[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 15, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3086-3287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30946]
[[Page 3085]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 10
January 15, 2013
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52 et al.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 10 / Tuesday, January 15, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 3086]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53 and 58
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492; FRL-9761-8]
RIN 2060-AO47
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Based on its review of the air quality criteria and the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter
(PM), the EPA is making revisions to the suite of standards for PM to
provide requisite protection of public health and welfare and to make
corresponding revisions to the data handling conventions for PM and to
the ambient air monitoring, reporting, and network design requirements.
The EPA also is making revisions to the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting program with respect to the NAAQS
revisions.
With regard to primary (health-based) standards for fine particles
(generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers
([mu]m) in diameter, PM2.5), the EPA is revising the annual
PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to 12.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) so as to provide increased protection against
health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures
(including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions and
emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory
disease), and to retain the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at a
level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA is revising the Air Quality Index (AQI)
for PM2.5 to be consistent with the revised primary
PM2.5 standards. With regard to the primary standard for
particles generally less than or equal to 10 [micro]m in diameter
(PM10), the EPA is retaining the current 24-hour
PM10 standard to continue to provide protection against
effects associated with short-term exposure to thoracic coarse
particles (i.e., PM10-2.5). With regard to the secondary
(welfare-based) PM standards, the EPA is generally retaining the
current suite of secondary standards (i.e., 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 standards and a 24-hour PM10 standard).
Non-visibility welfare effects are addressed by this suite of secondary
standards, and PM-related visibility impairment is addressed by the
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
DATES: The final rule is effective on March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Section X.B requests comments on an information collection
request regarding changes to the monitoring requirements. Submit your
comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492, to the EPA
by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.
Fax: 202-566-9744.
Mail: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies.
Hand Delivery: Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. Comments on this information collection request
should also be sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). See
section X.B below for additional information regarding submitting
comments to OMB.
Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492. All documents in the docket are listed
on the www.regulations.gov Web site. This includes documents in the
rulemaking docket (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492) and a separate
docket, established for 2009 Integrated Science Assessment (Docket No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517), that has have been incorporated by reference
into the rulemaking docket. All documents in these dockets are listed
on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and may be
viewed, with prior arrangement, at the EPA Docket Center. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center is (202) 566-1742. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Beth M. Hassett-Sipple, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code C504-06,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541-4605; fax: (919)
541-0237; email: hassett-sipple.beth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Information
Availability of Related Information
A number of the documents that are relevant to this rulemaking are
available through the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS) Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html.
[[Page 3087]]
These documents include the Plan for Review of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2008a), available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html, the
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009a),
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html, the Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particulate
Matter (U.S. EPA, 2010a), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html, the Particulate Matter Urban-
Focused Visibility Assessment (U.S. EPA 2010b), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html, and the
Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html. These and
other related documents are also available for inspection and copying
in the EPA docket identified above.
Table of Contents
The following topics are discussed in this preamble:
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Costs and Benefits
II. Background
A. Legislative Requirements
B. Review of the Air Quality Criteria and Standards for PM
1. Previous PM NAAQS Reviews
2. Litigation Related to the 2006 PM Standards
3. Current PM NAAQS Review
C. Related Control Programs To Implement PM Standards
D. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the PM NAAQS
E. Organization and Approach to Final PM NAAQS Decisions
III. Rationale for Final Decisions on the Primary PM2.5
Standards
A. Background
1. General Approach Used in Previous Reviews
2. Remand of Primary Annual PM2.5 Standard
3. General Approach Used in the Policy Assessment for the
Current Review
B. Overview of Health Effects Evidence
C. Overview of Quantitative Characterization of Health Risks
D. Conclusions on the Adequacy of the Current Primary
PM2.5 Standards
1. Introduction
a. Evidence- and Risk-based Considerations in the Policy
Assessment
b. CASAC Advice
c. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy
of the Current Primary PM2.5 Standards
2. Comments on the Need for Revision
3. Administrator's Final Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy of
the Current Primary PM2.5 Standards
E. Conclusions on the Elements of the Primary Fine Particle
Standards
1. Indicator
2. Averaging Time
3. Form
a. Annual Standard
b. 24-Hour Standard
4. Level
a. General Approach for Considering Standard Levels
b. Proposed Decisions on Level
i. Consideration of Alternative Standard Levels in the Policy
Assessment
ii. CASAC Advice
iii. Administrator's Proposed Decisions on the Primary
PM2.5 Standard Levels
c. Comments on Standard Levels
i. Annual Standard Level
ii. 24-Hour Standard Level
d. Administrator's Final Conclusions on the Primary
PM2.5 Standard Levels
F. Administrator's Final Decisions on the Primary
PM2.5 Standards
IV. Rationale for Final Decision on Primary PM10 Standard
A. Background
1. Previous Reviews of the PM NAAQS
a. Reviews Completed in 1987 and 1997
b. Review Completed in 2006
2. Litigation Related to the 2006 Primary PM10
Standards
3. General Approach Used in the Current Review
B. Health Effects Related to Exposure to Thoracic Coarse
Particles
C. Consideration of the Current and Potential Alternative
Standards in the Policy Assessment
1. Consideration of the Current Standard in the Policy
Assessment
2. Consideration of Potential Alternative Standards in the
Policy Assessment
D. CASAC Advice
E. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy
of the Current Primary PM10 Standard
F. Public Comments on the Administrator's Proposed Decision To
Retain the Primary PM10 Standard
G. Administrator's Final Decision on the Primary PM10
Standard
V. Communication of Public Health Information
VI. Rationale for Final Decisions on the Secondary PM Standards
A. Background
1. Approaches Used in Previous Reviews
2. Remand of 2006 Secondary PM2.5 Standards
3. General Approach Used in the Policy Assessment for the
Current Review
B. Proposed Decisions on Secondary PM Standards
1. PM-related Visibility Impairment
a. Nature of PM-related Visibility Impairment
i. Relationship Between Ambient PM and Visibility
ii. Temporal Variations of Light Extinction
iii. Periods During the Day of Interest for Assessment of
Visibility
iv. Exposure Durations of Interest
v. Periods of Fog and Rain
b. Public Perception of Visibility Impairment
c. Summary of Proposed Conclusions
i. Adequacy
ii. Indicator
iii. Averaging Time
iv. Form
v. Level
vi. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions
vii. Related Technical Analysis
2. Other (Non-Visibility) PM-related Welfare Effects
a. Evidence of Other Welfare Effects Related to PM
b. CASAC Advice
c. Summary of Proposed Decisions Regarding Other Welfare Effects
C. Comments on Proposed Rule
1. Comments on Proposed Secondary PM Standard for Visibility
Protection
a. Overview of Comments
b. Indicator
i. Comments on Calculated vs. Directly Measured Light Extinction
ii. Comments on Specific Aspects of Calculated Light Extinction
Indicator
c. Averaging Time
d. Form
e. Level
i. Comments on Visibility Preference Studies
ii. Specific Comments on Level
f. Need for a Distinct Secondary Standard
g. Legal Issues
h. Relationship With Regional Haze Program
2. Comments on the Proposed Decision Regarding Non-Visibility
Welfare Effects
D. Conclusions on Secondary PM Standards
1. Conclusions Regarding Secondary PM Standards To Address Non-
Visibility Welfare Effects
2. Conclusions Regarding Secondary PM Standards for Visibility
Protection
E. Administrator's Final Decisions on Secondary PM Standards
VII. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM
A. Amendments to Appendix N: Interpretation of the NAAQS for
PM2.5
1. General
2. Monitoring Considerations
3. Requirements for Data Use and Reporting for Comparison With
the NAAQS for PM2.5
4. Comparisons with the PM2.5 NAAQS
B. Exceptional Events
C. Updates for Data Handling Procedures for Reporting the Air
Quality Index
VIII. Amendments to Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
A. Issues Related to 40 CFR Part 53 (Reference and Equivalent
Methods)
1. PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 Federal Equivalent
Methods
2. Use of Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) Methods to Support
the Proposed New Secondary PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
B. Changes to 40 CFR Part 58 (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance)
1. Terminology Changes
2. Special Considerations for Comparability of PM2.5
Ambient Air Monitoring Data to the NAAQS
[[Page 3088]]
a. Revoking Use of Population-Oriented as a Condition for
Comparability of PM2.5 Monitoring Sites to the NAAQS
b. Applicability of Micro- and Middle-scale Monitoring Sites to
the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
3. Changes to Monitoring for the National Ambient Air Monitoring
System
a. Background
b. Primary PM2.5 NAAQS
i. Addition of a Near-road Component to the PM2.5
Monitoring Network
ii. Use of PM2.5 Continuous FEMs at SLAMS
c. Revoking PM10-2.5 Speciation Requirements at NCore
Sites
d. Measurements for the Proposed New PM2.5 Visibility
Index NAAQS
4. Revisions to the Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS,
SPMs, and PSD
a. Quality Assurance Weight of Evidence
b. Quality Assurance Requirements for the Chemical Speciation
Network
c. Waivers for Maximum Allowable Separation of Collocated
PM2.5 Samplers and Monitors
5. Revisions To Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
a. Near-road Component to the PM2.5 Monitoring
Network
b. CSN Network
c. Reinsertion of Table E-1 to Appendix E
6. Additional Ambient Air Monitoring Topics
a. Annual Monitoring Network Plans and Periodic Assessment
b. Operating Schedules
c. Data Reporting and Certification for CSN and IMPROVE Data
d. Requirements for Archiving Filters
IX. Clean Air Act Implementation Requirements for the PM NAAQS
A. Designation of Areas
1. Overview of Clean Air Act Designations Requirements
2. Proposed Designations Schedules
3. Comments and Responses
4. Final Intended Designations Schedules
B. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP Requirements
C. Implementing the Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
Nonattainment Areas
D. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New
Source Review Programs for the Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
a. Transition Provision (Grandfathering)
i. Proposal
ii. Comments and Responses
iii. Final Action
b. Modeling Tools and Guidance Applicable to the Revised Primary
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
c. PSD Screening Tools: Significant Emissions Rates, Significant
Impact Levels, and Significant Monitoring Concentration
d. PSD Increments
e. Other PSD Transition Issues
2. Nonattainment New Source Review
E. Transportation Conformity Program
F. General Conformity Program
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
References
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the
establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and
welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria--
the science upon which the standards are based--and the standards
themselves. This rulemaking is being done pursuant to these statutory
requirements. The schedule for completing this review is established by
a court order.
In 2006, the EPA completed its last review of the PM NAAQS. In that
review, the EPA took three principal actions: (1) With regard to fine
particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter, PM2.5), at that time, the
EPA revised the level of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard
from 65 to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the level of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard; (2) With regard to the primary standards for
particles less than or equal to 10 [micro]m in diameter
(PM10), the EPA retained the primary 24-hour PM10
standard to continue to provide protection against effects associated
with short-term exposure to thoracic coarse particles (i.e.,
PM10-2.5) and revoked the primary annual PM10
standard; and (3) the EPA also revised the secondary standards to be
identical in all respects to the primary standards.
In subsequent litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit remanded the primary annual
PM2.5 standard to the EPA because the Agency had failed to
explain adequately why the standard provided the requisite protection
from both short- and long-term exposures to fine particles, including
protection for at-risk populations such as children. The court remanded
the secondary PM2.5 standards to the EPA because the Agency
failed to explain adequately why setting the secondary standards
identical to the primary standards provided the required protection for
public welfare, including protection from PM-related visibility
impairment.
The EPA initiated this review in June 2007. Between 2007 and 2011,
the EPA prepared draft and final Integrated Science Assessments, Risk
and Exposure Assessments, and Policy Assessments. Multiple drafts of
all of these documents were subject to review by the public and were
peer reviewed by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC). The EPA proposed revisions to the primary and secondary PM
NAAQS on June 29, 2012 (77 FR 38890). This final rulemaking is the
final step in the review process.
In this rulemaking, the EPA is revising the suite of standards for
PM to provide requisite protection of public health and welfare. The
EPA is revising the PSD permitting regulations to address the changes
in the PM NAAQS. In addition, the EPA is updating the AQI for
PM2.5 and making changes in the data handling conventions
for PM and ambient air monitoring, reporting, and network design
requirements to correspond with the changes to the PM NAAQS.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
With regard to the primary standards for fine particles, the EPA is
revising the annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the level
from 15.0 to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ so as to provide increased protection
against health effects associated with long-and short-term exposures.
The EPA is retaining the level (35 [mu]g/m\3\) and the form (98th
percentile) of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to continue to
provide supplemental protection against health effects associated with
short-term exposures. This action provides increased protection for
children, older adults, persons with pre-existing heart and lung
disease, and other at-risk populations against an array of
PM2.5-related adverse health effects that include premature
mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department
visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease. The EPA also is
eliminating spatial averaging provisions as part of the form of the
annual standard to avoid potential disproportionate impacts on at-risk
populations.
The final decisions for the primary annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards are
[[Page 3089]]
within the ranges that CASAC advised the Agency to consider. These
decisions are based on an integrative assessment of an extensive body
of new scientific evidence, which substantially strengthens what was
known about PM2.5-related health effects in the last review,
including extended analyses of key epidemiological studies, and
evidence of health effects observed at lower ambient PM2.5
concentrations, including effects in areas that likely met the current
standards. The revised suite of PM2.5 standards also
reflects consideration of a quantitative risk assessment that estimates
public health risks likely to remain upon just meeting the current and
various alternative standards. Based on this information, the
Administrator concludes that the current primary PM2.5
standards are not requisite to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety, as required by the CAA, and that these revisions are
warranted to provide the appropriate degree of increased public health
protection.
With regard to the primary standard for thoracic coarse particles
(PM10-2.5), the EPA is retaining the current 24-hour
PM10 standard, with a level of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and a one-
expected exceedance form, to continue to provide protection against
effects associated with short-term exposure to PM10-2.5
including premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and
emergency department visits. In reaching this decision, the
Administrator concludes that the available health evidence and air
quality information for PM10-2.5, taken together with the
considerable uncertainties and limitations associated with that
information, suggests that a standard is needed to protect against
short-term exposure to all types of PM10-2.5 and that the
degree of public health protection provided against short-term
exposures to PM10-2.5 does not need to be increased beyond
that provided by the current PM10 standard.
With regard to the secondary PM standards, the Administrator is
retaining the current suite of secondary PM standards, except for a
change to the form of the annual PM2.5 standard.
Specifically, the EPA is retaining the current secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 and PM10 standards, and is revising only
the form of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard to remove
the option for spatial averaging consistent with this change to the
primary annual PM2.5 standard. This suite of secondary
standards addresses PM-related non-visibility welfare effects including
ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate impacts. With
respect to PM-related visibility impairment, the Administrator has
identified a target degree of protection, defined in terms of a
PM2.5 visibility index (based on speciated PM2.5
mass concentrations and relative humidity data to calculate
PM2.5 light extinction), a 24-hour averaging time, and a
90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years, and a level of 30
deciviews (dv), which she judges to be requisite to protect public
welfare with regard to visual air quality (VAQ). The EPA's analysis of
monitoring data provides the basis for concluding that the current
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard would provide sufficient
protection, and in some areas greater protection, relative to this
target protection level. Adding a distinct secondary standard to
address visibility would not affect this protection. Since sufficient
protection from visibility impairment will be provided for all areas of
the country without adoption of a distinct secondary standard, and
adoption of a distinct secondary standard will not change the degree of
over-protection of VAQ provided for some areas of the country by the
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the Administrator judges
that adoption of a distinct secondary standard, in addition to the
current suite of secondary standards, is not needed to provide
requisite protection for both visibility and non-visibility related
welfare effects.
The revisions to the PM NAAQS trigger a process under which states
(and tribes, if they choose) will make recommendations to the
Administrator regarding designations, identifying areas of the country
that either meet or do not meet the revised NAAQS. States will also
review, modify and supplement their existing state implementation plans
(SIPs), as needed. With regard to these implementation-related
activities, the EPA intends to promulgate a separate implementation
rule on a schedule that provides timely clarity to the states, tribes,
and other parties responsible for NAAQS implementation. The NAAQS
revisions also affect the applicable air permitting requirement, but
cause no significant change to the transportation conformity and
general conformity processes. The EPA is revising its PSD regulations
to provide limited grandfathering from the requirements that result
from the revised PM NAAQS.
On other topics, the EPA is changing the AQI for PM2.5
to be consistent with the revised primary PM2.5 NAAQS. The
EPA also is revising the data handling procedures for PM2.5
consistent with the revised PM2.5 NAAQS including the
computations necessary for determining when the standards are met and
the measurement data that are appropriate for comparison to the
standards. With regard to monitoring-related activities, the EPA is
updating several aspects of the monitoring regulations and specifically
requiring that a small number of PM2.5 monitors be relocated
to be collocated with measurements of other pollutants (e.g., nitrogen
dioxide, carbon monoxide) in the near-road environment.
C. Costs and Benefits
In setting the NAAQS, the EPA may not consider the costs of
implementing the standards. This was confirmed by the United States
Supreme Court in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S.
457, 465-472, 475-76 (2001), as noted in section II.A of this rule. As
has traditionally been done in NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA has conducted
a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) to provide the public with
information on the potential costs and benefits of attaining several
alternative PM2.5 standards. In NAAQS rulemaking, the RIA is
done for informational purposes only, and the final decisions on the
NAAQS in this rulemaking are not in any way based on consideration of
the information or analyses in the RIA. The RIA fulfills the
requirements of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866. The summary of the
RIA, which is discussed in more detail below in section X.A, estimates
benefits ranging from $4,000 million to $9,100 million at a 3 percent
discount rate and $3,600 million to $8,200 million at a 7 percent
discount rate in 2020 and costs ranging from $53 million to $350
million per year at a 7 percent discount rate.
II. Background
A. Legislative Requirements
Two sections of the CAA govern the establishment, review and
revision of the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C. 7408) directs the
Administrator to identify and list certain air pollutants and then to
issue air quality criteria for those pollutants. The Administrator is
to list those air pollutants that in her ``judgment, cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare;'' ``the presence of which in the
ambient air results from numerous or diverse mobile or stationary
sources;'' and ``for which * * * [the Administrator] plans to issue air
quality criteria * * *'' Air quality criteria are intended to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or
[[Page 3090]]
welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the
ambient air * * *'' 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Section 109 (42 U.S.C. 7409)
directs the Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and
``secondary'' NAAQS for pollutants for which air quality criteria are
issued. Section 109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as one ``the
attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the
Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing an adequate margin
of safety, are requisite to protect the public health.'' \1\ A
secondary standard, as defined in section 109(b)(2), must ``specify a
level of air quality the attainment and maintenance of which, in the
judgment of the Administrator, based on such criteria, is requisite to
protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects associated with the presence of [the] pollutant in the ambient
air.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The legislative history of section 109 indicates that a
primary standard is to be set at ``the maximum permissible ambient
air level * * * which will protect the health of any [sensitive]
group of the population,'' and that for this purpose ``reference
should be made to a representative sample of persons comprising the
sensitive group rather than to a single person in such a group.'' S.
Rep. No. 91-1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970).
\2\ Welfare effects as defined in section 302(h) (42 U.S.C.
7602(h)) include, but are not limited to, ``effects on soils, water,
crops, vegetation, man-made materials, animals, wildlife, weather,
visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and
hazards to transportation, as well as effects on economic values and
on personal comfort and well-being.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirement that primary standards provide an adequate margin
of safety was intended to address uncertainties associated with
inconclusive scientific and technical information available at the time
of standard setting. It was also intended to provide a reasonable
degree of protection against hazards that research has not yet
identified. See Lead Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d 1130, 1154
(D.C. Cir 1980); American Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F.2d 1176,
1186 (D.C. Cir. 1981); American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.
3d 512, 533 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Association of Battery Recyclers v. EPA,
604 F. 3d 613, 617-18 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Both kinds of uncertainties are
components of the risk associated with pollution at levels below those
at which human health effects can be said to occur with reasonable
scientific certainty. Thus, in selecting primary standards that provide
an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator is seeking not only to
prevent pollution levels that have been demonstrated to be harmful but
also to prevent lower pollutant levels that may pose an unacceptable
risk of harm, even if the risk is not precisely identified as to nature
or degree. The CAA does not require the Administrator to establish a
primary NAAQS at a zero-risk level or at background concentration
levels, see Lead Industries v. EPA, 647 F.2d at 1156 n.51, but rather
at a level that reduces risk sufficiently so as to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety.
In addressing the requirement for an adequate margin of safety, the
EPA considers such factors as the nature and severity of the health
effects involved, the size of at-risk population(s), and the kind and
degree of the uncertainties that must be addressed. The selection of
any particular approach to providing an adequate margin of safety is a
policy choice left specifically to the Administrator's judgment. See
Lead Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d at 1161-62; Whitman v.
American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 495 (2001).
In setting standards that are ``requisite'' to protect public
health and welfare, as provided in section 109(b), the EPA's task is to
establish standards that are neither more nor less stringent than
necessary for these purposes. In so doing, the EPA may not consider the
costs of implementing the standards. See generally, Whitman v. American
Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 465-472, 475-76 (2001). Likewise,
``[a]ttainability and technological feasibility are not relevant
considerations in the promulgation of national ambient air quality
standards.'' American Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F. 2d at 1185.
Section 109(d)(1) requires that ``not later than December 31, 1980,
and at 5-year intervals thereafter, the Administrator shall complete a
thorough review of the criteria published under section 108 and the
national ambient air quality standards * * * and shall make such
revisions in such criteria and standards and promulgate such new
standards as may be appropriate * * *'' Section 109(d)(2) requires that
an independent scientific review committee ``shall complete a review of
the criteria * * * and the national primary and secondary ambient air
quality standards * * * and shall recommend to the Administrator any
new * * * standards and revisions of existing criteria and standards as
may be appropriate. * * *'' Since the early 1980's, this independent
review function has been performed by the CASAC.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The CASAC PM Review Panel is comprised of the seven members
of the chartered CASAC, supplemented by fifteen subject-matter
experts appointed by the Administrator to provide additional
scientific expertise relevant to this review of the PM NAAQS. Lists
of current CASAC members and review panels are available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebCASAC/CommitteesandMembership?OpenDocument. Members of the CASAC PM Review
Panel are listed in the CASAC letters providing advice on draft
assessment documents (Samet, 2009a-f, 2012a-d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Review of the Air Quality Criteria and Standards for PM
1. Previous PM NAAQS Reviews
The EPA initially established NAAQS for PM under section 109 of the
CAA in 1971. Since then, the Agency has made a number of changes to
these standards to reflect continually expanding scientific
information, particularly with respect to the selection of indicator\4\
and level. Table 1 provides a summary of the PM NAAQS that have been
promulgated to date. These decisions are briefly discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Particulate matter is the generic term for a broad class of
chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as discrete
particles (liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes,
such that the indicator for a PM NAAQS has historically been defined
in terms of particle size ranges.
Table 1--Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards Promulgated for PM 1971-2006 a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Averaging
Final rule Indicator time Level Form
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971--36 FR 8186 April 30, TSP.......... 24-hour...... 260 [mu]g/m\3\ Not to be exceeded more than
1971. (primary). once per year.
150 [mu]g/m\3\......
(secondary).........
Annual....... 75 [mu]g/m\3\....... Annual average.
(primary)...........
1987--52 FR 24634 July 1, PM10......... 24-hour...... 150 [mu]g/m\3\...... Not to be exceeded more than
1987. once per year on average over
a 3-year period.
Annual....... 50 [mu]g/m\3\....... Annual arithmetic mean,
averaged over 3 years.
[[Page 3091]]
1997--62 FR 38652 July 18, PM2.5........ 24-hour...... 65 [mu]g/m\3\....... 98th percentile, averaged over
1997. 3 years.\b\
Annual....... 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\..... Annual arithmetic mean,
averaged over 3 years.c d
PM10......... 24-hour...... 150 [mu]g/m\3\...... Initially promulgated 99th
percentile, averaged over 3
years; when 1997 standards
for PM10 were vacated, the
form of 1987 standards
remained in place (not to be
exceeded more than once per
year on average over a 3-year
period).
Annual....... 50 [mu]g/m\3\....... Annual arithmetic mean,
averaged over 3 years.
2006--71 FR 61144 October PM2.5........ 24-hour...... 35 [mu]g/m\3\....... 98th percentile, averaged over
17, 2006. Annual....... 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\..... 3 years.\b\
Annual arithmetic mean,
averaged over 3 years.c e
PM10......... 24-hour...... 150 [mu]g/m\3\...... Not to be exceeded more than
once per year on average over
a 3-year period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ When not specified, primary and secondary standards are identical.
\b\ The level of the 24-hour standard is defined as an integer (zero decimal places) as determined by rounding.
For example, a 3-year average 98th percentile concentration of 35.49 [mu]g/m\3\ would round to 35 [mu]g/m\3\
and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 [mu]g/m\3\ would round to 36 and, hence,
violate the 24-hour standard (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).
\c\ The level of the annual standard is defined to one decimal place (i.e., 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) as determined by
rounding. For example, a 3-year average annual mean of 15.04 [mu]g/m\3\ would round to 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and,
thus, meet the annual standard and a 3-year average of 15.05 [mu]g/m\3\ would round to 15.1 [mu]g/m\3\ and,
hence, violate the annual standard (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).
\d\ The level of the standard was to be compared to measurements made at sites that represent ``community-wide
air quality'' recording the highest level, or, if specific requirements were satisfied, to average
measurements from multiple community-wide air quality monitoring sites (``spatial averaging'').
\e\ The EPA tightened the constraints on the spatial averaging criteria by further limiting the conditions under
which some areas may average measurements from multiple community-oriented monitors to determine compliance
(See 71 FR 61165 to 61167, October 17, 2006).
In 1971, the EPA established NAAQS for PM based on the original air
quality criteria document (DHEW, 1969; 36 FR 8186, April 30, 1971). The
reference method specified for determining attainment of the original
standards was the high-volume sampler, which collects PM up to a
nominal size of 25 to 45 [mu]m (referred to as total suspended
particles or TSP). The primary standards (measured by the indicator
TSP) were 260 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than
once per year, and 75 [mu]g/m\3\, annual geometric mean. The secondary
standard was 150 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more
than once per year.
In October 1979, the EPA announced the first periodic review of the
criteria and NAAQS for PM, and significant revisions to the original
standards were promulgated in 1987 (52 FR 24634, July 1, 1987). In that
decision, the EPA changed the indicator for PM from TSP to
PM10, the latter including particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 [micro]m, which delineates
thoracic particles (i.e., that subset of inhalable particles small
enough to penetrate beyond the larynx to the thoracic region of the
respiratory tract). The EPA also revised the primary standards by (1)
replacing the 24-hour TSP standard with a 24-hour PM10
standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ with no more than one expected exceedance
per year and (2) replacing the annual TSP standard with a
PM10 standard of 50 [mu]g/m\3\, annual arithmetic mean. The
secondary standard was revised by replacing it with 24-hour and annual
PM10 standards identical in all respects to the primary
standards. The revisions also included a new reference method for the
measurement of PM10 in the ambient air and rules for
determining attainment of the new standards. On judicial review, the
revised standards were upheld in all respects. Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 902 F. 2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
In April 1994, the EPA announced its plans for the second periodic
review of the criteria and NAAQS for PM, and promulgated significant
revisions to the NAAQS in 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, 1997). Most
significantly, the EPA determined that although the PM NAAQS should
continue to focus on thoracic particles (PM10), the fine and
coarse fractions of PM10 should be considered separately.
New standards were added, using PM2.5 as the indicator for
fine particles. The PM10 standards were retained for the
purpose of regulating the coarse fraction of PM10 (referred
to as thoracic coarse particles or PM10-2.5).\5\ The EPA
established two new PM2.5 standards: an annual standard of
15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean
PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple monitors sited
to represent community-wide air quality\6\ and a 24-hour standard of 65
[mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-
hour PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented
monitor\7\ within an area. Also, the EPA established a new reference
method for the measurement of PM2.5 in the ambient air and
rules for determining attainment of the new standards. To continue to
address thoracic coarse particles, the annual PM10 standard
was retained, while the form, but not the level, of the 24-hour
PM10 standard was revised to be based on the 99th percentile
of 24-hour PM10 concentrations at each monitor in an area.
The EPA revised the secondary standards by making them identical in all
respects to the primary standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58 for more information on
reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in ambient air.
\6\ Monitoring stations sited to represent community-wide air
quality would typically be at the neighborhood or urban-scale;
however, where a population-oriented micro or middle-scale
PM2.5 monitoring station represents many such locations
throughout a metropolitan area, these smaller scales might also be
considered to represent community-wide air quality [40 CFR part 58,
appendix D, 4.7.1(b)].
\7\ Population-oriented monitoring (or sites) means residential
areas, commercial areas, recreational areas, industrial areas where
workers from more than one company are located, and other areas
where a substantial number of people may spend a significant
fraction of their day (40 CFR 58.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following promulgation of the revised PM NAAQS in 1997, petitions
for review were filed by a large number of
[[Page 3092]]
parties, addressing a broad range of issues. In May 1998, a three-judge
panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued an initial decision that upheld the EPA's decision to establish
fine particle standards, holding that ``the growing empirical evidence
demonstrating a relationship between fine particle pollution and
adverse health effects amply justifies establishment of new fine
particle standards.'' American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F. 3d
1027, 1055-56 (D.C. Cir. 1999), rehearing granted in part and denied in
part, 195 F. 3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), affirmed in part and reversed in
part, Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001).
The panel also found ``ample support'' for the EPA's decision to
regulate coarse particle pollution, but vacated the 1997
P.M.10 standards, concluding, in part, that PM10
is a ``poorly matched indicator for coarse particulate pollution''
because it includes fine particles. Id. at 1053-55. Pursuant to the
court's decision, the EPA removed the vacated 1997 P.M.10
standards from the CFR (69 FR 45592, July 30, 2004) and deleted the
regulatory provision (at 40 CFR 50.6(d)) that controlled the transition
from the pre-existing 1987 P.M.10 standards to the 1997
P.M.10 standards. The pre-existing 1987 P.M.10
standards remained in place (65 FR 80776, December 22, 2000). The court
also upheld the EPA's determination not to establish more stringent
secondary standards for fine particles to address effects on visibility
(175 F. 3d at 1027).
More generally, the panel held (over a strong dissent) that the
EPA's approach to establishing the level of the standards in 1997, both
for the PM and for the ozone NAAQS promulgated on the same day,
effected ``an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.''
Id. at 1034-40. Although the panel stated that ``the factors EPA uses
in determining the degree of public health concern associated with
different levels of ozone and PM are reasonable,'' it remanded the rule
to the EPA, stating that when the EPA considers these factors for
potential non-threshold pollutants ``what EPA lacks is any determinate
criterion for drawing lines'' to determine where the standards should
be set. Consistent with the EPA's long-standing interpretation and D.C.
Circuit precedent, the panel also reaffirmed its prior holdings that in
setting NAAQS, the EPA is ``not permitted to consider the cost of
implementing those standards.'' Id. at 1040-41.
On EPA's petition for rehearing, the panel adhered to its position
on these points. American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 195 F. 3d 4
(D.C. Cir. 1999). The full Court of Appeals denied the EPA's request
for rehearing en banc, with five judges dissenting. Id. at 13. Both
sides filed cross appeals on these issues to the United States Supreme
Court, which granted certiorari. In February 2001, the Supreme Court
issued a unanimous decision upholding the EPA's position on both the
constitutional and cost issues. Whitman v. American Trucking
Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 464, 475-76. On the constitutional issue,
the Court held that the statutory requirement that NAAQS be
``requisite'' to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety sufficiently cabined the EPA's discretion, affirming the EPA's
approach of setting standards that are neither more nor less stringent
than necessary. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of
Appeals for resolution of any remaining issues that had not been
addressed in that court's earlier rulings. Id. at 475-76. In March
2002, the Court of Appeals rejected all remaining challenges to the
standards, holding under the statutory standard of review that the
EPA's PM2.5 standards were reasonably supported by the
administrative record and were not ``arbitrary and capricious.''
American Trucking Association v. EPA, 283 F. 3d 355, 369-72 (D.C. Cir.
2002).
In October 1997, the EPA published its plans for the next periodic
review of the air quality criteria and NAAQS for PM (62 FR 55201,
October 23, 1997). After CASAC and public review of several drafts, the
EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) finalized the
Air Quality Criteria Document for Particulate Matter (henceforth, AQCD
or the ``Criteria Document'') in October 2004 (U.S. EPA, 2004) and
OAQPS finalized an assessment document, Particulate Matter Health Risk
Assessment for Selected Urban Areas (Abt Associates, 2005), and the
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information, in
December 2005 (henceforth, ``Staff Paper,'' U.S. EPA, 2005). In
conjunction with its review of the Staff Paper, CASAC provided advice
to the Administrator on revisions to the PM NAAQS (Henderson, 2005a).
In particular, most CASAC PM Panel members favored revising the level
of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard within the range of 35
to 30 [mu]g/m\3\ with a 98th percentile form, in concert with revising
the level of the primary annual PM2.5 standard within the
range of 14 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\ (Henderson, 2005a, p.7). For thoracic
coarse particles, the Panel had reservations in recommending a primary
24-hour PM10-2.5 standard, and agreed that there was a need
for more research on the health effects of thoracic coarse particles
(Henderson, 2005b). With regard to secondary standards, most Panel
members strongly supported establishing a new, distinct secondary
PM2.5 standard to protect urban visibility (Henderson,
2005a, p. 9).
On January 17, 2006, the EPA proposed to revise the primary and
secondary NAAQS for PM (71 FR 2620) and solicited comment on a broad
range of options. Proposed revisions included: (1) Revising the level
of the primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\; (2)
revising the form, but not the level, of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard by tightening the constraints on the use of
spatial averaging; (3) replacing the primary 24-hour PM10
standard with a 24-hour standard defined in terms of a new indicator,
PM10-2.5, which was qualified so as to include any ambient
mix of PM10-2.5 dominated by particles generated by high-
density traffic on paved roads, industrial sources, and construction
sources, and to exclude any ambient mix of particles dominated by rural
windblown dust and soils and agricultural and mining sources (71 FR
2667 to 2668), set at a level of 70 [mu]g/m\3\ based on the 3-year
average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM10-2.5
concentrations; (4) revoking the primary annual PM10
standard; and (5) revising the secondary standards by making them
identical in all respects to the proposed suite of primary standards
for fine and coarse particles.\8\ Subsequent to the proposal, CASAC
provided additional advice to the EPA in a letter to the Administrator
requesting reconsideration of CASAC's recommendations for both the
primary and secondary PM2.5 standards as well as the
standards for thoracic coarse particles (Henderson, 2006a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In recognition of an alternative view expressed by most
members of the CASAC PM Panel, the Agency also solicited comments on
a subdaily (4- to 8-hour averaging time) secondary PM2.5
standard to address visibility impairment, considering alternative
standard levels within a range of 20 to 30 [mu]g/m\3\ in conjunction
with a form within a range of the 92nd to 98th percentile (71 FR
2685, January 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 17, 2006, the EPA published revisions to the PM NAAQS to
provide increased protection of public health and welfare (71 FR
61144). With regard to the primary and secondary standards for fine
particles, the EPA revised the level of the primary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, retained the level of the
primary annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\, and
[[Page 3093]]
revised the form of the primary annual PM2.5 standard by
adding further constraints on the optional use of spatial averaging.
