
at 22–26. Pallarino.
57 Id. at 58. 63 NED for October 25, 2006 at 7 and 29.
62 Corcoran exceeded the 24-hour NAAQS on
58 Id. at 24–26. 64 Id. at 35.
October 29, 2002 with a value of 168 µg/m3; PM–
59 Id. at 14. 65 Id. at 28.
10 Raw Data Reports, Corcoran 2000–2006 and
60 Id. at 27. Bakersfield-Golden 2000–2006. 66 Magliano Presentation.
the exceedance day to see if the submitted by the State demonstrates Bakersfield, California, December 8,
concentrations on October 25 were that but for the high winds in the area 2006,’’ SJV Unified Air Pollution
unusual. The PM–10 concentrations of Lemoore, the Corcoran and Control District, May 23, 2007 and
recorded on October 25 at Corcoran and Bakersfield monitors would not have posted it on its Web site.
Bakersfield were over three times higher exceeded the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS SJVAPCD thereafter made revisions
than they were on October 24.67 PM–10 on October 25, 2006. Because EPA per CARB’s request and submitted to
concentrations after the event decreased believes the State has satisfied the CARB the ‘‘Natural Event
dramatically and by October 28, PM–10 provisions of the Exceptional Events Documentation, Corcoran and
concentrations at both sites were below Rule, EPA proposes to concur with the Bakersfield, California, December 8,
100. See also the discussion of the State’s request to flag these exceedances 2006,’’ SJV Unified Air Pollution
historical levels at these monitors set as being due to exceptional events and Control District, June 6, 2007 (NED for
forth in subsection c. above, which to exclude the data from consideration December 8, 2006) and posted it on its
further demonstrates that the in determining whether the area has Web site.
concentrations recorded on October 25 attained the PM–10 standard. The District indicated that no public
were unusual. comments were received during the
C. December 8, 2006 Exceedances at public process.
Finally, as discussed above, there Corcoran and Bakersfield
were reasonable and appropriate c. The Documentation Was Submitted to
measures in place to control PM–10 in The SJV recorded exceedances of the
EPA
the SJV on October 25, 2006, Regulation 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS on December 8,
VIII and Rule 4550.68 Moreover, EPA 2006 at two sites, Corcoran and The NED for December 8, 2006 was
has approved the District’s BACM Bakersfield-Golden State Highway, subsequently submitted by the State to
demonstration for all significant sources using continuous PM–10 analyzers EPA on June 12, 2007 and is the
of PM–10 in the SJV as meeting CAA designated as FEM monitors. The 24- document upon which EPA is basing its
section 189(b)(1)(B).69 Section 9.2 of the hour average PM–10 concentrations evaluation below.
NED for October 25, 2006 indicates that recorded were 162 µg/m3 at Corcoran d. EPA Concurs With the State’s
the District staff performed 90 and 213 µg/m3 at Bakersfield-Golden Demonstration
inspections on that date to ensure that State Highway.
The State demonstrates that unusually In this proposed rule, EPA is
regulated sources were complying with proposing to concur with the State’s
District fugitive dust rules.70 The high winds in the Bakersfield area
eroded and entrained dust that demonstration in the NED for December
District’s Natural Events Action Plan, 8, 2006 that high wind-entrained dust
impacted the continuous PM–10
discussed in section V.A.3. above, also caused the exceedances at the two
analyzer at Bakersfield. Unlike
addresses the reasonable and monitoring locations on December 8,
September 22 and October 25, 2006, the
appropriate measures that the District 2006.
winds in the SJV on this day were
has implemented to address high wind
generally from the southwest, south and 2. Technical Criteria
events in the SJV.
southeast, transporting dust northward
Based on the weight of evidence a. Did this event satisfy the criteria in
and ultimately impacting the
presented, EPA concludes that the section 50.1(j) of the Rule?
continuous PM–10 analyzer at Corcoran.
State’s documentation demonstrates that
Based on the evidence submitted, EPA As with the previous events discussed
the exceedances at Corcoran and
agrees with the State’s demonstration in this proposed rule, the State needs to
Bakersfield on October 24, 2006 would
that high wind-entrained dust caused show that this event, identified in the
not have occurred but for the wind
the exceedances at the two monitoring NED for December 8, 2006 as unusually
event on this day.
locations on December 8, 2006. high winds, affected air quality in the
3. Mitigation Requirements Corcoran and Bakersfield areas, was not
1. Procedural Requirements
See section V.A.3. above. reasonably controllable or preventable,
a. Data Are Flagged in EPA’s AQS was a natural event, and is determined
Conclusion Database by EPA to be an exceptional event.
EPA believes that the high winds in The December 8, 2006 exceedances i. Affected Air Quality
the area of Lemoore on October 25, were flagged in EPA’s AQS database as
2006, were an exceptional event as of July 2007. For an event to qualify as an
defined in 40 CFR 50.1(j). EPA also exceptional event, the state must show
b. Public had an opportunity to review that the event affected air quality. This
believes that the State has provided a and comment on the State’s
sufficient weight of evidence criterion can be met by establishing that
documentation the event is associated with a measured
demonstration to show that these high
winds generated and transported PM–10 In February 2007, the SJVAPCD exceedance in excess of normal
from the area of Lemoore to Corcoran, notified the public in local newspapers historical fluctuations, including
causing an exceedance of the 24-hour and on its Web site of the availability of background and there is a causal
PM–10 NAAQS. Winds between the document entitled ‘‘Natural Event connection between the event and the
Corcoran and the Bakersfield area were Documentation, High Winds, Corcoran exceedance. This demonstration of a
sufficient to transport the dust that and Bakersfield, California, December 8, causal connection is necessary to
originated in the Lemoore area such that 2006,’’ SJV Unified Air Pollution establish that the event affected air
they caused the monitor at Bakersfield- Control District, February 2007 and quality and is also a separate statutory
Golden State Highway to also exceed requested public comments by March 5, requirement as discussed above.
the NAAQS. The documentation 2007. In the NED for December 8, 2006, the
The SJVACPD subsequently revised State provides documentation that these
67 NED for October 25, 2006 at 16, Table 3. the February 2007 document and measured exceedances were in excess of
68 Id.at 29. submitted to the California Air normal historical fluctuations. See
69 69 FR at 30035; 71 FR 7683. Resources Board (CARB) the ‘‘Natural subsection c. below. The State also
70 NED for October 25, 2006 at 35. Event Documentation, Corcoran and establishes a causal connection between
the high winds recorded in the California, i.e., from usual dust- December 8, 2006 were erratic and
Bakersfield and Southern SJV area and generating activities such as agricultural generally from the east, south, and
the high concentrations recorded at the and industrial operations.73 We discuss southwest.75 Wind speeds at
Corcoran and Bakersfield monitors. The the fugitive dust control measures in meteorological stations near Bakersfield
State’s demonstration of the clear causal place in the SJV on December 8, 2006 recorded hourly average wind speeds in
relationship between the event and the above. excess of 35 mph and wind gusts in
exceedances on this day is discussed in With respect to the wind speed, EPA excess of 50 mph. Winds at Bakersfield
greater detail in subsection b. below. concurs with the State’s demonstration on December 8 were from both the
that the wind speeds in the southern southwest and southeast during the time
ii. Not Reasonably Controllable or SJV were unusually high on December
Preventable when peak hourly PM–10
8, 2006. The State includes information concentrations were recorded. The
Section 50.1(j) of the Exceptional on the unusual nature of the wind winds continued to blow from the
Events Rule requires that for an event to speeds in the SJV on December 8, 2006, southeast up the Valley, pushing the
qualify as an exceptional event, whether stating that winds of these magnitudes dust plume towards the Corcoran
natural or anthropogenic, a state must are rare, occurring less than 5% of the monitoring site. The peak hours for
show that the event was not reasonably time. The NED for December 8, 2006 hourly PM–10 concentrations were from
preventable or controllable. Here this reports that during the blowing dust 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at both the Corcoran
requirement is met by demonstrating event, Bakersfield reported winds up to and Bakersfield sites, with a second set
that despite reasonable and appropriate 25 mph with gusts up to 35 mph. of high hourly concentrations at
measures in place, the December 8, 2006 Farther north in the area of Kettleman Bakersfield occurring from 5 p.m. to 8
wind event caused the exceedances. Hills, located on the west side of the p.m. Winds measured at Alpaugh,
During this event, there were no other San Joaquin Valley, gusts up to 50 mph located between Bakersfield and
unusual dust-producing activities were reported. Kettleman Hills also Corcoran, were highest from 12 p.m. to
occurring in the SJV and anthropogenic reported a twenty-two hour period with 4 p.m. and from the southeast,
emissions were approximately constant gusts of 20 mph or greater (from 6 a.m. supporting the State’s argument that the
before, during and after the event. In on December 8, 2006 to 4 a.m. on dust plume moved from the southeast to
addition, the State shows that December 9, 2006). Maricopa, located northwest.76
reasonable and appropriate measures on the southwest side of the San Joaquin Table 3 and Figure 2 of the NED for
were in place, including Regulation VIII Valley approximately 25 miles December 8, 2006 77 show the
(the District’s general fugitive dust southwest of Bakersfield, reported a correlation of wind speeds and
