--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6:20............  9/12..............  6/7...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  4/10..............              ND
6:30............  10/10.............  5/9...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  5/8...............              ND

6:45............  8/12..............  5/7...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  5/8...............               3
7:00............  9/11..............  6/9...............  21................  16/24.............  17/ND.............  5/7...............               6
7:20............  13/12.............  7/6...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  5/11..............               7
7:35............  13/14.............  7/7...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  5/11..............              ND
7:45............  14/14.............  8/9...............  28................  17/24.............  15/ND.............  7/10..............              38
8:05............  15/19.............  10/10.............  26................  ND................  ND................  8/12..............               5
8:15............  13/19.............  12/10.............  31................  ND................  ND................  9/12..............              20
8:30............  21/20.............  14/14.............  28/35.............  ND................  ND/26.............  9/17..............              21
8:45............  23/23.............  8/16..............  ND/35.............  ND................  ND................  7/18..............               9
9:00............  20/23.............  12/15.............  29/38.............  18................  15/ND.............  5/21..............               2
9:20............  18/27.............  12/18.............  24/40.............  ND................  ND................  4/18..............              35
9:35............  21/25.............  9/15..............  ND................  ND................  ND................  5/16..............               6
9:45............  17/25.............  6/16..............  ND/37.............  ND................  ND................  8/18..............               2
10:05...........  17/24.............  9/13..............  23/ND.............  20/27.............  10/ND.............  7/16..............              15
10:15...........  17/26.............  5/13..............  ND................  ND................  ND................  4/11..............               3
10:35...........  17/23.............  7/7...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  ND/13.............               9
10:50...........  14/23.............  8/12..............  ND/30.............  ND................  ND................  ND/13.............               0
11:05...........  16/21.............  7/7...............  17/ND.............  17/32.............  10/ND.............  ND/11.............              ND
11:15...........  12/22.............  7/12..............  ND................  ND................  ND................  ND................               8
11:30...........  14/20.............  1/9...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  ND................              10
11:35...........  15/23.............  ND/8..............  ND/24.............  ND/24.............  ND................  ND................              ND
11:45...........  ND/23.............  6/9...............  ND................  ND................  ND................  ND................               0
11:50...........  ND/23.............  ND/5..............  ND................  ND................  ND................  ND................              ND
12:00...........  ND/16.............  0.................  14/...............  17/ND.............  10/ND.............  ND................             ND
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Mesowest historical meteorological data, Mesowest, http://www.met.utah.edu/mesowest/.
ND--No Data available.

    Earthjustice includes data in its chart only from locations which
had recorded lower wind speeds on the morning of September 22, 2006. We
addressed the lower intensity winds at Corcoran and Bakersfield in our
proposed rule, and the fact that the winds between Lemoore and Corcoran
and Bakersfield were capable of keeping in suspension the particulate
matter that the winds at Lemoore had suspended. See 72 FR at 49052.
Earthjustice does not include data from the other meteorological sites
in the general area of the central SJV that show winds that were
comparable to those recorded at the Lemoore Naval Air Station
meteorological site. Data from these other meteorological sites, as
shown above, indicate that nearly all recorded hourly wind speeds on
September 22, 2006 were in excess of the threshold wind speed of 18 mph
between 6 a.m. and 12 noon PST. Recorded gusts at some of these sites
were also in the 20-30 mph range during the morning hours. It is likely
that there were other places along the path from Lemoore to Bakersfield
that experienced wind speeds above the threshold velocity but there
were no wind instruments to document it.
    Therefore, Earthjustice's statement that none of the winds
experienced outside of northwest Lemoore were capable of eroding soils
is simply not true. Based on actual recorded wind data, wind speeds in
the central SJV on the morning of September 22, 2006 were high not just
in Lemoore but throughout this portion of the Valley. Moreover, as
pointed out above, even if the winds outside of Lemoore were not
capable of eroding soil, the winds between Lemoore and Corcoran and
Bakersfield were capable of keeping in suspension the particulate
matter that the winds in the area around Lemoore had entrained.
    Comment 17: Earthjustice states that no attempt was made to explain
how high winds that began at 7 a.m. on September 22, 2006 caused
violating PM-10 levels at a monitor 25 miles away starting at 6 a.m.
    Response 17: See responses to comments 10 and 11.
    Comment 18: Earthjustice asserts that EPA failed to demonstrate
that the concentrations measured on September 22, 2006 could have been
caused by the wind-generated erosion of soils from agricultural and
industrial sources in the Lemoore area. Earthjustice states that all
EPA offered as evidence is a study establishing a threshold velocity at
which soil erosion may begin to occur, but that EPA has not analyzed
whether the study's threshold wind speed is appropriate for the Lemoore
area. Earthjustice argues that the scouring of soil by winds depends on
much more than simply the speed of the wind and that EPA has not
attempted to analyze factors pertinent to fugitive dust generation such
as the soil class and erodibility in the Lemoore area, the types and
stages of crop cover present at the time the winds occurred, the
specific activities occurring in the area that contributed to PM-10
concentrations, or the specific measures employed by sources to reduce
or prevent wind erosion. Earthjustice maintains that this information
should have been evaluated to help determine whether or not the winds
in Lemoore could have realistically generated the levels of PM-10
observed on September 22, 2006.
    Response 18: EPA has demonstrated that the concentrations measured
on September 22, 2006 were caused by windblown dust generated in the
Lemoore area. As stated above in response to comment 10, the State's
documentation included a threshold wind speed needed to erode soils and
entrain the resulting particulate matter in the atmosphere. This wind
speed study was part of the 2002 CRPAQS Study. The wind speed study was
performed in Angiola, California, which is located about 8 miles SW of
Corcoran and 34 miles SW of Lemoore. Based on the soil map included in
the State's documentation, the soil type in Angiola is the same as
those in Lemoore and Corcoran. See ``Natural Event Documentation,
Corcoran, Oildale and