The EPA revised the secondary standards for fine particles by making
them identical in all respects to the primary standards. With regard to
the primary and secondary standards for thoracic coarse particles, the
EPA retained the level and form of the 24-hour PM10 standard
(such that the standard remained at a level of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ with a
one-expected exceedance form and retained the PM10
indicator) and revoked the annual PM10 standard. The EPA
also established a new Federal Reference Method (FRM) for the
measurement of PM10-2.5 in the ambient air (71 FR 61212 to
13). Although the standards for thoracic coarse particles were not
defined in terms of a PM10-2.5 indicator, the EPA adopted a
new FRM for PM10-2.5 to facilitate consistent research on
PM10-2.5 air quality and health effects and to promote
commercial development of Federal Equivalent Methods (FEMs) to support
future reviews of the PM NAAQS (71 FR 61212/2).
Following issuance of the final rule, CASAC articulated its concern
that the ``EPA's final rule on the NAAQS for PM does not reflect
several important aspects of the CASAC's advice'' (Henderson et al.,
2006b, p. 1). With regard to the primary PM2.5 annual
standard, CASAC expressed serious concerns regarding the decision to
retain the level of the standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\. Specifically, CASAC
stated, ``It is the CASAC's consensus scientific opinion that the
decision to retain without change the annual PM2.5 standard
does not provide an `adequate margin of safety * * * requisite to
protect the public health' (as required by the Clean Air Act), leaving
parts of the population of this country at significant risk of adverse
health effects from exposure to fine PM'' (Henderson et al., 2006b, p.
2). Furthermore, CASAC pointed out that its recommendations ``were
consistent with the mainstream scientific advice that EPA received from
virtually every major medical association and public health
organization that provided their input to the Agency'' (Henderson et
al., 2006b, p. 2).\9\ With regard to EPA's final decision to retain the
24-hour PM10 standard for thoracic coarse particles, CASAC
had mixed views with regard to the decision to retain the 24-hour
standard and the continued use of PM10 as the indicator of
coarse particles, while also recognizing the need to have a standard in
place to protect against effects associated with short-term exposures
to thoracic coarse particles (Henderson et al., 2006b, p. 2). With
regard to the EPA's final decision to revise the secondary
PM2.5 standards to be identical in all respects to the
revised primary PM2.5 standards, CASAC expressed concerns
that its advice to establish a distinct secondary standard for fine
particles to address visibility impairment was not followed and
emphasized ``that continuing to rely on the primary standard to protect
against all PM-related adverse environmental and welfare effects
assures neglect, and will allow substantial continued degradation, of
visual air quality over large areas of the country'' (Henderson et al,
2006b, p. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ CASAC specifically identified input provided by the American
Medical Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American
Lung Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, the American
Cancer Society, the American Public Health Association, and the
National Association of Local Boards of Health (Henderson et al.,
2006b, p. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Litigation Related to the 2006 PM Standards
Several parties filed petitions for review following promulgation
of the revised PM NAAQS in 2006. These petitions addressed the
following issues: (1) Selecting the level of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard; (2) retaining PM10 as the
indicator of a standard for thoracic coarse particles, retaining the
level and form of the 24-hour PM10 standard, and revoking
the PM10 annual standard; and (3) setting the secondary
PM2.5 standards identical to the primary standards. On
February 24, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in the case American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The court remanded
the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA because the EPA
failed to adequately explain why the standard provided the requisite
protection from both short- and long-term exposures to fine particles,
including protection for at-risk populations such as children. American
Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512, 520-27 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
With regard to the standards for PM10, the court upheld the
EPA's decisions to retain the 24-hour PM10 standard to
provide protection from thoracic coarse particle exposures and to
revoke the annual PM10 standard. American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 2d at 533-38. With regard to the secondary
PM2.5 standards, the court remanded the standards to the EPA
because the Agency's decision was ``unreasonable and contrary to the
requirements of section 109(b)(2)'' of the CAA. The court further
concluded that the EPA failed to adequately explain why setting the
secondary PM standards identical to the primary standards provided the
required protection for public welfare, including protection from
visibility impairment. American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.
2d at 528-32.
The decisions of the court with regard to these three issues are
discussed further in sections III.A.2, IV.A.2, and VI.A.2 below. The
EPA is responding to the court's remands as part of the current review
of the PM NAAQS.
3. Current PM NAAQS Review
The EPA initiated the current review of the air quality criteria
for PM in June 2007 with a general call for information (72 FR 35462,
June 28, 2007). In July 2007, the EPA held two ``kick-off'' workshops
on the primary and secondary PM NAAQS, respectively (72 FR 34003 to
34004, June 20, 2007).\10\ These workshops provided an opportunity for
a public discussion of the key policy-relevant issues around which the
EPA would structure this PM NAAQS review and the most meaningful new
science that would be available to inform our understanding of these
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See workshop materials available at: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home Docket ID numbers
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-008; EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-009; EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492-010; and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based in part on the workshop discussions, the EPA developed a
draft Integrated Review Plan outlining the schedule, process, and key
policy-relevant questions that would guide the evaluation of the air
quality criteria for PM and the review of the primary and secondary PM
NAAQS (U.S. EPA, 2007a). On November 30, 2007, the EPA held a
consultation with CASAC on the draft Integrated Review Plan (72 FR
63177, November 8, 2007), which included the opportunity for public
comment. The final Integrated Review Plan (U.S. EPA, 2008a)
incorporated comments from CASAC (Henderson, 2008) and the public on
the draft plan as well as input from senior Agency
managers.11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The process followed in this review varies from the NAAQS
review process described in section 1.1 of the Integrated Review
Plan (U.S. EPA, 2008a). On May 21, 2009, Administrator Jackson
called for key changes to the NAAQS review process including
reinstating a policy assessment document that contains staff
analyses of the scientific bases for alternative policy options for
consideration by senior Agency management prior to rulemaking. In
conjunction with this change, the EPA will no longer issue a policy
assessment in the form of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPR) as discussed in the Integrated Review Plan (U.S. EPA, 2008a,
p. 3). For more information on the overall process followed in this
review including a description of the major elements of the process
for reviewing NAAQS see Jackson (2009).
\12\ All written comments submitted to the Agency are available
in the docket for this PM NAAQS review (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0429).
Transcripts of public meetings and teleconferences held in
conjunction with CASAC's reviews are also included in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3094]]
A major element in the process for reviewing the NAAQS is the
development of an Integrated Science Assessment. This document provides
a concise evaluation and integration of the policy-relevant science,
including key science judgments upon which the risk and exposure
assessments build. As part of the process of preparing the PM
Integrated Science Assessment, NCEA hosted a peer review workshop in
June 2008 on preliminary drafts of key Integrated Science Assessment
chapters (73 FR 30391, May 27, 2008). CASAC and the public reviewed the
first external review draft Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2008b; 73 FR 77686, December 19, 2008) at a meeting held on April 1 to
2, 2009 (74 FR 2688, February 19, 2009). Based on CASAC (Samet, 2009e)
and public comments, NCEA prepared a second draft Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009b; 74 FR 38185, July 31, 2009), which was
reviewed by CASAC and the public at a meeting held on October 5 and 6,
2009 (74 FR 46586, September 10, 2009). Based on CASAC (Samet, 2009f)
and public comments, NCEA prepared the final Integrated Science
Assessment titled Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter,
December 2009 (U.S. EPA, 2009a; 74 FR 66353, December 15, 2009).
Building upon the information presented in the PM Integrated
Science Assessment, the EPA prepared Risk and Exposure Assessments that
provide a concise presentation of the methods, key results,
observations, and related uncertainties. In developing the Risk and
Exposure Assessments for this PM NAAQS review, OAQPS released two
planning documents: Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment and Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban Visibility Impact
Assessment (henceforth, Scope and Methods Plans, U.S. EPA, 2009c,d; 74
FR 11580, March 18, 2009). These planning documents outlined the scope
and approaches that staff planned to use in conducting quantitative
assessments as well as key issues that would be addressed as part of
the assessments. In designing and conducting the initial health risk
and visibility impact assessments, the Agency considered CASAC comments
(Samet 2009a,b) on the Scope and Methods Plans made during an April
2009 consultation (74 FR 7688, February 19, 2009) as well as public
comments. CASAC and the public reviewed two draft assessment documents,
Risk Assessment to Support the Review of the PM2.5 Primary National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: External Review Draft, September 2009
(U.S. EPA, 2009e) and Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility
Assessment--External Review Draft, September 2009 (U.S. EPA, 2009f) at
a meeting held on October 5 and 6, 2009 (74 FR 46586, September 10,
2009). Based on CASAC (Samet 2009c,d) and public comments, OAQPS staff
revised these draft documents and released second draft assessment
documents (U.S. EPA, 2010d,e) in January and February 2010 (75 FR 4067,
January 26, 2010) for CASAC and public review at a meeting held on
March 10 and 11, 2010 (75 FR 8062, February 23, 2010). Based on CASAC
(Samet, 2010a,b) and public comments on the second draft assessment
documents, the EPA revised these documents and released final
assessment documents titled Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for
Particulate Matter, June 2010 (henceforth, ``Risk Assessment,'' U.S.
EPA, 2010a) and Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility
Assessment--Final Document, July 2010 (henceforth, ``Visibility
Assessment,'' U.S. EPA, 2010b) (75 FR 39252, July 8, 2010).
Based on the scientific and technical information available in this
review as assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment and Risk and
Exposure Assessments, the EPA staff prepared a Policy Assessment. The
Policy Assessment is intended to help ``bridge the gap'' between the
relevant scientific information and assessments and the judgments
required of the Administrator in reaching decisions on the NAAQS
(Jackson, 2009, attachment, p. 2). American Farm Bureau Federation v.
EPA, 559 F. 3d at 521. The Policy Assessment is not a decision
document; rather it presents the EPA staff conclusions related to the
broadest range of policy options that could be supported by the
currently available information. A preliminary draft Policy Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2009g) was released in September 2009 for informational
purposes and to facilitate discussion with CASAC at the October 5 and
6, 2009 meeting on the overall structure, areas of focus, and level of
detail to be included in the Policy Assessment. The EPA considered
CASAC's comments on this preliminary draft in developing a first draft
Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010c; 75 FR 4067, January 26, 2010) that
built upon the information presented and assessed in the final
Integrated Science Assessment and second draft Risk and Exposure
Assessments. The EPA presented an overview of the first draft Policy
Assessment at a CASAC meeting on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 8062, February
23, 2010) and it was discussed during public CASAC teleconferences on
April 8 and 9, 2010 (75 FR 8062, February 23, 2010) and May 7, 2010 (75
FR 19971, April 16, 2010).
The EPA developed a second draft Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2010f; 75 FR 39253, July 8, 2010) based on CASAC (Samet, 2010c) and
public comments on the first draft Policy Assessment. CASAC reviewed
the second draft document at a meeting on July 26 and 27, 2010 (75 FR
32763, June 9, 2010). The EPA staff considered CASAC (Samet, 2010d) and
public comments on the second draft Policy Assessment in preparing a
final Policy Assessment titled Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, April, 2011
(U.S. EPA, 2011a; 76, FR 22665, April 22, 2011). This document includes
final staff conclusions on the adequacy of the current PM standards and
alternative standards for consideration.
The schedule for the rulemaking in this review is subject to a
court order in a lawsuit filed in February 2012 by a group of
plaintiffs who alleged that the EPA had failed to perform its mandatory
duty, under section 109(d)(1), to complete a review of the PM NAAQS
within the period provided by statute. American Lung Association and
National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, D.D.C. No. 12-cv-00243
(consol. with No. 12-cv-00531) Court orders in that case provide that
the EPA sign a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning its review of
the PM NAAQS no later than June 14, 2012 and a notice of final
rulemaking no later than December 14, 2012.
On June 14, 2012, the EPA issued its proposed decision to revise
the NAAQS for PM (77 FR 38890, June 29, 2012) (henceforth
``proposal''). In the proposal, the EPA identified revisions to the
standards, based on the air quality criteria for PM, and to related
data handling conventions and ambient air monitoring, reporting, and
network design requirements. The EPA proposed revisions to the PSD
permitting program with respect to the proposed NAAQS revisions. The
Agency also proposed
[[Page 3095]]
changes to the AQI for PM2.5, consistent with the proposed
primary PM2.5 standards. The proposal solicited public
comments on alternative primary and secondary standards and related
matters. The proposal is summarized in section II.D below.
The EPA held two public hearings to receive public comment on the
proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS (77 FR 39205, July 2, 2012). One
hearing took place in Philadelphia, PA on July 17, 2012 and a second
hearing took place in Sacramento, CA on July 19, 2012. At these public
hearings, the EPA heard testimony from 168 individuals representing
themselves or specific interested organizations.
The EPA received more than 230,000 comments from members of the
public and various interest groups on the proposed revisions to the PM
NAAQS by the close of the public comment period on August 31, 2012.
Major issues raised in the public comments are discussed throughout the
preamble of this final action. A more detailed summary of all
significant comments, along with the EPA's responses (henceforth
``Response to Comments'') can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492) (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
In the proposal, the EPA recognized that there were a number of new
scientific studies on the health effects of PM that had been published
since the mid-2009 cutoff date for inclusion in the Integrated Science
Assessment.\13\ As in the last PM NAAQS review, the EPA committed to
conduct a provisional review and assessment of any significant ``new''
studies published since the close of the Integrated Science Assessment,
including studies submitted to the EPA during the public comment
period. The purpose of the provisional science assessment was to ensure
that the Administrator was fully aware of the ``new'' science that has
developed since 2009 before making final decisions on whether to retain
or revise the current PM NAAQS. The EPA screened and surveyed the
recent health literature, including studies submitted during the public
comment period, and conducted a provisional assessment (U.S. EPA,
2012b) that places the results of those studies of potentially greatest
policy relevance in the context of the findings of the Integrated
Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a). This provisional assessment,
including a summary of the key conclusions, can be found in the
rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For ease of reference, these studies will be referred to as
``new'' studies or ``new'' science, using quotation marks around the
word new. Referring to studies that were published too recently to
have been included in the 2009 Integrated Science Assessment as
``new'' studies is intended to clearly differentiate such studies
from those that have been published since the last review and which
are included in the Integrated Science Assessment (these studies are
sometimes referred to as new (without quotation marks) or more
recent studies, to indicate that they were not included in the
Integrated Science Assessment and thus are newly available in this
review).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisional assessment found that the ``new'' studies expand
the scientific information considered in the Integrated Science
Assessment and provide important insights on the relationship between
PM exposure and health effects. The provisional assessment also found
that the ``new'' studies generally strengthen the evidence that long-
and short-term exposures to fine particles are associated with a wide
range of health effects. Some of the ``new'' epidemiological studies
report effects in areas with lower PM2.5-concentrations than
those in earlier studies considered in the Integrated Science
Assessment. ``New'' toxicological and epidemiological studies continue
to link various health effects with a range of fine particle sources
and components. With regard to thoracic coarse particles, the
provisional assessment recognized that a limited number of ``new''
studies provide evidence of an association with short-term
PM10-2.5 exposures and increased asthma-related emergency
department visits in children, but continue to provide no evidence of
an association between long-term PM10-2.5 exposure and
mortality. Further, the provisional assessment found that the results
reported in ``new'' studies do not materially change any of the broad
scientific conclusions regarding the health effects of PM exposure made
in the Integrated Science Assessment.
The EPA believes it was important to conduct a provisional
assessment in this proceeding, so that the Administrator would be aware
of the science that developed too recently for inclusion in the
Integrated Science Assessment. However, it is also important to note
that the EPA's review of that science to date has been limited to
screening, surveying, and preparing a provisional assessment of these
studies. Having performed this limited provisional assessment, the EPA
must decide whether to consider the ``new'' studies in this review and
to take such steps as may be necessary to include them in the basis for
the final decision, or to reserve such action for the next review of
the PM NAAQS.
As in prior NAAQS reviews, the EPA is basing its decision in this
review on studies and related information included in the Integrated
Science Assessment, Risk and Exposure Assessment, and Policy
Assessment, which have undergone CASAC and public review. The studies
assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment, and the integration of
the scientific evidence presented in that document, have undergone
extensive critical review by the EPA, CASAC, and the public during the
development of the Integrated Science Assessment. The rigor of that
review makes these studies, and their integrative assessment, the most
reliable source of scientific information on which to base decisions on
the NAAQS. NAAQS decisions can have profound impacts on public health
and welfare, and NAAQS decisions should be based on studies that have
been rigorously assessed in an integrative manner not only by the EPA
but also by the statutorily-mandated independent advisory committee,
CASAC, and have been subject as well to the public review that
accompanies this process. As described above, the provisional
assessment did not and could not provide that kind of in-depth critical
review.
This decision is consistent with the EPA's practice in prior NAAQS
reviews. Since the 1970 amendments, the EPA has taken the view that
NAAQS decisions are to be based on scientific studies and related
information that have been assessed as a part of the pertinent air
quality criteria. See e.g., 36 FR 8186 (April 30, 1971) (the EPA based
original NAAQS for six pollutants on scientific studies discussed in
air quality criteria documents and limited consideration of comments to
those concerning validity of scientific basis); 38 FR 25678, 25679-
25680 (September 14, 1973) (the EPA revised air quality criteria for
sulfur oxides to provide basis for reevaluation of secondary NAAQS).
This longstanding interpretation was strengthened by new legislative
requirements enacted in 1977, which added section 109(d)(2) of the CAA
concerning CASAC review of air quality criteria. The EPA has
consistently followed this approach. 52 FR 24634, 24637 (July 1, 1987)
(after review by CASAC, the EPA issued a post-proposal addendum to the
PM Air Quality Criteria Document, to address certain new scientific
studies not included in the 1982 Air Quality Criteria Document); 61 FR
25566, 25568 (May 22, 1996) (after review by CASAC, the EPA issued a
post-proposal supplement to the 1982 Air Quality Criteria Document to
address certain new health studies not included in the 1982 Air Quality
Criteria Document or 1986
[[Page 3096]]
Addendum). The EPA reaffirmed this approach in its decision not to
revise the ozone NAAQS in 1993, as well as in its final decision on the
PM NAAQS in the 1997 and 2006 reviews. 58 FR 13008, 13013 to 13014
(March 9, 1993) (ozone review); 62 FR 38652, 38662 (July 18, 1997) and
71 FR 61141, 61148 to 61149 (October 17, 2006) (PM reviews) (The EPA
conducted a provisional assessment but based the final PM decisions on
studies and related information included in the air quality criteria
that had been reviewed by CASAC).
As discussed in the EPA's 1993 decision not to revise the NAAQS for
ozone, `new' studies may sometimes be of such significance that it is
appropriate to delay a decision on revision of NAAQS and to supplement
the pertinent air quality criteria so the ``new'' studies can be taken
into account (58 FR, 13013 to 13014, March 9, 1993). In this
proceeding, the provisional assessment of recent studies concludes
that, taken in context, the ``new'' information and findings do not
materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the
health effects of PM exposure made in the Integrated Science Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2012b). For this reason, reopening the air quality criteria
review would not be warranted even if there were time to do so under
the court order governing the schedule for this rulemaking.
Accordingly, the EPA is basing the final decisions in this review on
the studies and related information included in the PM air quality
criteria that have undergone CASAC and public review. The EPA will
consider the ``new'' published studies for purposes of decision making
in the next periodic review of the PM NAAQS, which will provide the
opportunity to fully assess them through a more rigorous review process
involving the EPA, CASAC, and the public.
C. Related Control Programs To Implement PM Standards
States are primarily responsible for ensuring attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS once the EPA has established them. Under section
110 of the CAA and related provisions, states are to submit, for the
EPA's approval, SIPs that provide for the attainment and maintenance of
such standards through control programs directed to sources of the
pollutants involved. The states, in conjunction with the EPA, also
administer the PSD permitting program (CAA sections 160 to 169). In
addition, federal programs provide for nationwide reductions in
emissions of PM and other air pollutants through the federal motor
vehicle and motor vehicle fuel control program under title II of the
Act (CAA sections 202 to 250) which involves controls for emissions
from mobile sources and controls for the fuels used by these sources,
and new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary sources
under section 111 of the CAA.
Currently, there are 35 areas in the U.S. that are designated as
nonattainment for the current annual PM2.5 standard and 32
areas in the U.S. that are designated as nonattainment for the current
24-hour PM2.5 standards. With the revisions to the PM NAAQS
that are being finalized in this rule, the EPA will work with the
states to conduct a new area designation process. Those states with new
nonattainment areas will be required to develop SIPs to attain the
standards. In developing their attainment plans, states will have to
take into account projected emission reductions from federal and state
rules that have already been adopted at the time of plan submittal. A
number of significant emission reduction programs that will lead to
reductions of PM and its precursors are in place today or are expected
to be in place by the time any new SIPs will be due. Examples of such
rules include regulations for onroad and nonroad engines and fuels, the
utility and industrial boilers toxics rules, and various other programs
already adopted by states to reduce emissions from key emissions
sources. States will then evaluate the level of additional emission
reductions needed for each nonattainment area to attain the standards
``as expeditiously as practicable'' and adopt new state regulations, as
appropriate. Section IX includes additional discussion of designation
and implementation issues associated with the revised PM NAAQS.
D. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the PM NAAQS
For reasons discussed in the proposal, the Administrator proposed
to revise the current primary and secondary PM standards. With regard
to the primary PM2.5 standards, the Administrator proposed
to revise the level of the annual PM2.5 standard from 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\ to a level within a range of 12.0 to 13.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and to
retain the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at 35
[micro]g/m\3\. The Administrator also proposed to eliminate spatial
averaging provisions as part of the form of the annual standard to
avoid potential disproportionate impacts on at-risk populations. The
EPA proposed to revise the AQI for PM2.5, consistent with
the proposed primary PM2.5 standards.
With regard to the primary coarse particle standard, the EPA
proposed to retain the current 24-hour PM10 standard to
continue to provide protection against effects associated with short-
term exposure to thoracic coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5).
With regard to the secondary PM standards, the EPA proposed to
revise the suite of secondary PM standards by adding a distinct
standard for PM2.5 to address PM-related visibility
impairment. The separate secondary standard was proposed to be defined
in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index, which would use
speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations and relative humidity
data to calculate PM2.5 light extinction, translated to the
deciview (dv) scale, similar to the Regional Haze Program; a 24-hour
averaging time; a 90th percentile form averaged over 3 years; and a
level set at one of two options--either 30 or 28 dv. The EPA also
proposed to retain the current secondary standards generally to address
non-visibility welfare effects.
The EPA also proposed to revise the data handling procedures
consistent with the revised primary and secondary standards for
PM2.5 including the computations necessary for determining
when these standards are met and the measurement data that are
appropriate for comparison to the standards. With regard to monitoring-
related activities, the EPA proposed to update several aspects of the
monitoring regulations and specifically to require that a small number
of PM2.5 monitors be relocated to be collocated with
measurements of other pollutants (e.g., nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide) in the near-road environment.
E. Organization and Approach to Final PM NAAQS Decisions
This action presents the Administrator's final decisions on the
review of the current primary and secondary PM2.5 and
PM10 standards. Consistent with the decisions made by the
EPA in the last review and with the conclusions in the Integrated
Science Assessment and Policy Assessment, fine and thoracic coarse
particles continue to be considered as separate subclasses of PM
pollution. Primary standards for fine particles and for thoracic coarse
particles are addressed in sections III and IV, respectively. Changes
to the AQI for PM2.5, consistent with the revised primary
PM2.5 standards, are addressed in section V. Secondary
standards for fine and coarse particles are addressed in section VI.
Related data handling conventions and exceptional events are addressed
in section VII. Updates to the monitoring regulations are addressed in
[[Page 3097]]
section VIII. Implementation activities, including PSD-related actions,
are addressed in section IX. Section X addresses applicable statutory
and executive order reviews.
Today's final decisions addressing standards for fine and coarse
particles are based on a thorough review in the Integrated Science
Assessment of scientific information on known and potential human
health and welfare effects associated with exposure to these subclasses
of PM at levels typically found in the ambient air. These final
decisions also take into account: (1) Staff assessments in the Policy
Assessment of the most policy-relevant information in the Integrated
Science Assessment as well as a quantitative health risk assessment and
urban-focused visibility assessment based on that information; (2)
CASAC advice and recommendations, as reflected in its letters to the
Administrator, its discussions of drafts of the Integrated Science
Assessment, Risk and Exposure Assessments, and Policy Assessment at
public meetings, and separate written comments prepared by individual
members of the CASAC PM Review Panel; (3) public comments received
during the development of these documents, both in connection with
CASAC meetings and separately; and (4) extensive public comments
received on the proposed rulemaking.
III. Rationale for Final Decisions on the Primary PM2.5
Standards
This section presents the Administrator's final decision regarding
the need to revise the current primary PM2.5 standards and,
more specifically, regarding revisions to the level and form of the
existing primary annual PM2.5 standard in conjunction with
retaining the existing primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard. As
discussed more fully below, the rationale for the final decision is
based on a thorough review, in the Integrated Science Assessment, of
the latest scientific information, published through mid-2009, on human
health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures to fine
particles in the ambient air. The final decisions also take into
account: (1) Staff assessments of the most policy-relevant information
presented and assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment and staff
analyses of air quality and human risks presented in the Risk
Assessment and the Policy Assessment, upon which staff conclusions
regarding appropriate considerations in this review are based; (2)
CASAC advice and recommendations, as reflected in discussions of drafts
of the Integrated Science Assessment, Risk Assessment, and Policy
Assessment at public meetings, in separate written comments, and in
CASAC's letters to the Administrator; (3) the multiple rounds of public
comments received during the development of these documents, both in
connection with CASAC meetings and separately; and (4) extensive public
comments received on the proposal.
In developing this final rule, the Administrator recognizes that
the CAA requires her to reach a public health policy judgment as to
what standards would be requisite--neither more nor less stringent than
necessary--to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety,
based on scientific evidence and technical assessments that have
inherent uncertainties and limitations. This judgment requires making
reasoned decisions as to what weight to place on various types of
evidence and assessments, and on the related uncertainties and
limitations. Thus, in selecting the final standards, the Administrator
is seeking not only to prevent fine particle concentrations that have
been demonstrated to be harmful but also to prevent lower fine particle
concentrations that may pose an unacceptable risk of harm, even if the
risk is not precisely identified as to nature or degree.
As discussed below, as well as in more detail in the proposal, a
substantial amount of new research has been conducted since the close
of the science assessment in the last review of the PM2.5
NAAQS (U.S. EPA, 2004), with important new information coming from
epidemiological studies, in particular. This body of evidence includes
hundreds of new epidemiological studies conducted in many countries
around the world. In its assessment of the evidence judged to be most
relevant to making decisions on elements of the primary
PM2.5 standards, the EPA has placed greater weight on U.S.
and Canadian studies using PM2.5 measurements, since studies
conducted in other countries may reflect different demographic and air
pollution characteristics.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Nonetheless, the Administrator recognizes the importance of
all studies, including international studies, in the Integrated
Science Assessment's considerations of the weight of the evidence
that informs causality determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The newly available research studies as well as the earlier body of
scientific evidence presented and assessed in the Integrated Science
Assessment have undergone intensive scrutiny through multiple layers of
peer review and opportunities for public review and comment. In
developing this final rule, the EPA has drawn upon an integrative
synthesis of the entire body of evidence concerning exposure to ambient
fine particles and a broad range of health endpoints (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
Chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) focusing on those health endpoints for
which the Integrated Science Assessment concludes that there is a
causal or likely causal relationship with long- or short-term
PM2.5 exposures. The EPA has also considered health
endpoints for which the Integrated Science Assessment concludes there
is evidence suggestive of a causal relationship with long-term
PM2.5 exposures.
The EPA has also drawn upon a quantitative risk assessment based
upon the scientific evidence described and assessed in the Integrated
Science Assessment. These analyses, discussed in the Risk Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2010a) and Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, chapter 2),
have also undergone intensive scrutiny through multiple layers of peer
review and multiple opportunities for public review and comment.
Although important uncertainties remain in the qualitative and
quantitative characterizations of health effects attributable to
ambient fine particles, progress has been made in addressing these
uncertainties in this review. The EPA's review of this information has
been extensive and deliberate. This intensive evaluation of the
scientific evidence and quantitative assessments has provided a
comprehensive and adequate basis for regulatory decision making at this
time.
This section describes the integrative synthesis of the evidence
and technical information contained in the Integrated Science
Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Policy Assessment with regard
to the current and alternative standards. The EPA notes that the final
decision for retaining or revising the current primary PM2.5
standards is a public health policy judgment made by the Administrator.
The Administrator's final decision draws upon scientific information
and analyses related to health effects and risks; judgments about
uncertainties that are inherent in the scientific evidence and
analyses; CASAC advice; and comments received in response to the
proposal.
In presenting the rationale for the final decisions on the primary
PM2.5 standards, this section begins with a summary of the
approaches used in setting the initial primary PM2.5 NAAQS
in 1997 and in reviewing and revising those standards in 2006 (section
III.A.1). The DC Circuit Court of Appeals remand of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard in 2009 is discussed in section III.A.2.
Taking into consideration this
[[Page 3098]]
history, section III.A.3 describes the EPA's general approach used in
the current review for considering the need to retain or revise the
current suite of fine particle standards, taking into account public
comment on the proposed approach.
The scientific evidence and quantitative risk assessment were
presented in sections III.B and III.C of the proposal, respectively (77
FR 38906 to 38917, June 29, 2012) and are outlined in sections III.B
and III.C below. Subsequent sections of this preamble provide a more
complete discussion of the Administrator's rationale, in light of key
issues raised in public comments, for concluding that it is appropriate
to revise the suite of current primary PM2.5 standards
(section III.D), as well as a more complete discussion of the
Administrator's rationale for retaining or revising the specific
elements of the primary PM2.5 standards, namely the
indicator (section III.E.1); averaging time (section III.E.2); form
(section III.E.3); and level (section III.E.4). A summary of the final
decisions to revise the suite of primary PM2.5 standards is
presented in section III.F.
A. Background
There are currently two primary PM2.5 standards
providing public health protection from effects associated with fine
particle exposures. The annual standard is set at a level of 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean
PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple monitors sited
to represent community-wide air quality. The 24-hour standard is set at
a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each
population-oriented monitor within an area.
The past and current approaches for reviewing the primary
PM2.5 standards described below are all based most
fundamentally on using information from epidemiological studies to
inform the selection of PM2.5 standards that, in the
Administrator's judgment, protect public health with an adequate margin
of safety. Such information can be in the form of air quality
distributions over which health effect associations have been observed
in scientific studies or in the form of concentration-response
functions that support quantitative risk assessment. However, evidence-
and risk-based approaches using information from epidemiological
studies to inform decisions on PM2.5 standards are
complicated by the recognition that no population threshold, below
which it can be concluded with confidence that PM2.5-related
effects do not occur, can be discerned from the available evidence.\15\
As a result, any general approach to reaching decisions on what
standards are appropriate necessarily requires judgments about how to
translate the information available from the epidemiological studies
into a basis for appropriate standards. This includes consideration of
how to weigh the uncertainties in the reported associations across the
distributions of PM2.5 concentrations in the studies and the
uncertainties in quantitative estimates of risk, in the context of the
entire body of evidence before the Agency. Such approaches are
consistent with setting standards that are neither more nor less
stringent than necessary, recognizing that a zero-risk standard is not
required by the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The term ``evidence-based'' approach or consideration
generally refers to using the information in the scientific evidence
to inform judgments on the need to retain or revise the NAAQS. The
term ``risk-based'' generally refers to using the quantitative
information in the Risk Assessment to inform such judgments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. General Approach Used in Previous Reviews
The general approach used to translate scientific information into
standards in the previous PM NAAQS reviews focused on consideration of
alternative standard levels that were somewhat below the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in key epidemiological studies
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.1.1). This approach recognized that the
strongest evidence of PM2.5-related associations occurs
where the bulk of the data exists, which is over a range of
concentrations around the long-term (i.e., annual) mean.
In setting primary PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards
for the first time in 1997, the Agency relied primarily on an evidence-
based approach that focused on epidemiological evidence, especially
from short-term exposure studies of fine particles judged to be the
strongest evidence at that time (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.1.1.1). The
EPA selected a level for the annual standard that was at or below the
long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations in studies providing
evidence of associations with short-term PM2.5 exposures,
placing greatest weight on those short-term exposure studies that
reported clearly statistically significant associations with mortality
and morbidity effects. Further consideration of long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations associated with mortality and
respiratory effects in children did not provide a basis for
establishing a lower annual standard level. The EPA did not place much
weight on quantitative risk estimates from the very limited risk
assessment conducted, but did conclude that the risk assessment results
confirmed the general conclusions drawn from the epidemiological
evidence that a serious public health problem was associated with
ambient PM levels allowed under the then current PM10
standards (62 FR 38665/1, July 18, 1997).
The EPA considered the epidemiological evidence and data on air
quality relationships to set an annual PM2.5 standard that
was intended to be the ``generally controlling'' standard; i.e., the
primary means of lowering both long- and short-term ambient
concentrations of PM2.5.\16\ In conjunction with the annual
standard, the EPA also established a 24-hour PM2.5 standard
to provide supplemental protection against days with high peak
concentrations, localized ``hotspots,'' and risks arising from seasonal
emissions that might not be well controlled by an annual standard (62
FR 38669/3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In so doing, the EPA noted that because an annual standard
would focus control programs on annual average PM2.5
concentrations, it would not only control long-term exposure levels,
but would also generally control the overall distribution of 24-hour
exposure levels, resulting in fewer and lower 24-hour peak
concentrations. Alternatively, a 24-hour standard that focused
controls on peak concentrations could also result in lower annual
average concentrations. Thus, the EPA recognized that either
standard could provide some degree of protection from both short-
and long-term exposures, with the other standard serving to address
situations where the daily peaks and annual averages are not
consistently correlated (62 FR 38669, July 18, 1997). In the
circumstances presented in that review, the EPA determined that it
was appropriate to focus on the annual standard as the standard best
suited to control both annual and daily air quality distributions
(62 FR 38670).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the EPA used a different evidence-based approach to assess
the appropriateness of the levels of the 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.1.1.2). Based on
an expanded body of epidemiological evidence that was stronger and more
robust than that available in the 1997 review, including additional
studies of both short- and long-term exposures, the EPA decided that
using evidence of effects associated with periods of exposure that were
most closely matched to the averaging time of each standard was the
most appropriate public health policy approach for evaluating the
scientific evidence to inform selecting the level of each standard.
