![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Finding of Failure To Attain; California-San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment Area; PM-10
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: July 23, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 141)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 48039-48043]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jy02-674]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 81
[CA081-FTA; FRL-7250-5]
Finding of Failure To Attain; California-San Joaquin Valley
Nonattainment Area; PM-10
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is today finding that the San Joaquin Valley did not
attain the 24-hour and annual particulate matter (PM-10) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) by the deadline mandated in the
Clean Air Act (CAA), December 31, 2001.
In response to this finding, the State of California must submit by
December 31, 2002 revisions to the California State Implementation Plan
(SIP) that provide for attainment of the national PM-10 standards in
the San Joaquin Valley and achieve five percent annual reductions in
PM-10 or PM-10 precursor emissions as required by CAA section 189(d).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This finding is effective on August 22, 2002.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this final rule is available in the air programs
section of EPA Region 9's website, http://www.epa.gov/region09/air. The
docket for this rulemaking is available for inspection during normal
business hours at EPA Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, 17th
Floor, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of the docket. Please
call (415) 972-3980 for assistance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Celia Bloomfield (415) 947-4148 or
Steven Barhite (415) 972-3980, Planning Office Chief (AIR-2), Air
Division, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne
[[Page 48040]]
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; barhite.steven@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 15, 2002, EPA proposed to find that the San Joaquin Valley
did not attain the 24-hour and annual PM-10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) by its December 31, 2001 attainment deadline.
The San Joaquin Valley's December 31, 2001 attainment deadline was
established on January 8, 1993 when EPA determined that the area could
not ``practicably'' attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the moderate area
attainment deadline, December 31, 1994, and reclassified the San
Joaquin Valley nonattainment area as serious (58 FR 3334, 3337). See
CAA section 188(b)(1). Pursuant to CAA section 188(c)(2), serious PM-10
nonattainment areas were required to attain by December 31, 2001.
EPA has the responsibility, pursuant to sections 179(c) and
188(b)(2) of the Act, of determining within 6 months of the applicable
attainment date (i.e., June 30, 2002), whether the San Joaquin Valley
PM-10 nonattainment area has attained the annual and 24-hour NAAQS.
Section 179(c)(1) of the Act provides that attainment determinations
are to be based upon an area's ``air quality as of the attainment
date,'' and section 188(b)(2), which is specific to PM-10, is
consistent with that requirement. EPA determines whether an area's air
quality is meeting the PM-10 NAAQS based upon air quality data gathered
at monitoring sites in the nonattainment area and entered into EPA's
Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). These data are reviewed
to determine the area's air quality status in accordance with EPA
regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pursuant to Appendix K, attainment of the annual PM-10 NAAQS
is achieved when the expected annual arithmetic mean PM-10
concentration is less than or equal to the level of the standard
(50[mu]g/m3). Attainment of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is
achieved when the expected number of exceedances of the 24-hour
NAAQS (150 [mu]g/m3) per year at each monitoring site is
less than or equal to one. A total of three consecutive years of
clean air quality data is generally necessary to show attainment of
the annual and 24-hour standards for PM-10. A complete year of air
quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, Appendix K, is
comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing
data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For details about EPA's proposed failure to attain finding, please
see the proposed rulemaking at 67 FR 11633, March 15, 2002.
II. EPA's Responses to Comments on the Proposal
The only comments received on the proposed finding of nonattainment
were submitted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD). Summaries of the comments and EPA's responses are
set forth below.
Comment No. 1: The data set used by EPA to identify sites in
nonattainment of the PM-10 NAAQS during the years 1999-2001 appears to
have not been complete.
Response: The commenter is correct. The data set used by EPA was
based on PM-10 data collected from January 1, 1999 through September
30, 2001. At the time of the proposed rulemaking the San Joaquin Valley
PM-10 data for October 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 was not available.
The data for the last quarter of 2001 is now available and is factored
into EPA's responses below. In short, the additional data does not
change the conclusion in the proposed rule that the San Joaquin Valley
did not attain the annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards by its CAA
attainment deadline, December 31, 2001. However, as foreseen in the
proposal (67 FR 11633, 11634), the additional data collected during
October to December 2001 has altered the attainment status of some of
the monitoring sites.
For the annual PM-10 NAAQS, the Corcoran site, which was listed as
not attaining the annual NAAQS in the proposal, has now been removed
from the list of sites not attaining the annual NAAQS since its three-
year average annual concentration is 49 [mu]g/m3 (See
response to comment 2 below). The Hanford site is now listed as
nonattainment with a three-year average annual concentration of 51
[mu]g/m3 (See response to comment 3 below). The Fresno-
Drummond site may or may not be violating the annual NAAQS; due to an
incomplete data set, it is not possible to calculate an accurate three-
year annual average at this time (See response to comment 3 below).
For the 24-hour NAAQS, the most significant change from our
proposal is that the Modesto-14th Street site is no longer considered
nonattainment for the 24-hour NAAQS (See response to comment 5 below).