Bakersfield, California, September 22, 2006,'' San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District, April 20, 2007 at 76. Thus the
threshold velocity at which soil erodes identified in the study is
appropriate for the Lemoore and Corcoran areas.
    Reviewing the graphic in the State's documentation, we see that
crop types throughout the areas in question are predominantly field
crops. Id. at 77. Other sources in this rural portion of the SJV could
include, but are not limited to, agricultural activities, unpaved roads
and construction activity. These types of sources are all subject to
BACM. Id. at 32-33. These BACM are part of the approved serious area
PM-10 plan for the SJV. See 69 FR 30006. Therefore, EPA did in fact
evaluate the principal factors identified by Earthjustice, including
wind speed, sources and whether they were controlled. See also our
proposed rule at 72 FR 49051 and 49053.
    Comment 19: Earthjustice states that EPA must find that the
documentation demonstrates a clear causal relationship between a
measured exceedance and the alleged event. In this respect,
Earthjustice, relying on a declaration of Jan Null (Null declaration),
argues that the District's documentation concocts a barely-plausible
story of severe scouring by winds not much greater than the alleged
minimum velocity for entrainment, followed by rapid transport from one
remote west-Valley location (Lemoore) down to Corcoran, where huge
amounts of particulate matter were deposited on the monitor in order to
cause violations, yet enough pollution was kept entrained by much
slower winds to continue on for 60 miles down to Bakersfield and
Oildale in substantial enough quantities to also cause violations in
those locations. Earthjustice concludes that this ``story'' is
unsupported by reliable meteorological evidence.
    Response 19: As discussed in EPA's proposed rule (72 FR 49046) and
in responses to comments 11 and 16, the State did provide reliable
meteorological data to support its demonstration that winds in the
central and southern SJV were of the appropriate intensity and
direction to cause and transport fugitive dust to the affected monitors
at Corcoran and Bakersfield. EPA relied on these data, as well as other
publicly available data, to concur with the State's request to find
that the exceedances of the NAAQS on September 22, 2006 were due to an
exceptional event.
    Furthermore, Earthjustice mischaracterizes the data used to support
this action. It is not the case that winds were not much greater than
the threshold wind speed of 18 mph; rather they were at times
significantly higher and widespread in the central SJV. See Table 6
above. Winds between Lemoore and Corcoran were of the appropriate
direction and intensity to transport windblown dust to Corcoran, 25
miles away. Winds in the areas south of Corcoran and north of
Bakersfield were of sufficient intensity to transport suspended PM-10
the 55 miles from Corcoran to Bakersfield.\27\ The timing, direction
and intensity of the winds and hourly PM-10 concentrations at
Bakersfield all support the demonstration of transport presented by the
State. Based on the weight of evidence presented, EPA has concluded the
State's documentation shows a clear causal relationship between the
wind event and the exceedances in contrast to the ``barely-plausible
story'' Earthjustice alleges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ There may have been some deposition and dispersion of the
dust plume, as discussed in our proposal at 72 FR at 49052, but
enough material remained suspended to impact the Bakersfield area.
The fact that the 24-hour average PM-10 concentrations in
Bakersfield and Oildale were 157 [mu]g/m\3\ and 162 [mu]g/m\3\
compared to the 215 [mu]g/m\3\ recorded at Corcoran certainly
indicates that some deposition or dispersion occurred along the 55
mile pathway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 20: Earthjustice states that the Figure 1 in the Null
declaration shows that winds originating in Lemoore at 7 am, which is
when the data in the record show elevated winds began, may have
traveled to Corcoran, arriving around noon. However, Earthjustice
states that because the Corcoran monitor began reading exceedances of
the PM-10 standard at 6 a.m., EPA cannot claim the winds caused the
Corcoran exceedance.
    Response 20: See our responses to comments 10 and 11.
    Comment 21: Earthjustice claims that the Figures 1, 2 and 3 in the
Null declaration show that the winds that did reach Corcoran proceeded
northeast toward the Sierra foothills and did not move in the direction
of Bakersfield.
    Response 21: As discussed in our response to comment 11 above, EPA
assumed a more realistic three-dimensional approach to using the
HYSPLIT model than Earthjustice's two-dimensional approach. We also
used a small range of starting points for our HYSPLIT runs, recognizing
that simply because the available Lemoore meteorological data were from
a single point at the Lemoore Naval Air Station, the data from that
point represent meteorological conditions over a wider area. See
footnote 11 above.
    Based on our more realistic inputs, we initiated three HYSPLIT
runs, one starting half way between Lemoore and Kettleman City (about
11 miles southwest from Lemoore), one at Lemoore, and one about 11
miles northeast of Lemoore. EPA chose these two different starting
locations outside of Lemoore because, based on the trajectory model,
they more precisely depict the potential source regions for Corcoran,
which is more east than south of Lemoore, and Bakersfield, which is
more south than east of Lemoore. Since the Lemoore station can be
considered representative of a larger area than Lemoore itself, the
starting locations are considered part of the Lemoore area and dust was
entrained from that entire area. Also, in support of that assumption,
Hanford, which is about 15 miles east northeast of Lemoore, and
Kettleman Hills, about 22 miles southwest of Lemoore, reported wind
speeds above the threshold for the entrainment of dust.
    The results of our HYSPLIT runs show that from Corcoran and
eastward, some of the dust may have been transported more towards the
Sierra foothills, but west of Corcoran the dust was transported
southward towards Bakersfield. See Figures 1, 2, and 3. These results
are in general agreement with Jan Null's statement that:

    * * * winds out of Kettleman City continued down the western-
most side of the San Joaquin Valley, essentially following the
contours of the Coastal Range. This is not unusual behavior for
winds on the west side of the Valley, which are generally faster
than winds in the rest of the Valley due to the orientation of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys.

Null declaration at 11. Between Lemoore and Kettleman City, the winds
were in transition from heading towards the east near Corcoran and
following the Coastal Range as happened around Kettleman City. This
caused the winds in a portion of that transition area to go in a direct
path towards Bakersfield. In contrast to EPA's inputs to the HYSPLIT
model, the inputs used by Jan Null did not reflect the wind flow
structure in the Valley and did not demonstrate a comprehensive view of
the meteorological events that took place during that day.
    Comment 22: Earthjustice believes that EPA was ``dazzled'' by the
District's use of the HYSPLIT model even though the model is not an
appropriate tool for post hoc simulation of localized meteorology and
EPA did no analyses of its own. Earthjustice further states that the
District's single run does not show the connection between Lemoore
winds and the violating monitors that EPA apparently thinks it does.

    Response 22: See our response to comments 10, 11 and 21.
    Comment 23: Earthjustice maintains that the winds just south of
Lemoore, in and around Corcoran and between Corcoran and Bakersfield
never exceeded the ``alleged'' threshold velocity to entrain dust and
the winds originating in Lemoore that did exceed such threshold could
not have carried sufficient particles of PM on to Bakersfield and
Oildale. Earthjustice concludes therefore that the timing, wind
trajectories and the basic physics of wind movement do not support a
causal connection between the Lemoore winds and the September 22, 2006
exceedances.
    Response 23: See responses to comments 11 and 16.
    Comment 24: Earthjustice notes that the District highlights a
single data point showing sustained winds of 15.2 mph for one hour in
Alpaugh. Earthjustice believes this is troubling because the District
is relying on data from the California Irrigation Management
Information System (CIMIS) monitoring network that the T & B Systems
Report says should be used with ``extreme caution.'' Earthjustice also
believes that it is suspicious that the District puts forth data from
this source while simultaneously providing almost none of the data it
collects from its own meteorological sensors which are collocated with
the monitors that record PM-10 concentrations.
    Response 24: Earthjustice quotes from the T & B Systems Report
without providing the context of the warning to use the data with
``extreme caution.'' In its report, T & B Systems state:

    CIMIS--This data set should be used with extreme caution. Two
significant issues regarding the CIMIS data were noted. First, the
fact that wind measurements are made at 2 meters instead of 10
meters appears to result in the reported wind speeds decreasing by
about 30 percent relative to those made at 10 meters. This can be
corrected, for the most part, by using the standard power law
adjustment. Second, the results brought about significant questions
about the alignment of the wind direction system, with possible
misalignments as much as 30[deg] noted. This potential problem was
noted at a significant number of sites investigated. The QA program
for the CIMIS network is not known.