Thus, the EPA relied upon evidence from the short-term exposure studies
as the principal basis for revising the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard from 65 to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ to protect
against effects associated with short-term exposures. The EPA relied
upon evidence from long-term exposure
[[Page 3099]]
studies as the principal basis for retaining the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]g/m\3\ to protect against
effects associated with long-term exposures. This approach essentially
took the view that short-term studies were not appropriate to inform
decisions relating to the level of the annual standard, and long-term
studies were not appropriate to inform decisions relating to the level
of the 24-hour standard. With respect to quantitative risk-based
considerations, the EPA determined that the estimates of risks likely
to remain upon attainment of the 1997 suite of PM2.5
standards were indicative of risks that could be reasonably judged
important from a public health perspective and, thus, supported
revision of the standards. However, the EPA judged that the
quantitative risk assessment had important limitations and did not
provide an appropriate basis for selecting the levels of the revised
standards in 2006 (71 FR 61174/1-2, October 17, 2006).
2. Remand of Primary Annual PM2.5 Standard
As noted above in section II.B.2, several parties filed petitions
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit following promulgation of the revised PM NAAQS in 2006. These
petitions challenged several aspects of the final rule including the
level of the primary PM2.5 annual standard. The primary 24-
hour PM2.5 standard was not challenged by any of the
litigants and, thus, was not considered in the court's review and
decision.
On judicial review, the D.C. Circuit remanded the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA on grounds that the Agency failed to
adequately explain why the annual standard provided the requisite
protection from both short- and long-term exposures to fine particles
including protection for at-risk populations. American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). With respect to
human health protection from short-term PM2.5 exposures, the
court considered the different approaches used by the EPA in the 1997
and 2006 p.m. NAAQS decisions, as summarized in section III.A.1 above.
The court found that the EPA failed to adequately explain why a primary
24-hour PM2.5 standard by itself would provide the
protection needed from short-term exposures and remanded the primary
annual PM2.5 standard to the EPA ``for further consideration
of whether it is set at a level requisite to protect the public health
while providing an adequate margin of safety from the risk of short-
term exposures to PM2.5.'' American Farm Bureau Federation
v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at 520-24.
With respect to protection from long-term exposure to fine
particles, the court found that the EPA failed to adequately explain
how the primary annual PM2.5 standard provided an adequate
margin of safety for children and other at-risk populations. The court
found that the EPA did not provide a reasonable explanation of why
certain morbidity studies, including a study of children in Southern
California showing lung damage associated with long-term
PM2.5 exposure (Gauderman et al., 2000) and a multi-city
study (24-Cities Study) evaluating decreased lung function in children
associated with long-term PM2.5 exposures (Raizenne et al.,
1996), did not warrant a more stringent annual PM2.5
standard. Id. at 522-23. Specifically, the court found that:
EPA was unreasonably confident that, even though it relied
solely upon long-term mortality studies, the revised standard would
provide an adequate margin of safety with respect to morbidity among
children. Notably absent from the final rule, moreover, is any
indication of how the standard will adequately reduce risk to the
elderly or to those with certain heart or lung diseases despite (a)
the EPA's determination in its proposed rule that those
subpopulations are at greater risk from exposure to fine particles
and (b) the evidence in the record supporting that determination.
Id. at 525.
In addition, the court held that the EPA had not adequately
explained its decision to base the level of the annual standard
essentially exclusively on the results of long-term studies and the 24-
hour standard level essentially exclusively on the results of short-
term studies. See 559 F. 3d at 522 (``[e]ven if the long-term studies
available today are useful for setting an annual standard * * * it is
not clear why the EPA no longer believes it useful to look as well to
short-term studies in order to design the suite of standards that will
most effectively reduce the risks associated with short-term
exposure''); see also Id. at 523-24 (holding that the EPA had not
adequately explained why a standard based on levels in short-term
exposure studies alone provided appropriate protection from health
effects associated with short-term PM2.5 exposures given the
stated need to lower the entire air quality distribution, and not just
peak concentrations, in order to control against short-term effects).
In remanding the primary annual PM2.5 standard for
reconsideration, the court did not vacate the standard, Id. at 530, so
the standard remains in effect and is therefore the standard considered
by the EPA in this review.
3. General Approach Used in the Policy Assessment for the Current
Review
This review is based on an assessment of a much expanded body of
scientific evidence, more extensive air quality data and analyses, and
a more comprehensive quantitative risk assessment relative to the
information available in past reviews, as presented and assessed in the
Integrated Science Assessment and Risk Assessment and discussed in the
Policy Assessment. As a result, the EPA's general approach to reaching
conclusions about the adequacy of the current suite of PM2.5
standards and potential alternative standards that are appropriate to
consider was broader and more integrative than in past reviews. Our
general approach also reflected consideration of the issues raised by
the court in its remand of the primary annual PM2.5 standard
as discussed in section III.A.2 above, since decisions made in this
review, and the rationales for those decisions, will comprise the
Agency's response to the remand.
The EPA's general approach took into account both evidence-based
and risk-based considerations and the uncertainties related to both
types of information, as well as advice from CASAC (Samet, 2010c,d) and
public comments on the first and second draft Policy Assessments (U.S.
EPA, 2010c,f). In so doing, the EPA staff developed a final Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a) which provided as broad an array of policy
options as was supported by the available information, recognizing that
the selection of a specific approach to reaching final decisions on the
primary PM2.5 standards will reflect the judgments of the
Administrator as to what weight to place on the various approaches and
types of information available in the current review.
The Policy Assessment concluded it was most appropriate to consider
the protection against PM2.5-related mortality and morbidity
effects, associated with both long- and short-term exposures, afforded
by the annual and 24-hour standards taken together, as was done in the
1997 review, rather than to consider each standard separately, as was
done in the 2006 review (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.1.3).\17\ As the
EPA recognized in 1997,
[[Page 3100]]
there are various ways to combine two standards to achieve an
appropriate degree of public health protection. The extent to which
these two standards are interrelated in any given area depends in large
part on the relative levels of the standards, the peak-to-mean ratios
that characterize air quality patterns in an area, and whether changes
in air quality designed to meet a given suite of standards are likely
to be of a more regional or more localized nature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ By utilizing this approach, the Agency also is responsive
to the remand of the 2006 standard. As noted in section III.A.2, the
D.C. Circuit, in remanding the 2006 primary annual PM2.5
standard, concluded that the Administrator had failed to adequately
explain why an annual standard was sufficiently protective in the
absence of consideration of the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations in short-term exposure studies as well, and likewise
had failed to explain why a 24-hour standard was sufficiently
protective in the absence of consideration of the effect of an
annual standard on reducing the overall distribution of 24-hour
average PM2.5 concentrations. 559 F. 3d at 520-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the combined effect of annual and 24-hour standards,
the Policy Assessment recognized that changes in PM2.5 air
quality designed to meet an annual standard would likely result not
only in lower annual average PM2.5 concentrations but also
in fewer and lower peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. The
Policy Assessment also recognized that changes designed to meet a 24-
hour standard would result not only in fewer and lower peak 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations but also in lower annual average
PM2.5 concentrations. Thus, either standard could be viewed
as providing protection from effects associated with both short- and
long-term exposures, with the other standard serving to address
situations where the daily peak and annual average concentrations are
not consistently correlated.
In considering the currently available evidence, the Policy
Assessment recognized that the short-term exposure studies were
primarily drawn from epidemiological studies that associated variations
in area-wide health effects with monitor(s) that measured the variation
in daily PM2.5 concentrations over the course of several
years. The strength of the associations in these data was demonstrably
in the numerous ``typical'' days within the air quality distribution,
not in the peak days. See also 71 FR 61168, October 17, 2006 and
American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at 523, 524 (making
the same point). The quantitative risk assessments conducted for this
and previous reviews demonstrated the same point; that is, much, if not
most of the aggregate risk associated with short-term exposures results
from the large number of days during which the 24-hour average
concentrations are in the low-to mid-range, below the peak 24-hour
concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.2; U.S. EPA, 2010a,
section 3.1.2.2). In addition, there was no evidence suggesting that
risks associated with long-term exposures were likely to be
disproportionately driven by peak 24-hour concentrations.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In confirmation, a number of studies have presented
analyses excluding higher PM concentration days and reported a
limited effect on the magnitude of the effect estimates or
statistical significance of the association (e.g., Dominici, 2006b;
Schwartz et al., 1996; Pope and Dockery, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Policy Assessment concluded that strategies
that focused primarily on reducing peak days were less likely to
achieve reductions in the PM2.5 concentrations that were
most strongly associated with the observed health effects. Furthermore,
the Policy Assessment concluded that a policy approach that focused on
reducing peak exposures would most likely result in more uneven public
health protection across the U.S. by either providing inadequate
protection in some areas or overprotecting in other areas (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-9; U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 5.2.3). This is because, as
discussed above, reductions based on control of peak days are less
likely to control the bulk of the air quality distribution.
The Policy Assessment concluded that a policy goal of setting a
``generally controlling'' annual standard that will lower a wide range
of ambient 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, as opposed to
focusing on control of peak 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations,
was the most effective and efficient way to reduce total population
risk and so provide appropriate protection. This approach, in contrast
to one focusing on a generally controlling 24-hour standard, would
likely reduce aggregate risks associated with both long- and short-term
exposures with more consistency and would likely avoid setting national
standards that could result in relatively uneven protection across the
country, due to setting standards that are either more or less
stringent than necessary in different geographical areas (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-9).
The Policy Assessment also concluded that an annual standard
intended to serve as the primary means for providing protection from
effects associated with both long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures cannot be expected to offer sufficient protection against the
effects of all short-term PM2.5 exposures. As a result, in
conjunction with a generally controlling annual standard, the Policy
Assessment concluded it was appropriate to consider setting a 24-hour
standard to provide supplemental protection, particularly for areas
with high peak-to-mean ratios possibly associated with strong local or
seasonal sources, or PM2.5-related effects that may be
associated with shorter-than-daily exposure periods (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-10).
The Policy Assessment's consideration of the protection afforded by
the current and alternative suites of standards focused on
PM2.5-related health effects associated with long-term
exposures for which the magnitude of quantitative estimates of risks to
public health generated in the risk assessment was appreciably larger
in terms of overall incidence and percent of total mortality or
morbidity effects than for short-term PM2.5-related effects.
Nonetheless, the EPA also considered health effects and estimated risks
associated with short-term exposures. In both cases, the Policy
Assessment placed greatest weight on health effects that had been
judged in the Integrated Science Assessment to have a causal or likely
causal relationship with PM2.5 exposures, while also
considering health effects judged to be suggestive of a causal
relationship or evidence that focused on specific at-risk populations.
The Policy Assessment placed relatively greater weight on statistically
significant associations that yielded relatively more precise effect
estimates and that were judged to be robust to confounding by other air
pollutants. In the case of short-term exposure studies, the Policy
Assessment placed greatest weight on evidence from large multi-city
studies, while also considering associations in single-city studies.
In translating information from epidemiological studies into the
basis for reaching staff conclusions on the adequacy of the current
suite of standards, the Policy Assessment considered a number of
factors. As an initial matter, the Policy Assessment considered the
extent to which the currently available evidence and related
uncertainties strengthens or calls into question conclusions from the
last review regarding associations between fine particle exposures and
health effects. The Policy Assessment also considered evidence of
health effects in at-risk populations and the potential impacts on such
populations. Further, the Policy Assessment explored the extent to
which PM2.5-related health effects had been observed in
areas where air quality distributions extend to lower concentrations
than previously reported or in areas that would likely have met the
current suite of standards.
In translating information from epidemiological studies into the
basis for reaching staff conclusions on
[[Page 3101]]
standard levels for consideration (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 2.1.3 and
2.3.4), the Policy Assessment first recognized the absence of
discernible thresholds in the concentration-response functions from
long- and short-term PM2.5 exposure studies (U.S. EPA,
2011a, section 2.4.3).\19\ In the absence of any discernible
thresholds, the Agency's general approach for identifying appropriate
standard levels for consideration involved characterizing the range of
PM2.5 concentrations over which we have the most confidence
in the associations reported in epidemiological studies. In so doing,
the Policy Assessment recognized that there is no single factor or
criterion that comprises the ``correct'' approach, but rather there are
various approaches that are reasonable to consider for characterizing
the confidence in the associations and the limitations and
uncertainties in the evidence. Identifying the implications of various
approaches for reaching conclusions on the range of alternative
standard levels that is appropriate to consider can help inform the
final decisions to either retain or revise the standards. Today's final
decisions also take into account public health policy judgments as to
the degree of health protection that is to be achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The epidemiological studies evaluated in the Integrated
Science Assessment that examined the shape of concentration-response
relationships and the potential presence of a threshold focused on
cardiovascular-related hospital admissions and emergency department
visits associated with short-term PM10 exposures and
premature mortality associated with long-term PM2.5
exposure (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 6.5, 6.2.10.10 and 7.6).
Overall, the Integrated Science Assessment concluded that the
studies evaluated support the use of a no-threshold, log-linear
model but recognized that ``additional issues such as the influence
of heterogeneity in estimates between cities, and the effect of
seasonal and regional differences in PM on the concentration-
response relationship still require further investigation'' (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching staff conclusions on the range of annual standard
levels that was appropriate to consider, the Policy Assessment focused
on identifying an annual standard that provided requisite protection
from effects associated with both long- and short-term exposures. In so
doing, the Policy Assessment explored different approaches for
characterizing the range of PM2.5 concentrations over which
our confidence in the nature of the associations for both long- and
short-term exposures is greatest, as well as the extent to which our
confidence is reduced at lower PM2.5 concentrations.
First, the Policy Assessment recognized that the approach that most
directly addressed this issue considered studies that analyzed
confidence intervals around concentration-response relationships and in
particular, analyses that averaged across multiple concentration-
response models rather than considering a single concentration-response
model.\20\ The Policy Assessment explored the extent to which such
analyses had been published for studies of health effects associated
with long- or short-term PM2.5 exposures. Such analyses
could potentially be used to characterize a concentration below which
uncertainty in a concentration-response relationship substantially
increases or is judged to be indicative of an unacceptable degree of
uncertainty about the existence of a continuing concentration-response
relationship. The Policy Assessment concluded that identifying this
area of uncertainty in the concentration-response relationship could be
used to inform identification of alternative standard levels that are
appropriate to consider.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ This is distinct from confidence intervals around
concentration-response relationships that are related to the
magnitude of effect estimates generated at specific PM2.5
concentrations (i.e., point-wise confidence intervals) and that are
relevant to the precision of the effect estimate across the air
quality distribution, rather than to our confidence in the existence
of a continuing concentration-response relationship across the
entire air quality distribution on which a reported association was
based.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Policy Assessment explored other approaches that
considered different statistical metrics from epidemiological studies.
The Policy Assessment first took into account the general approach used
in previous PM reviews which focused on consideration of alternative
standard levels that were somewhat below the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in epidemiological studies
using air quality distributions based on composite monitor
concentrations.\21\ This approach recognized that the strongest
evidence of PM2.5-related associations occurs at
concentrations around the long-term (i.e., annual) mean. In using this
approach, the Policy Assessment placed greatest weight on those long-
and short-term exposure studies that reported statistically significant
associations with mortality and morbidity effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Using the term ``composite monitor'' does not imply that
the EPA can identify one monitor that represents the air quality
evaluated in a specific study area. Rather, the composite monitor
concentration represents the average concentration across monitors
within each area with more than one monitor included in a given
study as typically reported in epidemiological studies. For multi-
city studies, this metric reflects concentrations averaged across
multiple monitors or from single monitors within each area and then
averaged across study areas for an overall study mean
PM2.5 concentration. This is consistent with the
epidemiological evidence considered in other NAAQS reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In extending this approach, the Policy Assessment also considered
information beyond a single statistical metric of PM2.5
concentrations (i.e., the mean) to the extent such information was
available. Pursuant to an express comment from CASAC (Samet 2010d, p.
2), the Policy Assessment utilized distributional statistics (i.e.,
statistical characterization of an entire distribution of data) to
identify the broader range of PM2.5 concentrations that had
the most influence on the calculation of relative risk estimates in
both long- and short-term exposure epidemiological studies. Thus, the
Policy Assessment considered the part of the distribution of
PM2.5 concentrations in which the data analyzed in the study
(i.e., air quality and population-level data, as discussed below) were
most concentrated, specifically, the range of PM2.5
concentrations around the long-term mean over which our confidence in
the magnitude and significance of associations observed in the
epidemiological studies was greatest. The Policy Assessment then
focused on the lower part of the distribution to characterize where the
data became appreciably more sparse and, thus, where our understanding
of the magnitude and significance of the associations correspondingly
became more uncertain. The Policy Assessment recognized there was no
single percentile value within a given distribution that was most
appropriate or ``correct'' to use to characterize where our confidence
in the associations becomes appreciably lower. The Policy Assessment
concluded that the range from the 25th to 10th percentiles is a
reasonable range to consider as a region where we had appreciably less
confidence in the associations observed in epidemiological studies.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the PM NAAQS review completed in 2006, the Staff Paper
similarly recognized that the evidence of an association in any
epidemiological study is ``strongest at and around the long-term
average where the data in the study are most concentrated. For
example, the interquartile range of long-term average concentrations
within a study [with a lower bound of the 25th percentile] or a
range within one standard deviation around the study mean, may
reasonably be used to characterize the range over which the evidence
of association is strongest'' (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 5-22). A range of
one standard deviation around the mean represents approximately 68
percent of normally distributed data, and below the mean falls
between the 25th and 10th percentiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering distributional statistics from epidemiological
studies, the final Policy Assessment focused on two types of
population-level metrics that CASAC advised were most useful to
consider in identifying the PM2.5 concentrations
[[Page 3102]]
most influential in generating the health effect estimates reported in
the epidemiological studies.\23\ Consistent with CASAC advice, the most
relevant information was the distribution of health events (e.g.,
deaths, hospitalizations) occurring within a study population in
relation to the distribution of PM2.5 concentrations.
However, in recognizing that access to health event data can be
restricted, the Policy Assessment also considered the number of study
participants within each study area as an appropriate surrogate for
health event data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The second draft Policy Assessment focused on the
distributions of ambient PM2.5 concentrations and
associated population data across areas included in several multi-
city studies for which such data were available in seeking to
identify the most influential range of concentrations (U.S. EPA,
2010f, section 2.3.4.1). In its review of the second draft Policy
Assessment, CASAC advised that it ``would be preferable to have
information on the concentrations that were most influential in
generating the health effect estimates in individual studies''
(Samet, 2010d, p.2). Therefore, in the final Policy Assessment, the
EPA considered population-level data (i.e., area-specific health
event data and study area population data) along with corresponding
PM2.5 concentrations to generate a cumulative
distribution of the population-level data relative to long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations to determine the most influential
part of the air quality distribution (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-7
and associated text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment recognized that an approach considering
analyses of confidence intervals around concentration-response
functions was intrinsically related to an approach that considered
different distributional statistics. Both of these approaches could be
employed to understand the broader distribution of PM2.5
concentrations which correspond to the health events reported in
epidemiological studies. In applying these approaches, the Policy
Assessment, consistent with CASAC advice (Samet, 2010d, p. 3),
considered PM2.5 concentrations from long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposure studies using composite monitor
distributions.
In reaching staff conclusions on alternative standard levels that
were appropriate to consider, the Policy Assessment also included a
broader consideration of the uncertainties and limitations of the
current scientific evidence. Most notably, these uncertainties are
related to the heterogeneity observed in the epidemiological studies in
the eastern versus western parts of the U.S., the relative toxicity of
PM2.5 components, and the potential role of co-pollutants
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-25 to 2-26). The limitations and uncertainties
associated with the currently available scientific evidence, including
the availability of fewer studies toward the lower range of alternative
annual standard levels being considered in this proposal, are
summarized in section III.B below and further discussed in section
III.B.2 of the proposal.
The Policy Assessment recognized that the level of protection
afforded by the NAAQS relies both on the level and the form of the
standard. The Policy Assessment concluded that a policy approach that
used data based on composite monitor distributions to identify
alternative standard levels, and then compared those levels to
concentrations at maximum monitors to determine whether an area meets a
given standard, inherently has the potential to build in some margin of
safety (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-14).\24\ This conclusion was consistent
with CASAC's comments on the second draft Policy Assessment, in which
CASAC expressed its preference for focusing on an approach using
composite monitor distributions ``because of its stability, and for the
additional margin of safety it provides'' when ``compared to the
maximum monitor perspective'' (Samet, et al., 2010d, pp. 2 to 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Statistical metrics (e.g., means) based on composite
monitor distributions may be identical to or below the same
statistical metrics based on maximum monitor distributions. For
example, some areas may have only one monitor, in which case the
composite and maximum monitor distributions will be identical in
those areas. Other areas may have multiple monitors that may be very
close to the monitor measuring the highest concentrations, in which
case the composite and maximum monitor distributions could be
similar in those areas. As noted in Hassett-Sipple et al. (2010),
for studies involving a large number of areas, the composite and
maximum concentrations are generally within 5 percent of each other
(77 FR 38905, fn. 30). Still other areas may have multiple monitors
that may be separately impacted by local sources in which case the
composite and maximum monitor distributions could be quite different
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-14). See further discussion of this issue in
section III.E.4.c.i below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching staff conclusions on alternative 24-hour standard
levels that are appropriate to consider for setting a 24-hour standard
intended to supplement the protection afforded by a generally
controlling annual standard, the Policy Assessment considered currently
available short-term PM2.5 exposure studies. The evidence
from these studies informed our understanding of the protection
afforded by the suite of standards against effects associated with
short-term exposures. In considering the short-term exposure studies,
the Policy Assessment evaluated both the distributions of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations, with a focus on the 98th percentile
concentrations (to the extent such data were available) to match the
form of the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, as well as the
long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations reported in these
studies. In addition to considering the epidemiological evidence, the
Policy Assessment also considered air quality information based on
county-level 24-hour and annual design values \25\ to understand the
policy implications of the alternative standard levels supported by the
underlying science. In particular, the Policy Assessment considered the
extent to which different combinations of alternative annual and 24-
hour standards would support the policy goal of focusing on a generally
controlling annual standard in conjunction with a 24-hour standard that
would provide supplemental protection. In so doing, the Policy
Assessment discussed the roles that each standard might be expected to
play in the protection afforded by alternative suites of standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Design values are the metrics (i.e., statistics) that are
compared to the NAAQS levels to determine compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond these evidence-based considerations, the Policy Assessment
also considered the quantitative risk estimates and the key
observations presented in the Risk Assessment. This assessment included
an evaluation of 15 urban case study areas and estimated risk
associated with a number of health endpoints associated with long- and
short-term PM2.5 exposures (U.S. EPA, 2010a). As part of the
risk-based considerations, the Policy Assessment considered estimates
of the magnitude of PM2.5-related risks associated with
recent air quality levels and air quality simulated to just meet the
current and alternative suites of standards using alternative
simulation approaches. The Policy Assessment also characterized the
risk reductions, relative to the risks remaining upon just meeting the
current standards, associated with just meeting alternative suites of
standards. In so doing, the Policy Assessment recognized the
uncertainties inherent in such risk estimates, and took such
uncertainties into account by considering the sensitivity of the
``core'' risk estimates to alternative assumptions and methods likely
to have substantial impact on the estimates. In addition, the Policy
Assessment considered additional analyses characterizing the
representativeness of the urban study areas within a broader national
context to understand the roles that the annual and 24-hour standards
may play in affording protection against effects related to both long-
and short-term PM2.5 exposures.
Based on the approach discussed above, the Policy Assessment
reached conclusions related to the primary PM2.5 standards
that reflected an
[[Page 3103]]
understanding of both evidence-based and risk-based considerations to
inform two overarching questions related to: (1) The adequacy of the
current suite of PM2.5 standards and (2) revisions to the
standards that were appropriate to consider in this review to protect
against health effects associated with both long- and short-term
exposures to fine particles. When evaluating the health protection
afforded by the current or any alternative suites of standards
considered, the Policy Assessment took into account the four basic
elements of the NAAQS: The indicator, averaging time, form, and level.
The general approach for reviewing the primary PM2.5
standards described above provided a comprehensive basis that helped to
inform the Administrator's judgments in reaching her proposed and final
decisions to revise the current suite of primary fine particle NAAQS
and in responding to the remand of the 2006 primary annual
PM2.5 standard.
B. Overview of Health Effects Evidence
This section outlines the key information presented in section
III.B of the proposal (77 FR 38906 to 38911, June 29, 2012) and
discussed more fully in the Integrated Science Assessment (Chapters 2,
4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) and the Policy Assessment (Chapter 2) related to
health effects associated with fine particle exposures. Section III.B.
of the proposal discusses available information on the health effects
associated with exposures to PM2.5, including the nature of
such health effects (section III.B.1) and associated limitations and
uncertainties (section III.B.2), at-risk populations (section III.B.3),
and potential PM2.5-related impacts on public health
(section III.B.4). As was true in the last two reviews, evidence from
epidemiological, controlled human exposure and animal toxicological
studies played a key role in the Integrated Science Assessment's
evaluation of the scientific evidence.
The 2006 PM NAAQS review concluded that there was ``strong
epidemiological evidence'' for linking long-term PM2.5
exposures with cardiovascular-related and lung cancer mortality and
respiratory-related morbidity and for linking short-term
PM2.5 exposures with cardiovascular-related and respiratory-
related mortality and morbidity (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 9-46; U.S. EPA,
2005, p. 5-4). Overall, the evidence from epidemiological,
toxicological, and controlled human exposure studies supported ``likely
causal associations'' between PM2.5 and both mortality and
morbidity from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, based on ``an
assessment of strength, robustness, and consistency in results'' (U.S.
EPA, 2004, p. 9-48).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The term ``likely causal association'' was used in the 2004
Criteria Document to summarize the strength of the available
evidence available in the last review for PM2.5. However,
this terminology was not based on a formal framework for evaluating
evidence for inferring causation. Since the last review, the EPA has
developed a more formal framework for reaching causal determinations
with standardized language to express evaluation of the evidence
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this review, based on the expanded body of evidence, the EPA
finds that:
(1) In looking across the extensive new scientific evidence
available in this review, our overall understanding of health
effects associated with fine particle exposures has been greatly
expanded. The currently available evidence is largely consistent
with evidence available in the last review and substantially
strengthens what is known about the effects associated with fine
particle exposures.
(2) A number of large multi-city epidemiological studies have
been conducted throughout the U.S., including extended analyses of
long-term exposure studies that were important to inform decision-
making in the last review. The body of currently available
scientific evidence has also been expanded greatly by the
publication of a number of new multi-city, time-series studies that
have used uniform methodologies to investigate the effects of short-
term PM2.5 exposures on public health. This body of
evidence provides a more expansive data base and considers multiple
locations representing varying regions and seasons that provide
evidence of the influence of different air pollution mixes on
PM2.5-associated health effects. These studies provide
more precise estimates of the magnitude of effects associated with
short-term PM2.5 exposure than most smaller-scale single-
city studies that were more commonly available in the last review.
These studies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or
premature mortality related to ambient PM2.5
concentrations, with the strongest evidence reported for
cardiovascular-related effects.
(3) In addition, the findings of new toxicological and
controlled human exposure studies greatly expand and provide
stronger support for a number of potential biological mechanisms or
pathways for cardiovascular and respiratory effects associated with
long- and short-term PM exposures. These studies provide coherence
and biological plausibility for the effects observed in
epidemiological studies.
(4) Using a more formal framework for reaching causal
determinations than used in prior reviews,\27\ the EPA concludes
that a causal relationship exists between both long- and short-term
exposures to PM2.5 and premature mortality and
cardiovascular effects and a likely causal relationship exists
between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and
respiratory effects. Further, there is evidence suggestive of a
causal relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposures and
other health effects, including developmental and reproductive
effects (e.g., low birth weight, infant mortality) and carcinogenic,
mutagenic, and genotoxic effects (e.g., lung cancer mortality).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The causal framework draws upon the assessment and
integration of evidence from across epidemiological, controlled
human exposure, and toxicological studies, and the related
uncertainties that ultimately influence our understanding of the
evidence. This framework employs a five-level hierarchy that
classifies the overall weight of evidence and causality using the
following categorizations: causal relationship, likely to be causal
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to
infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 1-3). The development of the
causal framework reflects considerable input from CASAC and the
public, with CASAC concluding that, ``The five-level classification
of strength of evidence for causal inference has been systemically
applied [for PM]; this approach has provided transparency and a
clear statement of the level of confidence with regard to causation,
and we recommend its continued use in future ISAs'' (Samet, 2009f,
p. 1).
\28\ These causal inferences are based not only on the more
expansive epidemiological evidence available in this review but also
reflect consideration of important progress that has been made to
advance our understanding of a number of potential biologic modes of
action or pathways for PM-related cardiovascular and respiratory
effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, chapter 5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The newly available evidence significantly strengthens the
link between long- and short-term exposure to PM2.5 and
premature mortality, while providing indications that the magnitude
of the PM2.5-mortality association with long-term
exposures may be larger than previously estimated. The strongest
evidence comes from recent studies investigating long-term exposure
to PM2.5 and cardiovascular-related mortality. The
evidence supporting a causal relationship between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality also includes consideration
of new studies that demonstrated an improvement in community health
following reductions in ambient fine particles.
(6) Several new studies have examined the association between
cardiovascular effects and long-term PM2.5 exposures in
multi-city studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe. While studies
were not available in the last review with regard to long-term
exposure and cardiovascular-related morbidity, recent studies have
provided new evidence linking long-term exposure to PM2.5
with an array of cardiovascular effects such as heart attacks,
congestive heart failure, stroke, and mortality. This evidence is
coherent with studies of short-term exposure to PM2.5
that have observed associations with a continuum of effects ranging
from subtle changes in indicators of cardiovascular health to
serious clinical events, such as increased hospitalizations and
emergency department visits due to cardiovascular disease and
cardiovascular mortality.
(7) Extended analyses of studies available in the last review as
well as new epidemiological studies conducted in the U.S. and abroad
provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related morbidity effects
associated with long-term PM2.5 exposure. The strongest
evidence for respiratory-related
[[Page 3104]]
effects is from studies that evaluated decrements in lung function
growth, increased respiratory symptoms, and asthma development. The
strongest evidence from short-term PM2.5 exposure studies
has been observed for increased respiratory-related emergency
department visits and hospital admissions for chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory infections.
(8) The body of scientific evidence is somewhat expanded from
the 2006 review but is still limited with respect to associations
between long-term PM2.5 exposures and developmental and
reproductive effects as well as cancer, mutagenic, and genotoxic
effects. The strongest evidence for an association between
PM2.5 and developmental and reproductive effects comes
from epidemiological studies of low birth weight and infant
mortality, especially due to respiratory causes during the post-
neonatal period (i.e., 1 month-12 months of age). With regard to
cancer effects, ``[m]ultiple epidemiologic studies have shown a
consistent positive association between PM2.5 and lung
cancer mortality, but studies have generally not reported
associations between PM2.5 and lung cancer incidence''
(U.S. EPA 2009a p. 2-13).
(9) Efforts to evaluate the relationships between PM composition
and health effects continue to evolve. While many constituents of
PM2.5 can be linked with differing health effects, the
evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those
constituents or sources that may be more closely related to specific
health outcomes nor to exclude any individual component or group of
components associated with any source categories from the fine
particle mixture of concern.
(10) Specific groups within the general population are at
increased risk for experiencing adverse health effects related to PM
exposures. The currently available evidence expands our
understanding of previously identified at-risk populations (i.e.,
children, older adults, and individuals with pre-existing heart and
lung disease) and supports the identification of additional at-risk
populations (e.g., persons with lower socioeconomic status, genetic
differences). Evidence for PM-related effects in these at-risk
populations has expanded and is stronger than previously observed.
There is emerging, though still limited, evidence for additional
potentially at-risk populations, such as those with diabetes, people
who are obese, pregnant women, and the developing fetus.
(11) The population potentially affected by PM2.5 is
large. In addition, large subgroups of the U.S. population have been
identified as at-risk populations. While individual effect estimates
from epidemiological studies may be small in size, the public health
impact of the mortality and morbidity associations can be quite
large given the extent of exposure. Taken together, this suggests
that exposure to ambient PM2.5 concentrations can have
substantial public health impacts.
(12) While the currently available scientific evidence is
stronger and more consistent than in previous reviews, providing a
strong basis for decision making in this review, the EPA recognizes
that important uncertainties and limitations in the health effects
evidence remain. Epidemiological studies evaluating health effects
associated with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures have
reported heterogeneity in responses between cities and geographic
regions within the U.S. This heterogeneity may be attributed, in
part, to differences in the fine particle composition or related to
exposure measurement error, which can introduce bias and increased
uncertainty in associated health effect estimates. Variability in
the associations observed across PM2.5 epidemiological
studies may be due in part to exposure error related to measurement-
related issues, the use of central fixed-site monitors to represent
population exposure to PM2.5, models used in lieu of or
to supplement ambient measurements, and our limited understanding of
factors that may influence exposures (e.g., topography, the built
environment, weather, source characteristics, ventilation usage,
personal activity patterns, photochemistry). In addition, where
PM2.5 and other pollutants (e.g., ozone, nitrogen
dioxide, and carbon monoxide) are correlated, it can be difficult to
distinguish the effects of the various pollutants in the ambient
mixture (i.e., co-pollutant confounding).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ A copollutant meets the criteria for potential confounding
in PM-health associations if: (1) It is a potential risk factor for
the health effect under study; (2) it is correlated with PM; and (3)
it does not act as an intermediate step in the pathway between PM
exposure and the health effect under study (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-
10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While uncertainties and limitations still remain in the available
health effects evidence, the Administrator judges the currently
available scientific data base to be stronger and more consistent than
in previous reviews providing a strong basis for decision making in
this review.