Comment No. 2: The proposal incorrectly lists the Corcoran
monitoring site as nonattainment for the annual PM-10 NAAQS.
Response: The commenter is correct. EPA miscalculated the three-
year annual average at the Corcoran site, which resulted in our listing
it as nonattainment for the annual PM-10 NAAQS. The correct three-year
annual average based on the full complement of 1999-2001 data is 49
[mu]g/m3. Thus, the Corcoran site did not violate the PM-10
annual NAAQS.
Comment No. 3: Two additional sites, Fresno-Drummond Street and
Hanford, may or may not be nonattainment for the annual PM-10 NAAQS
depending on whether data substitution is used for filling in missing
data points in the 1999-2001 period.
Response: Due to an incomplete data set, EPA was not able to
calculate an accurate three-year annual average for these two sites at
the time of our proposed action. Using the final 1999-2001 data set and
some data substitution in the 4th quarter of 1999,\2\ we have
determined that the Hanford site definitively violated the annual
NAAQS. For missing data in the 4th quarter of 1999, we substituted one
half of the minimum detectable concentration of PM-10 (2.5 [mu]g/
m3) and still arrived at a three-year annual average of 51
[mu]g/m3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Missing data was substituted using procedures in ``Guideline
on Exceptions to Data Requirements for Determining Attainment of
Particulate Matter Standards,'' EPA-450/4-87-005, April 1987.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining the annual attainment status of the Fresno-Drummond
Street site is more difficult. This site has two incomplete quarters of
data, the 4th quarter of 1999 and the 4th quarter of 2000. If we
substitute one half the minimum detectable concentration for the
missing values we calculate a three-year annual average of 47 [mu]g/
m3, which means the site attained the NAAQS. However, if we
substitute representative data from other calendar quarters we have a
three-year annual average of 53 [mu]g/m3, which exceeds the
NAAQS. The true three-year average probably falls somewhere between
this range but we cannot make an absolute determination of attainment
at this time.
Comment No. 4: Regarding the 24-hour NAAQS, the commenter states
that the Turlock site has recorded only one exceedance of the 24-hour
standard during its nine years of operation and could be considered
attainment if more than three years are used. 40 CFR part 50, appendix
K allows this method.
Response: EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, section
2.1(a) state that ``[u]nder 40 CFR 50.6(a) the 24-hour primary and
secondary standards are attained when the expected number of
exceedances per year at each monitoring site is less than or equal to
one. In the simplest case, the number of expected exceedances at a site
is determined by recording the number of exceedances in each calendar
year and then averaging
[[Page 48041]]
them over the past three calendar years.''
EPA acknowledges that according to appendix K, there may be
circumstances when more than three years of data can be used to
determine attainment. EPA interprets appendix K to allow additional
years of data only in order to reduce the effect of unusual or
exceptional events. See appendix K, section 2.4(a).
Appendix K, section 3.1 dictates how to estimate the number of
exceedances for a year when a monitoring site operates on a less than
everyday schedule. The Turlock PM-10 monitoring site operates on a one
in six day schedule. Using the equations in this section, the single
observed exceedance at the Turlock site would be adjusted to 11.5
exceedances. Even if we were to average these exceedances over the
lifetime of the Turlock PM-10 monitor (it began operation in January
1994, therefore we have eight years of operation, not nine) it still
averages 1.4 exceedances per year, and violated the 24-hour PM-10
NAAQS.
Comment No. 5: The Modesto-14th Street station had only one
exceedance in the most recent three-year period while sampling at a
frequency of once every three days. This site could also be considered
attainment if more than three years of data are considered as allowed
by 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
Response: Manual sampling methods for PM-10 are labor and resource
intensive and because of this many agencies choose to sample PM-10 on a
less than an every day schedule. Since there is not a PM-10
concentration value for each day of the year, EPA regulations at 40
part CFR 50, appendix K require an adjustment to be made to the
observed number of exceedances to account for the possible effect of
incomplete data. In this adjustment, the assumption is made that the
fraction of missing values that would have exceeded the standard level
is identical to the fraction of measured values above this level.
In order to properly adjust the data to estimate the expected
number of exceedances, the sampling frequency of the PM-10 monitoring
site must be known. The PM-10 monitoring site at Modesto--14th Street
utilized two high volume PM-10 samplers in order to collect data on a
one in three day schedule. Under this arrangement each sampler operates
once every six days but the schedules are staggered so that a 24-hour
PM-10 value is recorded every three days. In February 2001 one of the
PM-10 samplers ceased operation. There are two ways we can view the
sampling frequency of this site during the first quarter of 2001,
either as a one in three day site that is missing nine scheduled
samples or as a one in six day site that has six unscheduled, extra
samples. Calculating the estimated number of exceedances requires a
different approach depending on how we view this site. Since the site
continued to operate on a one in six day schedule for the remainder of
the calendar year, we believe it is appropriate to view the entire year
as operating on a one in six day schedule and to use Equation 3 from 40
CFR part 50, appendix K to calculate the estimated number of
excedances. The total number of estimated exceedances for the period
1999--2001 is three, averaging one exceedance per year. Therefore, this
site attained the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
See the previous response to comment 4 for a discussion of using
more than three years of data for determining attainment.