``T & B Systems Contribution to CRPAQS Initial Data Analysis of Field
Program Measurements, Final Report Contract 2002-06,'' Technical &
Business Systems, Inc., November 9, 2004 at 3.
    The issue of the height of the measurements taken at CIMIS'
meteorological stations was addressed by the State in its
documentation.\28\ Winds measured at two meters above ground level
(AGL) are generally lower than those measured at the standard 10
meters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ ``Addendum, Natural Event Documentation, Corcoran, Oildale
and Bakersfield, California, September 22, 2006,'' May 23, 2007 at
13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the alignment of the wind direction system, there were
many other meteorological stations that provided data on wind direction
and these showed that the winds were predominantly from the north and
northwest on September 22, 2006.
    Any uncertainty regarding the quality assurance for the CIMIS data
would carry more weight if we were relying solely on the CIMIS data.
Most of the meteorological data included in the State's documentation
\29\ as well as the additional data obtained by EPA \30\ and used to
evaluate this exceptional event demonstration were from the District's
meteorological stations and National Weather Service meteorological
networks. Since the District does not operate any monitoring stations
between Corcoran and Bakersfield, it did not have any District-
collected meteorological data for this region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``Natural Event Documentation, Corcoran, Oildale and
Bakersfield, California, September 22, 2006,'' San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District, April 20, 2007; ``Addendum,
Natural Event Documentation, Corcoran, Oildale and Bakersfield,
California, September 22, 2006,'' San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District, May 23, 2007.
    \30\ Mesowest historical meteorological data, Mesowest, http://
www.met.utah.edu/mesowest/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 25: Earthjustice believes that the District did little more
than a blind search for the areas of the SJV that experienced winds
that exceeded the ``alleged'' entrainment level and then concluded that
pollution on September 22, 2006 must have originated from that area.
    Response 25: EPA believes that the State and EPA conducted a
thorough evaluation of the possible cause of the September 22, 2006
exceedances and considered potential sources, conditions and control
measures at the time of the exceedances. We discuss in additional
detail in our response to comment 16 the fact that a number of
locations in the central SJV besides Lemoore experienced high winds on
that day. After a consideration of the most likely cause of the
exceedances and after evaluating all the circumstances, the State
concluded that the unusually high winds in the Lemoore area caused the
exceedances in Corcoran and Bakersfield on September 22, 2006. The
State then established in its documentation the causal connection
between the winds in the Lemoore area and the exceedances at Corcoran
and Bakersfield.
    Comment 26: Earthjustice asserts that neither the District nor EPA
offers any basis for the statement in the proposed rule at 72 FR 49051
that ``wind speeds [in Corcoran], though not sufficient to erode dust,
were sufficient to keep entrained and transported dust from the high
winds at Lemoore suspended for the period during which the exceedances
occurred.'' Earthjustice further asserts that because winds 10 miles
southeast of Lemoore at the SRR never exceeded the entrainment
threshold and no other relevant location outside of the area northwest
of Lemoore experienced erosive winds, there is very little basis for
the conclusion that a clear causal relationship exists between dust
entrained in Lemoore and violations of the standard in Corcoran,
Oildale and Bakersfield.
    Response 26: See responses to comments 10, 11, 15 and 16.
    Comment 27: Earthjustice asserts that EPA fails to show that the
exceedances at Corcoran, Bakersfield and Oildale were outside normal
historical concentrations. Earthjustice claims that dust-intensive
agricultural activities occur in the fall and that none of the
September 22, 2006 exceedances are significantly beyond the normal
fluctuating range of air quality concentrations in the SJV.
Earthjustice presents a chart that it says demonstrates that the
September 22, 2006 readings are within the historical range of PM-10
concentrations observed over the past 15 years during the fall season.
    Response 27: See our response to comment 12 above.
    Comment 28: Earthjustice states that EPA suggests in the
Exceptional Events Rule that a contemporary comparison of all
seasonally-adjusted data is appropriate for determining historical
frequency of the measurements in question. However, Earthjustice says,
because fall is the season with the highest PM-10 concentrations, the
comparison is most appropriately made by looking at historical data
from September through November. Earthjustice claims that because the
District's documentation limits its comparison to September
measurements over a 7 year period, the result is a ``typical value''
based only on the ``relatively good days monitored.''
    Response 28: See our response to comment 12 above.
    Comment 29: Earthjustice maintains that EPA asserts that because
the September 22, 2006 measurements were higher than what the District
claims is