C. Overview of Quantitative Characterization of Health Risks
In addition to a comprehensive evaluation of the health effects
evidence available in this review, the EPA conducted an expanded
quantitative risk assessment for selected health endpoints to provide
additional information and insights to inform decisions on the primary
PM2.5 NAAQS.\30\ As discussed in section III.C of the
proposal, the approach used to develop quantitative risk estimates
associated with PM2.5 exposures was built on the approach
used and lessons learned in the last review and focused on improving
the characterization of the overall confidence in the risk estimates,
including related uncertainties, by incorporating a number of
enhancements, in terms of both the methods and data used in the
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The quantitative risk assessment conducted for this review
is more fully described and presented in the Risk Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2010a) and summarized in detail in the Policy Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, sections 2.2.2. and 2.3.4.2). The scope and methodology
for this risk assessment were developed over the last few years with
considerable input from CASAC and the public as described in section
II.B.3 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goals of this quantitative risk assessment were largely the
same as those articulated in the risk assessment conducted for the last
review. These goals included: (1) To provide estimates of the potential
magnitude of premature mortality and/or selected morbidity effects in
the population associated with recent ambient levels of
PM2.5 and with simulating just meeting the current and
alternative suites of PM2.5 standards in 15 selected urban
study areas,\31\ including, where data were available, consideration of
impacts on at-risk populations; (2) to develop a better understanding
of the influence of various inputs and assumptions on the risk
estimates to more clearly differentiate among alternative suites of
standards; and (3) to gain insights into the distribution of risks and
patterns of risk reductions and the variability and uncertainties in
those risk estimates. In addition, the quantitative risk assessment
included nationwide estimates of the potential magnitude of premature
mortality associated with long-term exposure to recent ambient
PM2.5 concentrations to more broadly characterize this risk
on a national scale and to support the interpretation of the more
detailed risk estimates generated for selected urban study areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ The Risk Assessment concluded that these 15 urban study
areas were generally representative of urban areas in the U.S.
likely to experience relatively elevated levels of risk related to
ambient PM2.5 exposure with the potential for better
characterization at the higher end of that distribution (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-42; U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 4.4, Figure 4-17). The
representativeness analysis also showed that the 15 urban study
areas do not capture areas with the highest baseline morality risks
or the oldest populations (both of which can result in higher
PM2.5-related mortality estimates). However, some of the
areas with the highest values for these attributes had relatively
low PM2.5 concentrations (e.g., urban areas in Florida)
and, consequently, the Risk Assessment concluded failure to include
these areas in the set of urban study areas was unlikely to exclude
high PM2.5-risk locations (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section
4.4.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expanded and updated risk assessment conducted in this review
included estimates of risk for: (1) All-cause, ischemic heart disease-
related, cardiopulmonary-related, and lung cancer-related mortality
associated with long-term PM2.5 exposure; (2) non-
accidental, cardiovascular-related, and respiratory-related mortality
associated with short-term PM2.5 exposure; and (3)
cardiovascular-related and respiratory-related hospital admissions and
asthma-related emergency department visits
[[Page 3105]]
associated with short-term PM2.5 exposure.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The evidence available for these selected health effect
endpoints generally focused on the entire population, although some
information was available to support analyses that considered
differences in estimated risk for at-risk populations including
older adults and persons with pre-existing cardiovascular and
respiratory diseases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Risk Assessment included a core set of risk estimates
supplemented by an alternative set of risk results generated using
single-factor and multi-factor sensitivity analyses. The core set of
risk estimates was developed using the combination of modeling elements
and input data sets identified in the Risk Assessment as having higher
confidence relative to inputs used in the sensitivity analyses. The
results of the sensitivity analyses provided information to evaluate
and rank the potential impacts of key sources of uncertainty on the
core risk estimates. In addition, the sensitivity analyses represented
a set of reasonable alternatives to the core set of risk estimates that
fell within an overall set of plausible risk estimates surrounding the
core estimates.
The EPA recognized that there were many sources of variability and
uncertainty inherent in the inputs to its quantitative risk
assessment.\33\ The design of the risk assessment included a number of
elements to address these issues in order to increase the overall
confidence in the risk estimates generated for the 15 urban study
areas, including using guidance from the World Health Organization
(WHO, 2008) as a framework for characterizing uncertainty in the
analyses.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Variability refers to the heterogeneity of a variable of
interest within a population or across different populations.
Uncertainty refers to the lack of knowledge regarding the actual
values of inputs to an analysis (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 3-63).
\34\ The extent to which key sources of potential variability
were (or were not) fully captured in the design of the risk
assessment are discussed in section 3.5.2 of the Risk Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, pp. 3-67 to 3-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the sources of variability, the Risk Assessment
considered those that contributed to differences in risk across urban
study areas, but did not directly affect the degree of risk reduction
associated with the simulation of just meeting current or alternative
standard levels (e.g., differences in baseline incidence rates,
demographics and population behavior). The Risk Assessment also focused
on factors that not only introduced variability into risk estimates
across study areas, but also played an important role in determining
the magnitude of risk reductions upon simulation of just meeting
current or alternative standard levels (e.g., peak-to-mean ratios of
ambient PM2.5 concentrations within individual urban study
areas and the nature of the rollback approach used to simulate just
meeting the current or alternative standards). Key sources of potential
variability that were likely to affect population risks included the
following: (1) Intra-urban variability in ambient PM2.5
concentrations, including PM2.5 composition; (2) variability
in the patterns of reductions in PM2.5 concentrations
associated with different rollback approaches when simulating just
meeting the current or alternative standards; (3) co-pollutant
exposures; (4) factors related to demographic and socioeconomic status;
(5) behavioral differences across urban study areas (e.g., time spent
outdoors); (6) baseline incidence rates; and (7) longer-term temporal
variability in ambient PM2.5 concentrations reflecting
meteorological trends as well as future changes in the mix of
PM2.5 sources, including changes in air quality related to
future regulatory actions.
With regard to uncertainties, single and multi-factor sensitivity
analyses were combined with a qualitative analysis to assess the impact
of potential sources of uncertainty on the core risk estimates. Key
sources of uncertainty included: (1) Characterizing intra-urban
population exposure in the context of epidemiological studies linking
PM2.5 to specific health effects; (2) statistical fit of the
concentration-response functions for short-term exposure-related health
endpoints; (3) shape of the concentration-response functions; (4)
specifying the appropriate lag structure for short-term exposure
studies; (5) transferability of concentration-response functions from
study locations to urban study area locations for long-term exposure-
related health endpoints; (6) use of single-city versus multi-city
studies in the derivation of concentration-response functions; (7)
impact of historical air quality on estimates of health risk associated
with long-term PM2.5 exposures; and (8) potential variation
in effect estimates reflecting compositional differences in
PM2.5.
Beyond characterizing uncertainty and variability, a number of
design elements were included in the risk assessment to increase the
overall confidence in the risk estimates generated for the 15 urban
study areas (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-38 to 2-41). These elements
included: (1) Use of a deliberative process for specifying components
of the risk model that reflects consideration of the latest research on
PM2.5 exposure and risk (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 5.1.1);
(2) integration of key sources of variability into the design as well
as the interpretation of risk estimates (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section
5.1.2); (3) assessment of the degree to which the urban study areas are
representative of areas in the U.S. experiencing higher
PM2.5-related risk (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 5.1.3); and (4)
identification and assessment of important sources of uncertainty and
the impact of these uncertainties on the core risk estimates (U.S. EPA,
2010a, section 5.1.4). Further, additional analyses examined potential
bias and overall confidence in the risk estimates. Greater confidence
is associated with risk estimates based on simulated annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations that are within the region of the air
quality distribution used in deriving the concentration-response
functions where the bulk of the data reside (e.g., within one standard
deviation around the long-term mean PM2.5 concentration)
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-38).
Key observations and insights from the PM2.5 risk
assessment, together with important caveats and limitations, were
discussed in section III.C.3 of the proposal. In general, in
considering the set of quantitative risk estimates and related
uncertainties and limitations related to long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposure together with consideration of the health
endpoints which could not be quantified, the Policy Assessment
concluded this information provided strong evidence that risks
estimated to remain upon simulating just meeting the current suite of
PM2.5 standards are important from a public health
perspective, both in terms of severity and magnitude of effects.
Patterns of increasing estimated risk reductions were generally
observed as either the annual or 24-hour standard level, or both, were
reduced over the ranges considered in the Risk Assessment.
The magnitude of both long- and short-term exposure-related risk
estimated to remain upon just meeting the current suite of standards as
well as alternative standard levels was strongly associated with the
simulated change in annual mean PM2.5 concentrations.
Although long- and short-term exposure-related mortality rates have
similar patterns in terms of the subset of urban study areas
experiencing risk reductions for the current suite of standard levels,
the magnitude of risk remaining is higher for long-term exposure-
related mortality and substantially lower for short-term exposure-
related mortality. Short-term exposure-related morbidity risk estimates
were greater for cardiovascular-related than respiratory-related events
and emergency
[[Page 3106]]
department visits for asthma-related events were significant:
Furthermore, most of the aggregate risk associated with short-term
exposures was not primarily driven by the small number of days with
PM2.5 concentrations in the upper tail of the air quality
distribution, but rather by the large number of days with
PM2.5 concentrations at and around the mean of the
distribution, that is, the 24-hour average concentrations that are in
the low- to mid-range, well below the peak 24-hour concentrations (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-3).
With regard to characterizing estimates of PM2.5-related
risk associated with simulation of alternative standards, the Policy
Assessment recognized that greater overall confidence was associated
with estimates of risk reduction than for estimates of absolute risk
remaining (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-94). Furthermore, the Policy
Assessment recognized that estimates of absolute risk remaining for
each of the alternative standard levels considered, particularly in the
context of long-term exposure-related mortality, may be
underestimated.\35\ In addition, the Policy Assessment observed that in
considering the overall confidence associated with the quantitative
analyses, the Risk Assessment recognized that: (1) Substantial
variability existed in the magnitude of risk remaining across urban
study areas and (2) in general, higher confidence was associated with
risk estimates based on PM2.5 concentrations near the mean
PM2.5 concentrations in the underlying epidemiological
studies providing the concentration-response functions (e.g., within
one standard deviation of the mean PM2.5 concentration
reported). Furthermore, although the Risk Assessment estimated that the
alternative 24-hour standard levels considered (when controlling) would
result in additional estimated risk reductions beyond those estimated
for alternative annual standard levels alone, these additional
estimated reductions were highly variable. Conversely, the Risk
Assessment recognized that alternative annual standard levels, when
controlling, resulted in more consistent risk reductions across urban
study areas, thereby potentially providing a more consistent degree of
public health protection (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 5-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Based on the consideration of both the qualitative and
quantitative assessments of uncertainty, the Risk Assessment
concluded that it is unlikely that the estimated risks are over-
stated, particularly for premature mortality related to long-term
PM2.5 exposures. In fact, the Policy Assessment and the
Risk Assessment concluded that the core risk estimates for this
category of health effects may well be biased low based on
consideration of alternative model specifications evaluated in the
sensitivity analyses (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-41; U.S. EPA, 2010a, p.
5-16; Figures 4-7 and 4-8). In addition, the Policy Assessment
recognized that the currently available scientific information
included evidence for a broader range of health endpoints and at-
risk populations beyond those included in the quantitative risk
assessment, including decrements in lung function growth and
respiratory symptoms in children as well as reproductive and
developmental effects (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Conclusions on the Adequacy of the Current Primary PM2.5
Standards
1. Introduction
The initial issue to be addressed in the current review of the
primary PM2.5 standards is whether, in view of the advances
in scientific knowledge and other information reflected in the
Integrated Science Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Policy
Assessment, the existing standards should be retained or revised. In
considering the adequacy of the current suite of PM2.5
standards, the Administrator has considered the large body of evidence
presented and assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2009a), the quantitative assessment of risks, staff conclusions and
associated rationales presented in the Policy Assessment, views
expressed by CASAC, and public comments. The Administrator has taken
into account both evidence- and risk-based considerations \36\ in
developing final conclusions on the adequacy of the current primary
PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Evidence-based considerations include the assessment of
epidemiological, toxicological, and controlled human exposure
studies evaluating long- or short-term exposures to
PM2.5, with supporting evidence related to dosimetry and
potential pathways/modes of action, as well as the integration of
evidence across each of these disciplines, as assessed in the
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a) and focus on the
policy-relevant considerations as discussed in section III.B above
and in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.1). Risk-
based considerations draw from the results of the quantitative
analyses presented in the Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010a) and
focus on the policy-relevant considerations as discussed in section
III.C above and in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section
2.2.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Evidence- and Risk-based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
In considering the available epidemiological evidence in this
review, the Policy Assessment took a broader approach than was used in
the last review. This approach reflected the more extensive and
stronger body of evidence available since the last review on health
effects related to both long- and short-term exposure to
PM2.5. As discussed in section III.A.3 above, this broader
approach focused on setting the annual standard as the ``generally
controlling'' standard for lowering both short- and long-term
PM2.5 concentrations and so providing requisite protection
to public health. In conjunction with such an annual standard, this
approach focused on setting the 24-hour standard to provide
supplemental protection against days with high peak PM2.5
concentrations.
In addressing the question whether the evidence now available in
this review supports consideration of standards that are more
protective than the current PM2.5 standards, the Policy
Assessment considered whether: (1) Statistically significant health
effects associations with long- or short-term exposures to fine
particles occur in areas that would likely have met the current
PM2.5 standards [see American Trucking Associations, 283 F.
3d at 369, 376 (revision of level of PM NAAQS justified when health
effects are observed in areas meeting the existing standard)], and (2)
associations with long-term exposures to fine particles extend down to
lower air quality concentrations than had previously been observed.
With regard to associations observed in long-term PM2.5
exposure studies, the Policy Assessment recognized that extended
follow-up analyses of the ACS and Harvard Six Cities studies provided
consistent and stronger evidence of an association with mortality at
lower air quality distributions than had previously been observed (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-31 to 2-32). The original and reanalysis of the ACS
study reported positive and statistically significant effects
associated with a long-term mean PM2.5 concentration of 18.2
[mu]g/m\3\ across 50 metropolitan areas for 1979 to 1983 (Pope et al.,
1995; Krewski et al., 2000).\37\ In extended analyses, positive and
statistically significant effects of approximately similar magnitude
were associated with declining PM2.5 concentrations, from an
aggregate long-term mean in 58 metropolitan areas of 21.2 [micro]g/m\3\
in the original monitoring period (1979 to 1983) to 14.0 [micro]g/m\3\
for 116 metropolitan areas in the most recent years evaluated (1999-
2000), with an overall average across the two study periods in 51
metropolitan areas of 17.7 [micro]g/m\3\ (Pope et al., 2002; Krewski et
al., 2009). With regard to the Harvard Six Cities Study, the original
and reanalysis reported positive and statistically significant effects
associated
[[Page 3107]]
with a long-term mean PM2.5 concentration of 18.0 [mu]g/m\3\
for 1980 to 1985 (Dockery et al., 1993; Krewski et al., 2000). In an
extended follow-up of this study, the aggregate long-term mean
concentration across all years evaluated was 16.4 [mu]g/m\3\ for 1980
to 1988 \38\ (Laden et al., 2006). In an additional analysis of the
extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study, investigators
reported that the concentration-response relationship was linear and
``clearly continuing below the level'' of the current annual standard
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-92; Schwartz et al., 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The study periods referred to in the Policy Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2011a) and in this final rule reflect the years of air
quality data that were included in the analyses, whereas the study
periods identified in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2009a) reflect the years of health event data that were included.
\38\ Aggregate mean concentration provided by study author
(personal communication from Dr. Francine Laden, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cohort studies conducted since the last review provided additional
evidence of mortality associated with air quality distributions that
are generally lower than those reported in the ACS and Harvard Six
Cities studies, with effect estimates that were similar or, in some
studies, significantly greater in magnitude than in the ACS and Harvard
Six Cities studies (see also, section III.D.1.a of the proposal, 77 FR
38918 to 28919; U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-32 to 2-33). The Women's Health
Initiative (WHI) study reported positive and most often statistically
significant associations between long-term PM2.5 exposure
and cardiovascular-related mortality as well as morbidity effects, with
much larger relative risk estimates for mortality than in the ACS and
Harvard Six Cities studies, at an aggregate long-term mean
PM2.5 concentration of 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2000 (Miller et
al., 2007).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The Policy Assessment noted that in comparison to other
long-term exposure studies, the Miller et al. (2007) study was more
limited in that it was based on only one year of air quality data
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-82). The proposal further noted that the air
quality data considered were extrapolated from that one single year
of air quality data (2000) to the whole study, and that the air
quality data post-dated the years of health events considered (i.e.,
1994 to 1998) (77 FR 38918, fn 62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the Medicare cohort, Eftim et al. (2008) reported somewhat
higher effect estimates than in the ACS and Harvard Six Cities studies
with aggregate long-term mean concentrations of 13.6 [mu]g/m\3\ and
14.1 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, for 2000 to 2002. Zeger et al. (2008)
reported associations between long-term PM2.5 exposure and
mortality for the eastern region of the U.S. at an aggregated long-term
PM2.5 median concentration of 14.0 [mu]g/m\3\, although no
association was reported for the western region with an aggregate long-
term PM2.5 median concentration of 13.1 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 7-88).\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Zeger et al. (2008) also reported positive and
statistically significant effects for the central region, with an
aggregate long-term mean PM2.5 concentration of 10.7
[mu]g/m\3\. However, in contrast to the eastern and western risk
estimates, the central risk estimate increased with adjustment for
COPD (used as a proxy for smoking status). Due to the potential for
confounding bias influencing the risk estimate for the central
region, the Policy Assessment did not focus on the results reported
in the central region to inform the adequacy of the current suite of
standards or alternative annual standard levels (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
2-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premature mortality in children reported in a national infant
mortality study as well as mortality in a cystic fibrosis cohort
including both children and adults reported positive but statistically
nonsignificant effects associated with long-term aggregate mean
concentrations of 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\ and 13.7 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively
(Woodruff et al., 2008; Goss et al., 2004).
With respect to respiratory morbidity effects associated with long-
term PM2.5 exposure, the across-city mean of 2-week average
PM2.5 concentrations reported in the initial Southern
California Children's Health Study was approximately 15.1 [micro]g/m\3\
(Peters et al., 1999). These results were found to be consistent with
results of cross-sectional analyses of the 24-Cities Study (Dockery et
al., 1996; Raizenne et al., 1996), which reported a long-term cross-
city mean PM2.5 concentration of 14.5 [mu]g/m\3\.\41\ In
this review, extended analyses of the Southern California Children's
Health Study provide stronger evidence of PM2.5-related
respiratory effects, at lower air quality concentrations than had
previously been reported, with a four-year aggregate mean concentration
of 13.8 [mu]g/m\3\ across the 12 study communities (McConnell et al.,
2003; Gauderman et al., 2004, U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 7-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at
525 (noting the importance of these studies, as well as EPA's
failure to properly take them into account).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In also considering health effects for which the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded evidence was suggestive of a causal relationship,
the Policy Assessment noted a limited number of birth outcome studies
that reported positive and statistically significant effects related to
aggregate long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations down to
approximately 12 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-33).
Collectively, the Policy Assessment concluded that currently
available evidence provided support for associations between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality and morbidity effects that
extend to distributions of PM2.5 concentrations that are
lower than those that had previously been associated with such effects,
with aggregate long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations extending
to well below the level of the current annual standard.
The Policy Assessment also considered the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations in short-term exposure studies in
assessing the appropriateness of the level of the current annual
standard. See American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at 522,
523-24 (remanding 2006 standard because the EPA had not adequately
explained its choice not to consider long-term means of short-term
exposure studies in assessing adequacy of primary annual
PM2.5 standard). In light of the mixed findings reported in
single-city, short-term exposure studies, the Policy Assessment placed
comparatively greater weight on the results from multi-city studies in
considering the adequacy of the current suite of standards (U.S. EPA,
2011a, pp. 2-34 to 2-35).
With regard to associations reported in short-term PM2.5
exposure studies, the Policy Assessment recognized that long-term mean
concentrations reported in new multi-city U.S. and Canadian studies
provided evidence of associations between short-term PM2.5
exposure and mortality at similar air quality distributions to those
that had previously been observed in an 8-cities Canadian study
(Burnett and Goldberg, 2003; aggregate long-term mean PM2.5
concentration of 13.3 [mu]g/m\3\). In a multi-city time-series analysis
of 112 U.S. cities, Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) reported a positive
and statistically significant association with all-cause,
cardiovascular-related (e.g., heart attacks, stroke), and respiratory-
related mortality and short-term PM2.5 exposure, in which
the aggregate long-term mean PM2.5 concentration was 13.2
[mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-24). Furthermore, city-specific
effect estimates indicated the association between short-term exposure
to PM2.5 and total mortality and cardiovascular- and
respiratory-related mortality was consistently positive for an
overwhelming majority (99 percent) of the 112 cities across a wide
range of air quality concentrations (long-term mean concentrations
ranging from 6.6 [mu]g/m\3\ to 24.7 [mu]g/m\3\; U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure
6-24, p. 6-178 to 179). The EPA staff noted that for all-cause
mortality, city-specific effect estimates were statistically
significant for 55 percent of the 112 cities, with long-term city-mean
PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 7.8 [mu]g/m\3\ to 18.7
[mu]g/m\3\ and 24-hour PM2.5 city-mean 98th percentile
concentrations ranging from 18.4 to 64.9
[[Page 3108]]
[mu]g/m\3\ (personal communication with Dr. Antonella Zanobetti,
2009).\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Single-city Bayes-adjusted effect estimates for the 112
cities analyzed in Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) were provided by
the study authors (personal communication with Dr. Antonella
Zanobetti, 2009; see also U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to cardiovascular and respiratory morbidity effects, in
the first analysis of the Medicare cohort conducted by Dominici et al.
(2006a) across 204 U.S. counties, investigators reported a
statistically significant association with hospitalizations for
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and short-term PM2.5
exposure, in which the aggregate long-term mean PM2.5
concentration was 13.4 [mu]g/m\3\. Furthermore, a sub-analysis
restricted to days with 24-hour average concentrations of
PM2.5 at or below 35 [mu]g/m\3\ indicated that, in spite of
a reduced statistical power from a smaller number of study days,
statistically significant associations were still observed between
short-term exposure to PM2.5 and hospital admissions for
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases (Dominici, 2006b).\43\ In an
extended analysis of this cohort, Bell et al. (2008) reported a
positive and statistically significant increase in cardiovascular
hospitalizations associated with short-term PM2.5 exposure,
in which the aggregate long-term mean PM2.5 concentration
was 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\. These results, along with the observation that
approximately 50 percent of the 204 county-specific mean 98th
percentile PM2.5 concentrations in the study aggregated
across all years were below the 24-hour standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, not
only indicated that effects are occurring in areas that would meet the
current standards but also suggested that the overall health effects
observed across the U.S. are not primarily driven by the higher end of
the PM2.5 air quality distribution (Bell, 2009a, personal
communication from Dr. Michelle Bell regarding air quality data for
Bell et al., 2008 and Dominici et al., 2006a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ This sub-analysis was not included in the original
publication (Dominici et al., 2006a). The study authors provided
sub-analysis results for the Administrator's consideration as a
letter to the docket following publication of the proposed rule in
January 2006 (personal communication with Dr. Francesca Dominici,
2006b). As noted in section III.A.3, this study is part of the basis
for the conclusion that there is no evidence suggesting that risks
associated with long-term exposures are likely to be
disproportionately driven by peak 24-hour concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collectively, the Policy Assessment concluded that the findings
from short-term PM2.5 exposure studies provided evidence of
PM2.5-associated health effects occurring in areas that
would likely have met the current suite of PM2.5 standards
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-35). These findings were further bolstered by
evidence of statistically significant PM2.5-related health
effects occurring in analyses restricted to days in which 24-hour
average PM2.5 concentrations were below 35 [mu]g/m\3\
(Dominici, 2006b).
In evaluating the currently available scientific evidence, as
summarized in section III.B of the proposal, the Policy Assessment
first concluded that there was stronger and more consistent and
coherent support for associations between long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures and a broad range of health outcomes than
was available in the last review, providing the basis for fine particle
standards at least as protective as the current PM2.5
standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-26). Having reached this initial
conclusion, the Policy Assessment addressed the question of whether the
available evidence supported consideration of standards that were more
protective than the current standards. In so doing, the Policy
Assessment considered whether there was now evidence that health effect
associations have been observed in areas that likely met the current
suite of PM2.5 standards. As discussed above, long- and
short-term PM2.5 exposure studies provided evidence of
associations with mortality and cardiovascular and respiratory effects
both at lower ambient PM2.5 concentrations than had been
observed in the previous review and at concentrations allowed by the
current standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-35).
In reviewing this information, the Policy Assessment recognized
that important limitations and uncertainties associated with this
expanded body of scientific evidence, as discussed in section III.B.2
of the proposal, needed to be carefully considered in determining the
weight to be placed on the body of studies available in this review.
Taking these limitations and uncertainties into consideration, the
Policy Assessment concluded that the currently available evidence
clearly calls into question whether the current suite of primary
PM2.5 standards protects public health with an adequate
margin of safety from effects associated with long- and short-term
exposures. Furthermore, the Policy Assessment concluded this evidence
provides strong support for considering fine particle standards that
would afford increased protection beyond that afforded by the current
standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-35).
In addition to evidence-based consideration, the Policy Assessment
also considered the extent to which health risks estimated to occur
upon simulating just meeting the current PM2.5 standards may
be judged to be important from a public health perspective, taking into
account key uncertainties associated with the quantitative health risk
estimates. In so doing, the Policy Assessment first noted that the
quantitative risk assessment addresses: (1) The core PM2.5-
related risk estimates; (2) the related uncertainty and sensitivity
analyses, including additional sets of reasonable risk estimates
generated to supplement the core analysis; (3) an assessment of the
representativeness of the urban study areas within a national context;
\44\ and (4) consideration of patterns in design values and air quality
monitoring data to inform interpretation of the risk estimates, as
discussed in section III.C above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Based on analyses of the representativeness of the 15 urban
study areas in the broader national context, the Policy Assessment
concludes that these study areas are generally representative of
urban areas in the U.S. likely to experience relatively elevated
levels of risk related to ambient PM2.5 exposures (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the health risks estimated to remain upon simulation
of just meeting the current suite of standards and considering both the
qualitative and quantitative assessment of uncertainty completed as
part of the assessment, the Policy Assessment concluded these risks are
important from a public health standpoint and provided strong support
for consideration of alternative standards that would provide increased
protection beyond that afforded by the current PM2.5 (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-47 to 2-48). This conclusion reflected consideration
of both the severity and the magnitude of the effects. For example, the
Risk Assessment indicated the possibility that premature deaths related
to ischemic heart disease associated with long-term PM2.5
exposure alone would likely be on the order of thousands of deaths per
year in the 15 urban study areas upon simulating just meeting the
current standards \45\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-46 to 2-47). Moreover,
additional risks were anticipated for premature mortality related to
cardiopulmonary effects and lung cancer associated with long-term
PM2.5 exposure as well as mortality and cardiovascular- and
respiratory-related morbidity effects (e.g., hospital admissions,
emergency department visits) associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposures. Based on the consideration of both
qualitative and
[[Page 3109]]
quantitative assessments of uncertainty completed as part of the
quantitative risk assessment, the Risk Assessment concluded that it was
unlikely that the estimated risks are over-stated, particularly for
mortality related to long-term PM2.5 exposure, and may well
be biased low based on consideration of alternative model
specifications evaluated in the sensitivity analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
p. 5-16; U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-41). Furthermore, the currently
available scientific information summarized in section III.B of the
proposal provided evidence for a broader range of health endpoints and
at-risk populations beyond those included in the quantitative risk
assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Premature mortality for all causes attributed to
PM2.5 exposure was estimated to be on the order of tens
of thousands of deaths per year on a national scale based on 2005
air quality data (U.S. EPA, 2010a, Appendix G, Table G-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. CASAC Advice
The CASAC, based on its review of drafts of the Integrated Science
Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Policy Assessment, provided an
array of advice both with regard to interpreting the scientific
evidence and quantitative risk assessment, as well as with regard to
consideration of the adequacy of the current PM2.5 standards
(Samet, 2009a,b,c,d,e,f; Samet 2010a,b,c,d). With regard to the
adequacy of the current standards, CASAC concluded that the ``currently
available information clearly calls into question the adequacy of the
current standards'' (Samet, 2010d, p. i) and that the current standards
are ``not protective'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 1). Further, in commenting on
the first draft Policy Assessment, CASAC noted:
With regard to the integration of evidence-based and risk-based
considerations, CASAC concurs with EPA's conclusion that the new
data strengthens the evidence available on associations previously
considered in the last round of the assessment of the
PM2.5 standard. CASAC also agrees that there are
significant public health consequences at the current levels of the
standard that justify consideration of lowering the PM2.5
NAAQS further (Samet, 2010c, p. 12).
c. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy of the
Current Primary PM2.5 Standards
At the time of the proposal, in considering the body of scientific
evidence, the Administrator concluded there was stronger and more
consistent and coherent support for associations between long- and
short-term PM2.5 exposure and a broader range of health
outcomes than was available in the last review, providing the basis for
fine particle standards at least as protective as the current
PM2.5 standards. In particular, the Administrator recognized
in section III.D.4 of the proposal that the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded that the results of epidemiological and
experimental studies form a plausible and coherent data set that
supports a causal relationship between long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures and mortality and cardiovascular effects and
a likely causal relationship between long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. Furthermore, the
Administrator reflected that effects had been observed at lower ambient
PM2.5 concentrations than what had been observed in the last
review, including at ambient PM2.5 concentrations in areas
that likely met the current PM2.5 NAAQS. With regard to the
results of the quantitative risk assessment, the Administrator noted
that the Risk Assessment concluded that the risks estimated to remain
upon simulation of just meeting the current standards were important
from a public health standpoint in terms of both the severity and
magnitude of the effects.
At the time of the proposal, in considering whether the current
suite of PM2.5 standards should be revised to provide
requisite public health protection, the Administrator carefully
considered the staff conclusions and rationales presented in the Policy
Assessment, the advice and recommendations from CASAC, and public
comments to date on this issue. In so doing, the Administrator placed
primary consideration on the evidence obtained from the epidemiological
studies and provisionally found the evidence of serious health effects
reported in long- and short-term exposure studies conducted in areas
that would have met the current standards to be compelling, especially
in light of the extent to which such studies are part of an overall
pattern of positive and frequently statistically significant
associations across a broad range of studies that collectively
represent a strong and robust body of evidence.
As discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment and Policy
Assessment, the Administrator recognized that much progress has been
made since the last review in addressing some of the key uncertainties
that were important considerations in establishing the current suite of
PM2.5 standards. For example, progress made since the last
review provides increased confidence in the long- and short-term
exposure studies as a basis for considering whether any revision of the
annual standard is appropriate and increased confidence in the short-
term exposure studies as a basis for considering whether any revision
of the 24-hour standard is appropriate.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The EPA notes that this increased confidence in the long-
and short-term associations generally reflects less uncertainty as
to the likely causal nature of such associations, but does not
address directly the question of the extent to which such
associations remain toward the lower end of the range of ambient
PM2.5 concentrations. This question is central to the
Agency's evaluation of the relevant evidence to determine
appropriate standards levels, as discussed below in section III.E.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on her consideration of these conclusions, as well as
consideration of CASAC's conclusion that the evidence and risk
assessment clearly called into question the adequacy of the public
health protection provided by the current PM2.5 NAAQS and
public comments on the proposal, the Administrator provisionally
concluded that the current primary PM2.5 standards, taken
together, were not requisite to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety and that revision was needed to provide increased
public health protection. The Administrator provisionally concluded
that the scientific evidence and information on risk provided strong
support for consideration of alternative standards that would provide
increased public health protection beyond that afforded by the current
PM2.5 standards.
2. Comments on the Need for Revision
This section addresses general comments based on relevant facts
that either support or oppose any change to the current suite of
primary PM2.5 standards. Comments on specific long- and
short-term exposure studies that relate to consideration of the
appropriate levels of the annual and 24-hour standards are addressed in
section III.E.4 below. Many public comments asserted that the current
PM2.5 standards are insufficient to protect public health
with an adequate margin of safety and that revisions to the standards
are therefore appropriate, indeed necessitated.
Among those calling for revisions to the current standards were the
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC); major medical
and public health groups including the American Heart Association
(AHA), American Lung Association (ALA), American Public Health
Association (APHA), American Thoracic Society (ATS); the Physicians for
Social Responsibility (PSR); major environmental groups such as the
Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF), National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and
Sierra Club; many environmental justice organizations as
[[Page 3110]]
well as medical doctors, academic researchers, health professionals,
and many private citizens. For example, the American Heart Association
and other major national public health and medical organizations stated
that, ``[o]ur organizations are keenly aware of the public health and
medical threats from particulate matter'' and called on the EPA to
``significantly strengthen'' both the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards ``to help us protect the health of our
patients and our nation'' (AHA et al., 2012, pp. 1 and 13). AHA et al.
and ALA et al., as well as a group of more than 350 physicians,
environmental health researchers, and public health and medical
professionals articulated similar comments on the available evidence:
Ample scientific evidence supports adopting tighter standards to
protect the health of people who are most susceptible to the serious
health effects of these pollutants. More than 10,000 peer-reviewed
scientific studies have been published since 1997 when EPA adopted
the current annual standard. These studies validate and extend
earlier epidemiologic research linking both acute and chronic fine
particle pollution with serious morbidity and mortality. The newer
research has also expanded our understanding of the range of health
outcomes associated with PM and has identified adverse respiratory
and cardiovascular health effects at lower exposure levels than
previously reported. As discussed and interpreted in the EPA's 2009
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter, the new
evidence reinforces already strong existing studies and supports the
conclusion that PM2.5 is causally associated with
numerous adverse health effects in humans at exposure levels far
below the current standard. Such a conclusion demands prompt action
to protect human health. (AHA et al., 2012, pp. 1 to 2; ALA et al.,
pp. 4 to 5; similar comment submitted by Rom et al., 2012, p. 1).
All of these medical and public health commenters stated that the
current PM2.5 standards need to be revised, and that even
more protective standards than those proposed by the EPA are needed to
adequately protect public health, particularly for at-risk populations.
Many environmental justice organizations and individual commenters also
expressed such views.
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), the
Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), and many
State and local air agencies and health departments who commented on
the PM2.5 standards supported revision of the suite of
current PM2.5 standards, as did five state attorneys general
(Schneiderman et al., 2012) and the National Tribal Air Association
(NTAA).
These commenters based their views chiefly on the body of evidence
and technical analyses presented and discussed in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Policy Assessment
finding the available scientific information to be stronger and more
compelling than in the last review. These commenters generally placed
much weight on CASAC's recommendation to revise the PM2.5
standards to provide increased public health protection and on the EPA
staff conclusions presented in the final Policy Assessment.
Some of these commenters specifically mentioned extended analyses
of seminal long-term exposure studies--the ACS (Krewski et al., 2009),
Harvard Six Cities (Laden et al., 2006), and Southern California
Children's Health (Gauderman et al., 2004) studies. These commenters
also highlighted the availability of additional long-term exposure
studies in this review, specifically a study of premature mortality in
older adults (Eftim et al., 2008) and the WHI study of cardiovascular
morbidity and mortality effects in women (Miller et al., 2007)
providing stronger evidence of mortality and morbidity effects
associated with long-term PM2.5 exposures at lower
concentrations than had previously been observed, including studies of
effects in at-risk populations. For example, some commenters asserted:
Evidence during the last review showed clearly that the annual
average standard needed to be much lower than the standard of 15
[micro]g/m\3\ that was first set in 1997. The evidence has only
grown since then. Multiple, multi-city studies over long periods of
time have shown clear evidence of premature death, cardiovascular
and respiratory harm as well as reproductive and developmental harm
at contemporary concentrations far below the level of the current
(annual) standard (ALA et al., 2012, p. 39; AHA et al., 2012, p.
10).