rules) and Rule 4550 which limits one-minute average wind speed of 56 increasing hourly concentrations of PM–
fugitive dust emissions specifically from mph.74 10 recorded by the continuous PM–10
agricultural operations through
iv. Determined by EPA To Be an analyzers at Corcoran and Bakersfield.
Conservation Management Practices.71
Moreover, EPA has approved the Exceptional Eevent Figure 7 of the NED for December 8,
District’s BACM demonstration for all Finally, EPA must determine through 2006 includes the results of a basic
significant sources of PM–10 in the SJV the process established in the meteorological model known as Hybrid
as meeting CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).72 Exceptional Events Rule whether an Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated
exceptional event occurred. We believe Trajectory model (HYSPLIT).78 It is
iii. Was a Natural Event that the State has met the procedural important to note that while this
In the preamble to the Exceptional requirements of the Rule including modeling is not meant to quantify the
Events Rule, EPA states that ambient flagging of the data, submission of particle concentration recorded in the
particulate matter concentrations due to demonstration, evidence of the public Bakersfield and Corcoran areas, it does
dust being raised by unusually high opportunity to review and comment on offer support of the State’s
winds will be treated as due to the demonstration and mitigation demonstration that the winds on
uncontrollable natural events where (1) requirements as discussed at section December 8, 2006 were of the
the dust originated from V.C.1. and 3. of this proposed rule. We appropriate intensity and direction to
nonanthropogenic sources, or (2) the further believe that the State has also move a plume of dust from the
dust originated from anthropogenic met the technical requirements of the southeastern SJV to the Bakersfield area
sources within the State, that are Rule as discussed at section V.C.2. and northward to Corcoran.
determined to have been reasonably Therefore, we are proposing to concur c. Did the State demonstrate that the
well-controlled at the time that the with the State’s determination that an event is associated with measured
event occurred, or from anthropogenic exceptional event, i.e., a wind event, concentration in excess of normal
sources outside the State. 72 FR at occurred resulting in the exceedances historical fluctuations including
13576. In the preamble EPA also on December 8, 2006. background?
explains that ‘‘[s]tates must provide
appropriate documentation to b. Does the State’s documentation show For EPA to concur with a state’s claim
substantiate why the level of wind a clear causal connection between the that an exceptional event caused an
speed associated with the event in exceedances and the claimed exceedance, one of the requirements
question should be considered unusual exceptional event? that the state must meet is to show that
for the affected area during the time of Under 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(B), a the event is associated with
year that the event occurred.’’ Id. at state’s demonstration must establish a concentrations that are beyond the
13566. clear causal relationship between the normal historical fluctuations. See 40
On December 8, 2006, the wind- measured exceedances and the claimed CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(C).
entrained dust originated from exceptional event. Unlike September 22
anthropogenic sources within and October 25, 2006, the winds on 75 Id. at 11, Table 3.
76 Id. at 56.
71 NED for December 8, 2006 at 25. 73 NED for December 8, 2006 at 25. 77 Id. at 11–12.
72 69 FR at 30035; 71 FR 7683. 74 Id. at 17. 78 Id. at 23.
As with the discussion above on the and PM–10 emission control programs as meeting CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).86
September 22 and October 25, 2006 were being implemented, not only for The District’s Natural Events Action
exceedances, we can compare data from fugitive dust-generating activities, but Plan, discussed in section V.A.3. above,
the continuous analyzers only with the also agricultural burning and residential also addresses the reasonable and
separate manual FRM samplers operated wood combustion in parts of the SJV.81 appropriate measures that the District
at the sites, since the continuous The State provides frequency has implemented to address high wind
analyzers have only been in operation distributions of the maximum PM–10 events in the SJV.
since late 2006. Figures 8 and 9 of the 24-hour December concentrations for Based on the weight of evidence
NED for December 8, 2006 demonstrate the past 10 years. These figures indicate presented, EPA concludes that the
the relative infrequency, over the last 10 that PM–10 concentrations at Corcoran State’s documentation demonstrates that
years, of the concentrations recorded at and Bakersfield-Golden State Highway the exceedances at Corcoran and
Corcoran and Bakersfield on December rarely exceeded the level of the 24-hour Bakersfield on December 8, 2006 would
8, 2006. When we look at PM–10 FRM PM–10 NAAQS.82 This fact is an not have occurred but for the wind
concentrations recorded at Corcoran in indication that December 8, 2006 was event on this day.
the month of December from 1997 to unusual in that the normal emission 3. Mitigation Requirements
2006, the last non-flagged exceedance of activity levels do not cause
the standard was a 174 recorded on exceedances, based on historical data. See section V.A.3.c above.
December 17, 1999.79 Levels exceeding Examining the make-up of PM–10 on Conclusion
100 only occurred 10 times in December this day using PM–2.5 data collected at EPA believes that the high winds in
in the past 10 years, out of 96 FRM days the sites with a continuous PM–2.5 the southeastern SJV on December 8,
sampled. Even when we include the analyzer, we can see that coarse 2006 were an exceptional event as
continuous daily data collected at particles, or PM–10–2.5, which are defined in 40 CFR 50.1(j). EPA also
Corcoran in 2006, there are only the 10 associated with windblown dust, believes that the State has provided a
values over 100 described above. represented 78% of the total PM–10
For Bakersfield, the last non-flagged sufficient weight of evidence
mass collected at Corcoran and 88% of demonstration to show that these high
day exceeding the standard in December the total PM–10 mass at Bakersfield.
was 159 recorded on December 30, winds generated and transported PM–10
CARB studies indicate that at this time from the area of Bakersfield to Corcoran
1998. Of the 42 December FRM sample of year, fugitive dust generally
days since 1997, 9 days exceed 100. causing exceedances of the 24-hour PM–
contributes less than 20% of the total 10 NAAQS at the Bakersfield and
Again, even when we include the PM–10 mass.83 The atypical
continuous daily data from 2006, the Corcoran monitors. The NED for
contribution of fugitive dust to the December 8, 2006 submitted by the
result remains 9 days exceeding 100 in exceedances recorded on December 8,
the last 10 years.80 State demonstrates that but for the high
2006 indicates that but for the wind winds in the southern SJV, the Corcoran
d. Did the State demonstrate that there event these exceedances would not have and Bakersfield monitors would not
would have been no exceedance ‘‘but occurred. have exceeded the 24-hour PM–10
for’’ the event? As discussed above, the State also NAAQS on December 8, 2006. Because
As discussed above, to qualify as an looked at data from the days EPA believes that the State has satisfied
exceptional event the state must also immediately preceding and after the provisions of the Exceptional Events
demonstrate that there would have been December 8, 2006.84 Twenty-four hour Rule, EPA proposes to concur with the
no exceedance ‘‘but for’’ the event. 40 PM–10 concentrations on December 4– State’s request to flag these exceedances
CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(D). To meet this 6 were less than 100 µg/m3 at both sites as due to exceptional events and to
‘‘but for’’ requirement, the state must and were just over 100 µg/m3 on exclude the data from consideration in
include analyses to demonstrate that an December 7. On December 8, the determining whether the area has
exceedance or violation would not have concentration at Corcoran increased by attained the PM–10 standard.
occurred but for the event. Such more than 50%, exceeding the NAAQS
with a level of 162 µg/m3, but then fell VI. EPA Evaluation of September 14,
analyses do not require a precise September 20 and October 26, 2006
estimate of the estimated air quality to 32 µg/m3 on December 9 and
continued dropping for weeks after this Exceedances at the Santa Rosa
impact from the even. 72 FR at 13570. Rancheria
To meet this ‘‘but for’’ requirement event. At Bakersfield, on December 8
the State first shows that there were no there was a greater than 100% increase The 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS was
unusual activities occurring in the over the December 7 concentration. exceeded on September 14, 20 and
affected areas in the Valley that could Again, concentrations dropped October 26, 2006 at a monitor on the
have resulted in the exceedances. dramatically on December 9 and Santa Rosa Rancheria (SRR), tribal land
Specifically, based on information from remained low for weeks after. located in Kings County within the SJV.
District field staff and discussions with Finally, as discussed above, there The 24-hour average PM–10
representatives of agricultural and were reasonable and appropriate concentrations were 190 µg/m3, 158 µg/
industrial operations in the Valley, measures in place to control PM–10 in m3, and 157 µg/m3, respectively. The
activities that generate anthropogenic the SJV on December 8, 2006, SRR Tribe flagged the exceedances as
PM–10 were approximately constant in Regulation VIII and Rule 4550.85 caused by an exceptional event, i.e.,
the Valley immediately before, during Moreover, EPA has approved the construction activities.
District’s BACM demonstration for all The Santa Rosa Rancheria EPA
and after the event. As on September 22
significant sources of PM–10 in the SJV Department (SRREPA) operates a