the ``typical value'' for the month of September, these violations must
have been caused by an exceptional event. Earthjustice claims that with
this argument EPA is saying that any PM-10 exceedance should be ignored
as exceptional which is an absurd assumption that would render the
NAAQS meaningless.
    Response 29: EPA did not decide to exclude the data from September
22, 2006 from its attainment finding simply because the data were
outside of the typical range of values normally seen in these areas.
The EER has a number of criteria that need to be met in order for us to
concur with a State's request to exclude data from consideration,
including a demonstration that the event affected air quality, a causal
connection between the event and the exceedance value recorded, an
analysis demonstrating that the recorded exceedance was outside the
normal fluctuation of the data, and a demonstration that ``but for''
the event the exceedance would not have occurred. EPA evaluates how the
State meets all of these criteria, in addition to the procedural
requirements of the EER and determines, based on the weight of the
totality of the evidence presented, whether to concur with the State's
request. In this case, EPA believes that the State has met the
``weight-of-evidence'' standard and has demonstrated that the cause of
the exceedances on September 22, 2006 was a high wind exceptional
event. See also our response to comment 12.
    Comment 30: Earthjustice states that if EPA had compared the
September 22, 2006 data to data from other days on which exceedances
occurred, it would have found that the September 22, 2006 readings are
typical of bad air days in the fall in the SJV and therefore would not
have been able to dismiss these violations as ``in excess of normal
fluctuations.''
    Response 30: See response to comment 12.
    Comment 31: Earthjustice states that it reviewed EPA's AQS reports
of monitoring data from the past ten years and found that in Corcoran,
50 percent of all FRM readings showing elevated levels of PM-10 occur
in September and October and that 95 percent occur in the period from
September to January. Earthjustice states that although the numbers are
lower in Bakersfield and Oildale, with 31 percent and 29 percent of
elevated PM-10 readings, respectively, occurring in September and
October, these numbers do not paint the picture of exceptionality the
District and EPA claim. Instead, Earthjustice declares, these numbers
confirm that the concentrations recorded on September 22, 2006 were
within the normal historical range of PM-10 concentrations experienced
in the central and southern SJV during the fall PM season when
concentrations are historically at their highest.
    Response 31: As discussed in our response to comment 12, EPA
analyzed data from these sites and determined that the concentrations
recorded on September 22 and October 25, 2006 were well outside the
normal historical fluctuation of data normally recorded at these sites.
In its comment, Earthjustice analyzes what it states are ``elevated
levels'' of PM-10 concentrations that were recorded at the Corcoran,
Oildale, and Bakersfield-Golden State Highway sites. Earthjustice
asserts that an ``elevated level'' is ``defined by EPA'' as 90 [mu]g/
m\3\ or greater.\31\ This is not the case. For the source of its
definition, Earthjustice cites a Federal Register notice in which EPA
proposed to approve a PM-10 maintenance plan for Wallula, Washington.
In that proposed rule the 90 [mu]g/m\3\ or greater was a figure
employed by the Washington State Department of Ecology for use in
modeling a PM-10 maintenance demonstration. 70 FR 38076 (July 1, 2005).
EPA did not endorse or adopt this level as a definition of what
constitutes ``elevated levels'' of PM-10 for the purposes of performing
an analysis of historical fluctuations for the EER, and Earthjustice's
evaluation of ``elevated levels'' at the SJV monitoring sites is not
based on an EPA definition of what constitutes ``elevated levels'' for
this purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ EC at 6, footnote 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 32: Earthjustice claims that the ``but for'' test requires
a showing that without the winds scouring the soils near Lemoore, the
monitors in Corcoran, Bakersfield, and Oildale would not have recorded
violations of the PM-10 standard and that such a showing cannot be
made. Specifically, Earthjustice asserts that the monitor in Corcoran
was violating the PM-10 standard on September 22, 2006 before the winds
in Lemoore even picked up. Earthjustice states that Table 3 of the
District's April 20, 2007 documentation shows that the continuous
monitor in Corcoran was recording concentrations in excess of 150
[mu]g/m\3\ starting at 6 a.m. Earthjustice further maintains that Jan
Null in his declaration states that there is no way the winds in
Lemoore could transport entrained dust instantaneously from Lemoore to
Corcoran.
    Response 32: We address these issues in our responses to comments
10, 11, 16 and 21. In our proposed rule we also discussed how the State
met the ``but for'' criteria. 72 FR at 49053.
    Comment 33: Earthjustice further asserts that the winds in Corcoran
never even got above 11 miles per hour, so local wind entrainment of
particulate matter is not a factor. Earthjustice concludes that
activities in and around Corcoran must have been responsible for the
high PM-10 concentrations on September 22, 2006, not winds from
Lemoore.
    Response 33: We addressed the lower wind speed issue in Corcoran in
our proposed rule at 72 FR 49052 and also in our responses to comments
10 and 15. As we discussed in the proposed rule, the lower wind speeds
in Corcoran do not preclude the transport of dust from the areas
northwest of Corcoran. The wind data from September 22, 2006 show high
winds in the area centered around Lemoore. It was this area northwest
of Corcoran that contributed PM-10 to the air parcel that impacted the
monitors at Corcoran and Bakersfield. While any sources in the local
area represented by the Corcoran monitor may have contributed some PM-
10 to the total 24-hour average, it was the wind-generated dust from
the area of Lemoore that contributed enough PM-10 to cause the monitor
to record an exceedance of the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS.
    Given the evaluation of all information and circumstances
surrounding the exceedance at the Corcoran monitor on September 22,
2006, the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that the windblown
dust from the area of Lemoore rather than contributions from sources in
the area represented by the Corcoran PM-10 monitor were the ``but for''
cause of the exceedance.
    Comment 34: Earthjustice argues that, even if 6 hours worth of
readings from the Corcoran continuous monitor were removed starting at
11 a.m., in order to account for the 6 hours during which winds in
Lemoore exceeded the alleged threshold velocity, there is still a
violation of the PM-10 standard. Therefore, Earthjustice concludes,
there is no way the District can argue and EPA can concur that winds
from Lemoore were the cause of the violation of the PM-10 standard in
Corcoran on September 22, 2006.
    Response 34: As discussed in the preamble to the EER, EPA's
historical practice has been to exclude a daily measured value in its
entirety when an exceptional event causes that value. See 72 FR at
13572. EPA is not aware of the existence of precise and universally
applicable techniques that are administratively and technically

feasible and that could support partial adjustment of air quality data.
Thus, the approach suggested by Earthjustice is not viable and is not
permitted by the EER except in some very limited cases not applicable
here. See also response to comments 10.
    Moreover, Earthjustice suggests that the winds from Lemoore began
affecting the Corcoran monitor at 11 a.m. In fact the Lemoore area
experienced winds higher than the threshold wind speed beginning at 6
a.m. PST and these winds likely began affecting the monitor at Corcoran
between 7 and 8 a.m. PST (the value reported for 7 a.m. PST). See
response to comment 10. When the winds at Lemoore decreased to levels
below the threshold wind speed at 2 p.m. PST, the dust entrained in the
atmosphere most likely still continued to impact the Corcoran monitor,
though we see a leveling off and then gradual decrease in hourly PM-10
concentrations from that point forward. See Table 3 above in our
response to comment 10. We further addressed this timing question by
performing our own HYSPLIT analyses. See response to comment 11 above.
The result of our analysis of the winds on September 22 supports the
State's demonstration that winds originating in the area around Lemoore
starting at 6 a.m. PST could have transported dust and impacted the
Corcoran monitor within one to two hours. See Figures 1 and 2.
    Earthjustice appears to assume that particles are deposited as soon
as winds decrease below the threshold speed for entrainment; in fact,
PM-10 particles remain in suspension for many hours after being
entrained and, as in the case of Corcoran, continued to affect
concentrations recorded at the monitor until the early evening hours of
September 22, 2006. Thus, Earthjustice assumes that the windblown dust
started to affect the concentrations monitored at Corcoran many hours
later than it did in fact, and that it ceased to impact the monitor
many hours before it did in fact. Thus EPA believes that the impact on
the monitor started earlier and ended later than Earthjustice contends,
and was thus the ``but for'' cause of the exceedance.
    Comment 35: Earthjustice maintains that there is no support for the
claim that but for the winds originating in Lemoore, the monitors in
Bakersfield and Oildale would not have exceeded the PM-10 standard.
Earthjustice states that Jan Null shows in Figures 1, 2 and 3 in his
declaration that the winds originating in Lemoore may have reached
Corcoran at some point in the day, but they certainly did not continue
on to Bakersfield and Oildale. Earthjustice states that the
trajectories of winds out of Lemoore and Corcoran were decidedly away
from Bakersfield and could not have carried particulate matter to
Bakersfield and Oildale to cause the violations of the standard seen in
these locations. Earthjustice states that Figure 4 in Jan Null's
declaration shows that, in fact, any winds arriving in Bakersfield by 1
p.m. were slow and moving in a circular pattern up from the southwest.
Further, Earthjustice asserts that, as illustrated in Table A-1 of the
District's May Addendum to its April 20, 2007 documentation, wind
speeds in the Bakersfield area never reached speeds capable of eroding
soils.
    Response 35: We have previously addressed the issue of dust
transport to Bakersfield in our responses to comments 10, 11, 15, 16
and 21. EPA does not contend that the wind speeds in Bakersfield
reached the speeds necessary to erode and entrain dust, but rather that
windblown dust from the area beginning in Lemoore and moving south
affected the monitors in Bakersfield.
    The trajectory calculation that Jan Null used for Bakersfield was
not illustrative of the complete meteorological scenario. Again, he
used a single trajectory calculation starting at zero meters height
which does not account for the third dimension of height of the dust
above ground level. In HYSPLIT runs performed by EPA, forward
trajectory calculations within the mixed layer starting between Lemoore
and Kettleman Hills show transport directly to Bakersfield within 7
hours.
    In addition, the circular wind pattern or eddy near Bakersfield
discussed by Earthjustice was produced by a HYSPLIT analysis using a
backward trajectory. However there appears to be a discrepancy between
forward trajectories and backward trajectories produced by the HYSPLIT
model. In source-receptor determinations, forward trajectories are
considered more appropriate in determining precise locations of sources
because they more accurately account for where the weather is coming
from. EPA's forward trajectories did not show any indication of an
eddy. The eddies that Earthjustice states occurred around Bakersfield
are around 15 km in size for September 22, 2006. Since the EDAS
meteorological data used for the trajectories has 40 km spacing between
each grid point or meteorological data point, it is not of high enough
resolution to accurately represent an eddy in the 15 km size range.
There is too much uncertainty to conclude that there is an eddy because
it is less than one grid cell spacing in dimension and would be
considered a sub-grid scale feature. Thus, EPA's HYSPLIT runs, using
more appropriate height levels in the atmosphere and forward
trajectories, support the conclusion that the winds transported dust
from the Lemoore area and caused the exceedances recorded at the
monitors in the timeframe of the exceedances.
    Comment 36: Earthjustice argues that, in evaluating the ``but for''
demonstration, no attempt was made to determine which of the many
diverse sources that contribute to particulate matter concentrations in
the SJV might have been contributing to the pollution load and in what
quantities on September 22, 2006. Earthjustice concludes that for EPA
to declare that no ``unusual activities'' were taking place on this day
is to say that the same dust-generating sources that have always caused
periodic violations of the standards in the fall were again responsible
for exceedances.
    Response 36: See responses to comments 6, 12 and 14.
3. Comments Specific to October 25, 2006--Corcoran and Bakersfield
    Comment 37: Earthjustice states that the documentation for the
exceedances on October 25, 2006 is remarkably similar to that of
September 22, 2006, and as such, suffers from the same significant
flaws. Earthjustice also states that since the meteorology for both
days was very similar, much of its analysis for September 22, 2006 also
applies to October 25, 2006. Earthjustice provides a chart which it
contends shows that wind speeds in Lemoore on October 25 were very
similar to wind speeds on September 22. With respect to this chart,
Earthjustice asserts the following:

    * * * there was a period of several hours during which the
alleged wind speed threshold was exceeded in northwest Lemoore at
the Naval Air Station monitor, though again wind speeds at the Santa
Rosa Rancheria monitor only 10 miles southeast never reached that
threshold. * * * Winds in Corcoran never got above 11.3 miles per
hour and Bakersfield, likewise, did not exceed the District's
alleged entrainment threshold with maximum winds just under seven
miles per hour. * * * Further, the District can point to no data
between Lemoore and Bakersfield that show winds capable of
entraining dust, offering instead only data from CIMIS stations
located far to the north and west that experienced higher wind
speeds on October 25, 2006. As has already been established by Mr.
Null, higher wind speeds on the west side of the Valley along the
Coastal Range are not unusual due to the orientation of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. * * *

    Response 37: To the extent there are similarities between
Earthjustice's

analyses for September 22 and October 25, 2006, EPA's responses to
comments regarding September 22 are also applicable.
    In addition, EPA notes that the wind speeds in the central SJV, as
represented by the meteorological monitoring station at Lemoore, on
October 25 were quite high, reaching hourly average speeds of 31 mph
and gusts of up to 40 mph, and were sustained at levels above the
threshold wind speed for 11 hours (5 a.m. to 3 p.m. PST),\32\ as shown
in Table 5 above. We do not contend that the wind speeds in the
vicinity of Corcoran and Bakersfield were sufficient to entrain dust
but, like September 22, 2006, the windblown dust generated in the
Lemoore area in the central SJV was the ``but for'' cause of the
exceedances recorded in Corcoran and Bakersfield on October 25, 2006.
Moreover, the wind speeds that occurred in between Lemoore and Corcoran
and Bakersfield were of sufficient speed to transport the entrained
dust from Lemoore to the affected areas. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ As discussed in response to comment 10 above, the
meteorological data for Lemoore must be adjusted to correct for
Daylight Savings Time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earthjustice again selectively presents meteorological data to
support its own position and neglects to include other data that
support the State's demonstration. From the data supplied by the State
in its documentation as well as additional publicly available data, it
is clear that wind speeds in Lemoore, as well as throughout the central
San Joaquin Valley, were either in excess of the threshold wind speed
for entrainment (18 mph) or of sufficient intensity to transport dust
from the Lemoore area to Corcoran and the southern SJV. See Table 7
below.

                 Table 7.--October 25, 2006 Daytime Wind Speeds at Meteorological Monitoring Stations in the Central San Joaquin Valley
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Hanford     Kettleman
                             Hour                                Mendota    Tranquility    Lemoore      Airport    Hills (hour/   Alpaugh    Wasco (hour/
                                                               (hour/gust)  (hour/gust)  (hour/gust)  (hour/gust)     gust)        (hour)     dir/gust)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6............................................................        12/ND         9/15        22/30        17/23        11/21          3.5       2/SW/3
7............................................................        15/20        10/17        22/32        15/ND        20/28          2.9            0
8............................................................        18/25        13/19        26/36        17/ND        15/27          5.6     7/NNW/15
9............................................................        17/30        20/22        29/39        24/29        19/32         16.9     5/NNE/18
10...........................................................        22/31        17/21        31/37        20/28        25/35         16.5       9/N/22
11...........................................................        22/30        15/20        30/40        15/24        25/35         16.8       7/N/15
12...........................................................        21/28        17/20        28/38        12/21        24/45         15.6       6/N/16
13...........................................................        20/28        15/23        26/35        12/ND        25/34         14.8       8/N/16
14...........................................................        18/29        18/19        22/31         9/ND        21/35         13.2     2/NNE/10
15...........................................................        12/23        10/18        20/26        12/18        22/33         13.3      ND/N/12
16...........................................................        15/20         8/17        14/ND         8/16        15/28         12.7        3/N/7
17...........................................................         8/17         4/10         3/ND         8/ND         9/22          6.5       2/N/ND
18...........................................................          5/6          1/5         6/ND         6/ND        10/14          4.4            0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Mesowest historical meteorological data, Mesowest, http://www.met.utah.edu/mesowest/.
ND--No Data available.