These commenters also highlighted the availability of a number of
short-term PM2.5 exposure studies as providing evidence of
mortality and morbidity effects at concentrations below the level of
the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Specifically, these
commenters made note of multi-city studies of premature mortality
(Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009) and increased hospitalizations for
cardiovascular and respiratory-related effects in older adults (Bell et
al., 2008). These commenters also asserted the importance of many of
the single-city studies, arguing that these studies ``provide valuable
information regarding impacts on susceptible populations and on health
risk in areas with high peak to mean concentration ratios'' (ALA, et
al., 2012, p. 65). Collectively, considering the multi- and single-city
short-term exposure studies, these commenters asserted ``the record
clearly supports a more stringent 24-hour standard of 25 [micro]g/m\3\
to provide uniform protection in all regions of the country
particularly from short-term spikes in pollution and from the sub-daily
exposures that trigger heart attacks and strokes'' (ALA et al., 2012,
p. 62). A group of more than 350 physicians, environmental health
researchers, and public health and medical professionals argued,
``[s]tudies of short-term exposure demonstrate that PM2.5
air pollution increases the risk of hospital admissions for heart and
lung problems even when you exclude days with pollution concentrations
at or above the current daily standard of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Daily
concentrations must be capped at lower levels to protect against peak
exposure days that occur due to local and seasonal sources of
emissions'' (Rom et al., 2012, p. 2).
In addition, many of these commenters generally concluded that
progress had been made in reducing many of the uncertainties identified
in the last review, in better understanding mechanisms by which
PM2.5 may be causing the observed health effects, and in
improving our understanding of at-risk populations. Further, a number
of commenters argued that by making the standards more protective, the
PM2.5 NAAQS would be more consistent with other existing
standards (e.g., California's annual average standard of 12 [micro]g/
m\3\) (CARB, 2012; CA OEHHA, 2012). Other commenters argued that
revising the primary PM2.5 standards would be more
consistent with the recommendations of the World Health Organization
(WHO) and/or Canada (e.g., ALA et al., 2012, p. 62; ISEE, 2012, p. 2;
MOE-Ontario, 2012, p. 1).
With regard to the scope of the literature reviewed for
PM2.5-related health effects, some commenters asserted that
the EPA inappropriately narrowed the scope of the review by excluding a
number of categories of relevant studies, specifically related to
studies of diesel pollution and traffic-related pollution (ALA, et al.,
2012, p. 17). These commenters argued that, based upon the exclusion of
these types of studies, the Integrated Science Assessment ``came to the
erroneous conclusion that the causal relationship between PM and cancer
is merely suggestive. This conclusion does not square with the
International Agency Research on Cancer (IARC) finding that diesel
emissions are a known human carcinogen nor with the conclusions of
[[Page 3111]]
the extended analyses of the [Harvard] Six Cities and ACS cohort
studies that report positive and statistically significant associations
between PM2.5 and lung cancer.'' Id.
Some of these commenters also noted the results of the EPA's
quantitative risk assessment, concluding that it showed that the risks
estimated to remain when the current standards are met are large and
important from a public health perspective and warrant increased
protection. For example, ALA et al., noted that the Risk Assessment
indicated the quantitative risk analyses likely underestimated
PM2.5-related mortality (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 5-16) and
argued that ``the measurements of risk should be treated
conservatively'' (ALA, et al., 2012, p. 73). These commenters also
summarized an expanded analysis of alternative PM2.5
standard levels that they argued documented the need for more
protective standards (McCubbin, 2011).
In general, all of these commenters agreed on the importance of
results from the large body of scientific studies reviewed in the
Integrated Science Assessment and on the need to revise the suite of
PM2.5 standards as articulated in the EPA's proposal, while
generally differing with the EPA's proposed judgments about the extent
to which the standards should be revised based on this evidence,
specifically for providing protection for at-risk populations.
The EPA generally agrees with these commenters' conclusion
regarding the need to revise the current suite of PM2.5
standards. The scientific evidence noted by these commenters was
generally the same as that assessed in the Integrated Science
Assessment and the Policy Assessment, and the EPA agrees that this
evidence provides a strong basis for concluding that the current
PM2.5 standards, taken together, are not requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, and they need
to be revised to provide increased protection. For reasons discussed in
section III.E.4.c below, however, the EPA disagrees with aspects of
these commenters' views on the level of protection that is appropriate.
The EPA disagrees with these commenters' views that diesel exhaust
studies were excluded from the Integrated Science Assessment and were
not considered when making the causality determination for cancer,
mutagenicity, and genotoxicity. As discussed in section 7.5 of the
Integrated Science Assessment, diesel exhaust studies were integrated
within the broader body of scientific evidence that was considered in
reaching the causality determination for these health endpoints.
Additionally, as discussed in section 1.5.3 of the Integrated Science
Assessment, the evidence from diesel exhaust studies was also
considered as part of the collective evidence evaluated when making
determinations for other, noncancer health outcomes (e.g.,
cardiovascular and respiratory effects).\47\ Specifically, when
evaluating this evidence, the focus was on understanding the effects of
diesel exhaust particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In developing the second draft Integrated Science
Assessment, the EPA reexamined the controlled human exposure and
toxicological studies of fresh diesel and gasoline exhaust. This
information, in addition to other considerations, supported a change
in the causal determinations for ultrafine particles. Specifically,
in reevaluating the causal determinations for short-term ultrafine
particle exposures and cardiovascular and respiratory effects, the
EPA changed the classification from ``inadequate'' to ``suggestive''
for both categories of health outcomes (Vandenberg, 2009, p. 3).
CASAC agreed with the EPA's rationale for revising these causal
determinations (Samet, 2009f, p. 10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is important to recognize that the Integrated Science Assessment
focused on experimental studies of diesel exhaust that evaluated
exposures that were relevant to ambient concentrations, i.e., ``within
one or two orders of magnitude of ambient PM concentrations'' (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 1.3). The causal determination for cancer,
mutagenicity, and genotoxicity presented in the Integrated Science
Assessment represents an integration of experimental and observational
evidence of exposures to ambient PM concentrations. The EPA fully
considered the findings of studies that assessed these and other health
effects associated with exposure to diesel particles in reaching
causality determinations regarding health outcomes associated with
PM2.5 exposures. Furthermore, CASAC supported the EPA's
change to the causal determination for cancer and long-term
PM2.5 concentrations from ``inadequate'' to ``suggestive''
(Samet, 2009f, p. 2).
With regard to traffic studies, the EPA disagrees with the
commenters' views that traffic studies that focused on exposure
indicators such as distance to roadways should have been included in
the Integrated Science Assessment. These studies were excluded from
consideration because they did not measure ambient concentrations of
specific air pollutants, including PM2.5, but instead were
studies evaluating exposure to the undifferentiated ``traffic related
air pollution'' mixture (ALA et al., 2012, p. 17) (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 1.3). As a result, these studies do not add to the collective
body of evidence on the relationship between long- or short-term
exposure to ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and health
effects.
Some of these commenters also identified ``new'' studies that were
not included in the Integrated Science Assessment as providing further
support for the need to revise the primary PM2.5 standards.
As discussed in section II.B.3 above, the EPA notes that, as in past
NAAQS reviews, the Agency is basing the final decisions in this review
on the studies and related information included in the PM air quality
criteria that have undergone CASAC and public review and will consider
the ``new'' studies for purposes of decision making in the next PM
NAAQS review. Nonetheless, in provisionally evaluating commenters'
arguments (see Response to Comments document), the EPA notes that its
provisional assessment of ``new'' science found that such studies did
not materially change the conclusions in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2012b).
Another group of commenters opposed revising the current
PM2.5 standards. These views were most extensively presented
in comments from the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), representing
a group of electric generating companies and organizations and several
national trade associations; the American Petroleum Institute (API)
representing more than 500 oil and natural gas companies; the National
Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Chemistry Council
(ACC), the American Fuel & Petroleum Manufacturers (AFPM), the Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), and other manufacturing
associations; the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI); and the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Texas CEQ). These commenters
generally mentioned many of the same studies that were cited by the
commenters who supported revising the standards, as well as other
studies, but highlighted different aspects of these studies in reaching
substantially different conclusions about their strength and the extent
to which progress has been made in reducing uncertainties in the
evidence since the last review. Furthermore, they asserted that the
evidence that has become available since the last review does not
establish a more certain risk or a risk of effects that are
significantly different in character to those that provided a basis for
the current standards, nor does the evidence demonstrate that the risk
to public health upon attainment of the current standards would be
greater than was
[[Page 3112]]
understood when the EPA established the current standards in 2006.
These commenters generally expressed the view that the current
standards provide the requisite degree of public health protection. In
supporting their view, these commenters generally argued that the EPA's
conclusions are inconsistent with the current state of the science and
questioned the underlying scientific evidence including the causal
determinations reached in the Integrated Science Assessment. More
specifically, this group of commenters argued that: (1) The EPA did not
apply its framework for causal determination consistently across
studies or health outcomes and, in the process, the EPA relied on a
selective group of long- and short-term exposure studies to reach
conclusions regarding causality; (2) toxicological and controlled human
exposure studies do not provide supportive evidence that the health
effects observed in epidemiological studies are biologically plausible;
(3) uncertainties in the underlying health science are as great or
greater than in 2006; (4) there is no evidence of greater risk since
the last review to justify tightening the current annual
PM2.5 standard; and (5) ``new'' studies not included in the
Integrated Science Assessment continue to increase uncertainty about
possible health risks associated with exposure to PM2.5.
These comments are discussed in turn below.
(l) Some of these commenters asserted that the EPA did not apply
its framework for causal determinations consistently across studies or
health outcomes (e.g., ACC, 2012, Attachment A, pp. 1 to 2; API, 2012,
Attachment 1, p. 30; NAM et al., 2012, pp. 22 to 25; Texas CEQ, 2012,
pp 2 to 3).\48\ These commenters argued that the EPA downplayed
epidemiological studies with null or inconsistent results,
inappropriately used the Hill criteria when evaluating the
epidemiological evidence, and used the same study and the same
underlying database to conclude that there was a causal association
between mortality and multiple criteria pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ The EPA notes that the same concerns about the causal
determinations presented in the Integrated Science Assessment were
raised in comments to CASAC on the draft Integrated Science
Assessments (e.g., UARG, 2009; API, 2009; ACC, 2012, Appendix B).
CASAC, therefore, had the opportunity to consider these comments in
reaching consensus conclusions on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA disagrees with these commenters' views. First, the EPA
recognizes that the evaluation of the scientific evidence and its
application of the causal framework used in the current PM NAAQS review
was the subject of exhaustive and detailed review by CASAC and the
public. As summarized in section II.B.3 above, prior to finalizing the
Integrated Science Assessment, two drafts were released for CASAC and
public review to evaluate the scientific integrity of the documents.
Evidence related to the substantive issues raised by CASAC and public
commenters with regard to the content of the first and second draft
Integrated Science Assessments were discussed at length during these
public CASAC meetings and considered in developing the final Integrated
Science Assessment. CASAC supported the development of the EPA's
causality framework and its use in the current PM NAAQS review and
concluded:
The five-level classification of strength of evidence for causal
inference has been systematically applied; this approach has
provided transparency and a clear statement of the level of
confidence with regard to causation, and we recommend its continued
use in future Integrated Science Assessments (Samet 2009f, p. 1).
These commenters asserted that during the application of the causal
framework the EPA inappropriately relied on a selective group of long-
and short-term exposure studies in reaching causal inferences (API,
2012, pp 12 to 17; ACC, 2012, Attachment A, pp 1 to 2; NAM et al.,
2012, pp. 22 to 25; Texas CEQ, 2012, pp 2 to 3). Additionally, these
commenters expressed the view that the EPA focused on a subset of
epidemiological studies that reported positive and statistically
significant results while ignoring other studies, especially those that
reported no statistically significant associations, those that reported
potential thresholds, or those that highlighted uncertainties and
limitations in study design or results. Furthermore, some of these
commenters argued that epidemiological studies are observational in
nature and cannot provide evidence of a causal association.
The EPA disagrees with these commenters' views on assessing the
health effects evidence and on the conclusions regarding the causality
determinations reached in the Integrated Science Assessment. In
conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the EPA recognized the distinction between the
evaluation of the relative scientific quality of individual study
results and the evaluation of the pattern of results within the broader
body of scientific evidence and considered both in reaching causality
determinations. The more detailed characterizations of individual
studies included an assessment of the quality of the study based on
specific criteria as described in the Integrated Science Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5.3).
In developing an integrated assessment of the health effects
evidence for PM, the EPA emphasized the importance of examining the
pattern of results across various studies and did not focus solely on
statistical significance \49\ as a criterion of study strength. This
approach is consistent with views clearly articulated throughout the
epidemiological and causal inference literature, specifically, that it
is important not to focus on results of statistical tests to the
exclusion of other information.\50\ The concepts underlying the EPA's
approach to evaluating statistical associations have been discussed in
numerous publications, including a report by the U.S. Surgeon General
on the health consequences of smoking (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2004). This report cautions against over-reliance on
statistical significance in evaluating the overall evidence for an
exposure-response relationship. Criteria characterized by Hill (1965)
also addressed the value, or lack thereof, of statistical tests in the
determination of cause:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Statistical significance is an indicator of the precision
of a study's results, which is influenced by a variety of factors
including, but not limited to, the size of the study, exposure and
measurement error, and statistical model specifications. Studies
typically calculate ``p-values'' to determine whether the study
results are statistically significant or whether the study results
are likely to occur simply by chance. In general practice, effects
are considered statistically significant if p values are less than
0.05.
\50\ For example, Rothman (1998) stated, ``Many data analysts
appear to remain oblivious to the qualitative nature of significance
testing [and that] * * * statistical significance is itself only a
dichotomous indicator. As it has only two values, significant or not
significant * * *. Nevertheless, p-values still confound effect size
with study size, the two components of estimation that we believe
need to be reported separately.'' As a result, Rothman recommended
that p-values be omitted as long as point and interval estimates are
available.
No formal tests of significance can answer those [causal]
questions. Such tests can, and should, remind us of the effects the
play of chance can create, and they will instruct us in the likely
magnitude of those effects. Beyond that, they contribute nothing to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the `proof' of our hypothesis (Hill, 1965, p. 299).
The statistical significance of individual study findings has
played an important role in the EPA's evaluation of the study's results
and the EPA has placed greater emphasis on studies reporting
statistically significant results. However, in the broader evaluation
of the evidence from many
[[Page 3113]]
epidemiological studies, and subsequently during the process of forming
causality determinations in integrating evidence across
epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicological studies,
the EPA has emphasized the pattern of results across epidemiological
studies, and whether the effects observed were coherent across the
scientific disciplines for drawing conclusions on the relationship
between PM2.5 and different health outcomes. Thus, the EPA
did not limit its focus or consideration to just studies that reported
positive associations or where the results were statistically
significant.
In addition, some commenters asserted that the EPA inappropriately
used the Hill criteria by failing to consider the limitations of
studies with weak associations, thereby overstating the consistency of
the observed associations (API, 2012, Attachment 1, pp. 30 to 35).
These commenters argued that risk estimates greater than 3 to 4 reflect
strong associations supportive of a causal link, while smaller risk
estimates (i.e., 1.5 to 3) are considered to be weak and require other
lines of evidence to demonstrate causality.
As discussed in section 1.5.3 of the Integrated Science Assessment,
the EPA thoroughly considered the limitations of all studies during its
evaluation of the scientific literature (U.S. EPA,, 2009a, p. 1-14).
This collective body of evidence, including known uncertainties and
limitations of the studies evaluated, were considered during the
process of forming causality determinations as discussed in chapters 6
and 7 of the Integrated Science Assessment. For example, the EPA
concluded that ``a causal relationship exists between short-term
PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular effects,'' however, in
reaching this conclusion, the Agency recognized and considered
limitations of the current evidence that still requires further
examination (U.S. EPA, 2009a., in section 6.2.12.1). Therefore, the EPA
disagrees with these commenters' views that the Hill criteria were
inappropriately used in that the limitations of studies were not
considered.
The EPA also disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the
magnitude of the association must be large to support a determination
of causality. As discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment, the
strength of the observed association is an important aspect to aid in
judging causality and ``while large effects support causality, modest
effects therefore do not preclude it'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 1-2,
section 1.5.4). The weight of evidence approach used by the EPA
encompasses a multitude of factors of which the magnitude of the
association is only one component (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 1-3). An
evaluation of the association across multiple investigators and
locations supports the ``reproducibility of findings [which]
constitutes one of the strongest arguments for causality'' (U.S. EPA,
2009a, Table 1-2). Even though the risk estimates for air pollution
studies may be modest, the associations are consistent across hundreds
of studies as demonstrated in the Integrated Science Assessment.
Furthermore, the causality determinations rely on different lines of
evidence, by integrating evidence across disciplines, including animal
toxicological studies and controlled human exposure studies.
Furthermore, as summarized in section III.B above and discussed
more fully in section III.B.3 of the proposal, the EPA recognizes that
the population potentially affected by PM2.5 is
considerable, including large subgroups of the U.S. population that
have been identified as at-risk populations (e.g., children, older
adults, persons with underlying cardiovascular or respiratory disease).
While individual effect estimates from epidemiological studies may be
modest in size, the public health impact of the mortality and morbidity
associations can be quite large given that air pollution is ubiquitous.
Indeed, with the large population exposed, exposure to a pollutant
causally associated at a population level with mortality and serious
illness has significant public health consequences, virtually
regardless of the relative risk. Taken together, this information
indicates that exposure to ambient PM2.5 concentrations has
substantial public health impacts.
In addition, these commenters believed that the EPA downplayed null
or inconsistent findings in numerous long-term mortality studies with
reported PM2.5 concentrations above and below the level of
the current annual standard. The EPA disagrees that studies with null
or inconsistent findings were not accurately presented and considered
in the Integrated Science Assessment. For example, as discussed
throughout section 7.6 and depicted in Figures 7-6 and 7-7 of the
Integrated Science Assessment, the EPA presented the collective
evidence from all studies that examined the association between long-
term PM2.5 exposure and mortality. Overall, across these
studies there was evidence of consistent positive associations in
different cohorts. That evidence, in combination with the biological
plausibility provided by experimental and toxicological studies
evaluated in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of the Integrated Science Assessment,
supported a causal relationship exists between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
Lastly, some of these commenters argued that in some cases, the EPA
used the same study and the same underlying database to conclude that
there is a causal association between mortality and multiple criteria
pollutants. These commenters argued, ``[i]n doing so, EPA attributes
the cause of the mortality effects observed to whichever criteria
pollutant it is reviewing at the time'' (API, 2012, pp. 14 to 16).
The EPA strongly disagrees that the Agency ``attributes the cause
of mortality effects observed to whichever criteria pollutant it is
reviewing at the time.'' The EPA consistently recognizes that other
pollutants are also associated with health outcomes, as is reflected in
the fact that the EPA has established regulations to limit emissions of
particulate criteria pollutants as well as other gaseous criteria
pollutants. Epidemiological studies often examine the association
between short- and long-term exposures to multiple air pollutants and
mortality within a common dataset in an attempt to identify the air
pollutant(s) of the complex mixture most strongly associated with
mortality. In evaluating these studies, the EPA employs specific study
selection criteria to identify those studies most relevant to the
review of the NAAQS. In its assessment of the health evidence regarding
PM2.5, the EPA has carefully evaluated the potential for
confounding, effect measure modification, and the role of
PM2.5 as a component of a complex mixture of air pollutants
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 1-9). The EPA used a rigorous weight of evidence
approach to inform causality that evaluated consistency across studies
within a discipline, evidence for coherence across disciplines, and
biological plausibility. Additionally, during this process, the EPA
assessed the limitations of each study in the context of the collective
body of evidence. It was the collective evidence, not one individual
study that ultimately determined whether a causal relationship exists
between a pollutant and health outcome. In the Integrated Science
Assessment, the combination of epidemiological and experimental
evidence formed the basis for the Agency concluding for the first time
that a causal relationship exists between short- or long-term exposure
to a criteria pollutant and mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009, sections 2.3.1.1
and 2.3.1.2).
[[Page 3114]]
Additionally, while the EPA has evaluated some of the studies used
to inform the causality determination for PM in the Integrated Science
Assessments for other criteria air pollutants, the Agency has done so
in the context of examining the collective body of evidence for each of
the respective criteria air pollutants. As such, the body of evidence
to inform causality has varied from pollutant to pollutant resulting in
the association between each criteria air pollutant and mortality being
classified at a different level of the five-level hierarchy used to
inform causation (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2008e, U.S. EPA, 2008f, U.S. EPA,
2010k).
The EPA notes that the final causality determinations presented in
the Integrated Science Assessment reflected CASAC's recommendations on
the second draft Integrated Science Assessment (Samet, 2009f, pp. 2 to
3). Specifically, CASAC supported the EPA's changes (in the second
versus first draft Integrated Science Assessment) from ``likely
causal'' to ``causal'' for long-term exposure to PM2.5 and
cardiovascular effects and for cancer and PM2.5 (from
``inadequate'' to ``suggestive''). Id. Furthermore, CASAC recommended
``upgrading'' the causal classification for PM2.5 and total
mortality to ``causal'' for both the short- and long-term timeframes.
Id. With regard to mortality, the ``EPA carefully reevaluated the body
of evidence, including the collective evidence for biological
plausibility for mortality effects, and determined that a causal
relationship exists for short- and long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and mortality, consistent with the CASAC comments''
(Jackson, 2010).
(2) With regard to toxicological and controlled human exposure
studies, these commenters argued that the available evidence does not
provide coherence or biological plausibility for health effects
observed in epidemiological studies (API, 2012, pp. 21 to 22,
Attachment 1, pp. 25 to 29; AAM, 2012, pp. 15 to 16; Texas CEQ, 2012,
p. 3). With regard to the issue of mechanisms, these commenters noted
that although the EPA recognizes that new evidence is now available on
potential mechanisms and plausible biological pathways, the evidence
provided by toxicological and controlled human exposure studies still
does not resolve all questions about how PM2.5 at ambient
concentrations could produce the mortality and morbidity effects
observed in epidemiological studies. More specifically, for example,
some of these commenters argued that:
A review of the Integrated Science Assessment, however, suggests
that the experimental evidence is inconsistent and not coherent with
findings in epidemiology studies. Specifically, the findings of mild
and reversible effects in most experimental studies conducted at
elevated exposures are not consistent with the more serious
associations described in epidemiology studies (e.g., hospital
admissions and mortality). Also, both animal studies and controlled
human exposure studies have identified no effect levels for acute
and chronic exposure to PM and PM constituents at concentrations
considerably above ambient levels. EPA should consider the
experimental findings in light of these higher exposure levels and
what the relevance may be for ambient exposures (API, 2012,
Attachment 1, p. 25).
The EPA notes that in the review completed in 1997, the Agency
considered the lack of demonstrated biological mechanisms for the
varying effects observed in epidemiological studies to be an important
caution in its integrated assessment of the health evidence upon which
the standards were based (71 FR 61157, October 17, 2006). In the review
completed in 2006, the EPA recognized the findings from additional
research that indicated that different health responses were linked
with different particle characteristics and that both individual
components and complex particle mixtures appeared to be responsible for
many biologic responses relevant to fine particle exposures. Id. Since
that review, there has been a great deal of research directed toward
advancing our understanding of biologic mechanisms. While this research
has not resolved all questions, and further research is warranted (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, section 2.5), it has provided important insights as
discussed in section III.B.1 of the proposal (77 FR at 38906 to 38909)
and discussed more fully in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, Chapter 5).
As noted in the proposal, toxicological studies provide evidence to
support the biological plausibility of cardiovascular and respiratory
effects associated with long- and short-term PM exposures observed in
epidemiological studies (77 FR 38906) and provide supportive
mechanistic evidence that the cardiovascular morbidity effects observed
in long-term exposure epidemiological studies are coherent with studies
of cardiovascular-related mortality (77 FR 38907). The Integrated
Science Assessment concluded that the new evidence available in this
review ``greatly expands'' upon the evidence available in the last
review ``particularly in providing greater understanding of the
underlying mechanisms for PM2.5 induced cardiovascular and
respiratory effects for both short- and long-term exposures'' (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 2-17). The mechanistic evidence now available, taken
together with newly available epidemiological evidence, increases the
Agency's confidence that a causal relationship exists between long- and
short-term exposure to PM2.5 and cardiovascular effects and
mortality.\51\ In addition, CASAC supported the Integrated Science
Assessment approach and characterization of potential mechanisms or
modes of action (Samet, 2009e, pp. 7 to 8; Samet, 2009f, p. 11), as
well as the findings of a causal relationship at the population level
between exposure to PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular
effects (Samet, 2009f, pp. 2 to 3).\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F. 3d 1027,
1055-56 (DC Cir. 1999) reversed in part and affirmed in part sub
nom, Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001)
holding that the EPA could establish NAAQS without identifying a
biological mechanism (``To begin with, the statute itself requires
no such proof. The Administrator may regulate air pollutants
``emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.'' (emphasis added by the court). Moreover, this
court has never required the type of explanation petitioners seek
from EPA. In fact, we have expressly held that EPA's decision to
adopt and set air quality standards need only be based on
`reasonable extrapolations from some reliable evidence'* * *.
Indeed, were we to accept petitioners' view, EPA (or any agency for
that matter) would be powerless to act whenever it first recognizes
clear trends of mortality or morbidity in areas dominated by a
particular pathogen.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the EPA disagrees with commenters that the mild and
reversible effects observed in controlled human exposure studies are
inconsistent with the more serious effects observed in epidemiological
studies. Ethical considerations regarding the types of studies that can
be performed with human subjects generally limit the effects that can
be evaluated to those that are transient, reversible, and of limited
short-term consequence. The relatively small number of subjects
recruited for controlled exposure studies should also be expected to
have less variability in health status and risk factors than occurring
in the general population.\53\ Consequently, the severity
[[Page 3115]]
of health effects observed in controlled human exposure studies
evaluating the effects of PM should be expected to be less than
observed in epidemiologic studies. Nonetheless, that effects are
observed in relatively healthy individuals participating in controlled
exposure studies serves as an indicator that PM is initiating health
responses and that more severe responses may reasonably be expected in
a more diverse population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ For example, the EPA excludes from its controlled human
exposure studies involving exposure to PM2.5 any
individual with a significant risk factor for experiencing adverse
effects from such exposure. Thus, the EPA excludes a priori the
following categories of persons: those with a history of angina,
cardiac arrhythmias, and ischemic myocardial infarction or coronary
bypass surgery; those with a cardiac pacemaker; those with
uncontrolled hypertension (greater than 150 systolic and 90
diastolic); those with neurogenetive diseases; those with a history
of bleeding diathesis; those taking beta-blockers; those using oral
anticoagulants; those who are pregnant, attempting to become
pregnant, or breastfeeding; those who have experienced a respiratory
infection within four weeks of exposure; those experiencing eye or
abdominal surgery within six weeks of exposure; those with active
allergies; those with a history of chronic illnesses such as
diabetes, cancer, rheumatologic diseases, immunodeficiency state,
known cardiovascular disease, or chronic respiratory diseases;
smokers. The EPA ``Application for Independent Review Board Approval
of Human Subjects Research: Cardiopulmonary Effects of healthy Older
GSTM1 Null and Sufficient individuals to Concentrated Ambient Air
Particles (CAPTAIN)'', Nov. 9, 2011, p. 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should also be noted that there is a small body of toxicological
evidence demonstrating mortality in rodents exposed to PM (e.g.,
Killingsworth et al. 1997). Overall it is not surprising that lethality
is not induced in more toxicological research, as these types of
studies do not readily lend themselves to this endpoint.
Epidemiological studies have observed associations between PM and
mortality in communities with populations in the range of many
thousands to millions of people. Clearly, it is not feasible to expose
hundreds (if not thousands) of animals to ambient PM (potentially over
many years) in a laboratory setting to induce enough lethalities to
distinguish between natural deaths and those attributable to PM.
Furthermore, the heterogeneous human populations sampled in
epidemiological studies are comprised of individuals with different
physical, genetic, health, and socioeconomic backgrounds which may
impact the outcome. However, in toxicological studies, the rodent
groups are typically inbred, such that inter-individual variability is
minimized. Thus, if the rodent strain used is quite robust, PM-induced
effects may not be observed at low exposure concentrations.
(3) In asserting that the uncertainties in the underlying health
science are as great or greater than in the last review and therefore
do not support revision to the standards at this time, commenters in
this group variously discussed a number of issues related to: (a)
Confounding, (b) heterogeneity in risk estimates, (c) exposure
measurement error, (d) model specification, (e) the shape of the
concentration-response relationship, and (f) understanding the relative
toxicity of components within the mixture of fine particles. Each of
these issues is addressed below and some are discussed in more detail
in the Response to Comments document.
In summary, these commenters concluded that the substantial
uncertainties present in the last review have not been resolved and/or
that the uncertainty about the possible health risks associated with
PM2.5 exposure has not diminished. As discussed below, the
EPA believes that the overall uncertainty about possible health risks
associated with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposure has
diminished to an important degree since the last review. While the EPA
agrees that important uncertainties remain, and that future research
directed toward addressing these uncertainties is warranted, the EPA
disagrees with commenters' views that the remaining uncertainties in
the scientific evidence are too great to warrant revising the current
PM2.5 NAAQS.
(a) Confounding
Some commenters have criticized the EPA for not adequately
addressing the issue of confounding in both long- and short-term
exposure studies of mortality and morbidity. This includes confounding
due to copollutants, as well as unmeasured confounding.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The Integrated Science Assessment defines confounding as
``a confusion of effects. Specifically, the apparent effect of the
exposure of interest is distorted because the effect of an
extraneous factor is mistaken for or mixed with the actual exposure
effect (which may be null) (Rothman and Greenland, 1998)'' (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 1-16). Epidemiological analyses attempt to adjust or
control for these characteristics (i.e., potential confounders) that
differ between exposed and non-exposed individuals (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 1.5.3). Not all risk factors can be controlled for within a
study design/model and are termed ``unmeasured confounders.'' An
unmeasured confounder is a confounder that has not previously been
measured and therefore is not included in the study design/model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to copollutant confounding, these commenters asserted
that the EPA has not adequately interpreted the results from studies
that examined the effect of copollutants on the relationship between
long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and mortality and
morbidity outcomes. These commenters contend that the EPA has
inappropriately concluded that PM2.5-related mortality and
morbidity associations are generally robust to confounding. The
commenters stated that statistically significant PM2.5
associations in single-pollutant models in epidemiological studies do
not remain statistically significant in copollutant models.
The loss of statistical significance or the reduction in the
magnitude of the effect estimate when a co-pollutant model is used may
be the result of factors other than confounding. These changes do not
prove either the existence or absence of confounding. These impacts
must be evaluated in a broader context that considers the entire body
of evidence. The broader examination of this issue in the Integrated
Science Assessment included a focus on evaluating the stability of the
size of the effect estimates in epidemiological studies conducted by a
number of research groups using single- and copollutant models (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 6.2.10.9, 6.3.8.5, and 6.5, Figures 6-5, 6-9, and
6-15). This examination found that, for most epidemiological studies,
there was little change in effect estimates based on single- and
copollutant models, although the Integrated Science Assessment
recognized that in some cases, the PM2.5 effect estimates
were markedly reduced in size and lost statistical significance.
Additionally, the EPA notes that these comments do not adequately
reflect the complexities inherent in assessing the issue of copollutant
confounding. As discussed in the proposal (77 FR 38907, 38909, and
38910) and more fully in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S.EPA,
2009a, sections 6.2, 6.3, and 6.5), although copollutant models may be
useful tools for assessing whether gaseous copollutants may be
potential confounders, such models alone cannot determine whether
copollutants are in fact confounders. Interpretation of the results of
copollutant models is complicated by correlations that often exist
among air pollutants, by the fact that some pollutants play a role in
the atmospheric reactions that form other pollutants such as secondary
fine particles, and by the statistical power of the studies in question
inherent in the study methodology. For example, the every-third or
sixth-day sampling schedule often employed for PM2.5
measurements compared to daily measurements of gaseous copollutants
drastically reduces the overall sample size to assess the effect of
copollutants on the PM2.5-morbidity or mortality
relationship, such that the reduced sample size can lead to less
precise effect estimates (e.g., wider confidence intervals).
The EPA recognizes that when PM2.5 is correlated with
gaseous pollutants it can be difficult to identify the effect of
individual pollutants in the ambient mixture (77 FR 38910). However,
based on the available evidence, the EPA
[[Page 3116]]
concludes epidemiological studies continue to support the conclusion
that PM2.5 associations with mortality and morbidity
outcomes are robust to the inclusion of gaseous copollutants in
statistical models. The EPA evaluated the potential confounding effects
of gaseous copollutants and, although it is recognized that
uncertainties and limitations still remain, the Agency concluded the
collective body of scientific evidence is ``stronger and more
consistent than in previous reviews providing a strong basis for
decision making in this review'' (77 FR 38910/1).
Several commenters offered detailed comments on the long-term
PM2.5 exposure studies arguing that associations from
mortality studies are subjected to unmeasured confounding and as a
result are not appropriately characterized as providing evidence of a
causal relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure and
mortality (e.g., UARG, 2012, pp. 10 to 11, Attachment A, pp. 17 to 23;
API, 2012, pp. 13 to 14, Attachment 1, pp. 11 to 14, Attachment 7, pp.
2-10; ACC, 2012, p. 18 to 21; AFPM, 2012, p. 8; Texas CEQ, 2012, p. 4).
Specifically, commenters cited two studies (i.e., Janes et al., 2007
and Greven et al., 2011) that used a new type of statistical analysis
to examine associations between annual (long-term) and monthly (sub-
chronic) PM2.5 exposure and mortality. The commenters
interpreted the results of these analyses as evidence of unmeasured
confounding in the long-term PM2.5 exposure-mortality
relationship. These commenters interpreted these studies as raising
fundamental questions regarding the EPA's determination that a causal
relationship exists between long-term PM2.5 exposure and
mortality. In addition to the commenters mentioned above, all of the
authors of the publications by Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al.
(2011) (i.e., Francesca Dominici, Scott Zeger, Holly Janes, and Sonja
Greven) submitted a joint comment to the public docket in order to
clarify specific points regarding these two studies (Dominici et al.,
2012).
The first study, Janes et al. (2007), was evaluated in the
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-88). The second
study, Greven et al. (2011), an extension of the Janes et al. (2007)
study adding three more years of data, is a ``new'' study discussed in
the Provisional Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2012). Both studies used
nationwide Medicare mortality data to examine the association between
monthly average PM2.5 concentrations over the preceding 12
months and monthly mortality rates in 113 U.S. counties and examined
whether community-specific trends in monthly PM2.5
concentrations and mortality declined at the same rate as the national
rate. The investigators examined this by decomposing the association
between PM2.5 and mortality into two components: (1)
National trends, defined as the association between the national
average trend in monthly PM2.5 concentrations averaged over
the previous 12 months and the national average trend in monthly
mortality rates, and (2) local trends, defined as county-specific
deviations in monthly PM2.5 concentrations and monthly
mortality rates from national trends.