III. Summary of Changes From the Proposal
Based on data from the last quarter of 2001 and data recalculations
discussed in our responses to comments above, EPA has revised Tables 1
and 2 from the proposed rulemaking (67 FR 11633, 11634-11635) to read
as follows:
Table 1.--San Joaquin Valley Monitoring Sites That Violate the Annual PM-
10 NAAQS (1999-2001)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 year Annual
Site Name mean ([mu]g/
m3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield-Golden State................................ 55
Visalia................................................. 54
Fresno-Drummond......................................... 47-53
Hanford................................................. 51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2. --San Joaquin Valley Monitoring Sites That Violate the 24-Hour PM-10 NAAQS (1999-2001)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average #
Estimated Estimated Estimated of
Monitoring station exceedance exceedance exceedance exceedances per
days 1999 days 2000 days 2001 year 1999-2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno East Drummond........................... 8.4 0 6 4.8
Fresno First St................................ 0 0 6 2
Clovis......................................... 0 0 6 2
Bakersfield Golden State....................... 6 0 12 6
Bakersfield California Ave..................... 0 0 9 3
Oildale........................................ 3.75 0 5.63 3.1
Corcoran....................................... 6.1 0 7.6 4.6
Hanford........................................ 0 0 12.6 4.2
Turlock........................................ 11.5 0 0 3.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48042]]
EPA also received a request for information about the specific
dates when the exceedances occurred. In response to that request, EPA
has included Table 3, which lists the observed exceedances in the San
Joaquin Valley PM-10 nonattainment area during the three-year period
1999-2001. These are the actual observed exceedances as opposed to the
estimated number of exceedances \3\ reported in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As discussed above, EPA estimates total exceedances pursuant
to Part 50, Appendix K when there is incomplete monitored data.
Table 3.--Days Exceeding the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS in the San Joaquin
Valley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concentration
Date Monitoring site ([mu]g/m3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 12, 1999................ Oildale............ 156
October 21, 1999................ Fresno--East 162
Drumond.
Corcoran........... 174
Turlock............ 157
November 14, 1999............... Bakersfield--Golden 183
State Hwy.
January 1, 2001................. Fresno--East 186
Drummond.
Fresno--First 193
Street.
Fresno--Clovis..... 155
Bakersfield--Golden 205
State Hwy.
Bakersfield-- 186
California Ave.
Oildale............ 158
January 3, 2001................. Bakersfield-- 190
California Ave.
January 7, 2001................. Bakersfield--Golden 174
State Hwy.
Bakersfield-- 159
California Ave.
Corcoran........... 165
Hanford............ 185
November 9, 2001................ Hanford............ 155
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Final Action
EPA is finding that the San Joaquin Valley failed to attain the
annual and 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS by the December 31, 2001 attainment
deadline as reflected in revised Tables 1 and 2 above.
Under section 189(d) of the Act, serious PM-10 nonattainment areas
that fail to attain are required to submit within 12 months of the
applicable attainment date, ``plan revisions which provide for
attainment of the PM-10 air quality standards and, from the date of
such submission until attainment, for an annual reduction in PM-10 or
PM-10 precursor emissions within the area of not less than 5 percent of
the amount of such emissions as reported in the most recent inventory
prepared for such area.'' Since the applicable attainment date was
December 31, 2001, the deadline for this plan revision is December 31,
2002.
V. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
in and of itself establishes no new requirements, it merely notes that
the air quality in the San Joaquin Valley did not meet the federal
health standards for PM-10 by the CAA deadline. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
does not in and of itself establish new requirements, EPA believes that
it is questionable whether a requirement to submit a SIP revision
constitutes a federal mandate. The obligation for a State to revise its
SIP arises out of sections 110(a), 179(d), and 189(d) of the CAA and is
not legally enforceable by a court of law, and at most is a condition
for continued receipt of highway funds. Therefore, it is possible to
view an action requiring such a submittal as not creating any
enforceable duty within the meaning of section 421(5)(9a)(I) of UMRA (2
U.S.C. 658(a)(I)). Even if it did, the duty could be viewed as falling
within the exception for the condition of Federal assistance under
section 421(5)(a)(i)(I) of UMRA (2 U.S.C. 658(5)(a)(i)(I)). Therefore,
today's final action does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action does not in and of itself
create any new requirements and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant. Because this finding of failure to attain is a factual
determination based on air quality considerations, the requirements of
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
[[Page 48043]]
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 23, 2002. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 16, 2002.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 02-18589 Filed 7-22-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P