    South of Corcoran, wind speeds measured at Alpaugh,\33\ 15 miles
SSE of Corcoran and 44 miles NW of Bakersfield, were close to exceeding
the threshold wind speed and as such were sufficient to transport
particulate matter from the Lemoore area to Bakersfield as discussed
above and in our proposed action. Furthermore, meteorological data from
a station in Wasco, 40 miles SSE of Corcoran and 25 miles NW of
Bakersfield and not part of the CIMIS network, recorded data that
indicate that the daytime winds, while not high enough to erode soils,
were predominantly from the north.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See response to comment 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 38: Earthjustice states that like the documentation for
September 22, 2006, the District's documentation for the alleged
October event also fails to analyze the actual ability of the area to
generate particulate matter concentrations in quantities great enough
to cause the exceedances, fails to provide anything more than anecdotal
evidence of activity levels and compliance with dust controls, and
therefore fails to demonstrate that the winds in Lemoore affected air
quality at all. Earthjustice states that, like the case for the
September 22 demonstration, a claim that the wind entrained significant
amounts of dust requires looking at more than just the wind speeds in
the area. There are many factors that EPA and the District failed to
support with any reliable and accurate data, starting with whether
there was any dust available to be entrained.
    Response 38: See responses to comments 6, 14 and 18. As is the case
with the September 22, 2006 documentation, the State has evaluated a
variety of factors and circumstances to demonstrate that windblown dust
caused the exceedances on October 25. See ``Natural Event
Documentation, Corcoran and Bakersfield, California, October 25,
2006,'' San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District,
April 23, 2007 at section 7.
    The State also provided information on the inspection and
compliance activities that were conducted on October 25, 2006. Section
9.2 of the State's documentation lists the number of inspections and
the location of inspection activity and indicates that the District was
actively enforcing its rules on October 25, 2006. Two newspaper
accounts of the high winds that occurred on October 25, 2006 provide
independent verification of meteorological conditions. This type of
documentation has been historically used to support these types of
exceptional events requests. EPA's EER states that the simplest
demonstrations could consist of newspaper accounts or satellite images
to demonstrate that an event occurred together with daily and seasonal
average ambient concentrations to demonstrate an unusually high ambient
concentration level, which is clearly indicative of an exceptional
impact. 72 FR at 13573.
    Comment 39: Earthjustice states that, as explained in its comments
for September 22, 2006, the generation of particulate matter from winds
of the

type experienced on October 25, 2006 could have been controlled or
prevented had reasonable controls been required of dust-producing
sources. Earthjustice believes that the fact that the District is
trying to blame winds only slightly above the alleged wind speed
threshold, and significantly below the velocities at which the
aforementioned controls stop being effective, suggests that either
winds could not have entrained dust or the reasonable measures
referenced in the proposal were not actually in place at the time of
the event.
    Response 39: See responses to comments 5, 6 and 7. The winds in the
Lemoore area on October 25 were not ``slightly above'' the wind speed
threshold but rather included sustained high winds between 26 and 31
mph with gusts ranging from 26 to 40 mph. These wind speeds were
clearly sufficient to entrain and transport PM-10.
    Comment 40: Earthjustice states that high winds entraining dust may
qualify as a natural event, but it also believes the source of the dust
is of equal importance under the law. Earthjustice states that EPA
admits that on October 25, 2006, the wind-entrained particulate matter
originated from anthropogenic sources such as agricultural and
industrial activities, but that under the EER, only ``an event in which
human activity plays little or no direct causal role'' can be
considered a natural event. Earthjustice states that Congress did not
intend for exceptional events to include sources that are caused by
human activity. Alternatively, Earthjustice states that the source of
the dust cannot be considered a non-recurring human activity, as
agricultural and industrial activities are a constant source of
emissions in the Valley.
    Response 40: See response to comment 5. Also, regarding
Earthjustice's argument that dust from agricultural and industrial
activities cannot be considered a non-recurring human activity because
these activities are a constant source of emissions in the Valley, EPA
does not consider (and has not stated anywhere) that normal
agricultural and industrial activities are ``non-recurring human
activity'' because such human activities often recur on a regular
basis. By contrast, examples of non-recurring human activities may
include major construction projects such as highways if they meet the
criteria and requirements established in the EER. However, a recurring
natural event such as a high wind event may entrain dust from
anthropogenic sources. The entrainment of dust from ``reasonably
controlled sources'' such as agricultural sources does not convert a
natural event that qualifies as a high wind event into a recurring
human activity which appears to be the result Earthjustice is seeking.
    Comment 41: Earthjustice states that, like the September 22, 2006
documentation, the District did not provide the requisite amount of
time for public comment on its October 25, 2006 documentation and did
not re-publish its final documentation after radically changing its
rationale. These procedural deficiencies alone should give EPA pause in
considering the District's requests to flag this data.
    Response 41: See response to comment 8.
    Comment 42: Earthjustice states that since the meteorology on
October 25, 2006 is so similar to that of September 22, 2006, it is not
surprising that a causal connection cannot be established for October
25 either. Earthjustice points out that the Corcoran monitor began
reading concentrations above the national standard at 6:00 am, the same
time that the winds in Lemoore, 25 miles away, began exceeding the
District's alleged wind speed threshold at the same time. Earthjustice
believes that it should go without saying that it is not possible for
winds in Lemoore to transport entrained dust to Corcoran
instantaneously, which is what would have to be the case if we are to
believe the District's claims that those winds caused the exceedances
in Corcoran, and that therefore, something other than the Lemoore winds
caused the initial exceedances recorded at that monitor.
    Response 42: See responses to comments 10 and 11.
    Comment 43: Earthjustice states that even if we were to assume that
the winds carried dust from Lemoore to Corcoran, the trajectory of
those winds does not support the conclusion that the dust then moved
down to Bakersfield. Earthjustice cites Figure 7 in the Null
declaration which shows that winds originating in Lemoore moved on a
due-east path toward Hanford and Corcoran and continued on toward the
Sierra foothills. Jan Null uses HYSPLIT to determine the source of wind
parcels arriving in Bakersfield at noon, which is approximately when
the exceedances began, and shows that the same slow eddy effect that
occurred on September 22, 2006 was also occurring in Bakersfield on
October 25, 2006, which means that the winds impacting Bakersfield
during the time of the exceedances were coming in slowly from the
southwest. Figure 8 in the Null declaration.
    Response 43: As discussed in our responses to comments 11 and 21
above, EPA assumed a more realistic three dimensional approach to using
the HYSPLIT model than did Jan Null. We also used a small range of
starting points for our HYSPLIT runs, recognizing that although the
available Lemoore meteorological data were from a point located at the
Lemoore Naval Air Station, the data represent conditions over a wider
area. See footnote 11 above.
    As with our analysis of the September 22, 2006 event, we initiated
three HYSPLIT runs for October 25, 2006, one starting half way between
Lemoore and Kettleman City (about 11 miles southwest from Lemoore), one
at Lemoore, and one about 11 miles northeast of Lemoore. On October 25,
2006, the HYSPLIT trajectory presented by Null in Figure 7 of his
declaration indicates that the winds starting in Lemoore went to the
east southeast. However, EPA's HYSPLIT runs initiated half way between
Lemoore and Kettleman City, northwest of Corcoran, demonstrate that the
winds continued down the SJV towards Bakersfield, along a path just
west of Corcoran. See Figures 5 and 6 above. Between Lemoore and
Kettleman City, the winds were in transition from heading towards the
east near Corcoran and following the Coastal Range as happened around
Kettleman City. This caused the winds in a portion of that transition
area to go in a direct path towards Bakersfield. See Figure 5.
    For Bakersfield, Null used a trajectory in Figure 8 of his
declaration at zero meters height to show the same eddy effect
occurring on October 25 as on September 22. Again, this height does not
take into account dust mixing up into the atmosphere. In EPA's HYSPLIT
runs, more appropriate forward trajectories were used which showed that
dust coming from the Lemoore area could have reached Bakersfield within
about 6 hours. See Figure 6. They also did not show any indication of
the eddy effect near Bakersfield that Earthjustice found with back
trajectories. Id. and response to comment 35. This supports the
conclusion that dust-laden winds from the Lemoore area reached
Bakersfield on October 25, 2006 consistent with the impacts reflected
at the Bakersfield monitor.
    Comment 44: Earthjustice states that while the District and EPA
cite wind speeds averaging 12 miles per hour in Alpaugh, an area 15
miles south of Corcoran, neither agency provides a basis for concluding
that such winds could transport and keep suspended the plume of
entrained dust that was allegedly carried to Bakersfield, nor do they
explain how the evidence provided