and October 25, 2006, activity levels in
monitoring site on the SRR, located on
the SJV were typical for the time of year
81 NED for December 8, 2006 at 25. the roof of a pumping station at the
79 PM–10 Raw Data Report Corcoran 1997–2006,
82 Id. at 28–29, Figures 8 and 9. SRR’s water treatment facility. The PM–
EPA AQS Database, July 30, 2007. 83 Magliano Presentation. 10 sampler is a high volume size
80 PM–10 Raw Data Report Bakersfield Golden 84 NED for December 8, 2006 at Table 1.
1997–2006, EPA AQS Database, July 30, 2007. 85 Id. at 25. 86 69 FR at 30035; 71 FR 7683.
selective inlet (SSI) Anderson sampler where the PM–10 sampler monitor is a reasonable monitoring practice to
designated as a FRM by EPA. The located.88 In addition to the exceedance locate a PM–10 monitor, intended for
monitoring site also measures ozone and days, much of the data between August purposes of comparison to the NAAQS,
meteorological parameters including 3 and November 25, 2006 submitted to so close to an obviously temporary dust
wind speed and wind direction. the AQS database, has been flagged as source, as was the case at the SRR.
The PM–10 sampler is located near affected by construction activity.89 Section 3(a) of appendix E, Spacing
the northeast corner on the roof of the EPA believes there are two bases for from Minor Sources, addresses the
pumping station. The current land cover excluding the September 14, September siting of monitors, including PM–10
around the pump station is paved 20 and October 26, 2006 exceedances monitors. It states that close spacing
parking. There are no obstructions of from consideration in determining between a monitor and a minor source
any kind and there is unrestricted whether the SJV has attained the PM– may be proper if the purpose of that
airflow 360 degrees around the sampler 10 standard. First, as explained in more monitoring site is to investigate
inlet.87 detail below, EPA believes that, during emissions from that source and other
To the east of the monitor is a paved the time period the monitor was local sources. However, if, as is the case
parking lot, beginning about 25 feet east operating in such close proximity to the with the SRR monitor here, the site is
of the monitor location and extending construction, the monitor should be to be used to determine air quality over
approximately 50 feet to the east. considered to have been improperly a larger area, such as a neighborhood or
Beyond the parking area are trailers and sited under the principles established in city, it should not be placed near local,
undeveloped land. To the north of the 40 CFR part 58, appendix E. Second, minor sources, because the plume from
monitor is a larger parking lot, EPA believes that, under its Exceptional the local minor source would
beginning about 100 feet north of the Events Rule, the construction activity inappropriately impact the air quality
monitor location and extending north that occurred within such close data collected at the site. It is plain that
approximately 525 feet. Beyond the proximity to the monitor constitutes an this occurred in the SRR situation,
parking lot are a casino hotel, casino, exceptional event that caused the where the monitor, when it began
and additional parking lots. To the exceedances. EPA believes that both of operating, was only 25 feet from one
immediate south (150 feet) and west these rationales, separately or together, parking lot construction zone and 100
(300 feet) are the remaining physical support EPA’s proposal not to include feet from another.
plant facilities (tanks, pumps, etc.) and the SRR monitor data recorded during We believe that in general it is
the area is paved. Further south and the period of parking lot construction in important to avoid placing a particulate
west are agricultural fields (currently our determination of whether the SJV monitor inordinately close to a location
alfalfa). Agricultural fields also lie to the has attained the PM–10 NAAQS. where active but temporary construction
north beyond the casino and parking lot activity is generating dust emissions. As
A. Evaluation Under Principles noted above, the SRREPA originally had
(approximately 0.5 mile). To the east is Established in 40 CFR Part 58,
the SRR residential area. not intended to start operating the
Appendix E monitor until after the conclusion of the
PM–10 is measured once-in-every-six
days by the SRREPA according to the 40 CFR part 58 establishes criteria and construction activity. As a consequence
national sampling schedule. Sampling requirements for ambient air quality of monitoring while this construction
began on August 3, 2006 and continues monitoring, and appendix E sets forth was still ongoing, the SRR Tribe was
to the present time. the probe and monitoring path siting compelled to flag data for 12 of the 19
In 2006 there was a major criteria for ambient air quality sampling days that occurred between
construction project at the SRR, which monitoring. 71 FR 61236 (October 17, August 3 and November 25, when the
involved construction of a casino hotel 2006). These include both binding construction concluded. Thus more
and associated parking lots. This requirements and goals. Section 1(b) of than 60% of the data collected during
construction activity, located near the appendix E, the Introduction, provides this time period was considered to be
monitor, was ongoing prior to the time that ‘‘[t]he probe and monitoring path unusable for regulatory purposes.
the monitor began operation. The siting criteria discussed in this The dramatic contrast between
original intention of the SRREPA was to appendix must be followed to the concentrations monitored while
begin operation of the monitor and maximum extent possible.’’ Section construction was ongoing and post-
sampling only after completion of the 58.20 provides that Special Purpose construction concentrations also
parking lots and external portion of the Monitors, which may include monitors testifies to the impact that the improper
hotel. Due to delays, however, the on tribal lands, must meet certain siting had on the monitored data. After
construction was not completed until requirements of part 58, including construction ceased, average monitored
November 2006. The monitor began appendix E, if the data they collect are PM–10 concentrations declined 50%.
operating as scheduled on August 3, to be used for purposes of comparison See discussion below in section
2006. to the NAAQS. It is not clear whether VI.B.2.d. below. EPA believes that after
The SRREPA’s environmental the monitor in Santa Rosa Rancheria is the construction concluded the monitor
technician informed EPA that he intended to be designated a Special met the appropriate siting criteria.90
believes that many of the samples Purpose Monitor. It is clear, however, EPA has concluded that under the
collected since PM–10 monitoring began that EPA does not intend data from a very unusual circumstances presented
on August 3, 2006, through mid- monitor to be used for purposes of in the SRR, it was not appropriate,
November 2006, were unduly comparison to the NAAQS unless the according to the principles established
influenced by the grading and paving of data meet the criteria set forth in section in part 58 appendix E, to deploy a new
parking lots immediately adjacent to the 58.20, including appendix E. Under the PM–10 monitor, for purposes of
monitoring site on the north and east principles established in part 58, comparison to the NAAQS, so close to
sides of the pump station building appendix E, EPA believes that it is not temporary construction activity, for the
duration of that activity. EPA believes it
87 July 18, 2007 Memorandum, ‘‘On-Site Visit to 88 Site
Visit Memorandum. would be unreasonable for the Agency
Santa Rosa Rancheria,’’ from Bob Pallarino, EPA, to 89 AQSRaw Data Report, Santa Rosa Rancheria
Sean Hogan, EPA (Site Visit Memorandum). PM–10 2006 to 2007. 90 Site Visit Memorandum.
to allow the data from such a monitor tribes may not be in a position to since the construction and parking lot
to determine the attainment status of the address all of the requirements of the paving was completed to determine
SJV. Rule and thus states that EPA will representative concentrations of PM–10
‘‘* * * work with tribes on the in the absence of a large, earth-
Conclusion
implementation of this rule, which may disturbing project such as the
EPA is proposing to conclude that the include appropriate implementation by construction, grading and paving of