The EPA does not question the results of the national trends
analyses conducted by Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011).\55\
Both Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) observed positive and
statistically significant associations between long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and mortality in their national analyses. However,
Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) eliminated all of the
spatial variation in air pollution and mortality in their data set when
estimating the national effect, focusing instead on both chronic
(yearly) and sub-chronic (monthly) temporal differences in the data
(Dominici et al. 2012). Janes et al. (2007) (Table 1) highlighted that
over 90 percent of the variance in the data set used for the analyses
conducted by both Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) was
attributable to spatial variability, which the authors chose to
discard. As noted above, the focus of the analyses by Janes et al.
(2007) and Greven et al. (2011) was on two components: (1) A temporal
or time component, i.e., the ``national'' trends analysis, which
examined the association between the national average trend in monthly
PM2.5 concentrations averaged over the previous 12 months
and the national average trend in monthly mortality rates and (2) a
space-by-time component, i.e., the ``local'' trends analysis, which
examined county-specific deviations in monthly PM2.5
concentrations and monthly mortality rates from national trends. These
two components combined comprised less than 10 percent of the variance
in the data set. The authors included a focus on the space-by-time
component, which represented approximately 5 percent of the variance in
the data set, in an attempt to identify, absent confounding, if
PM2.5 was associated with mortality at this unique exposure
window. Thus, these studies are not directly comparable to other cohort
studies investigating the relationship between long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and mortality, which make use of spatial variability
in air pollution and mortality data.\56\ This point was highlighted by
the study authors who stated that ``when one considers that this wealth
of information is not accounted for in [Janes 2007], it is not as
surprising that * * * vastly different estimates of the
PM2.5/mortality relationship [were observed] than in other
studies that do exploit that variability'' (Dominici et al., 2012, p.
2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ In its evaluation of Janes et al. (2007) in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the EPA did not identify limitations in the
statistical methods used per se (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-88) and
included the results of the national-scale analyses in that study in
the body of evidence that supported the determination that there is
a causal relationship between long-term PM2.5 exposure
and mortality.
\56\ Though not directly comparable, the national effect
estimates for mortality reported by Janes et al. (2007) and Greven
et al. (2011) are coincidentally similar in magnitude to those
previously reported. It is important to note that previous cohort
studies have focused on identifying spatial differences in
PM2.5 concentrations between cities, while Janes et al.
(2007) and Greven et al. (2011) focus primarily on temporal
differences in PM2.5 concentrations. In fact, Greven et
al. (2011) state ``We do not focus here on a third type [of
statistical approach] used in cohort studies, measuring the
association between average PM2.5 levels and average age-
adjusted mortality rates across cities (purely spatial or cross-
sectional association).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that the results of the local trends analyses
conducted by Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) are limited
by the monthly timescale used in these analyses. This view is
consistent with comments on the Janes et al. (2007) study articulated
in Pope and Burnett (2007),\57\ which noted that an important
limitation of the local scale analysis conducted by Janes et al. (2007)
and subsequently by Greven et al. (2011) was the subchronic exposure
window considered in these analyses. Both studies used annual average
PM2.5 concentrations to characterize long-term national
trends which was consistent with exposure windows considered in other
studies of long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality.\58\
However, the local scale analyses used monthly average PM2.5
concentrations to characterize county-specific deviations from national
trends (the local scale). The use of monthly average data likely does
not provide
[[Page 3117]]
enough exposure contrast to observe temporal changes in mortality at
the local scale. It also represents a different exposure window than
considered in the large body of evidence of health effects related to
short-term (from less than one day to up to several days) and chronic
(one or more years) measures of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Some commenters argued that there were flaws in the
criticisms offered by Pope and Burnett (2007) on the paper by Janes
et al. (2007) (UARG, 2012, Attachment A, pp. 19 to 23). The EPA
responds to each of these specific comments in the Response to
Comments document.
\58\ As noted above, however, Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et
al. (2011) focused on temporal variability and other studies of
long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality focus on
spatial variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the EPA disagrees with commenters that studies by
Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) provide evidence that
other studies of long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality
are affected by unmeasured confounding. As noted above, the design of
the studies conducted by Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011)
are fundamentally different than those used in other studies of long-
term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality, including the ACS
cohort and the Harvard Six Cities study. Studies, such as the ACS and
Harvard Six Cities studies, used the spatial variation between cities
to measure the effect of long-term (annual) exposures to
PM2.5 on mortality risk, and did not conduct any analyses
relying on the temporal variation in PM2.5. The opposite is
true of the Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) studies which
first removed the spatial variability in PM2.5 and then
examined the temporal variation at both the national and local scale to
measure the effects of temporal differences in PM2.5 on
mortality risk. Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) focus on
changes in PM2.5 concentrations over time and, therefore,
control for confounders would be based on including variables that vary
over time rather than over space. As a result, any evidence of
potential confounding of the PM2.5-mortality risk
relationship derived from Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011)
cannot be extrapolated to draw conclusions related to potential spatial
confounding in studies based on the spatial variation in
PM2.5 concentrations.
As detailed in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 7.6), and recognized by the authors of Janes et al. (2007) and
Greven et al. (2011), the cohort studies that informed the causality
determination for long-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality
``have developed approaches to adjust for measured and unmeasured
confounders'' (Dominici et al., 2012, p. 2). These approaches were
specifically designed to adjust for spatial confounding. The hypothesis
that the authors of Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) chose
to examine was that differences in the local and national effects
indicated unmeasured temporal confounding in either the local or
national effect estimate. This hypothesis was specific to these two
studies that examined temporal variability in exposure to air pollution
and did not include known potential confounders at either the national
or local scale as time-varying covariates in the statistical model. The
authors acknowledged that the interpretation of either the national or
local estimates needs to occur with an appreciation of the potential
confounding effects of national and local scale covariates that were
omitted from the model (Dominici et al., 2012).
It is important to recognize that because Janes et al. (2007) and
Greven et al. (2011) focused on variations in PM2.5 over
time and not space, the results from these two studies do not provide
any indication that other studies of long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and mortality exhibit spatial confounding, or that
PM2.5 does not cause mortality.\59\ The authors of Janes et
al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) recognized that ``it is entirely
possible that these papers are looking for an association at a
timescale for which no association truly exists'' (Dominici et al.,
2012, p. 3). Furthermore, as highlighted in the Integrated Science
Assessment and discussed by Pope and Burnett (2007), the conclusions of
Janes et al. (2007) ``are overstated * * * [T]heir analysis tells us
little or nothing about unmeasured confounding in those and related
studies because the methodology of Janes et al. largely excludes the
sources of variability that are exploited in those other studies. By
using monthly mortality counts and lagged 12-month average pollution
concentrations, the authors eliminate the opportunity to exploit short-
term or day-to-day variability.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Further, the EPA notes that Janes et al. (2007) and Greven
et al. (2011) provide no information relevant to examining
confounding in studies of short-term exposure to PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, the EPA interprets the results of the analyses
conducted by Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) as being
consistent with prior knowledge of examining associations with long-
term exposure to PM2.5 at the national scale using long-term
average PM2.5 concentrations. For the reasons presented
above and discussed in more detail in the Response to Comments
document, the Agency disagrees with the commenters' assumption that the
results of Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011) indicate
unmeasured confounding in the results of other cohort studies of long-
term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality. Therefore, the EPA
concludes that these studies do not invalidate the large body of
epidemiological evidence that supports the EPA's determination that a
causal relationship exists between long-term PM2.5 exposure
and mortality.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The EPA notes that the EPA's conclusion with regard to
interpretation of the results from Janes et al. (2007) and Greven et
al. (2012) is supported by the study authors' conclusion that
``[o]ur results do not invalidate previous epidemiological studies''
(Dominici, 2012, p. 1 (emphasis original)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Heterogeneity in Risk Estimates
Some commenters argued that the heterogeneity in risk estimates
observed in multi-city epidemiological studies and the lack of
statistical significance in many regional or seasonal estimates
highlights a potential bias associated with combined multi-city
epidemiological study results (e.g., API, 2012, Attachment 1, pp. 15 to
19). These commenters further argued that more refined intra-urban
exposure estimates conducted for two of the largest cities included in
the ACS study, Los Angeles and New York City, based on land-use
regression models and/or kriging methods (Krewski et al., 2009)
``underscore the importance of considering city-specific health
estimates, which may account for heterogeneity in PM2.5
concentrations or other differences among cities, rather than relying
on pooled nationwide results from multi-city studies'' (API, 2012,
Attachment 1, p. 17).
With respect to understanding the nature and magnitude of
PM2.5-related risks, the EPA agrees that epidemiological
studies evaluating health effects associated with long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures have reported heterogeneity in responses
between cities and effect estimates across geographic regions of the
U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 6.2.12.1, 6.3.8.1, 6.5.2, and 7.6.1;
U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-25). For example, when focusing on short-term
PM2.5 exposure, the Integrated Science Assessment found that
multi-city studies that examined associations with mortality and
cardiovascular and respiratory hospital admissions and emergency
department visits demonstrated greater cardiovascular effects in the
eastern versus the western U.S. (Dominici, et al., 2006a; Bell et al.,
2008; Franklin et al. (2007, 2008)).
In addition, the Integrated Science Assessment evaluated studies
that provided some evidence for seasonal differences in
PM2.5 risk estimates, specifically in the northeast. The
Integrated Science Assessment found evidence indicating that
individuals may be at greater risk of dying from higher exposures to
PM2.5 in the warmer months, and at greater risk of
PM2.5 associated hospitalization for
[[Page 3118]]
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases during colder months of the
year. The limited influence of seasonality on PM risk estimates in
other regions of the U.S. may be due to a number of factors including
varying PM composition by season, exposure misclassification due to
regional tendencies to spend more or less time outdoors and air
conditioning usage, and the prevalence of infectious diseases during
the winter months (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-182).
Overall, the EPA took note in the proposal that uncertainties still
remain regarding various factors that contribute to heterogeneity
observed in epidemiological studies (77 FR 38909/3). Nonetheless, the
EPA recognizes that this heterogeneity could be attributed, at least in
part, to differences in PM2.5 composition across the U.S.,
as well as to exposure differences that vary regionally such as
personal activity patterns, microenvironmental characteristics, and the
spatial variability of PM2.5 concentrations in urban areas
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3.2; 77 FR 38910).
As recognized in the Policy Assessment, the current epidemiological
evidence and the limited amount of city-specific speciated
PM2.5 data do not allow conclusions to be drawn that
specifically differentiate effects of PM2.5 in different
locations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-25). Furthermore, the Integrated
Science Assessment concluded ``that many constituents of
PM2.5 can be linked with multiple health effects, and the
evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of those
constituents or sources that are more closely related to specific
health outcomes'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-17). CASAC thoroughly reviewed
the EPA's presentation of the scientific evidence indicating
heterogeneity in PM2.5 effect estimates in epidemiological
studies and concurred with the overall conclusions presented in the
Integrated Science Assessment.
(c) Exposure Measurement Error
Some commenters argued that the EPA did not adequately consider
exposure measurement error, which they asserted is an important source
of bias in epidemiological studies that can bias effect estimates in
either direction (e.g., API, 2012, Attachment 1, pp. 19 to 20).
The EPA agrees that exposure measurement error is an important
source of uncertainty and that the variability in risk estimates
observed in multi-city studies could be attributed, in part, to
exposure error due to measurement-related issues (77 FR 38910).
However, the Agency disagrees with the commenters' assertion that
exposure measurement error was not adequately considered in this
review. The Integrated Science Assessment included an extensive
discussion that addresses issues of exposure measurement error (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.2 and 3.8.6). Exposure measurement error may
lead to bias in effect estimates in epidemiological studies. A number
of studies evaluated in the last review (U.S. EPA, 2004, section 8.4.5)
and in the current review (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 3.8.6) have
discussed the direction and magnitude of bias resulting from specified
patterns of exposure measurement error (Armstrong 1998; Thomas et al.
1993; Carroll et al. 1995) and have generally concluded ``classical''
(i.e., random, within-person) exposure measurement error can bias
effect estimates towards the null. Therefore, consistent with
conclusions reached in the last review, the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded ``in most circumstances, exposure error tends to
bias a health effect estimate downward'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections
2.3.2 and 3.8.6) (emphasis added). Thus, the EPA has both considered
and accounted for the possibility of exposure measurement error, and
the possible bias would make it more difficult to detect true
associations, not less difficult.
(d) Model Specification
Commenters contended that the EPA did not account for the fact that
``selecting an appropriate statistical model for epidemiologic studies
of air pollution involves several choices that involve much ambiguity,
scant biological evidence, and a profound impact on analytic results,
given that many estimated associations are weak'' (ACC, 2012, p. 5).
For short-term exposure studies, the EPA recognizes, as summarized in
the HEI review panel commentary that selecting a level of control to
adjust for time-varying factors, such as temperature, in time-series
epidemiological studies involves a trade-off (HEI, 2003). For example,
if the model does not sufficiently adjust for the relationship between
the health outcome and temperature, some effects of temperature could
be falsely ascribed to the pollution variable. Conversely, if an overly
aggressive approach is used to control for temperature, the result
would possibly underestimate the pollution-related effect and
compromise the ability to detect a small but true pollution effect
(U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-236; HEI, 2003, p. 266). The selection of
approaches to address such variables depends in part on prior knowledge
and judgments made by the investigators, for example, about weather
patterns in the study area and expected relationships between weather
and other time-varying factors and health outcomes considered in the
study. As demonstrated in section 6.5 of the Integrated Science
Assessment, the EPA thoroughly considered each of these issues and the
overall effect of different model specifications on the association
between short-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality. Regardless
of the model employed, consistent positive associations were observed
across studies that controlled for the potential confounding effects of
time and weather using different approaches (U.S. EPA 2009a, Figure 6-
27). The EPA also considered the influence of model specification in
the examination of long-term PM2.5 exposure studies. For
example, in section 7.6 of the Integrated Science Assessment, Figures
7-6 and 7-7 summarize the collective evidence that evaluated the
association between long-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality.
Regardless of the model used, these studies collectively found evidence
of consistent positive associations between long-term PM2.5
exposure and mortality.
The EPA, therefore, disagrees with commenters that model
specification was not considered when evaluating the epidemiological
evidence used to form causality determinations. The EPA specifically
points out that the process of assessing the scientific quality and
relevance of epidemiological studies includes examining ``important
methodological issues (e.g., lag or time period between exposure and
effects, model specifications, thresholds, mortality displacement)
related to interpretation of the health evidence (U.S. EPA, 2009, p. 1-
9).'' Consistent with the conclusions of the 2004 PM Air Quality
Criteria Document, the EPA recognizes that there is still no clear
consensus at this time as to what constitutes appropriate control of
weather and temporal trends in short-term exposure studies, and that no
single statistical modeling approach is likely to be most appropriate
in all cases (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-238). However, the EPA believes that
the available evidence interpreted in light of these remaining
uncertainties does provide increased confidence relative to the last
review in the reported associations between short- and long-term
PM2.5 exposures and mortality and morbidity effects, alone
and in combination with other pollutants.
(e) Concentration-Response Relationship
Additionally, commenters questioned the interpretation of the shape
of the
[[Page 3119]]
concentration-response relationship, specifically stating that multiple
studies have demonstrated that there is a threshold in the PM-health
effect relationship and that the log-linear model is not biologically
plausible (API, 2012, Attachment 9; ACC, 2012, Appendix A, pp. 7 to 8).
The EPA disagrees with this assertion due to the number of studies
evaluated in the Integrated Science Assessment that continue to support
the use of a no-threshold, log-linear model to most appropriately
represent the PM concentration-response relationship (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 2.4.3). While recognizing that uncertainties remain, the EPA
believes that our understanding of this issue for both long- and short-
term exposure studies has advanced since the last review. As discussed
in the Integrated Science Assessment, both long- and short-term
exposure studies have employed a variety of statistical approaches to
examine the shape of the concentration-response function and whether a
threshold exists. While the EPA recognizes that there likely are
individual biological thresholds for specific health responses, the
Integrated Science Assessment concluded the overall evidence from
existing epidemiological studies does not support the existence of
thresholds at the population level, for effects associated with either
long-term or short-term PM exposures within the ranges of air quality
observed in these studies (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.3).\61\ The
Integrated Science Assessment concluded that this evidence collectively
supported the conclusion that a no-threshold, log-linear model is most
appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 6.2.10.10, 6.5.2.7, and 7.6.4).
CASAC likewise advised that ``[a]lthough there is increasing
uncertainty at lower levels, there is no evidence of a threshold''
(Samet, 2010d, p. ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ While epidemiological analyses have not identified a
population threshold in the range of air quality concentrations
evaluated in these studies, the EPA recognizes that it is possible
that such thresholds exist towards the lower end of these ranges (or
below these ranges).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recognizes that some short-term exposure studies have
examined the PM2.5 concentration-response relationship in
individual cities or on a city-to-city basis and observed heterogeneity
in the shape of the concentration-response curve across cities. As
discussed in (b) above, these findings are a source of uncertainty that
the EPA agrees requires further investigation. Nonetheless, the
Integrated Science Assessment concluded that ``the studies evaluated
further support the use of a no-threshold, log-linear model, but
additional issues such as the influence of heterogeneity in estimates
between cities and the effects of seasonal and regional differences in
PM on the concentration-response-relationship still require further
investigation'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-25).
(f) Relative Toxicity of PM2.5 Components
Some commenters highlighted uncertainties in understanding the role
of individual constituents within the mix of fine particles. These
commenters asserted that a mass-based standard may not be appropriate
due to the growing body of evidence indicating that certain
PM2.5 components may be more closely related to specific
health outcomes (e.g., EC and OC) (EPRI, 2012, p. 2).
With regard to questions about the role of individual constituents
within the mix of fine particles, as a general matter, the EPA
recognizes that although new research directed toward this question has
been conducted since the last review, important questions remain and
the issue remains an important element in the Agency's ongoing research
program. At the time of the last review, the Agency determined that it
was appropriate to continue to control fine particles as a group, as
opposed to singling out any particular component or class of fine
particles (71 FR 61162 to 61164, October 17, 2006). This distinction
was based largely on epidemiological evidence of health effects using
various indicators of fine particles in a large number of areas that
had significant contributions of differing components or sources of
fine particles, together with some limited experimental studies that
provided some evidence suggestive of health effects associated with
high concentrations of numerous fine particle components.
In this review, as discussed in the proposal (77 FR 38922 to 38923)
and in section III.E.1 below, while most epidemiological studies
continue to be indexed by PM2.5 mass, several recent
epidemiological studies included in the Integrated Science Assessment
have used PM2.5 speciation data to evaluate health effects
associated with fine particle exposures. In the Integrated Science
Assessment, the EPA thoroughly evaluated the scientific evidence that
examined the effect of different PM2.5 components and
sources on a variety of health outcomes (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.6)
and observed that the available information continues to suggest that
many different chemical components of fine particles and a variety of
different types of source categories are all associated with, and
probably contribute to, effects associated with PM2.5. The
Integrated Science Assessment concluded that the current body of
scientific evidence indicated that ``many constituents of PM can be
linked with differing health effects and the evidence is not yet
sufficient to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources
that are more closely related to specific health outcomes'' (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 2-26 and 6-212). Furthermore, the Policy Assessment concluded
that the evidence is not sufficient to support eliminating any
component or group of components associated with any specific source
categories from the mix of fine particles included in the
PM2.5 indicator (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-56). CASAC agreed
that it was reasonable to retain PM2.5 as an indicator for
fine particles in this review as ``[t]here was insufficient peer-
reviewed literature to support any other indicator at this time''
(Samet, 2010c, p. 12).
This information is relevant to the Agency's decision to retain
PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles as discussed in
section III.E.1 below. The EPA also believes that it is relevant to the
Agency's conclusion as to whether revision of the suite of primary
PM2.5 standards is appropriate. While there remain
uncertainties about the role and relative toxicity of various
components of fine PM, the current evidence continues to support the
view that fine particles should be addressed as a group for purposes of
public health protection.
In summary, in considering the above issues related to
uncertainties in the underlying health science, on balance, the EPA
believes that the available evidence interpreted in light of these
remaining uncertainties does provide increased confidence relative to
the last review in the reported associations between long- and short-
term PM2.5 exposures and mortality and morbidity effects,
alone and in combination with other pollutants, and supports stronger
inferences as to the causal nature of the associations. The EPA also
believes that this increased confidence, when taken in context of the
entire body of available health effects evidence and in light of the
evidence from epidemiological studies of associations observed in areas
meeting the current primary PM2.5 standards, specifically in
areas meeting the current primary annual PM2.5 standard,
adds support to its conclusion that the current suite of
PM2.5 standards needs to be revised to provide increased
public health protection.
(4) In asserting that there is no evidence of greater risk since
the 2006
[[Page 3120]]
review to justify lowering the current annual PM2.5
standard, some commenters argued that, ``if the current primary
PM2.5 annual standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ was considered to be
adequately protective of public health in 2006, given relative risk
estimates that EPA was using at that time, then that standard would
surely still be adequately protective of the public health if relative
risk estimates remain at the same level (or lower)'' (UARG, 2012,
Attachment 1, p. 24). These commenters compared risk coefficients used
for mortality in the EPA's risk assessment done in the last review with
those from the Agency's core risk assessment done as part of this
review, and they concluded that ``the entire range of the core relative
risk for long-term mortality is lower now than it was in the prior
review'' (UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 24). These commenters used this
conclusion as the basis for a claim that there is no reason to revise
the current annual PM2.5 standard.
The EPA believes that this claim is fundamentally flawed. In
comparing the scientific understanding of the risk presented by
exposure to PM2.5 between the last and current reviews, one
must examine not only the quantitative estimate of risk from those
exposures (e.g., the numbers of premature deaths or increased hospital
admissions at various concentrations), but also the degree of
confidence that the Agency has that the observed health effects are
causally linked to PM2.5 exposure at those concentrations.
As documented in the Integrated Science Assessment and in the
recommendations and conclusions of CASAC, the EPA recognizes
significant advances in our understanding of the health effects of
PM2.5, based on evidence that is stronger than in the last
review. As a result of these advances, the EPA is now more certain that
fine particles, alone or in combination with other pollutants, present
a significant risk to public health at concentrations allowed by the
current primary PM2.5 standards. From this more
comprehensive perspective, since the risks presented by
PM2.5 are more certain, similar or even somewhat lower
relative risk estimates would not be a basis to conclude that no
revision to the suite of PM2.5 standards is ``requisite'' to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. This also
ignores that the relative risk estimate is only one factor considered
by the Administrator, e.g. it ignores that epidemiological studies
since the last review indicate associations between PM2.5
and mortality and morbidity in areas meeting the current annual
standard.
In any case, the commenters' reliance on the flawed 2006 review is
misplaced. As discussed in section III.A.2 above, the D.C. Circuit
remanded Administrator Johnson's 2006 decision to retain the primary
annual PM2.5 standard because the Agency failed to
adequately explain why the annual standard provided the requisite
protection from both short- and long-term exposure to fine particles
including protection for at-risk populations. The 2006 standard was
also at sharp odds with CASAC advice and recommendations as to the
requisite level of protection (Henderson, 2006a,b). In other words, the
2006 primary annual PM2.5 standard is not an appropriate
benchmark for comparison.
(5) Some of these commenters also identified ``new'' as well as
older studies that had been included in prior reviews as providing
additional evidence that the causality determinations presented in the
Integrated Science Assessment did not consider the totality of the
scientific literature, further supporting their view that a revision of
the PM2.5 is unwarranted. As discussed in section II.B.3
above, the EPA notes that, as in past NAAQS reviews, the Agency is
basing the final decisions in this review on the studies and related
information included in the Integrated Science Assessment that have
undergone CASAC and public review, and will consider newly published
studies for purposes of decisionmaking in the next PM NAAQS review. In
provisionally evaluating commenters' arguments (see Response to
Comments document), the EPA notes that its provisional assessment of
``new'' science found that such studies did not materially change the
conclusions reached in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2012b).
3. Administrator's Final Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy of the
Current Primary PM2.5 Standards
Having carefully considered the public comments, as discussed
above, the Administrator believes the fundamental scientific
conclusions on the effects of PM2.5 reached in the
Integrated Science Assessment, and discussed in the Policy Assessment,
are valid. In considering whether the suite of primary PM2.5
standards should be revised, the Administrator places primary
consideration on the evidence obtained from the epidemiological
studies. The Administrator believes that this literature, combined with
the other scientific evidence discussed in the Integrated Science
Assessment, collectively represents a strong and generally robust body
of evidence of serious health effects associated with both long- and
short-term exposures to PM2.5. As discussed in the
Integrated Science Assessment and Policy Assessment, the EPA believes
that much progress has been made since the last review in reducing some
of the major uncertainties that were important considerations in
establishing the current suite of PM2.5 standards. In that
context, the Administrator finds the evidence of serious health effects
reported in exposure studies conducted in areas with long-term mean
concentrations ranging from approximately at or above the level of the
annual standard to long-term mean concentrations significantly below
the level of the annual standard to be compelling, especially in light
of the extent to which such studies are part of an overall pattern of
positive and frequently statistically significant associations across a
broad range of studies. The information in the quantitative risk
assessment lends support to this conclusion.
There has been extensive critical review of this body of evidence,
the quantitative risk assessment, and related uncertainties, including
review by CASAC and the public. The public comments on the basis for
the EPA's proposed decision to revise the suite of primary
PM2.5 standards have identified a number of issues about
which different parties disagree including issues for which additional
research is warranted. Having weighed all comments and the advice of
CASAC, the Administrator believes that since the last review the
overall uncertainty about the public health risks associated with both
long- and short-term exposure to PM2.5 has been diminished
to an important degree. The remaining uncertainties in the available
evidence do not diminish confidence in the associations between
exposure to fine particles and mortality and serious morbidity effects.
Based on her increased confidence in the association between exposure
to PM2.5 and serious public health effects, combined with
evidence of such an association in areas that would meet the current
standards, the Administrator agrees with CASAC that revision of the
current suite of PM2.5 standards to provide increased public
health protection is necessary. Based on these considerations, the
Administrator concludes that the current suite of primary
PM2.5 standards is not sufficient, and thus not requisite,
to protect public health with an
[[Page 3121]]
adequate margin of safety, and that revision is needed to increase
public health protection.
It is important to note that this conclusion, and the reasoning on
which it is based, do not resolve the question of what specific
revisions are appropriate. That requires looking specifically at the
current 24-hour and annual PM2.5 standards, including their
indicator, averaging times, forms, and levels, and evaluating the
scientific evidence and other information relevant to determining the
appropriate revision of the suite of standards.
E. Conclusions on the Elements of the Primary Fine Particle Standards
1. Indicator
In initially setting standards for fine particles in 1997, the EPA
concluded it was appropriate to control fine particles as a group,
rather than singling out any particular component or class of fine
particles. The EPA noted that community health studies had found
significant associations between various indicators of fine particles,
and that health effects in a large number of areas had significant mass
contributions of differing components or sources of fine particles. In
addition, a number of toxicological and controlled human exposure
studies had reported health effects associations with high
concentrations of numerous fine particle components. It was also not
possible to rule out any component within the mix of fine particles as
not contributing to the fine particle effects found in the
epidemiologic studies (62 FR 38667, July 18, 1977). In establishing a
size-based indicator in 1977 to distinguish fine particles from
particles in the coarse mode, the EPA noted that the available
epidemiological studies of fine particles were based largely on
PM2.5 and also considered monitoring technology that was
generally available. The selection of a 2.5 [micro]m size cut reflected
the regulatory importance of defining an indicator that would more
completely capture fine particles under all conditions likely to be
encountered across the U.S., especially when fine particle
concentrations and humidity are likely to be high, while recognizing
that some small coarse particles would also be captured by current
methods to monitor PM2.5 (62 FR 38666 to 38668, July 18,
1997). In the last review, based on the same considerations, the EPA
again recognized that the available information supported retaining the
PM2.5 indicator and remained too limited to support a
distinct standard for any specific PM2.5 component or group
of components associated with any source categories of fine particles
(71 FR 61162 to 61164, October 17, 2006).
In this current review, the same considerations continue to apply
for selection of an appropriate indicator for fine particles. As an
initial matter, the Policy Assessment recognizes that the available
epidemiological studies linking mortality and morbidity effects with
long- and short-term exposures to fine particles continue to be largely
indexed by PM2.5. For the same reasons discussed in the last
two reviews, the Policy Assessment concluded that it was appropriate to
consider retaining a PM2.5 indicator to provide protection
from effects associated with long- and short-term fine particle
exposures (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-50).
The Policy Assessment also considered the expanded body of evidence
available in this review to consider whether there was sufficient
evidence to support a separate standard for ultrafine particles \62\ or
whether there was sufficient evidence to establish distinct standards
focused on regulating specific PM2.5 components or a group
of components associated with any source categories of fine particles
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.3.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Ultrafine particles, generally including particles with a
mobility diameter less than or equal to 0.1 [micro]m, are emitted
directly to the atmosphere or are formed by nucleation of gaseous
constituents in the atmosphere (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of studies available in this review have evaluated
potential health effects associated with short-term exposures to
ultrafine particles. As noted in the Integrated Science Assessment, the
enormous number and larger, collective surface area of ultrafine
particles are important considerations for focusing on this particle
size fraction in assessing potential public health impacts (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 6-83). Per unit mass, ultrafine particles may have more
opportunity to interact with cell surfaces due to their greater surface
area and their greater particle number compared with larger particles
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 5-3). Greater surface area also increases the
potential for soluble components (e.g., transition metals, organics) to
adsorb to ultrafine particles and potentially cross cell membranes and
epithelial barriers (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-83). In addition, evidence
available in this review suggests that the ability of particles to
enhance allergic sensitization is associated more strongly with
particle number and surface area than with particle mass (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 6-127).
New evidence, primarily from controlled human exposure and
toxicological studies, expands our understanding of cardiovascular and
respiratory effects related to short-term ultrafine particle exposures.
However, the Policy Assessment concluded that this evidence was still
very limited and largely focused on exposure to diesel exhaust, for
which the Integrated Science Assessment concluded it was unclear
whether the effects observed are due to ultrafine particles, larger
particles within the PM2.5 mixture, or the gaseous
components of diesel exhaust (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-22). In addition,
the Integrated Science Assessment noted uncertainties associated with
the controlled human exposure studies using concentrated ambient
particle systems which have been shown to modify the composition of
ultrafine particles (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-22, see also section 1.5.3).
The Policy Assessment recognized that there are relatively few
epidemiological studies that have examined potential cardiovascular and
respiratory effects associated with short-term exposures to ultrafine
particles (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-51). These studies have reported
inconsistent and mixed results (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3.5).
Collectively, in considering the body of scientific evidence
available in this review, the Integrated Science Assessment concluded
that the currently available evidence was suggestive of a causal
relationship between short-term exposures to ultrafine particles and
cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Furthermore, the Integrated
Science Assessment concluded that evidence was inadequate to infer a
causal relationship between short-term exposure to ultrafine particles
and mortality as well as long-term exposure to ultrafine particles and
all outcomes evaluated (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.5, 6.2.12.3,
6.3.10.3, 6.5.3.3, 7.2.11.3, 7.3.9, 7.4.3.3, 7.5.4.3, and 7.6.5.3;
Table 2-6).
With respect to our understanding of ambient ultrafine particle
concentrations, at present, there is no national network of ultrafine
particle samplers; thus, only episodic and/or site-specific data sets
exist (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-2). Therefore, the Policy Assessment
recognized a national characterization of concentrations, temporal and
spatial patterns, and trends was not possible at this time, and the
availability of ambient ultrafine measurements to support health
studies was extremely limited (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-51). In general,
measurements of ultrafine particles are highly dependent on monitor
location and, therefore, more subject to exposure error than
[[Page 3122]]
accumulation mode particles (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-22). Furthermore,
the number of ultrafine particles generally decreases sharply downwind
from sources, as ultrafine particles may grow into the accumulation
mode by coagulation or condensation (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-89). Limited
studies of ambient ultrafine particle measurements have suggested that
these particles exhibit a high degree of spatial and temporal
heterogeneity driven primarily by differences in nearby source
characteristics (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-84). Internal combustion engines
and, therefore, roadways are a notable source of ultrafine particles,
so concentrations of these particles near roadways are generally
expected to be elevated (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-3). Concentrations of
ultrafine particles have been reported to drop off much more quickly
with distance from roadways than fine particles (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-
84).
In considering both the currently available health effects evidence
and the air quality data, the Policy Assessment concluded that this
information was still too limited to provide support for consideration
of a distinct PM standard for ultrafine particles (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
2-52).
In addressing the issue of particle composition, the Integrated
Science Assessment concluded that, ``[f]rom a mechanistic perspective,
it is highly plausible that the chemical composition of PM would be a
better predictor of health effects than particle size'' (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 6-202). Heterogeneity of ambient concentrations of
PM2.5 constituents (e.g., elemental carbon, organic carbon,
sulfates, nitrates) observed in different geographical regions as well
as regional heterogeneity in PM2.5-related health effects
reported in a number of epidemiological studies are consistent with
this hypothesis (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.6).
With respect to the availability of ambient measurement data for
fine particle components in this review, the Policy Assessment noted
that there were now more extensive ambient PM2.5 speciation
measurement data available through the Chemical Speciation Network
(CSN) than in previous reviews (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 1.3.2 and
Appendix B, section B.1.3). The Integrated Science Assessment observed
that data from the CSN provided further evidence of spatial and
seasonal variation in both PM2.5 mass and composition among
cities and geographic regions (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 3-50 to 3-60;
Figures 3-12 to 3-18; Figure 3-47). Some of this variation may be
related to regional differences in meteorology, sources, and topography
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-3).
The currently available epidemiological, toxicological, and
controlled human exposure studies evaluated in the Integrated Science
Assessment on the health effects associated with ambient
PM2.5 constituents and categories of fine particle sources
used a variety of quantitative methods applied to a broad set of
PM2.5 constituents, rather than selecting a few constituents
a priori (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-26). Epidemiological studies have used
measured ambient PM2.5 speciation data, including monitoring
data from the CSN, while all of the controlled human exposure and most
of the toxicological studies have used concentrated ambient particles
and analyzed the constituents therein (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-203).\63\
The CSN provides PM2.5 speciation measurements generally on
a one-in-three or one-in-six day sampling schedule and, thus, does not
capture data every day at most sites.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Most studies considered between 7 to 20 ambient
PM2.5 constituents, with elemental carbon, organic
carbon, sulfates, nitrates, and metals most commonly measured. Many
of the studies grouped the constituents with various factorization
or source apportionment techniques to examine the relationship
between the grouped constituents and various health effects.
However, not all studies labeled the constituent groupings according
to their presumed source and a small number of controlled human
exposure and toxicological studies did not use any constituent
grouping. These differences across studies substantially limit any
integrative interpretation of these studies (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-
203).