even suggests such transport could have taken place.
    Response 44: See responses to comments 11, 15 and 43. EPA finds
that the documentation does establish a clear causal relationship
between the winds in Lemoore and the exceedances in Corcoran and
Bakersfield. See ``Natural Event Documentation, Corcoran and
Bakersfield, California, October 25, 2006,'' San Joaquin Valley Unified
Air Pollution Control District, April 23, 2007. Earthjustice neglects
to consider that the CIMIS data need to be adjusted, as discussed in
the State's documentation, due to the fact that CIMIS stations collect
data at 2 meters above ground level as opposed to the standard 10 meter
height. Id. at 25. See also response to comment 24. When this
adjustment is made, we can see that the wind speeds at Alpaugh would
have been approximately 25 percent higher at 10 meters than at 2
meters. Winds at nearly 17 mph were recorded from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m.
PST, dropping to between 15 mph and 13 mph between 12 p.m. and 3 p.m.
PST. The lower wind speeds recorded at stations farther south, such as
Shafter and Arvin, are consistent with the State's demonstration that
after the winds in the central SJV transported particulate matter
southward, lower wind speeds in the Bakersfield area facilitated the
settling of the particulates at the monitoring station.
    Comment 45: Earthjustice states that while the readings from
October 25, 2006 were relatively high, they were probably not beyond
the normal historical fluctuations experienced in the Valley in late
October. Earthjustice also states that fall is when the Valley's PM-10
concentrations are at their highest and also the peak season for many
dusty crops in the Valley.
    Response 45: See our responses to comment 7 and 12 above.
    Comment 46: Earthjustice states that EPA's ``but for'' analysis for
the October 25, 2006 event is based entirely on speculation and
conjecture and that EPA cannot say for sure what activities were taking
place in the areas of Corcoran or Bakersfield and cannot say for sure
that without the alleged high winds in Lemoore the monitors in Corcoran
and Bakersfield would not have exceeded the standard.
    Response 46: See responses to comments 6 and 7 and EPA's ``but
for'' analysis in our proposed rule at 72 FR 49056-49057. EPA's
conclusion is not based on speculation and conjecture but rather on the
weight of evidence presented.
    Comment 47: Earthjustice states that since the HYSPLIT analyses
provided both by the District and by meteorologist Jan Null contradict
the claim that the winds from Lemoore had a sufficient speed or
trajectory to impact Corcoran and Bakersfield, and because the Corcoran
and Bakersfield monitors were already measuring exceedances of the PM-
10 standard before the winds from Lemoore could have arrived, EPA
cannot conclude that the District has established that ``but for'' the
winds in Lemoore, the exceedances would not have occurred.
    Response 47: See responses to comments 10, 11, 21, 43 and 44.

B. Other Comments

    Comment 48: A commenter notes that the concept of exceptional
events for air quality purposes is ``a bad idea'' because they provide
a loophole to gut the intent of the original regulation. The commenter
expresses concern that discarding data related to exceptional events
would substantially weaken the regulation designed to protect the
health of residents in an area. In the particular instance of the SJV,
the commenter notes that the exceptional events were high winds and
construction activity. According to the commenter, these events should
not be used to justify poor air quality because high winds are a
natural occurrence and construction activity occurs repeatedly. The
commenter expresses concern that exceptional events not be used as
``additional excuses to rationalize bad air on certain days.''
    Response 48: Congress amended section 319 of the CAA and required
EPA to establish regulations governing the review and handling of air
quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events. In amending
section 319, Congress indicated that states should not have to prepare
and implement regulatory strategies designed to remedy poor air quality
when their air quality is affected by events beyond their reasonable
control. To accomplish this goal, Section 319, as amended, defined an
exceptional event and required EPA to set certain minimum substantive
and procedural requirements before data could be excluded as due to an
exceptional event. In response, as described below, EPA proposed
regulations for exceptional events in March 2006 and sought public
comments on its proposal. See 71 FR 12592 (March, 10, 2006). In March
2007, after considering all comments received, EPA published its final
rule on exceptional events which became effective on May 21, 2007. 72
FR 13560. During the exceptional events rulemaking process, EPA took
comments on the definition of exceptional events, the substantive and
procedural requirements for an event to qualify as an exceptional event
and appropriate mitigation measures in these circumstances. In this
rulemaking on air quality in the SJV, EPA is neither seeking nor
considering comments on the concept of exceptional events, which
activities would constitute exceptional events, and/or whether air
quality data may be excluded due to such events. EPA has already
addressed these issues in its EER. Comments about the concept of
exceptional events and whether such events should be considered in air
quality determinations have been decided in the exceptional events
rulemaking process and thus are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    The commenter also notes that as a general matter high winds should
not be considered an exceptional event because they are natural
occurrences. EPA has discussed high wind events extensively in the
preambles to both the proposed and the final rules on exceptional
events. The EER indicates the circumstances under which high winds can
qualify for treatment as exceptional events. Again, these general
issues were decided in the EER and EPA did not reopen comment on that
general issue in this SJV rulemaking. The commenter does not provide
data relevant to whether the high winds in this instance meet the
provisions of the EER, the issue under consideration in this rulemaking
action.
    The commenter asserts that ``construction is always occurring'' and
therefore data related to these events should not be excluded. Not all
construction activity qualifies as an exceptional event. A construction
activity, like other exceptional events must meet the definitional,
substantive and procedural requirements specified in the EER. For
example, for any construction activity to be considered an exceptional
event, it must meet the definition of an exceptional event, including
for anthropogenic events such as construction, that it is an event that
is unlikely to recur at that location. Thus, by definition,
construction activity that is ``always occurring'' at a particular
location is not an exceptional event under the rule.
    Comment 49: The commenter states that he is unfamiliar with details
of the SJV case but wishes to comment on the concept of exceptional
events and expressed his view that such events should not be considered
in air quality determinations. The commenter believes that there are a
wide variety of loopholes such as permitting rounding down of numbers,
exclusion of three worst days and using three year