exceedances in the SJV at the SRR EPA of program elements ensuring that parking lots. We discuss the range of
monitor that occurred on September 14, any exclusion * * * of data in Indian data and its fluctuation in more detail
2006, September 20, 2006 and October country with air quality affected by in subsection c. below.
26, 2006 should be excluded from exceptional events comports with the We also need to show the causal
consideration in determining whether procedures and requirements of this connection between the exceptional
the SJV has attained the PM–10 rule.’’ 72 FR at 13563. EPA, through this event, in this case construction activity,
standard, because during this time proposed rule, is providing the public and the exceedances recorded. In
period EPA deems that the monitor was with an opportunity to review and addition to other information provided
not properly sited, under the principles comment on the documentation of these during EPA’s on-site visit, the SRREPA
established in part 58, appendix E. exceptional events. has provided EPA with wind speed and
In proposing to find that, during the wind direction data collected at its site
period of construction, the monitor was c. The Documentation Was Submitted to that show the wind was blowing in the
not properly sited for the purpose of EPA appropriate direction and demonstrates
comparison to the NAAQS, EPA is As discussed above, EPA is assisting that the PM–10 monitor was downwind
addressing only the particular facts and the SRR Tribe by compiling and of the construction activity on the
circumstances presented by the SRR evaluating the documentation of the exceedance days. We discuss the causal
monitoring operation. EPA notes that exceedances which they have flagged as connection between the construction
the construction activity at the SRR, being caused by exceptional events. activity and the exceedances in more
which occurred in extremely close detail in subsection b. below.
proximity to the monitor and on tribal d. EPA Concurs With the Tribe’s
land, predated the start of monitoring Flagging and Demonstration ii. Not Reasonably Controllable or
operations, and that monitoring was Preventable
EPA is proposing to concur with the
originally intended to begin only after SRR Tribe’s flagging of these Section 50.1(j) of the Exceptional
the conclusion of construction activity. exceedances as affected by exceptional Events Rule requires that for an event to
Under these circumstances, EPA events. As discussed above, EPA is qualify as an exceptional event, whether
believes that the September 14, assisting the SRR Tribe by compiling natural or anthropogenic, a state, tribe
September 20 and October 26, 2006 and evaluating the documentation of the (or, in this case, EPA) must show that
exceedances should be excluded from exceedances it has flagged as being the event was not reasonably
consideration in determining whether caused by exceptional events, and by preventable or controllable.
the SJV has attained the PM–10 ensuring that the public has an EPA believes that it would not have
standard. opportunity, through this rulemaking, to been reasonable to prevent the activity,
review and comment upon it. i.e., paving of parking lots that were
B. Evaluation Under the Exceptional
needed for the SRR Tribe’s facilities.
Events Rule 2. Technical Criteria Paving a parking lot (which involves
In addition to the rationale regarding a. Did this event satisfy the criteria in grading the ground, applying a base
the siting of the monitor, set forth above, section 50.1(j) of the Rule? material such as gravel and applying
EPA proposes to concur with the SRR asphalt) is a generally accepted form of
Tribe’s flagging of the exceedances at i. Affected Air Quality
control of PM–10.91 To prevent the
the SRR because EPA believes that the For an event to qualify as an paving of a parking lot would not only
construction activity constitutes an exceptional event, the state or tribe must be unreasonable, but illogical.
exceptional event under EPA’s show that the event affected air quality. With respect to whether the event was
Exceptional Events Rule. Our Here, EPA, on behalf of the SRR Tribe, reasonably controllable, we note that the
application of the requirements of the needs to show that the event, identified SRR Tribe does not have PM–10 control
Rule to the SRR exceedances is set forth as construction activity, affected air measures in place and is not subject to
below. quality at the SRREPA PM–10 monitor. the fugitive dust control regulations
1. Procedural Requirements This criterion can be met by establishing adopted by the SJVAPCD. As discussed
that the event is associated with a in the Exceptional Events Rule, ‘‘Tribes
a. Data Are Flagged in EPA’s AQS measured exceedance in excess of are not required to develop TIPs or
Database normal historical fluctuations, including otherwise implement relevant programs
The three exceedances were flagged background, and there is a causal under the CAA. * * *’’ 92 ‘‘EPA
by the SRR Tribe by the time the data connection between the event and the recognizes Tribal Governments as
were submitted to the AQS database in exceedance. This demonstration of a sovereign entities with primary
2006. causal connection is necessary to authority and responsibility for the
establish that the event affected air reservation populace. Accordingly, EPA
b. Public Had an Opportunity To quality, and it is also a separate will work directly with Tribal
Review and Comment on the Tribe’s statutory requirement as discussed Governments as the independent
Documentation
above.
EPA is assisting the SRR Tribe by Because the SRREPA PM–10 monitor 91 See, for example, SJV Rule 8051 Open Areas
compiling and evaluating the has been in operation only since August (Adopted November 15, 2001; Amended August 19,
documentation for the exceedances 2006, it is not possible to compare the 2004) and Rule 8071 Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment
Traffic Areas (Adopted November 15, 2001;
which have been flagged as being data from exceedance days to historical Amended September 16, 2004).
caused by exceptional events. The levels. In this case, however, we can 92 63 FR 7254, 7265 (February 12, 1998); 72 FR
Exceptional Events Rule recognizes that look at data that have been collected at 13563.
authority for reservation affairs, and not iv. Determined by EPA To Be an c. Can it be demonstrated that the event
as political subdivisions of States or Exceptional Event is associated with a measured
other governmental units.’’ 93 Finally, EPA must determine through concentration in excess of normal
While paving itself is a control the process established in the historical fluctuations including
measure, EPA recognizes that other Exceptional Events Rule whether an background?
control measures may be reasonable exceptional event occurred. The
during a paving process. For example, For EPA to concur with the SRREPA’s
Exceptional Events Rule has both claim that an exceptional event caused
the SJVAPCD regulations require, procedural requirements and technical
among other things, that regulated an exceedance, one of requirements is to
criteria that we are assisting the
construction sites apply as appropriate show that the event is associated with
SRREPA in meeting. We believe that by
water or chemical/organic stabilizers or concentrations that are beyond the
the initial flagging of the data, and
construct and maintain wind barriers.94 normal historical fluctuations. See 40
through the vehicle of this proposed
In the circumstances of the SRR, CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(C).
rulemaking we will demonstrate that the
however, even if these types of procedural requirements and technical Of the 44 samples collected by the
measures had been actively employed, criteria of the rule will have been met. SRREPA, nearly 80% of the samples (35
we cannot be certain that they would days) were less than 100 µg/m3. After
have prevented exceedances at the PM– b. Is there a clear causal connection completion of the paving projects in
10 monitor. This is due in large part to between the exceedances and the mid-November, 2006, average PM–10
the unusual circumstance presented claimed exceptional event? concentrations dropped by more than
here of the very close proximity of the Under 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(B), a 50%, from an average of 97 µg/m3 to an