\64\ To expand our understanding of the role of specific
PM2.5 components and sources with respect to the observed
health effects, researchers have expressed a strong interest in
having access to PM2.5 speciation measurements collected
more frequently (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-53, including footnote 47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment recognized that several new multi-city
studies evaluating short-term exposures to fine particle constituents
are now available. These studies continued to show an association
between mortality and cardiovascular and/or respiratory morbidity
effects and short-term exposures to various PM2.5 components
including nickel, vanadium, elemental carbon, organic carbon, nitrates,
and sulfates (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.3.1; U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections
6.5.2.5 and 6.6).
Limited evidence is available to evaluate the health effects
associated with long-term exposures to PM2.5 components
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.6.2). The Policy Assessment noted the most
significant new evidence was provided by a study that evaluated
multiple PM2.5 components and an indicator of traffic
density in an assessment of health effects related to long-term
exposure to PM2.5 (Lipfert et al., 2006a). Using health data
from a cohort of U.S. military veterans and PM2.5
measurement data from the CSN, Lipfert et al. (2006a) reported positive
associations between mortality and long-term exposures to nitrates,
elemental carbon, nickel, and vanadium as well as traffic density and
peak ozone concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-54; U.S. EPA, 2009a,
pp. 7-89 to 7-90).
With respect to source categories of fine particles potentially
associated with a range of health endpoints, the Integrated Science
Assessment reported that the currently available evidence suggests
associations between cardiovascular effects and a number of specific
PM2.5-related source categories, including oil combustion,
wood or biomass burning, motor vehicle emissions, and crustal or road
dust sources (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.6; Table 6-18). In addition, a
few studies have evaluated associations between PM2.5-
related source categories and mortality. For example, one study
reported an association between mortality and a PM2.5 coal
combustion factor (Laden et al., 2000), while other studies linked
mortality to a secondary sulfate long-range transport PM2.5
source (Ito et al., 2006; Mar et al., 2006) (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
6.6.2.1). Other studies have looked at different components of
particulate matter. There was less consistency in associations observed
between selected sources of fine particles and respiratory health
endpoints, which may be partially due to the fact that fewer studies
have evaluated respiratory-related outcomes and measures. However,
there was some evidence for PM2.5-related associations with
secondary sulfate and decrements in lung function in asthmatic and
healthy adults (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-211; Gong et al., 2005; Lanki et
al., 2006). A couple of studies have observed an association between
respiratory endpoints in children and adults with asthma and surrogates
for the crustal/soil/road dust and traffic sources of PM (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 6-205; Gent et al., 2009; Penttinen et al., 2006).
Recent studies have shown that source apportionment methods have
the potential to add useful insights into which sources and/or PM
constituents may contribute to different health effects. Of particular
interest are several epidemiological studies that compared source
apportionment methods and reported consistent results across research
groups (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-211; Hopke et al., 2006; Ito et al.,
2006; Mar et al., 2006; Thurston et al., 2005).
[[Page 3123]]
These studies reported associations between total mortality and
secondary sulfate in two cities for two different lag times. The
sulfate effect was stronger for total mortality in Washington, DC and
for cardiovascular-related mortality in Phoenix (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-
204). These studies also found some evidence for associations with
mortality and a number of source categories (e.g., biomass/wood
combustion, traffic, copper smelter, coal combustion, sea salt) at
various lag times (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-204). Sarnat et al. (2008)
compared three different source apportionment methods and reported
consistent associations between emergency department visits for
cardiovascular diseases with mobile sources and biomass combustion as
well as increased respiratory-related emergency department visits
associated with secondary sulfate (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 6-204 and 6-
211).
Collectively, in considering the currently available evidence for
health effects associated with specific PM2.5 components or
groups of components associated with any source categories of fine
particles as presented in the Integrated Science Assessment, the Policy
Assessment concluded that additional information available in this
review continues to provide evidence that many different constituents
of the fine particle mixture as well as groups of components associated
with specific source categories of fine particles are linked to adverse
health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-55). However, as noted in the
Integrated Science Assessment, while ``[t]here is some evidence for
trends and patterns that link particular ambient PM constituents or
sources with specific health outcomes * * * there is insufficient
evidence to determine whether these patterns are consistent or robust''
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-210). Assessing this information, the Integrated
Science Assessment concluded that ``the evidence is not yet sufficient
to allow differentiation of those constituents or sources that are more
closely related to specific health outcomes'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 2-
26 and 6-212). Therefore, the Policy Assessment concluded that the
currently available evidence is not sufficient to support consideration
of a separate indicator for a specific PM2.5 component or
group of components associated with any source category of fine
particles. Furthermore, the Policy Assessment concluded that the
evidence is not sufficient to support eliminating any component or
group of components associated with any source categories of fine
particles from the mix of fine particles included in the
PM2.5 indicator (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-56).
The CASAC agreed with the EPA staff conclusions presented in the
Policy Assessment and concluded that it is appropriate to consider
retaining PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles and
further asserted, ``There [is] insufficient peer-reviewed literature to
support any other indicator at this time'' (Samet, 2010c, p. 12). CASAC
expressed a strong desire for the EPA to ``look ahead to future review
cycles and reinvigorate support for the development of evidence that
might lead to newer indicators that may correlate better with the
health effects associated with ambient air concentrations of PM * * *''
(Samet, 2010c, p 2).
Consistent with the staff conclusions presented in the Policy
Assessment and CASAC advice, the Administrator proposed to retain
PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles. Further, the
Administrator provisionally concluded that currently available
scientific information does not provide a sufficient basis for
supplementing mass-based, primary fine particle standards with
standards using a separate indicator for ultrafine particles or a
separate indicator for a specific PM2.5 component or group
of components associated with any source categories of fine particles.
In addition, the Administrator also provisionally concluded that the
currently available scientific information did not provide a sufficient
basis for eliminating any individual component or group of components
associated with any source categories from the mix of fine particles
included in the PM2.5 mass-based indicator.
The EPA received comparatively few public comments on issues
related to the indicator for fine particles.\65\ Some commenters
emphasized the need to conduct additional research to more fully
understand the effect of specific PM2.5 components and/or
sources on public health. These commenters expressed views about the
importance of evaluating health effect associations with various fine
particle components and types of source categories as a basis for
focusing ongoing and future research to reduce uncertainties in this
area and for considering whether alternative indicator(s) may be
appropriate to consider in future PM NAAQS reviews for standards
intended to protect against the array of health effects that have been
associated with fine particles as indexed by PM2.5. For
example, the PSR encouraged more research and monitoring related to
PM2.5 components and noted the importance of components
associated with coal combustion (PSR, 2012, pp. 5 to 6). EPRI asserted
that ``new'' studies support focusing on EC and OC and encouraged the
EPA to seriously consider the mass-based approach (EPRI, 2012, p. 2).
Likewise, Georgia Mining Association supported additional monitoring
and research efforts related to PM2.5 composition and
specifically encouraged the evaluation of using particle number (e.g.,
particle count) (GMA, 2012, pp. 2 to 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ No public comments were submitted regarding the use of a
different size cut for fine particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator agrees with CASAC as well as these commenters
that the results of additional research and monitoring efforts will be
helpful for informing future PM NAAQS reviews. Information from such
studies could also help inform the development of strategies that
emphasize control of specific types of emission sources so as to
address particles of greatest concern to public health. However, based
upon the scientific information considered in the Integrated Science
Assessment as well as the public comments summarized above, the
Administrator continues to take note there is evidence that many
different constituents of the fine particle mixture as well as groups
of components associated with specific sources of fine particles are
linked to adverse health effects. Furthermore, she recognizes that the
evidence is not yet sufficient to differentiate those constituents or
sources that are most closely related to specific health outcomes nor
to exclude any PM2.5 components or sources of fine particles
from the mix of particles included in the PM2.5 indicator.
Having considered the public comments on this issue, the
Administrator concurs with the Policy Assessment conclusions and CASAC
recommendations and concludes that it is appropriate to retain
PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles.
2. Averaging Time
In 1997, the EPA initially set both an annual standard, to provide
protection from health effects associated with both long- and short-
term exposures to PM2.5, and a 24-hour standard to
supplement the protection afforded by the annual standard (62 FR 38667
to 38668, July, 18, 1997). In the last review, the EPA retained both
annual and 24-hour averaging times (71 FR 61164, October 17, 2006).
These decisions were based, in part, on evidence of health effects
related to both long-term (from a year to several years) and short-term
(from less than one day to up to several days) measures of
PM2.5.
[[Page 3124]]
The overwhelming majority of studies conducted since the last
review continue to utilize annual (or multi-year) and 24-hour averaging
times, reflecting the averaging times of the current PM2.5
standards. These studies continue to provide evidence that health
effects are associated with annual and 24-hour averaging times.
Therefore, the Policy Assessment concluded it is appropriate to retain
the current annual and 24-hour averaging times to provide protection
from effects associated with both long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-57).
In considering whether the information available in this review
supports consideration of different averaging times for
PM2.5 standards specifically with regard to considering a
standard with an averaging time less than 24 hours to address health
effects associated with sub-daily PM2.5 exposures, the
Policy Assessment noted there continues to be a growing body of studies
that provide additional evidence of effects associated with exposure
periods less than 24-hours (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-57). Relative to
information available in the last review, recent studies provide
additional evidence for cardiovascular effects associated with sub-
daily (e.g., one to several hours) exposure to PM, especially effects
related to cardiac ischemia, vasomotor function, and more subtle
changes in markers of systemic inflammation, hemostasis, thrombosis and
coagulation (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.2). Because these studies have
used different indicators (e.g., PM2.5, PM10,
PM10-2.5, ultrafine particles), averaging times (e.g., 1, 2,
and 4 hours), and health outcomes, it is difficult to draw conclusions
about cardiovascular effects associated specifically with sub-daily
exposures to PM2.5.
With regard to respiratory effects associated with sub-daily
PM2.5 exposures, the currently available evidence was much
sparser than for cardiovascular effects and continues to be very
limited. The Integrated Science Assessment concluded that for several
studies of hospital admissions or medical visits for respiratory
diseases, the strongest associations were observed with 24-hour average
or longer exposures, not with less than 24-hour exposures (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 6.3).
Collectively, the Policy Assessment concluded that this
information, when viewed as a whole, is too unclear, with respect to
the indicator, averaging time and health outcome, to serve as a basis
for consideration of establishing a primary PM2.5 standard
with an averaging time shorter than 24-hours at this time (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-57).
With regard to health effects associated with PM2.5
exposure across varying seasons in this review, Bell et al. (2008)
reported higher PM2.5 risk estimates for hospitalization for
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in the winter compared to other
seasons. In comparison to the winter season, smaller statistically
significant associations were also reported between PM2.5
and cardiovascular morbidity for spring and autumn, and a positive, but
statistically non-significant association was observed for the summer
months. In the case of mortality, Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009)
reported a 4-fold higher effect estimate for PM2.5-
associated mortality for the spring as compared to the winter. Taken
together, these results provided emerging but limited evidence that
individuals may be at greater risk of dying from higher exposures to
PM2.5 in the warmer months and may be at greater risk of
PM2.5-associated hospitalization for cardiovascular and
respiratory diseases during colder months of the year (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-58).
Overall, the Policy Assessment observed that there are few studies
presently available to deduce a general pattern in PM2.5-
related risk across seasons. In addition, these studies utilized 24-
hour exposure periods within each season to assess the
PM2.5-associated health effects and do not provide
information on health effects associated with a season-long exposure to
PM2.5. Due to these limitations in the currently available
evidence, the Policy Assessment concluded that there was no basis to
consider a seasonal averaging time separate from a 24-hour averaging
time.
Based on the above considerations, the Policy Assessment concluded
that the currently available information provided strong support for
consideration of retaining the current annual and 24-hour averaging
times but does not provide support for considering alternative
averaging times (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-58). In addition, CASAC
considered it appropriate to retain the current annual and 24-hour
averaging times for the primary PM2.5 standards (Samet,
2010c, pp. 2 to 3). At the time of the proposal, the Administrator
concurred with the staff conclusions and CASAC advice and proposed that
the averaging times for the primary PM2.5 standards should
continue to include annual and 24-hour averages to protect against
health effects associated with long- and short-term exposures.
Furthermore, the Administrator provisionally concluded, consistent with
conclusions reached in the Policy Assessment and by CASAC, that the
currently available information was too limited to support
consideration of alternative averaging times to establish a national
standard with a shorter-than 24-hour averaging time or with a seasonal
averaging time.
The EPA received no significant public comments on the issue of
averaging time for the PM2.5 primary standards. The
Administrator concurs with recommendations made by CASAC and the staff
conclusions presented in the Policy Assessment and concludes, as
proposed, that it is appropriate to retain the current annual and 24-
hour averaging times for the primary PM2.5 standards to
protect against health effects associated with long- and short-term
exposure periods.
3. Form
The ``form'' of a standard defines the air quality statistic that
is to be compared to the level of the standard in determining whether
an area attains the standard. In this review, the EPA considers whether
currently available information supports retaining or revising the
forms for the annual or 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
a. Annual Standard
In 1997, the EPA established the form of the annual
PM2.5 standard as an annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3
years, from single or multiple community-oriented monitors. This form
was intended to represent a relatively stable measure of air quality
and to characterize longer-term area-wide PM2.5
concentrations, in conjunction with a 24-hour standard designed to
provide adequate protection against localized peak or seasonal
PM2.5 concentrations. The level of the standard was to be
compared to measurements made at each community-oriented monitoring
site, or, if specific criteria were met, measurements from multiple
community-oriented monitoring sites could be averaged (i.e., spatial
averaging) \66\ (62 FR 38671 to 38672, July 18, 1997). The constraints
were intended to ensure that spatial averaging would not result in
inequities in the level of protection provided by the standard (62 FR
38672, July 18, 1997). This approach was consistent with the
epidemiological studies on which the PM2.5 standard was
primarily based, in which air quality data were generally averaged
across multiple monitors in an
[[Page 3125]]
area or were taken from a single monitor that was selected to represent
community-wide exposures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Spatial averaging as part of the form of the annual
PM2.5 standard is unique to this standard and is not used
with other PM standards nor with other NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last review, the EPA tightened the criteria for use of
spatial averaging to provide increased protection for vulnerable
populations exposed to PM2.5. This change was based in part
on an analysis of the potential for disproportionate impacts on
potentially at-risk populations, which found that the highest
concentrations in an area tend to be measured at monitors located in
areas where the surrounding population is more likely to have lower
education and income levels and higher percentages of minority
populations (71 FR 61166/2, October 17, 2006; U.S. EPA, 2005, section
5.3.6.1).
In this review, as outlined in section III.B above and discussed
more fully in section III.B.3 of the proposal, there now exist more
health data such that the Integrated Science Assessment has identified
persons from lower socioeconomic strata as an at-risk population (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.7; U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.1). Moreover,
there now exist more years of PM2.5 air quality data than
were available in the last review. Consideration in the Policy
Assessment of the spatial variability across urban areas that was
revealed by this expanded data base has raised questions as to whether
an annual standard that allows for spatial averaging, even within
specified constraints as narrowed in 2006 (71 FR 61165 to 61167,
October 17, 2006), would provide appropriate public health protection.
In considering the potential for disproportionate impacts on at-
risk populations, the Policy Assessment considered an update of an air
quality analysis conducted for the last review (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-
59 to 60; Schmidt, 2011, Analysis A). This analysis focused on
determining whether the spatial averaging provisions, as modified in
2006, could introduce inequities in protection for at-risk populations
exposed to PM2.5. Specifically, the Policy Assessment
considered whether persons of lower socioeconomic status, minority
groups, or different age groups (i.e., children or older adults) are
more likely than the general population to live in areas in which the
monitors recording the highest air quality values in an area are
located. Data used in this analysis included demographic parameters
measured at the Census Block or Census Block Group level, including
percent minority population, percent minority subgroup population,
percent of persons living below the poverty level, percent of persons
18 years of age or older, and percent of persons 65 years of age and
older. In each candidate geographic area, data from the Census Block(s)
or Census Block Group(s) surrounding the location of the monitoring
site (as delineated by radii buffers of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 miles)
in which the highest air quality value was monitored were compared to
the average of monitored values in the area. This analysis looked
beyond areas that would meet the current spatial averaging criteria and
considered all urban areas (i.e., Core Based Statistical Areas or
CBSAs) with at least two valid annual design value monitors (Schmidt,
2011, Analysis A). Recognizing the limitations of such cross-sectional
analyses, the Policy Assessment observed that the highest
concentrations in an area tend to be measured at monitors located in
areas where the surrounding populations are more likely to live below
the poverty line and to have higher percentage of minorities (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-60).
Based upon the analysis described above, the Policy Assessment
concluded that the existing constraints on spatial averaging, as
modified in 2006, may be inadequate to avoid substantially greater
exposures in some areas, potentially resulting in disproportionate
impacts on at-risk populations of persons with lower SES levels as well
as minorities. Therefore, the Policy Assessment concluded that it was
appropriate to consider revising the form of the annual
PM2.5 standard such that it did not allow for the use of
spatial averaging across monitors. In doing so, the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard would be compared to measurements made at the
monitoring site that represents area-wide air quality recording the
highest PM2.5 concentrations \67\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-
60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ As discussed in section VIII.B.1 below, the EPA is revising
several terms associated with PM2.5 monitor placement.
Specifically, the EPA is revoking the term ``community-oriented''
and replacing it with the term ``area-wide'' monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CASAC agreed with staff conclusions that it was ``reasonable''
for the EPA to eliminate the spatial averaging provisions (Samet,
2010d, p. 2). Further, in CASAC's comments on the first draft Policy
Assessment, it noted, ``Given mounting evidence showing that persons
with lower SES levels are a susceptible group for PM-related health
risks, CASAC recommends that the provisions that allow for spatial
averaging across monitors be eliminated for the reasons cited in the
(first draft) Policy Assessment'' (Samet, 2010c, p. 13). In its review
of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC recognized ``although much
of the epidemiological research has been conducted using community-wide
averages, several key studies reference the nearest measurement site,
so that some risk estimates are not necessarily biased by the averaging
process. Further, the number of such studies is likely to expand in the
future'' (Samet, 2010d, pp. 1 to 2).
Only two areas in the country used the initial spatial averaging
provisions for demonstrating attainment with the primary annual
PM2.5 standard set in 1997 (70 FR 19847, April 14, 2005;
U.S. EPA, 2006c). Since these provisions were tightened in 2006, no
area has used spatial averaging to demonstrate attainment. No areas in
the country are currently using the spatial averaging provisions to
demonstrate attainment with the current primary annual PM2.5
standard.
In considering the Policy Assessment's conclusions based on the
results of the analysis discussed above and concern over the evidence
of potential disproportionate impacts on at-risk populations as well as
CASAC advice, the Administrator proposed to revise the form of the
annual PM2.5 standard to eliminate the use of spatial
averaging. Thus, the Administrator proposed revising the form of the
annual PM2.5 standard to compare the level of the standard
with measurements from each ``appropriate'' monitor in an area \68\
with no allowance for spatial averaging. Thus, for an area with
multiple monitors, the appropriate reporting monitor with the highest
design value would determine the attainment status for that area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ As discussed in section VIII.B.2.b below, the EPA concludes
that PM2.5 monitoring sites at micro- and middle-scale
locations are comparable to the annual standard if the monitoring
site has been approved by the Regional Administrator as representing
an area-wide location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the commenters noted in section III.D.2 above who supported a
more stringent annual PM2.5 standard, those who commented on
the form of the annual PM2.5 standard supported the EPA's
proposal to eliminate the spatial averaging provisions. These
commenters contended that the EPA's analyses of the potential impacts
of spatial averaging, discussed above and in the proposal (77 FR
38924), demonstrated that the current form results in uneven public
health protection leading to disproportionate impacts on at-risk
populations. Specifically, the ALA and other environmental and public
health commenters contended that ``spatial averaging allows exposure of
people to unhealthy levels of pollution at specific locales even within
an area meeting the standard'' (ALA et al., 2012, p. 23).
[[Page 3126]]
These commenters particularly focused on the importance for low-income
and minority populations of eliminating the spatial averaging
provisions. They concluded that spatial averaging ``is an environmental
justice concern because poor people are more likely to live near roads,
depots, factories, ports, and other pollution sources.'' Id. p. 24.
Other commenters (e.g., AAM, 2012; Dow, 2012) also supported the
elimination of spatial averaging in order to ``avoid potential
disproportionate impacts on at-risk populations'' and to maximize ``the
benefits to public health of reducing the annual PM2.5
standard.'' However, these groups expressed concern that the
elimination of spatial averaging, in combination with the requirement
for near road monitors (as discussed in section VIII.B.3.b.i of the
proposal), would effectively and inappropriately increase the
stringency of the annual PM2.5 standard.
This concern was also shared by other commenters who disagreed with
the elimination of spatial averaging. For example, the Class of '85 RRG
emphasized concerns about increasing the stringency of the standard
while providing few health benefits if spatial averaging is eliminated,
particularly in combination with the requirement for near-road
monitors. These commenters contended that ``[b]ecause EPA proposes to
use the readings from the highest single worst case monitor (rather
than the average of all community area monitors), and since roadway
monitoring locations will likely be worst case monitors, the proposed
NAAQS will become more stringent without targeting the PM2.5
species most harmful to human health'' (Class of '85 RRG, 2012, p. 6).
Several commenters also maintained that because spatial averaging
is consistent with how air quality data are considered in the
underlying epidemiological studies, such averaging should not be
eliminated. Specifically, commenters including NAM et al., AFPM, and
ACC pointed out that PM2.5 epidemiological studies use
spatially averaged multi-monitor concentrations, rather than the single
highest monitor, when evaluating health effects. Therefore, these
commenters contended that allowing spatial averaging would make the
PM2.5 standard more consistent with the approaches used in
the epidemiological studies upon which the standard is based. In
addition, some commenters also contended that the EPA failed to
consider whether modifying, rather than eliminating, the constraints on
spatial averaging would have been sufficient to protect the public
health. If so, these commenters argued that ``elimination of spatial
averaging would go beyond what is requisite to protect the public
health'' (NAM et al., 2012, p. 20).
In considering the public comments on the form of the annual
standard, the EPA recognizes a number of commenters agreed with the
basis for the EPA's proposal to eliminate spatial averaging. While
other commenters expressed disagreement or concern with the proposed
decision to eliminate the spatial averaging provisions, the Agency
notes that these commenters did not challenge the analyses or
considerations that provided the fundamental basis for the
Administrator's proposed decision. Rather, these commenters generally
raised concerns that eliminating the option for spatial averaging would
increase the stringency of the standard, especially in light of
additional monitoring sites in near-road environments (as discussed in
section VIII.B.3.b.1 below).
The EPA does not agree with the comment that siting some monitors
in near roadway environments makes the standard more stringent or
impermissibly more stringent. As discussed in section VIII.B.3.b.i
below, a significant fraction of the population lives in proximity to
major roads, and these exposures occur in locations that represent
ambient air. Monitoring in such areas does not make the standard more
stringent than warranted, but rather affords the intended protection to
the exposed populations, among them at-risk populations, exposed to
fine particles in these areas. Thus, in cases where monitors in near
roadway environments are deemed to be representative of area-wide air
quality they would be compared to the annual standard (as discussed
more fully in section VIII below). The 24-hour and annual NAAQS are
designed to protect the public with an adequate margin of safety, and
this siting provision is fully consistent with providing the protection
the standard is designed to provide and does not make the standard more
stringent or more stringent than necessary.
Monitors that are representative of area-wide air quality may be
compared to the annual standard. This is consistent with the use of
monitoring data in the epidemiological studies that provide the primary
basis for determining the level of the annual standard. In addition,
the EPA notes that the annual standard is designed to protect against
both long- and short-term exposures through controlling the broad
distribution of air quality across an area over time.\69\ It is fully
consistent with the protection the standard is designed to provide for
near road monitors to be compared to the annual standard if the monitor
is representative of area-wide air quality. This does not make the
standard either more stringent or impermissibly more stringent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ This is in contrast to the 24-hour standard which is
designed to provide supplemental protection, addressing peak
exposures that might not otherwise be addressed by the annual
standard. Consistent with this, monitors are not required to be
representative of area-wide air quality to be compared to the 24-
hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In further considering these comments, the EPA notes that the
stringency or level of protection provided by each NAAQS is not based
solely on the form of the standard; rather, the four elements of the
standard that together serve to define each standard (i.e., indicator,
averaging time, form, and level) must be considered collectively in
evaluating the protection afforded by each standard. Therefore, the EPA
considers these comments are also appropriate to discuss collectively
with other issues related to the appropriate level for annual standard,
and are discussed below in sections III.E.4.c-d.
In reaching a final decision on the form of the annual standard,
the Administrator considers the available analyses, CASAC advice, and
public comments on form as discussed above. She also considers related
issues in the public comments on the level of the annual standard as
discussed in section III.E.4.c below. She notes that even when the
annual PM2.5 standard was first set in 1997, the spatial
averaging provisions included constraints intended to ensure that
inequities in the level of protection would not result. These
constraints on spatial averaging were tightened in the last review,
based on an analysis showing the potential for spatial averaging to
allow higher PM2.5 concentrations in locations where
subgroups within the general population were potentially
disproportionately exposed and hence, at disproportionate risk (e.g.,
low income and minority communities). The Administrator notes that in
proposing to eliminate spatial averaging altogether in this review, she
has relied on further analyses in the current review (Schmidt, 2011,
Analysis A). As discussed above and in the proposal (77 FR 38924),
these analyses showed that the current constraints on spatial averaging
may be inadequate in some areas to avoid substantially greater
exposures for people living near monitors recording the highest
PM2.5 concentrations. Such exposures could result in
[[Page 3127]]
disproportionate impacts to at-risk populations, including low-income
populations as well as minority groups.
On this basis, the Administrator concludes that public health would
not be protected with an adequate margin of safety in all locations, as
required by law, if disproportionately higher exposure concentrations
in at-risk populations such as low income communities as well as
minority communities were averaged together with lower concentrations
measured at other sites in a large urban area. See ALA v. EPA, 134 F.
3d 388, 389 (D.C. Cir., 1998) (``this court has held that `NAAQS must
protect not only average healthy individuals, but also sensitive
citizens such as children,' and `if a pollutant adversely affects the
health of these sensitive individuals, EPA must strengthen the entire
national standard''') and Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v.
EPA, 604 F 3d. 613, 617 (D.C. Cir., 2010) (``Petitioners' assertion
that the revised lead NAAQS is overprotective because it is more
stringent than necessary to protect the entire population of young U.S.
children ignores that the Clean Air Act allows protection of sensitive
subpopulations.'') In reaching this conclusion, the Administrator
further notes that her concern over possible disproportionate
PM2.5-related health impacts in at-risk populations extends
to populations living near important sources of PM2.5,
including the large populations that live near major roadways.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Section VIII.B.3.b.i below discusses public comments
specifically related to the proposed requirement for near-road
monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of all of the above considerations, including
consideration of available analyses, CASAC advice, and public comments,
the Administrator concludes that the current form of the annual
PM2.5 standard should be revised to eliminate spatial
averaging provisions. Thus, the level of the revised annual
PM2.5 standard established with this rule will be compared
with measurements from each appropriate monitor in an area, with no
allowance for spatial averaging. The Administrator's conclusions with
regard to the appropriate level of the annual PM2.5 standard
to set in conjunction with this form are discussed below in section
III.E.4.d.
b. 24-Hour Standard
In 1997, the EPA established the form of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard as the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations at each population-oriented monitor within an area,
averaged over three years (62 FR at 38671 to 38674, July 18, 1997). The
Agency selected the 98th percentile as an appropriate balance between
adequately limiting the occurrence of peak concentrations and providing
increased stability which, when averaged over 3 years, facilitated
effective health protection through the development of more stable
implementation programs. By basing the form of the standard on
concentrations measured at population-oriented monitoring sites, the
EPA intended to provide protection for people residing in or near
localized areas of elevated concentrations. In the last review, in
conjunction with lowering the level of the 24-hour standard, the EPA
retained this form based in part on a comparison with the 99th
percentile form.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ In reaching this final decision, the EPA recognized a
technical problem associated with a potential bias in the method
used to calculate the 98th percentile concentration for this form.
The EPA adjusted the sampling frequency requirement in order to
reduce this bias. Accordingly, the Agency modified the final
monitoring requirements such that areas that are within 5 percent of
the standards are required to increase the sampling frequency to
every day (71 FR 61164 to 61165, October 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In revisiting the stability of a 98th versus 99th percentile form
for a 24-hour standard intended to provide supplemental protection for
a generally controlling annual standard, an analysis presented in the
Policy Assessment considered air quality data reported in 2000 to 2008
to update our understanding of the ratio between peak-to-mean
PM2.5 concentrations. This analysis provided evidence that
the 98th percentile value was a more stable metric than the 99th
percentile (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-2, p. 2-62).
At the time of the proposal, the Agency recognized that the
selection of the appropriate form of the 24-hour standard includes
maintaining adequate protection against peak 24-hour concentrations
while also providing a stable target for risk management programs,
which serves to provide for the most effective public health protection
in the long run.\72\ As in previous reviews, the EPA recognized that a
concentration-based form, compared to an exceedance-based form, was
more reflective of the health risks posed by elevated pollutant
concentrations because such a form gives proportionally greater weight
to days when concentrations are well above the level of the standard
than to days when the concentrations are just above the level of the
standard. Further, the Agency provisionally concluded that a
concentration-based form, when averaged over three years, provided an
appropriate balance between limiting peak pollutant concentrations and
providing a stable regulatory target, thus facilitating the development
of more stable implementation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See ATA III, 283 F.3d at 374-376 which concludes that it is
legitimate for the EPA to consider overall stability of the standard
and its resulting promotion of overall effectiveness of NAAQS
control programs in setting a standard that is requisite to protect
the public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the information provided in the Policy Assessment
and recognizing that the degree of public health protection likely to
be afforded by a standard is a result of the combination of the form
and the level of the standard, the Administrator proposed to retain the
98th percentile form of the 24-hour standard. The Administrator
provisionally concluded that the 98th percentile form represents an
appropriate balance between adequately limiting the occurrence of peak
concentrations and providing increased stability relative to an
alternative 99th percentile form.
Few public commenters commented specifically on the form of the 24-
hour standard. None of the public commenters raised objections to
continuing the use of a concentration-based form for the 24-hour
standard. Many of the individuals and groups who supported a more
stringent 24-hour PM2.5 standard noted in section III.D.2
above, however, recommended a more restrictive concentration-based
percentile form, specifically a 99th percentile form. The limited
number of these commenters who provided a specific rationale for this
recommendation generally expressed their concern that the 98th
percentile form could allow too many days where concentrations exceeded
the level of the standard, and thus fail to adequately protect public
health. Other public commenters representing state and local air
agencies and industry groups generally supported retaining the current
98th percentile form. In most cases, these groups expressed the overall
view that the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, including the
form of the current standard, should be retained.
The EPA notes that the viewpoints represented in this review are
similar to comments submitted in the last review and through various
NAAQS reviews. The EPA recognizes that the selection of the appropriate
form includes maintaining adequate protection against peak 24-hour
values while also providing a stable target for risk management
programs, which serves to provide for the most effective public
[[Page 3128]]
health protection in the long run.\73\ Nothing in the commenters' views
has provided a reason to change the Administrator's previous conclusion
regarding the appropriate balance represented in the proposed form of
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Therefore, the Administrator
concurs with staff conclusions presented in the Policy Assessment and
CASAC recommendations and concludes that it is appropriate to retain
the 98th percentile form for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ As just noted above, it is legitimate for the EPA to
consider promotion of overall effectiveness of risk management
programs designed to attain the NAAQS, including their overall
stability, in setting a standard that is requisite to protect the
public health. The context for the court's discussion in ATA III is
identical to that here; whether to adopt a 98th percentile form for
a 24-hour standard intended to provide supplemental protection for a
generally controlling annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Level
In the last review, the EPA selected levels for the annual and the
24-hour PM2.5 standards using evidence of effects associated
with periods of exposure that were most closely matched to the
averaging time of each standard. Thus, as discussed in section III.A.1,
the EPA relied upon evidence from long-term exposure studies as the
principal basis for selecting the level of the annual PM2.5
standard that would protect against effects associated with long-term
exposures. The EPA relied upon evidence from the short-term exposure
studies as the principal basis for selecting the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard that would protect against effects associated
with short-term exposures. As summarized in section III.A.2 above, the
2006 decision to retain the level of the annual PM2.5
standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\ \74\ was challenged and on judicial review,
the DC Circuit remanded the primary annual PM2.5 standard to
the EPA, finding that EPA's explanation for its approach to setting the
level of the annual standard was inadequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Throughout this section, the annual standard levels are
denoted as integer values for simplicity, although, as noted above
in section II.B.1, Table 1, the annual standard level is defined to
one decimal place, such that the current annual standard level is
15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Alternative annual standard levels discussed in
this section are similarly defined to one decimal place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. General Approach for Considering Standard Levels
Building upon the lessons learned in the previous PM NAAQS reviews,
in considering alternative standard levels supported by the currently
available scientific information, the Policy Assessment used an
approach that integrated evidence-based and risk-based considerations,
took into account CASAC advice, and considered the issues raised by the
court in remanding the primary annual PM2.5 standard.
Following the general approach outlined in section III.A.3 above, for
the reasons discussed below, the Policy Assessment concluded it was
appropriate to consider the protection afforded by the annual and 24-
hour standards taken together against mortality and morbidity effects
associated with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures.
This was consistent with the approach taken in the review completed in
1997 rather than considering each standard separately, as was done in
the review completed in 2006.
Beyond looking directly at the relevant epidemiologic evidence, the
Policy Assessment considered the extent to which specific alternative
PM2.5 standard levels were likely to reduce the nature and
magnitude of both long-term exposure-related mortality risk and short-
term exposure-related mortality and morbidity risk (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 2.3.4.2; U.S.EPA, 2010a, section 4.2.2). As noted in section
III.C above, patterns of increasing estimated risk reductions were
generally observed as either the annual or 24-hour standard, or both,
were reduced below the level of the current standards (U.S. 2011a,
Figures 2-11 and 2-12; U.S. EPA, 2010a, sections 4.2.2, 5.2.2, and
5.2.3).
Based on the quantitative risk assessment, the Policy Assessment
observed, as discussed in section III.A.3, that analyses conducted for
this and previous reviews demonstrated that much, if not most, of the
aggregate risk associated with short-term exposures results from the
large number of days during which the 24-hour average concentrations
are in the low-to mid-range, below the peak 24-hour concentrations
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-9). Furthermore, as discussed in section III.C
above and in section III.C.3 of the proposal, the Risk Assessment
observed that alternative annual standard levels, when controlling,
resulted in more consistent risk reductions across urban study areas,
thereby potentially providing a more consistent degree of public health
protection (U.S. EPA, 2010a, pp. 5-15 to 5-16). In contrast, the Risk
Assessment noted that the results of simulating alternative suites of
PM2.5 standards including different combinations of
alternative annual and 24-hour standard levels suggested that an
alternative 24-hour standard level can produce additional estimated
risk reductions beyond that provided by an alternative annual standard
alone. However, the degree of estimated risk reduction provided by
alternative 24-hour standard levels was highly variable, in part due to
the choice of rollback approached used (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 5-17).