averages for final attainment which ``degrade the rigor of the
standard.'' According to the commenter, excluding air quality data
affected by exceptional events further softens the initial regulation.
In the SJV case, the commenter questions why the construction activity
was not limited to periods when the atmosphere could ``handle the
load.'' In addition, the commenter discusses the construction of an
asphalt plant in a local community and notes that during the
construction of such a plant, officials sought to exclude data on
certain days because they attributed the poor air quality to interstate
transport. The commenter also refers to the treatment of fires in his
area.
    Response 49: With respect to that portion of the comment concerning
the concept of exceptional events, see response to comment 48. In
response to the commenter's question about why the construction
activity was not limited to periods when the atmosphere could handle
the load, EPA notes that air quality ``load'' is not an issue for the
SRR area where construction contributed to the exceptional event. There
have been no exceedances or air quality issues in the SRR area either
before or after the construction activity. As explained in the proposed
rule, the monitor in the SRR was affected by the construction activity
because it was in such close proximity to the construction activity
(25-100 feet). 72 FR at 49062. The monitor has not recorded any
exceedances since the construction activity at the parking lot was
completed. The comments on the construction of the asphalt plant and
the fires do not relate to issues in the SJV area and thus are outside
the scope of this rulemaking.

C. List of EPA Figures in Docket

     Figure 1. ``Forward Trajectories at 10, 100, & 250 meters,
Lemoore Area to Corcoran, September 22, 2006, 6 a.m. to 8 a.m. PST,''
March 6, 2008.
     Figure 2. ``Forward Trajectories at 250 meters, Lemoore to
Corcoran and Bakersfield, September 22, 2006, 6 a.m. to 1 p.m. PST,''
March 6, 2008.
     Figure 3. ``Forward Trajectories at 10, 100, & 250 meters,
Lemoore Area to Bakersfield, September 22, 2006, 6 a.m. to 1 p.m.
PST,'' March 6, 2008.
     Figure 4. ``Forward Trajectories at 10, 100, & 250 meters,
Lemoore Area to Corcoran, October 25, 2006, 5 a.m. to 7 a.m. PST,''
March 6, 2008.
     Figure 5. ``Forward Trajectories at 250 meters, Lemoore to
Corcoran to Bakersfield, October 25, 2006, 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. PST,''
March 6, 2008.
     Figure 6. ``Forward Trajectories at 10, 100, & 250 meters,
Lemoore Area to Bakersfield, October 25, 2006, 5 a.m. to 11 a.m. PST,''
March 6, 2008.
     Figure 7. ``Annual Peak Day PM10 Concentrations at
Corcoran,'' March 6, 2008.
     Figure 8. ``Annual Peak Day PM10 Concentrations at
Bakersfield,'' March 6, 2008.
     Figure 9. ``Annual Peak Day PM10 Concentrations at
Oildale,'' March 6, 2008.
     Figure 10. ``Annual Peak Fall Day PM10 Concentrations at
Corcoran (September, October, November Data Only),'' March 6, 2008.
     Figure 11. ``Annual Peak Fall Day PM10 Concentrations at
Bakersfield (September, October, November Data Only),'' March 6, 2008.
     Figure 12. ``Annual Peak Fall Day PM10 Concentrations at
Oildale (September, October, November Data Only),'' March 6, 2008.

III. Final Action

    For the reasons set forth in detail in EPA's proposed rule and in
today's final rule, including the responses to comments, EPA is
concurring with the State's and the Santa Rosa Rancheria Tribe's
requests to flag exceedances occurring in 2006 as being caused by
exceptional events. (i.e., high winds and construction activity in very
close proximity to the monitor, respectively). In addition, as set
forth in its proposed rule, EPA is finding that the monitor at the
Santa Rosa Rancheria was not properly sited for purposes of collecting
data for comparison to the NAAQS during the period that exceedances
were monitored in 2006. EPA is thus concluding that the exceedances
that are the subject of these requests should be excluded from use in
determining whether the SJV has attained the PM-10 NAAQS. EPA is
finalizing its proposal to affirm the determination of attainment for
the SJV, based on quality-assured data through December, 2006.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The District has flagged exceedances occurring on July 4,
2007 and January 4, 2008 as being caused by exceptional events. We
intend to address these exceedances in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons set forth in its proposed rule and in this final
rule, EPA is denying the December 29, 2006 petition for reconsideration
and the March 21, 2007 petition for withdrawal of EPA's 2006
determination of attainment filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the
Sierra Club, Latino Issues Forum, and others.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely makes a determination based on air quality data, and imposes no
additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this rule does not impose any additional
enforceable duty, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' As discussed in our proposed rule,
several Indian tribes have reservations located within the boundaries
of the SJV. EPA is aware of only one tribe in the SJV that operates a
PM-10 monitor, the Santa Rosa Rancheria. Prior to and since the
proposed rule, EPA has consulted with representatives of the Santa Rosa
Rancheria Tribe on the data recorded by its monitor, and the flagging
of the data, and will continue to work with the Tribe, as provided for
in Executive Order 13175. Accordingly, EPA has addressed Executive
Order 13175 to the extent that it applies to this action. This action
also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely makes a determination based on air quality data and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Executive Order
12898 establishes a Federal policy for incorporating environmental
justice into Federal agency actions by directing agencies to identify
and address, as

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on
minority and low-income populations. Today's action involves
determinations based on air quality considerations and affirms that the
SJV attained the PM-10 NAAQS. It will not have disproportionately high
and adverse effects on any communities in the area, including minority
and low-income communities.
    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. The
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply because it
would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when determining the
attainment status of an area, to use voluntary consensus standards in
place of promulgated air quality standards and monitoring procedures
that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the Clean Air. This rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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 May 19, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Parts 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

     Dated March 7, 2008.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
 [FR Doc. E8-5188 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 245 (Wednesday, December 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79195-79196]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32565]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0655]

Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act; Reopening of the Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; reopening of the comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is extending
to January 15, 2013, the comment period for the notice of public
meeting; request for public comments, published in the Federal Register
of September 20, 2011 (76 FR 58277). In that notice, FDA requested
comments on the Animal Generic Drug User Fee Act (AGDUFA) program to
date and solicited suggestions regarding the features FDA should
propose for the next AGDUFA program. The Agency is taking this action
to ensure that interested persons have the option of submitting
comments throughout the reauthorization of AGDUFA.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by January 15,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to: http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number found in
brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donal Parks, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-010), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of September 20, 2011, FDA published a
notice of

public meeting; request for comments, to solicit input from the public
on what FDA should consider including in the reauthorization of AGDUFA.
FDA is interested in responses from the public on the following two
general questions and welcomes other pertinent information that
stakeholders would like to share:
    1. What is your assessment of the overall performance of the AGDUFA
program thus far?
    2. What aspects of AGDUFA should be retained, changed, or
discontinued to further strengthen and improve the program?
    Additional background materials, including the transcript of the
public meeting, are available on the FDA's Web site.
    The Agency is reopening the comment period to allow members of the
general public or of stakeholder groups the opportunity to provide
comments throughout the process of reauthorizing AGDUFA.

II. How to Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments on this document.
It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no longer
necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify comments with
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: December 15, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-32565 Filed 12-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P