construction activity to the monitor. As clear causal relationship must be average of 45 µg/m3.96 This would
noted above, one of the parking lots was established between the measured indicate that the construction activity
within 25 feet of the monitor, and the exceedance and the claimed exceptional had an obvious effect on the
other was within 100 feet. event. The information compiled by concentrations recorded by the SRR
EPA’s evaluation of the parking lot EPA shows a clear causal connection monitor and that the data collected
construction activity’s impact on the between the exceedances and the during this construction period,
monitor, and whether it was reasonably construction activity at the nearby including the exceedances recorded in
controllable, during the activity, is parking lots. The SRREPA September and October, 2006, were not
informed by EPA’s views on what environmental technician observed the representative of typical post-
constitutes acceptable monitor siting. As conditions at the time the monitor was construction PM–10 concentrations at
EPA has set forth in detail above, EPA operating and noted on the sample the location of the monitor.
believes that, for the duration of the tracking forms, which are completed
construction activity, the monitor was with each sampling run, that there was d. Can it be demonstrated that there
not properly sited for the purposes of construction nearby. Copies of these would have been no exceedance ‘‘but
determining attainment of the SJV, and tracking forms are included in the for’’ the event?
that as a result it was inordinately documentation for this rulemaking.
impacted by that activity. To qualify as an exceptional event,
The SRREPA measures wind speed there must be an analysis which
The provisions of 40 CFR part 58, and wind direction at the SRR
appendix E regarding the siting of PM– demonstrates that there would have
monitoring site. These meteorological been no exceedance ‘‘but for’’ the event.
10 monitors, are instructive with respect data indicate that on the three days that
to EPA’s analysis of the exceedances 40 CFR 50.14(c)(3)(iii)(D). Such analyses
exceeded the NAAQS, winds were
under the Exceptional Events Rule. We do not require a precise estimate of the
predominantly from the northwest to
cannot conclude that the activity was estimated air quality impact from the
northeast. This would indicate that any
reasonably controllable given that the event. 72 FR at 13570.
dust-producing activity north and
exceedances were measured at a northeast of the monitor would result in To meet this requirement, EPA
monitor that EPA’s rule provides should high concentrations of geologic dust believes the SRREPA environmental
not be operated at such a time and being blown towards the monitor. technician, consultant and the SRR
place, for the purposes of determining The meteorological data lend support construction superintendent have
attainment. Thus, under the particular to the environmental technician’s clearly indicated that the exceedances
set of circumstances presented here, for account of the events of that day. EPA occurred on days where nearby
the purposes of evaluating the also discussed these events with the construction was also occurring. As EPA
‘‘reasonably controllable’’ criterion of SRR construction superintendent, who has shown, the proximity of the monitor
the Exceptional Events Rule, we deem agreed with the environmental to the construction activity and the
this criterion to have been satisfied. technician’s account of the construction concomitant infeasibility of control
iii. Was an Event Caused by Human activity. A private consultant working measures to prevent the exceedances
Activity That is Unlikely to Recur at a for the SRREPA also stated that he had also demonstrate that there would have
Particular Location witnessed major earth-disturbing been no exceedances but for the
activities on these days.95 construction activity. Given these
In this case, the event was paving of Based on the meteorological data, factors and the fact that the average PM–
parking lots in the vicinity of the PM– eyewitness accounts, and an on-site 10 concentrations dropped by more than
10 monitor, and is a construction inspection of the monitoring site 50% after the completion of the paving
activity that is not expected to recur at
location and its proximity to the parking projects, we believe the weight of
that location. lots, we believe that there was a clear evidence shows that the exceedances
93 59
causal connection between the would not have occurred but for the
FR 43956 (August 25, 1994).
94 SJV
construction activity and the recorded construction activity.
Rule 8021 Construction, Demolition,
Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving PM–10 exceedances.
Activities (Adopted November 15, 2001; Amended 96 Santa Rosa Rancheria PM–10 24 hour average
August 19, 2004). 95 Site Visit Memorandum. concentrations, Excel spreadsheet, Bob Pallarino.
3. Mitigation Requirements 2006, September 20, 2006 and October in the specific circumstances of the SRR
Under 40 CFR 51.930, a state or tribe 26, 2006 were exceptional events as during the days when exceedances were
requesting to exclude air quality data defined under 40 CFR 50.1(j). EPA recorded, we are not able to conclude
due to exceptional events must take believes that there is sufficient weight of that the event was reasonably
appropriate and reasonable actions, evidence to conclude that the controllable due to the very close
including public notification, public construction activities caused the proximity of the monitor to the
education and implementation of exceedances on the exceedance days, construction activity, and the other
measures, to protect public health from and that the exceedances would not factors discussed above. Given this
exceedances or violations of the have occurred but for the construction singular constellation of factors, EPA is
NAAQS. In the case of the SRR, EPA activity. The proximity of the proposing to concur with the Tribe’s
recognizes that tribes may implement construction activities to the monitor flagging of the exceedances on
only portions of air quality programs and the wind direction recorded at the September 14, September 20 and
and not be in a position to address each monitor support this conclusion. October 26, 2006 as caused by
of the procedures and requirements Because EPA believes that the exceptional events.
associated with excluding or provisions of the Exceptional Events
VII. Summary of Exceedances From
discounting data. In the preamble to the Rule have been satisfied, EPA is
2004 Through 2006
Exceptional Events Rule, EPA cites an proposing to concur with the SRR
example of tribes that ‘‘* * * may Tribe’s flags indicating that these The table below provides a summary
operate a monitoring network for exceedances were due to exceptional of exceedances relevant to today’s
purposes of gathering and identifying events, and to exclude the data from proposed rule that were recorded at
appropriate data, but may not consideration in determining whether monitors located within the boundaries
implement relevant programs for the the SJV has attained the PM–10 of the SJV. The table indicates, whether
purpose of mitigating the effects of standard. in determining attainment, EPA has
exceptional events. * * *’’ 72 FR at In proposing to concur with the SRR excluded or proposes to exclude the
13563. That is the case with the SRR. Tribe’s flags that construction activity at exceedance, based on a finding that it
Under these circumstances, as indicated SRR constituted exceptional events, was due to an exceptional event. The
in the preamble to the Exceptional EPA is addressing only the particular 24-hour standard is attained when the
Events Rule, EPA intends to work with facts and circumstances presented by expected number of days per year with
the SRR on the implementation of the the SRR monitoring operation. In levels above 150 µg/m3 (averaged over a
Rule. general, fugitive dust control measures three-year period) is less than or equal
employed during construction activities to one. 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. As
Conclusion are helpful in reducing ambient PM–10 shown in the table, all of the monitoring
EPA believes that the construction concentrations and avoiding locations are meeting the PM–10
activities at the SRR on September 14, exceedances of the NAAQS. However, standard.
TABLE SUMMARIZING PM–10 24-HOUR EXCEEDANCES IN THE SJV

[From 2004 through 2006]
Recorded (observed) Number of estimated exceedances Average number

exceedances 2004—2006 of annual
Monitor Operating schedule Included in Reason for excluding exceedances
Date Conc attn. deter. exceedance 2004—2006
Corcoran Manual FRM ... 1 in 3 day ...................... 9/3/04 217 No ............... Exceptional Event .......... 0
9/22/06 215 No ................ Exceptional Event .......... ............................
Corcoran TEOM ............. Continuous .................... 9/22/06 261 No ................ Exceptional Event .......... 0
Bakersfield Golden Man- 1 in 6 day ...................... 9/22/06 157 No ................ Exceptional Event .......... 0
ual FRM.
Bakersfield Golden BAM Continuous .................... 11/22/05 156 Yes .............. N/A ................................. 0.67
11/23/05 180 Yes .............. N/A ................................. ............................
Bakersfield Golden Continuous .................... 9/22/06 157 No ................ Exceptional Event .......... 0
TEOM.
Tracy BAM ...................... Continuous .................... 9/22/06 161 Yes .............. N/A ................................. 0.33
Oildale Manual FRM ...... 1 in 6 day ...................... 9/22/06 162 No ................ Exceptional Event .......... 0
Santa Rosa Rancheria 1 in 6 day ...................... 9/14/06 190 No ................ Exceptional Event .......... 0
Manual FRM.
Sources:
EPA Air Quality System Database.
E-mail from Steven Shaw, SJVAPCD to Bob Pallarino, EPA Region 9, April 20, 2006.
E-mail from Steve Shaw, SJVAPCD to Bob Pallarino, EPA Region 9, October 12, 2006.
VIII. Petitions for Reconsideration and at the time that the exceedances were could be quality assured and the State
Withdrawal based on preliminary data only: would have an opportunity to meet its
‘‘Because these data, which were burden of showing that an exceedance
A. Winds and Wildfires on September
collected using manual reference qualified as caused by an exceptional
22 and October 25, 2006
method samplers, are preliminary and event.
Earthjustice filed its 2006 Petition for have not been quality assured, and Finally EPA notes that Earthjustice
Reconsideration (PFR) before the State because EPA believes that they may alleges in its 2007 petition that the
provided its exceptional event qualify as caused by natural events, and Agency ignored in its final attainment
documentation for the September 22, thus be excluded from consideration in determination the October 25, 2006
2006 exceedances to the public or EPA. an attainment determination, EPA is exceedances as well as the September
At that time CARB and the District had proceeding to finalize its determination 22, 2006 exceedances. PFW at 2. This is
simply informed EPA that, based on that the area is in attainment.’’ 71 FR not the case. The exceedances in
preliminary analysis, they believed that 63642. Thus the data had not been October occurred eight days after EPA
these exceedances were due to high quality assured, and in addition EPA promulgated its final determination of
wind and wildfire natural events. was on notice that CARB and the attainment, on October 17, 2006. (The
Similarly, when Earthjustice filed its District intended to flag the data as due notice was published on October 30, but
2007 Petition for Withdrawal (PFW) and to exceptional events and to request the determination had been signed and
the accompanying Jan Null declaration, EPA’s concurrence on excluding the disseminated to the public on October
the State had not yet submitted the data from consideration in an 17). Thus, EPA had no information on
complete documentation for the attainment determination. these exceedances at the time of its final
September and October 2006 EPA went on to note that ‘‘[i]f, after action.
exceedances on which EPA is basing the data is quality assured, and after
this proposed rule. Therefore C. Wind Conditions in the Valley
further evaluating CARB’s request with
Earthjustice’s conclusion in the respect to these data, EPA determines With respect to the existence of high
petitions that the September 22, 2006 that the data do not qualify for winds in the Valley generally,
and October 25, 2006 exceedances do exclusion under EPA’s natural events Earthjustice, in both petitions,
not qualify as natural events does not policy, and EPA further believes that if characterizes statements in the 2003
address the technical analysis of the included that they would establish that PM–10 Plan for the area as concluding
winds and wildfires as ultimately the area is in violation of the NAAQS, that wind erosion is not a significant
submitted by the State and which EPA EPA will proceed with appropriate contributing factor in dust emissions
has evaluated in section V. above. To rulemaking action to withdraw its and as suggesting that winds with
the extent that Earthjustice’s determination of attainment.’’ Id. It was enough velocity to cause erosion
assessments in the petitions of the thus clear that EPA’s determination was disperse PM–10 concentrations and/or
nature and effect of the winds and subject to revision based on subsequent transport PM–10 out of the Valley. PFR
wildfires are currently relevant, we quality assurance and evaluation of the at 4; PFW at 8. Earthjustice in its 2007
believe our evaluation in section V. data, and EPA outlined its projected petition also cites a letter from the
addresses the significant points raised procedure for dealing with the data once District to EPA which states that ‘‘there
in them. they were quality assured and EPA had is no evidence of any significant linkage
In addition, since EPA, as stated in an opportunity to evaluate the between high winds and PM–10 federal
section V. above, agrees with the documentation of the potential exceedance events [in the Valley].’’ Id.
petitioners that regional transport from exceptional events. at 8–9.
north of the SJV and the northern SJV In this proposed rule, EPA is Earthjustice has taken the statements
and wildfires were not the cause of the following through with this procedure, in the 2003 Plan to attain the PM–10
exceedances on September 22 and and is now providing for full notice and standard out of context. Chapter 2 of the
October 25, it is unnecessary for EPA to an opportunity for comment, in the Plan, quoted by Earthjustice, is a 12-
further address the arguments raised by context of a rulemaking, on whether page general overview of the San
petitioners with respect to these those exceedances qualify as caused by Joaquin Valley Air Basin, the purpose of
theories. exceptional events. EPA is also which is to describe normal or typical
providing notice and opportunity for meteorological conditions. It is not
B. Notice/Comment on September 22 comment on additional claims that intended to nor does it address unusual
and October 25, 2006 Exceedances exceedances were caused by exceptional winds such as those under
The gravamen of the 2006 petition, events on October 25, 2006, and consideration here that may occur in the
which is reiterated in the Petition for December 8, 2006, and at the Santa Rosa Valley. Nevertheless, the District did
Withdrawal, is Earthjustice’s claim that Rancheria on September 14 and 20 and determine that windblown dust is not a
EPA did not provide the public with an October 26, 2006. significant problem in the SJV for the
opportunity to comment on the Contrary to Earthjustice’s contention purposes of attaining the PM–10
September 22, 2006 exceedances and in its Petition for Reconsideration and standard. For example, the Plan states
thus should not have finalized the Petition for Withdrawal, EPA did not that ‘‘[w]ind related PM–10 events are
attainment determination for the SJV. reverse the burden of proof required to rare but possible when conditions are
PFR at 2–4. Petitioners also complained establish an exceptional event, or right’’ and that ‘‘PM–10 readings in the
that EPA did not require adequate relieve the State from the obligation to SJVAB are most severe during the fall
documentation that these exceedances document its claims. PFR at 4; PFW at and winter periods when wind speed
17. In the final determination, it is clear and direction are not conducive to
were caused by exceptional events. PFR

at 3–4. that EPA did not conclusively concur in interregional transport.’’ 2003 PM–10
Contrary to Earthjustice’s assertions, excluding the data without requiring Plan, ES–10, 2–6. The District also states
EPA did not abuse its discretion in appropriate documentation and a that ‘‘winds are effective in dispersing
addressing the September 22, 2006 showing from the State. Rather, EPA PM–10 concentrations and/or
exceedances in its October 2006 deferred its determination on the impact transporting PM–10 out of the Valley’’
determination of attainment. EPA noted of the preliminary data until the data in explaining why the spring and
summer months, which are the windier more prone to windblown dust problems. BACM was in place at the time of the
months of the year in the SJV, do not The ‘‘Other’’ category will give the farmers event or proof that sources were in
yield higher PM–10 levels. with the potential to experience wind blown compliance. Rather, in the preamble to
dust emissions the flexibility to address this
However, the fact that PM–10 the Rule EPA states that the State must
issue with a CMP.
pollution from windblown dust is not take reasonable and appropriate
generally a significant enough problem March 18, 2004 letter from Charles measures under these circumstances. 72
in the SJV that it needs to be controlled Swanson to Doris Lo, EPA (Swanson FR at 13576–13577. That said, EPA has
for the purposes of attaining the PM–10 letter) at 1. approved the District’s BACM
standard, does not mean that In responding to Mr. Swanson, the demonstration for all significant sources
windblown dust cannot cause an District stated in its April 15, 2004 letter of PM–10 in the Valley, including
exceedance of the standard. In addition, that ‘‘[t]he statements in the Plan agricultural sources, as meeting CAA
even if windblown dust were a provide a general characterization of the section 189(b)(1)(B). 69 FR at 30035; 71
significant problem, there could be San Joaquin Valley (SJV) and, as with all FR 7683. Moreover the State’s
individual situations where particular generalizations, are not without documentation for the September 22
conditions make it unreasonable to exception.’’ Sweet letter at 1. and October 25, 2006 events includes
expect the District and State to be able Furthermore, while, as Earthjustice information on compliance inspections
to control sources in those points out, the District did also state throughout the SJV. See section V.
circumstances. For such situations, EPA that an analysis of all wind events since above.
has issued the Exceptional Events Rule, 1990 did not establish a linkage to PM–
10 exceedances, the District also 2. District’s Natural Events Action Plan
and previously its policies, which as
discussed above allows exceedances enumerated technical limitations that In its 2007 petition Earthjustice
caused by exceptional events to be bear directly on this conclusion. For claims that for the September 22, 2006
excluded from regulatory considerations example, the data used did not report exceedances the District failed to meet
as appropriate if certain conditions are wind gusts and the 1 in 6 day sampling the requirements of its Natural Events
met. Since there are many variables that for PM–10 will not capture all wind Action Plan for ‘‘[a]cceptable
can cause exceptional event events. Sweet letter at 7–8. Therefore, documentation for establishing an
exceedances, EPA believes the analyses Earthjustice’s attempts to characterize extraordinary natural event * * * .’’
for such events should be reviewed on the statements in the Sweet letter Specifically, Earthjustice contends that
a case by case basis. 72 FR 13560. For regarding windblown dust as absolute is acceptable documentation for
example, not all high wind days will not warranted. Finally, the District also establishing ‘‘an extraordinary natural
lead to exceedances and not all asserts that: event’’ includes issuance by the national
exceedances monitored when high Evaluation of past events indicates that
Weather Service of a high wind or
winds are recorded are necessarily due often the area with the highest PM–10 levels blowing dust advisory, the occurrence
to those high winds. For the is not where the wind is highest, but rather of strong winds aloft and surface wind
exceedances discussed in today’s where the wind begins to slow. To maps showing potential for high winds
proposal, however, EPA believes the
understand the dynamics of this pattern we to occur at the site. According to
need only review the mechanisms for Earthjustice no adequate documentation
State has made an adequate entrainment and deposition. When the wind
demonstration that they were caused by of these factors was offered. PFW at 11.
slows, it can no longer keep the larger PM– Earthjustice’s statements regarding the
exceptional events and have met all of 10 particles aloft and they settle toward the
requirements for documentation under
the Exceptional Events Rule surface. The settling of particulates aloft
* * * results in an increased concentration the District’s ‘‘Natural Events Action
requirements, and thus the data for
in the deposition area. Plan for High Wind Events in the San
these particular events should be
Joaquin Valley Air Basin,’’ February 16,
excluded from regulatory consideration. Sweet letter at 2. This scenario is
Earthjustice also cites a letter from the 2006 (NEAP) appear in the portion of its
precisely what occurred on September
District to EPA responding to a letter 2007 petition that addresses the causal
22 and October 25, 2006 as discussed in
from Charles Swanson to EPA relationship between high winds and
section V. above.
commenting on the 2003 PM–10 Plan. the September 22, 2006 exceedances. Id.
April 15, 2004 letter from James Sweet, D. EPA’s Natural Events Policy Section 3 of the NEAP concerns the
SJVAPCD, to Doris Lo, EPA (Sweet documentation of high wind events and
1. BACM Implementation
letter). Mr. Swanson disputes the lists specific sources of documentation
In both petitions Earthjustice asserts suggested by EPA: Filter analysis,
following passage from Table G–15 in that EPA’s 1996 Natural Events Policy
Appendix G entitled ‘‘BACM meteorological data, modeling and
requires that the State demonstrate that receptor analysis, videos and/or
Comparative Analysis for ‘On-Field BACM were in place and that all
Activities’’’ concerning the BACM photographs, maps, news accounts and
sources were in compliance in order for BACM 97 requirements. Section 6 of the
justification discussion associated with EPA to concur on a high wind natural
the ‘‘Other’’ category of the District’s NEAP concerns meteorological
event request. PFR at 5; PFW at 9. forecasting criteria. This section states
proposed Agricultural Conservation Earthjustice contends that the State
Management Practices: that if certain enumerated criteria are
cannot demonstrate that agricultural met, the District, in consultation with
The SJV does not have a windblown dust sources were in compliance at the time CARB, will declare a NEAP episode.
problem to anywhere near the extent of the of the wind event since it is not clear The items that Earthjustice contends are
other nonattainment areas. The SJV has some if any compliance inspections had been required to document an exceptional
of the lowest average wind speeds in the
conducted. event are among these criteria. Thus

country. No wind related exceedances have As discussed in sections IV. and V.,
been recorded in the basin during the last Earthjustice has confused forecasting an
three years. Wind speeds are highest during
EPA is evaluating the State’s exceptional event with the
the spring when PM–10 levels are at their exceptional event documentation under documentation of it. EPA believes that
lowest. The majority of the fugitive dust EPA’s Exceptional Event Rule and not
emissions are generated from earth disturbing under its pre-existing policies. The Rule 97 As noted above, BACM implementation is not
activities. Certain soil types and crops are does not require either a showing that required under EPA’s exceptional events rule.
the State has adequately documented concur with the State’s request to flag have reservations located within the
the September 22, 2006 exceedances as these data as caused by high wind boundaries of the SJV. EPA is aware of
being caused by all exceptional events events. Thus our conclusion that the only one tribe in the SJV that operates
as discussed above in section V.A. September 3, 2004 exceedance is not a PM–10 monitor, the Santa Rosa
Finally we note again that EPA is significant for the attainment Rancheria. EPA has consulted with
proceeding in this rulemaking under its determination is still valid. representatives of the Santa Rosa
Exceptional Events Rule rather than the Regarding the November 2005 Rancheria Tribe on the data recorded by
1996 policy it replaces. In the preamble exceedances at Bakersfield, EPA stated their monitor, and the flagging of the
to the Rule, EPA explained that in its determination of attainment that data, and will continue to work with the
‘‘following the promulgation of this ‘‘[e]ven if the Bakersfield-Golden State Tribe, as provided for in Executive
rule, States will no longer be required to Highway BAM and TEOM data are Order 13175. Accordingly, EPA has
keep NEAPs in place that were not considered together (and even if they addressed Executive Order 13175 to the
approved as a part of a SIP for an area.’’ were quality-assured data not subject to extent that it applies to this action. This
72 FR at 13576. natural events), the exceedances
proposed action also does not have
recorded at these monitors would not
E. Harvest Activities Federalism implications because it does
show that the area is in violation of the
Earthjustice asserts in its 2006 not have substantial direct effects on the
standard.’’ 71 FR at 63659. As discussed
petition that September is the peak above, EPA believes that the States, on the relationship between the
harvest season for cotton and almonds exceedances at Bakersfield in 2006 were national government and the States, or
and that EPA should investigate the due to exceptional events and is on the distribution of power and
contribution of these activities to the proposing to concur with the State’s responsibilities among the various
September 22 exceedances. PFR at 6. In request to flag these data. Thus we still levels of government, as specified in
the 2007 petition Earthjustice states that believe that the 2005 Bakersfield-Golden Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
the end of October is generally when exceedances, when considered for August 10, 1999). This proposed action
two of the dustiest crop harvests, cotton purposes of our 2006 attainment merely makes a determination based on
and almonds, take place and that these determination, would not contribute to air quality data and does not alter the
activities caused the October 25 or constitute a violation. relationship or the distribution of power
exceedances. PRW at 13–14. EPA In the 2007 petition Earthjustice also and responsibilities established in the
discusses the effect of anthropogenic raises questions about exceedances CAA. Executive Order 12898 establishes
sources on the 2006 exceedances in recorded at the Santa Rosa Rancheria on a Federal policy for incorporating
section V. above. September 14, 20 and October 26, 2006. environmental justice into Federal
PFW at 15–16. EPA addresses these agency actions by directing agencies to
F. Exceedances at Corcoran and
exceedances in section VI. above. identify and address, as appropriate,
Stockton in 2004, Bakersfield in 2005
and the Santa Rosa Rancheria in 2006 IX. Statutory and Executive Order disproportionately high and adverse
Reviews human health or environmental effects
The 2007 petition raises issues of their programs, policies, and
regarding several exceedances that have Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR activities on minority and low-income
already been addressed by the October 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed populations. Today’s action involves
2006 attainment determination. These action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory proposed determinations based on air
exceedances occurred on September 3, action’’ and therefore is not subject to
quality considerations and proposes to
2004 at Corcoran and Stockton and on review by the Office of Management and
affirm that the San Joaquin area has
November 22–23, 2005 at Bakersfield. Budget. For this reason, this action is
attained the PM–10 NAAQS. It will not
EPA’s position on these exceedances is also not subject to Executive Order
have disproportionately high and
found in the final rule at 71 FR at 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
adverse effects on any communities in
63658–63661. That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
the area, including minority and low-
Regarding the September 3, 2004 Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
exceedance, Earthjustice states that EPA 22, 2001). This action merely proposes income communities.
must now evaluate whether the Agency a determination based on air quality This proposed rule also is not subject
can concur on the State’s request to flag data and does not impose any additional to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of
the exceedance as a high wind event requirements. Accordingly, the Children from Environmental Health
and cannot continue to rely on the Administrator certifies that this Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
argument that it is irrelevant because proposed rule will not have a significant April 23, 1997), because it is not
‘‘even if EPA had not concurred with economic impact on a substantial economically significant. The
the exclusion of this data, the Corcoran number of small entities under the requirements of section 12(d) of the
site would still attain the 24-hour Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 National Technology Transfer and
NAAQS * * *.’’ Earthjustice takes this et seq.). Because this proposed rule does Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
position because it believes there are not impose any additional enforceable 272 note) do not apply. This proposed
now other exceedances at Corcoran that duty, it does not contain any unfunded rule does not impose an information
cannot be excluded and that the mandate or significantly or uniquely collection burden under the provisions
September 3, 2004 exceedance will thus affect small governments, as described of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
be important in determining the SJV’s in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
PM–10 attainment status. PFW at 9. of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4).
EPA disagrees with Earthjustice’s Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, List of Subjects
contention that there are now other November 9, 2000) requires EPA to 40 CFR Part 52
exceedances that cannot be excluded. develop an accountable process to
As discussed above, EPA believes the ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by Environmental protection, Air
exceedances on September 22, October tribal officials in the development of pollution control, Incorporation by
25 and December 8, 2006 are all due to regulatory policies that have tribal reference, Particulate matter, Reporting
exceptional events and is proposing to implications.’’ Several Indian tribes and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 81 Dated: August 15, 2007.

Wayne Nastri,
Environmental protection, Air Regional Administrator, Region 9.
pollution control, National parks, [FR Doc. E7–16693 Filed 8–24–07; 8:45 am]
Wilderness areas.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Proposed Rule: Air Programs: Consolidated Federal Air Rule Revisions&#8212 California

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Proposed Rule: Air Programs: Consolidated Federal Air Rule Revisions&#8212 California

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Monday,

August 27, 2007

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF EXCEEDANCES EVALUATED FOR TODAY’S PROPOSED RULE

these may be presented on a seasonal or meteorological inversions, a meteorological event

concentrations at both sites.

35 ‘‘What are the Sources of Particulate Matter’’,

13566. requirements as discussed at section monitoring site. The State provides

significant sources of PM–10 in the SJV Department (SRREPA) operates a

TABLE SUMMARIZING PM–10 24-HOUR EXCEEDANCES IN THE SJV

Recorded (observed) Number of estimated exceedances Average number

were caused by exceptional events. PFR

conducted. event are among these criteria. Thus

40 CFR Part 81 Dated: August 15, 2007.

Potrebbero piacerti anche