Based on its review of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC
agreed with the EPA staff's general approach for translating the
available epidemiological evidence, risk information, and air quality
information into the basis for reaching conclusions on alternative
standards for consideration. Furthermore, CASAC agreed ``that it is
appropriate to return to the strategy used in 1997 that considers the
annual and the short-term standards together, with the annual standard
as the controlling standard, and the short-term standard supplementing
the protection afforded by the annual standard'' and ``considers it
appropriate to place the greatest emphasis'' on health effects judged
to have evidence supportive of a causal or likely causal relationship
as presented in the Integrated Science Assessment (Samet, 2010d, p. 1).
Therefore, the Policy Assessment concluded, consistent with
specific CASAC advice, that it was appropriate to set a ``generally
controlling'' annual standard that will lower a wide range of ambient
24-hour concentrations. The Policy Assessment concluded this approach
would likely reduce aggregate risks associated with both long- and
short-term exposures with more consistency than a generally controlling
24-hour standard and would be the most effective and efficient way to
reduce total PM2.5-related population risk and so provide
appropriate protection. The staff believed this approach, in contrast
to one focusing on a generally controlling 24-hour standard, would
likely reduce aggregate risks associated with both long- and short-term
exposures with more consistency and would likely avoid setting national
standards that could result in relatively uneven protection across the
country due to setting standards that were either more or less
stringent than necessary in different geographical areas.
The Policy Assessment recognized that an annual standard intended
to serve as the primary means for providing protection against effects
associated with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures
cannot be expected to offer an adequate margin of safety against the
effects of all short-term PM2.5 exposures. As a result, in
conjunction with a generally controlling annual standard, the Policy
Assessment concluded it was appropriate to
[[Page 3129]]
consider setting a 24-hour standard to provide supplemental protection,
particularly for areas with high peak-to-mean ratios possibly
associated with strong local or seasonal sources, or PM2.5-
related effects that may be associated with shorter-than-daily exposure
periods.
At the time of the proposal, the Administrator agreed with the
approach discussed in the Policy Assessment as summarized in section
III.A.3 above, and supported by CASAC, of considering the protection
afforded by the annual and 24-hour standards taken together for
mortality and morbidity effects associated with both long- and short-
term exposures to PM2.5. Furthermore, based on the evidence
and quantitative risk assessment, the Administrator provisionally
concluded it was appropriate to set a ``generally controlling'' annual
standard that will lower a wide range of ambient 24-hour
concentrations, with a 24-hour standard focused on providing
supplemental protection, particularly for areas with high peak-to-mean
ratios possibly associated with strong local or seasonal sources, or
PM2.5-related effects that may be associated with shorter-
than daily exposure periods. The Administrator provisionally concluded
this approach would likely reduce aggregate risks associated with both
long- and short-term exposures more consistently than a generally
controlling 24-hour standard and would be the most effective and
efficient way to reduce total PM2-5-related population risk.
The Administrator is mindful that considering what standards are
requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety
requires public health policy judgments that neither overstate nor
understate the strength and limitations of the evidence or the
appropriate inferences to be drawn from the evidence. At the time of
the proposal, in considering how to translate the available information
into appropriate standard levels, the Administrator weighed the
available scientific information and associated uncertainties and
limitations. For the purpose of determining what standard levels were
appropriate to propose, the Administrator recognized, as did the EPA
staff in the Policy Assessment, that there was no single factor or
criterion that comprised the ``correct'' approach to weighing the
various types of available evidence and information, but rather there
were various approaches that were appropriate to consider. The
Administrator further recognized that different evaluations of the
evidence and other information before the Administrator could reflect
placing different weight on the relative strengths and limitations of
the scientific information, and different judgments could be made as to
how such information should appropriately be used in making public
health policy decisions on standard levels. This recognition led the
Administrator to consider various approaches to weighing the evidence
so as to identify appropriate standard levels to propose. In so doing,
the Administrator encouraged extensive public comment on alternative
approaches to weighing the evidence and other information so as to
inform her public health policy judgments before reaching final
decisions on appropriate standard levels.
b. Proposed Decisions on Standard Levels
i. Consideration of the Alternative Standard Levels in the Policy
Assessment
In recognizing the absence of a discernible population threshold
below which effects would not occur, the Policy Assessment's general
approach for identifying alternative annual standard levels that were
appropriate to consider focused on characterizing the part of the
distribution of PM2.5 concentrations in which we had the
most confidence in the associations reported in the epidemiological
studies and conversely where our confidence in the association became
appreciably lower. The most direct approach to address this issue,
consistent with CASAC advice (Samet, 2010c, p. 10), was to consider
epidemiological studies reporting confidence intervals around
concentration-response relationships (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-63). Based
on a thorough search of the available evidence, the Policy Assessment
identified only one study (Schwartz et al., 2008) that conducted a
multi-model analysis to characterize confidence intervals around the
estimated concentration-response relationship. The Policy Assessment
concluded that this single relevant analysis was too limited to serve
as the principal basis for identifying alternative standard levels in
this review (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-70).
The Policy Assessment explored other approaches to characterize the
part of the distributions of long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations that were most influential in generating health effect
estimates in long- and short-term epidemiological studies, and placed
greatest weight on those studies that reported positive and
statistically significant associations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-63).
First, as discussed in section III.A.3 above, the Policy Assessment
considered the statistical metric used in previous reviews. This
approach recognized the EPA's views that the strongest evidence of
associations occurs at concentrations around the long-term mean
concentration. Thus, in earlier reviews, the EPA focused on identifying
standard levels that were somewhat below the long-term mean
concentrations reported in PM2.5 epidemiological studies.
The long-term mean concentrations represented air quality data
typically used in epidemiological analyses and provided a direct link
between PM2.5 concentrations and the observed health
effects. Further, these data were available for all long- and short-
term exposure studies analyzed and, therefore, represented the data set
available for the broadest set of epidemiological studies.
[[Page 3130]]
However, consistent with CASAC's comments on the second draft
Policy Assessment \75\ (Samet, 2010d, p. 2), in preparing the final
Policy Assessment, the EPA staff explored ways to take into account
additional information from epidemiological studies, when available
(Rajan et al., 2011). These analyses focused on evaluating different
statistical metrics, beyond the long-term mean concentration, to
characterize the part of the distribution of PM2.5
concentrations in which staff continued to have confidence in the
associations observed in epidemiological studies and below which there
was a comparative lack of data such that the staff's confidence in the
relationship was appreciably less. This would also be the part of the
distribution of PM2.5 concentrations which had the most
influence on generating the health effect estimates reported in
epidemiological studies. As discussed in section III.A.3 above, the
Policy Assessment recognized there was no one percentile value within a
given distribution that was the most appropriate or ``correct'' way to
characterize where our confidence in the associations becomes
appreciably lower. The Policy Assessment concluded that focusing on
concentrations within the lower quartile of a distribution, such as the
range from the 25th to the 10th percentile, was reasonable to consider
as a region within which we begin to have appreciably less confidence
in the associations observed in epidemiological studies.\76\ In the EPA
staff's view, considering lower PM2.5 concentrations, down
to the lowest concentration observed in a study, would be a highly
uncertain basis for selecting alternative standard levels (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 2-71).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ While CASAC expressed the view that it would be most
desirable to have information on concentration-response
relationships, they recognized that it would also be ``preferable to
have information on the concentrations that were most influential in
generating the health effect estimates in individual studies''
(Samet, 2010d, p. 2).
\76\ In the last review, staff believed it was appropriate to
consider a level for an annual PM2.5 standard that was
somewhat below the averages of the long-term concentrations across
the cities in each of the key long-term exposures studies,
recognizing that the evidence of an association in any such study
was strongest at and around the long-term average where the data in
the study are most concentrated. For example, the interquartile
range of long-term average concentrations within a study and a range
within one standard deviation around the study mean were considered
reasonable approaches for characterizing the range over which the
evidence of association is strongest (U.S. EPA, 2005, pp. 5-22 to 5-
23). In this review, the Policy Assessment noted the
interrelatedness of the distributional statistics and a range of one
standard deviation around the mean which contains approximately 68
percent of normally distributed data, in that one standard deviation
below the mean falls between the 25th and 10th percentiles (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-71).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As outlined in section III.A.3 above, the Policy Assessment
recognized that there were two types of population-level information to
consider in identifying the range of PM2.5 concentrations
which have the most influence on generating the health effect estimates
reported in epidemiological studies. The most relevant information to
consider was the number of health events (e.g., deaths,
hospitalizations) occurring within a study population in relation to
the distribution of PM2.5 concentrations likely experienced
by study participants. However, in recognizing that access to health
event data may be restricted, and consistent with advice from CASAC
(Samet 2010d, p. 2), EPA staff also considered the number of
participants within each study area, in relation to the distribution of
PM2.5 concentrations (i.e., study population data), as a
surrogate for health event data.
In applying this approach, the Policy Assessment focused on
identifying the part of the distribution of PM2.5
concentrations which had the most influence on generating health effect
estimates in epidemiological studies, as discussed in section III.A.3
above. As discussed below, in working with study investigators, the EPA
staff was able to obtain health event data for three large multi-city
studies (Krewski et al., 2009; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Bell et
al., 2008) and population data for the same three studies and one
additional long-term exposure study (Miller et al., 2007), as
documented in a staff memorandum (Rajan et al., 2011).\77\ For the
three studies for which both health event and study population data
were available, the EPA staff analyzed the reliability of using study
population data as a surrogate for health event data. Based on these
analyses, the EPA staff recognized that the 10th and 25th percentiles
of the health event and study population distributions are nearly
identical and concluded that the distribution of population data can be
a useful surrogate for event data, providing support for consideration
of the study population data for Miller et al. (2007), for which health
event data were not available (Rajan et al., 2011, Analysis 1 and
Analysis 2, in particular, Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The distributional statistical analysis of population-level
data built upon an earlier analysis that evaluated the distributions
of air quality and associated population data for three long-term
exposure studies and three short-term exposure studies (Schmidt et
al., 2010, Analysis 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
which are relevant to the first approach, Figures 1 through 3 (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Figures 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, and 2-8) summarize data available
for multi-city, long- and short-term exposure studies that evaluated
endpoints classified in the Integrated Science Assessment as having
evidence of a causal or likely causal relationship or evidence
suggestive of a causal relationship, showing the studies with long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations below 17 [mu]g/m\3\.\78\ As
discussed in more detail in section III.E.4.b of the proposal, Figures
1 and 3 summarize the health outcomes evaluated, relative risk
estimates, air quality data, and geographic scope for long- and short-
term exposure studies, respectively, that evaluated mortality (evidence
of a causal relationship); cardiovascular effects (evidence of a causal
relationship); and respiratory effects (evidence of a likely causal
relationship) in the general population, as well as in older adults, an
at-risk population. Figure 2 provides this same summary information for
long-term exposure studies that evaluated respiratory effects (evidence
of a likely causal relationship) in children, an at-risk population, as
well as developmental effects (evidence suggestive of a causal
relationship).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Additional studies presented and assessed in the Integrated
Science Assessment report effects at higher long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figures 2-1,
2-2, 7-6, and 7-7).
\79\ The long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations reported
by the study authors for the Miller et al. (2007) and Lipfert et al.
(2006a) studies are discussed more fully in the Response to Comments
document (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3131]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.000
[[Page 3132]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.001
[[Page 3133]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.002
With regard to consideration of additional information from
epidemiological studies which was relevant to the second approach, the
EPA staff compiled a summary of the range of PM2.5
concentrations
[[Page 3134]]
corresponding with the 25th to 10th percentiles of health event or
study population data from the four multi-city studies, for which
distributional statistics are available \80\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure
2-7; Rajan et al., 2011, Table 1). By considering this approach, one
could focus on the range of PM2.5 concentrations below the
long-term mean ambient concentrations over which we continue to have
confidence in the associations observed in epidemiological studies
(e.g., above the 25th percentile) where commensurate public health
protection could be obtained for PM2.5-related effects and,
conversely, identify the range in the distribution below which our
confidence in the associations is appreciably less, to identify
alternative annual standard levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ The EPA staff obtained health event data (e.g., number of
deaths, hospitalizations) occurring in a study population for three
multi-city studies (Krewski et al., 2009; Zanobetti and Schwartz,
2009; Bell et al., 2008) and study population data were obtained for
the same three studies and one additional study (Miller et al.,
2007) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-71). If health event or study
population data were available for additional studies, the EPA could
employ distributional statistics to identify the broader range of
PM2.5 concentrations that were most influential in
generating health effect estimates in those studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mean PM2.5 concentrations associated with the
studies summarized in Figures 1, 2, and 3 and with the distributional
statistics analyses (Rajan et al., 2011) are based on concentrations
averaged across ambient monitors within each area included in a given
study and then averaged across study areas to calculate an overall
study mean concentration, as discussed above. Figure 4, discussed in
more detail in section III.E.4.a of the proposal, summarizes
statistical metrics for those key studies \81\ included in Figures 1,
2, and 3 that provide evidence of positive and generally statistically
significant PM2.5-related effects, which are relevant to the
two approaches for translating epidemiological evidence into potential
standard levels as discussed above. The top of Figure 4 includes
information for long-term exposure studies evaluating health outcomes
classified as having evidence of a causal or likely causal relationship
with PM2.5 exposures (long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations indicated by diamond symbols). The middle of Figure 4
includes information for short-term exposure studies evaluating health
outcomes classified as having evidence of a causal or likely causal
relationship with PM2.5 exposures (long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations indicated by triangle symbols). The
bottom of Figure 4 includes information for long-term exposures studies
evaluating health outcomes classified as having evidence suggestive of
a causal relationship (long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
indicated by square symbols). Figure 4 also summarizes the range of
PM2.5 concentrations corresponding with the 25th (indicated
by solid circles) to 10th (indicated by open circles) percentiles of
the health event or study population data from the four multi-city
studies (highlighted in bold text) for which distributional statistics
are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Long- and short-term exposure studies considered ``key''
studies for consideration are summarized in Figure 4 and include
those studies observing effects for which the evidence supported a
causal or likely causal association. This figure represents the
subset of multi-city studies included in Figures 1 through 3 that
provided evidence of positive and generally statistically
significant effects associated in whole or in part with more recent
air quality data, generally representing health effects associated
with lower PM2.5 concentrations than had previously been
considered in the last review. The EPA notes that many of these
studies evaluated multiple health endpoints, and not all of the
effects evaluated provided evidence of positive and statistically
significant effects. For purposes of informing the Administrator's
decision on the appropriate standard levels, the Agency considers
the full body of scientific evidence and focuses on those aspects of
the key studies that provided evidence of positive and generally
statistically significant effects.
\82\ The long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations reported
by the study authors for the Miller et al. (2007) and Lipfert et al.
(2006a) studies are discussed more fully in the Response to Comments
document (U.S. EPA, 2012a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3135]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.003
In considering the evidence, the Policy Assessment recognized that
NAAQS are standards set so as to provide requisite protection, neither
more nor less stringent than necessary to protect public health, with
an adequate margin of safety. This judgment, ultimately made by the
Administrator, involves weighing the strength of the evidence and the
inherent uncertainties and limitations of that evidence. Therefore,
depending on
[[Page 3136]]
the weight placed on different aspects of the evidence and inherent
uncertainties, consideration of different alternative standard levels
could be supported.
Given the currently available evidence discussed in more detail in
section III.E.4.b of the proposal and considering the various
approaches discussed above, the Policy Assessment concluded it was
appropriate to focus on an annual standard level within a range of
about 12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-82, 2-101, and 2-
106). As illustrated in Figure 4, the Policy Assessment recognized that
a standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\, at the upper end of this range, was
somewhat below the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
reported in all the multi-city, long- and short-term exposure studies
that provided evidence of positive and statistically significant
associations with health effects classified as having evidence of a
causal or likely causal relationship, including premature mortality and
hospitalizations and emergency department visits for cardiovascular and
respiratory effects as well as respiratory effects in children.
Further, a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ would reflect consideration of
additional population-level information from such epidemiological
studies in that it generally corresponded with approximately the 25th
percentile of the available distributions of health events data in the
studies for which population-level information was available. In
addition, a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ would reflect some consideration of
studies that provided more limited evidence of reproductive and
developmental effects, which were suggestive of a causal relationship,
in that it was about at the same level as the lowest long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in such studies (see Figure
4).
Alternatively the Policy Assessment recognized that an annual
standard level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\, at the lower end of this range, was
well below the lowest long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
reported in all multi-city long- and short-term exposure studies that
provide evidence of positive and statistically significant associations
with health effects classified as having evidence of a causal or likely
causal relationship. A level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ would reflect placing
more weight on the distributions of health event and population data,
in that this level was within the range of PM2.5
concentrations corresponding to the 25th and 10th percentiles of all
the available distributions of such data. In addition, a level of 11
[mu]g/m\3\ was somewhat below the lowest long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in reproductive and
developmental effects studies that are suggestive of a causal
relationship. Thus, a level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ would reflect an approach
to translating the available evidence that places relatively more
emphasis on margin of safety considerations and less certain causal
relationships than would a standard set at a higher level. Such a
policy approach would tend to weigh uncertainties in the evidence in
such a way as to avoid potentially underestimating PM2.5-
related risks to public health. Further, recognizing the uncertainties
inherent in identifying any particular point at which our confidence in
reported associations becomes appreciably less, the Policy Assessment
concluded that the available evidence did not provide a sufficient
basis to consider alternative annual standard levels below 11 [mu]g/
m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-81).
The Policy Assessment also considered the extent to which the
available evidence provided a basis for considering alternative annual
standard levels above 12 [mu]g/m\3\. As discussed below, the Policy
Assessment concluded that it could be reasonable to consider a standard
level up to 13 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a policy approach that weighed
uncertainties in the evidence in such a way as to avoid potentially
overestimating PM2.5-related risks to public health,
especially to the extent that primary emphasis was placed on long-term
exposure studies as a basis for an annual standard level. A level of 13
[mu]g/m\3\ was somewhat below the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations reported in all but one of the long-term exposure
studies providing evidence of positive and statistically significant
associations with PM2.5-related health effects classified as
having a causal or likely causal relationship. As shown in Figure 4,
the one long-term exposure study with a long-term mean PM2.5
concentration just below 13 [mu]g/m\3\ was the Miller et al., (2007)
study. However, as noted in section III.D.1.a of the proposal and
discussed in more detail in the Response to Comments document, the
Policy Assessment observed that in comparison to other long-term
exposure studies, the Miller et al. study was more limited in that it
was based on only one year of air quality data and the one year was
after the health outcomes were reported (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-81 to
2-82). Thus, to the extent that less weight was placed on the Miller et
al. study than on other long-term exposure studies with more robust air
quality data, a level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ could be considered as being
protective of long-term exposure related effects classified as having a
causal or likely causal relationship. In also considering short-term
exposure studies, however, the Policy Assessment noted that a level of
13 [mu]g/m\3\ was below the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations reported in most but not all such studies. In
particular, two studies--Burnett et al. (2004) and Bell et al. (2008)--
reported long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations of 12.8 and
12.9 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. In considering these studies, the Policy
Assessment found no basis to conclude that these two studies were any
more limited or uncertain than the other short-term exposure studies
shown in Figures 3 and 4 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-82). On this basis, as
discussed below, the Policy Assessment concluded that consideration of
an annual standard level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ would have implications for
the degree of protection that would need to be provided by the 24-hour
standard, in order that the suite of PM2.5 standards, taken
together, would provide appropriate protection from effects on public
health related to short-term exposure to PM2.5 (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-82).
The Policy Assessment also noted that a standard level of 13 [mu]g/
m\3\ would reflect a judgment that the uncertainties in the
epidemiological evidence as summarized in section III.B above and
discussed in more detail in section III.B.2 of the proposal, including
uncertainties related to the heterogeneity observed in the
epidemiological studies in the eastern versus western parts of the
U.S., the relative toxicity of PM2.5 components, and the
potential role of co-pollutants, are too great to warrant placing any
weight on the distributions of health event and population data that
extend down below the long-term mean concentrations into the lower
quartile of the data. This level would also reflect a judgment that the
evidence from reproductive and developmental effects studies that is
suggestive of a causal relationship was too uncertain to support
consideration of any lower level.
Beyond evidence-based considerations, the Policy Assessment also
considered the extent to which the quantitative risk assessment
supported consideration of these alternative standard levels or
provided support for lower levels. In considering simulations of just
meeting alternative annual standard levels within the range of 13 to 11
[mu]g/m\3\ (in conjunction with the current 24-hour standard level of
35 [mu]g/m\3\), the Policy Assessment concluded that important public
health improvements are associated with risk
[[Page 3137]]
reductions estimated for standard levels of 13 and 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and
noted that the level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ was not included in the
quantitative risk assessment. The Policy Assessment noted that the
overall confidence in the quantitative risk estimates varied for the
different alternative standard levels evaluated and was stronger for
the higher levels and substantially lower for the lowest level
evaluated (i.e., 10 [mu]g/m\3\). Based on the above considerations, the
Policy Assessment concluded that the quantitative risk assessment
provided support for considering alternative annual standard levels
within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\, but did not provide strong
support for considering lower alternative standard levels (U.S. EPA,
2011a, pp. 2-102 to 2-103).
Taken together, the Policy Assessment concluded that consideration
of alternative annual standard levels in the range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/
m\3\ may be appropriate. Furthermore, the Policy Assessment concluded
that the currently available evidence most strongly supported
consideration of an alternative annual standard level in the range of
12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-82). The Policy Assessment
concluded that an alternative level within the range of 12 to 11 [mu]g/
m\3\ would more fully take into consideration the available information
from all long- and short-term PM2.5 exposure studies,
including studies of at-risk populations, than would a higher level.
This range also reflected placing weight on information from studies
that helped to characterize the range of PM2.5
concentrations over which we continue to have confidence in the
associations observed in epidemiological studies, as well as the extent
to which our confidence in the associations was appreciably less at
lower concentrations.
As recognized in sections III.A.3 and III.E.4.a above, an annual
standard intended to serve as the primary means for providing
protection from effects associated with both long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures is not expected to provide appropriate
protection against the effects of all short-term PM2.5
exposures (unless established at a level so low as to undoubtedly
provide more protection than necessary for long-term exposures). Of
particular concern are areas with high peak-to-mean ratios possibly
associated with strong local or seasonal sources, or PM2.5-
related effects that may be associated with shorter-than-daily exposure
periods. As a result, the Policy Assessment concluded that it was
appropriate to consider alternative 24-hour PM2.5 standard
levels that would supplement the protection provided by an annual
standard.
As outlined in section III.A.3 above, the Policy Assessment
considered the available evidence from short-term PM2.5
exposure studies, as well as the uncertainties and limitations in that
evidence, to assess the degree to which alternative annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards can be expected to reduce the estimated
risks attributed to short-term fine particle exposures. In considering
the available epidemiological evidence, the Policy Assessment took into
account information from multi-city studies as well as single-city
studies. The Policy Assessment considered the distributions of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations reported in short-term exposure
studies, focusing on the 98th percentile concentrations to match the
form of the 24-hour standard as discussed in section III.E.3.b above.
In recognizing that the annual and 24-hour standards work together to
provide protection from effects associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposures, the Policy Assessment also considered
information on the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations from
these studies.
In addition to considering the epidemiological evidence, the Policy
Assessment considered air quality information, specifically peak-to-
mean ratios using county-level 24-hour and annual design values, to
characterize air quality patterns in areas possibly associated with
strong local or seasonal sources. These patterns helped in
understanding the extent to which different combinations of annual and
24-hour standards would be consistent with the policy goal of setting a
generally controlling annual standard with a 24-hour standard that
provides supplemental protection especially for areas with high peak-
to-mean ratios (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-14).
In considering the information provided by the short-term exposure
studies, the Policy Assessment recognized that to the extent these
studies were conducted in areas that likely did not meet one or both of
the current standards, such studies did not help inform the
characterization of the potential public health improvements of
alternative standards set at lower levels. Therefore, in considering
the short-term exposure studies to inform staff conclusions regarding
levels of the 24-hour standard that are appropriate to consider, the
Policy Assessment placed greatest weight on studies conducted in areas
that likely met both the current annual and 24-hour standards.
With regard to multi-city studies that evaluated effects associated
with short-term PM2.5 exposures, as summarized in Figure 3
above and discussed in more detail in section III.E.4.c of the
proposal, the Policy Assessment noted that, to the extent air quality
distributions were reduced to reflect just meeting the current 24-hour
standard, additional protection would be anticipated for the effects
observed in the three multi-city studies with 98th percentile values
greater than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (Burnett et al., 2004; Burnett and Goldberg,
2003; Franklin et al., 2008). In the three additional studies with 98th
percentile values below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, specifically 98th percentile
concentrations of 34.2, 34.3, and 34.8 [mu]g/m\3\, the Policy
Assessment noted that these studies reported long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations of 12.9, 13.2, and 13.4 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively (Bell et al., 2008; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Dominici
et al., 2006a). To the extent that consideration was given to revising
the level of the annual standard, as discussed in section III.E.4.b of
the proposal, the Policy Assessment recognized that potential changes
associated with meeting such an alternative annual standard would
result in lowering risks associated with both long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures. Consequently, in considering a 24-hour
standard that would operate in conjunction with an annual standard to
provide appropriate public health protection, the Policy Assessment
noted that to the extent that the level of the annual standard was
revised to within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\, in particular in the
range of 12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\, additional protection would be provided
for the long-term effects observed in these multi-city studies (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-84).
Based on this information, the Policy Assessment concluded that the
multi-city, short-term exposure studies generally provided support for
retaining the 24-hour standard level at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ so long as the
standard is in conjunction with an annual standard level revised to
within a range of 12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-84).
Alternatively, in conjunction with an annual standard level of 13
[mu]g/m\3\, the Policy Assessment concluded that the multi-city studies
provided limited support for revising the 24-hour standard level
somewhat below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, such as down to 30 [mu]g/m\3\, based on
one study (Bell et al., 2008) that reported positive and statistically
significant effects with an overall 98th percentile value below the
level of the current 24-hour standard and an overall long-term mean
concentration slightly less than 13 [mu]g/m\3\ (Figure 3; U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-84).
In reaching staff conclusions regarding alternative 24-hour
standard levels that were appropriate to consider,
[[Page 3138]]
the Policy Assessment also took into account relevant information from
single-city studies that evaluated effects associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposures. The Policy Assessment recognized that these
studies may provide additional insights regarding impacts on at-risk
populations and/or on areas with isolated peak concentrations.
As discussed in more detail in section III.E.4.c of the proposal,
although a number of single-city studies reported effects at
appreciably lower PM2.5 concentrations than multi-city
short-term exposure studies, the uncertainties and limitations
associated with the single-city studies were considerably greater than
those associated with the multi-city studies and, thus, the Policy
Assessment concluded there was less confidence in using these studies
as a basis for setting the level of a standard. Therefore, the Policy
Assessment concluded that the multi-city short-term exposure studies
provided the strongest evidence to inform decisions on the level of the
24-hour standard, and the single-city studies did not warrant
consideration of 24-hour standard levels different from those supported
by the multi-city studies (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-88).
In addition to considering the epidemiological evidence, the Policy
Assessment took into account air quality information based on county-
level 24-hour and annual design values to understand the public health
implications of the alternative standard levels supported by the
currently available scientific evidence, as discussed in this section.
Consistent with the general approach discussed in section III.A.3
above, the Policy Assessment considered the extent to which different
combinations of alternative annual and 24-hour standard levels based on
the evidence would support the policy goal of lowering annual and 24-
hour air quality distributions by using the annual standard to be the
``generally controlling'' standard in conjunction with setting the 24-
hour standard to provide supplemental protection (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp
2-88 to 2-91, Figure 2-10).
Using information on the relationship of the 24-hour and annual
design values, the Policy Assessment examined the implications of three
alternative suites of PM2.5 standards identified as
appropriate to consider based on the currently available scientific
evidence, as discussed above. The Policy Assessment concluded that an
alternative suite of PM2.5 standards that would include an
annual standard level of 11 or 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and a 24-hour standard
with a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., 11/35 or 12/35) would result in
the annual standard being the generally controlling standard in most
areas although the 24-hour standard would continue to be the generally
controlling standard in the Northwest (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-89 to 2-
91 and Figure 2-10). These Northwest counties generally represented
areas where the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations have
historically been low but where relatively high 24-hour concentrations
occur, often related to seasonal wood smoke emissions. Alternatively,
combining an alternative annual standard of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ with a 24-
hour standard of 30 [mu]g/m\3\ would result in many more areas across
the country in which the 24-hour standard would likely become the
controlling standard (the standard driving air quality distributions
lower) than if an alternative annual standard of 12 or 11 [mu]g/m\3\
were paired with the current level of the 24-hour standard (i.e., 35
[mu]g/m\3\).
The Policy Assessment concluded that consideration of retaining the
24-hour standard level at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would reflect placing greatest
weight on evidence from multi-city studies that reported positive and
statistically significant associations with health effects classified
as having a causal or likely causal relationship. In conjunction with
lowering the annual standard level, especially within a range of 12 to
11 [mu]g/m\3\, this alternative recognized additional public health
protection against effects associated with short-term PM2.5
exposures which would be provided by lowering the annual standard such
that revision to the 24-hour standard would not be warranted (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-91).
Beyond evidence-based considerations, the Policy Assessment also
considered the extent to which the quantitative risk assessment
supported consideration of retaining the current 24-hour standard level
or provided support for lower standard levels. In considering
simulations of just meeting the current 24-hour standard level of 35
[mu]g/m\3\ or alternative levels of 30 or 25 [mu]g/m\3\ (in conjunction
with alternative annual standard levels within a range of 13 to 11
[mu]g/m\3\), the Policy Assessment noted that the overall confidence in
the quantitative risk estimates varied for the different standard
levels evaluated and was stronger for the higher levels and
substantially lower for the lowest level evaluated (i.e., 25 [mu]g/
m\3\). Based on this information, the Policy Assessment concluded that
the quantitative risk assessment provided support for considering a 24-
hour standard level of 35 or 30 [mu]g/m\3\ (in conjunction with an
alternative standard level within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\) but
did not provide strong support for considering lower alternative 24-
hour standard levels (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-102 to 2-103).
Taken together, the Policy Assessment concluded that while it was
appropriate to consider an alternative 24-hour standard level within a
range of 35 to 30 [mu]g/m\3\, the currently available evidence most
strongly supported consideration for retaining the current 24-hour
standard level at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ in conjunction with lowering the level
of the annual standard within a range of 12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-92).
ii. CASAC Advice
Based on its review of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC
agreed with the general approach for translating the available
epidemiological evidence, risk information, and air quality information
into the basis for reaching conclusions on alternative standards for
consideration. Furthermore, CASAC agreed ``that it is appropriate to
return to the strategy used in 1997 that considers the annual and the
short-term standards together, with the annual standard as the
controlling standard, and the short-term standard supplementing the
protection afforded by the annual standard'' and ``considers it
appropriate to place the greatest emphasis'' on health effects judged
to have evidence supportive of a causal or likely causal relationship
as presented in the Integrated Science Assessment (Samet, 2010d, p. 1).
CASAC concluded that the range of levels presented in the second
draft Policy Assessment (i.e., alternative annual standard levels
within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ and alternative 24-hour standard
levels within a range of 35 to 30 [mu]g/m\3\) ``are supported by the
epidemiological and toxicological evidence, as well as by the risk and
air quality information compiled'' in the Integrated Science
Assessment, Risk Assessment, and second draft Policy Assessment. CASAC
further noted that ``[a]lthough there is increasing uncertainty at
lower levels, there is no evidence of a threshold (i.e., a level below
which there is no risk for adverse health effects)'' (Samet, 2010d, p.
ii).
Although CASAC supported the alternative standard level ranges
presented in the second draft Policy Assessment, it did not express
support for any specific levels or combinations of standards. Rather,
CASAC encouraged the EPA to develop a clearer rationale in the final
Policy Assessment for staff conclusions regarding annual
[[Page 3139]]
and 24-hour standards that were appropriate to consider, including
consideration of the combination of these standards supported by the
available information (Samet, 2010d, p. ii). Specifically, in
commenting on a distributional statistical analysis of air quality and
associated population data presented in the second draft Policy
Assessment, CASAC encouraged staff to focus on information related to
the concentrations that were most influential in generating the health
effect estimates in individual studies to inform alternative standard
levels. CASAC urged that the EPA redo that analysis using health event
or study population data (Samet, 2010d, p. 2). CASAC also commented
that the approach presented in the second draft Policy Assessment to
identify alternative 24-hour standard levels which focused on peak-to-
mean ratios was not relevant for informing the actual level (Samet
2010d, p. 4). Further, they expressed the concern that the combinations
of annual and 24-hour standard levels discussed in the second draft
Policy Assessment (i.e., in the range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ for the
annual standard, in conjunction with retaining the current 24-hour
PM2.5 standard level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\; alternatively,
revising the level of the 24-hour standard to 30 [mu]g/m\3\ in
conjunction with an annual standard level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\) ``may not
be adequately inclusive'' and ``[i]t was not clear why, for example a
daily standard of 30 [mu]g/m\3\ should only be considered in
combination with an annual level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\'' (Samet, 2010d, p.
ii). CASAC encouraged the EPA to more clearly explain its rationale for
identifying the 24-hour/annual combinations that are appropriate for
consideration (Samet 2010d, p. ii).
In considering CASAC's advice as well as public comment on the
second draft Policy Assessment, the EPA staff conducted additional
analyses and modified their conclusions regarding alternative standard
levels that were appropriate to consider. The staff conclusions in the
final Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.3.4.4) differed
somewhat from the alternative standard levels discussed in the second
draft Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010f, section 2.3.4.3), upon which
CASAC based its advice. Changes made in the final Policy Assessment
were primarily focused on improving and clarifying the approach for
translating the epidemiological evidence into a basis for staff
conclusions on the broadest range of alternative standard levels
supported by the available scientific information and more clearly
articulating the rationale for the staff's conclusions (Wegman, 2011,
pp. 1 to 2). Consistent with CASAC's advice to consider more
information from epidemiological studies, as discussed in section
III.E.4.b.1 above, the EPA analyzed additional population-level data
obtained from several study authors (Rajan et al., 2011). In
transmitting the final Policy Assessment to CASAC, the Agency notified
CASAC that the final staff conclusions reflected consideration of
CASAC's advice and that those staff conclusions were based, in part, on
the specific distributional analysis that CASAC had urged the EPA to
conduct (Wegman, 2011, p.2). Thus, CASAC had an opportunity to comment
on the final Policy Assessment, but chose not to provide any additional
comments or advice after receiving it.
iii. Administrator's Proposed Decisions on the Primary PM2.5
Standard Levels
In reaching her conclusions regarding appropriate alternative
standard levels to consider, the Administrator considered the
epidemiological and other scientific evidence, estimates of risk
reductions associated with just meeting alternative annual and/or 24-
hour standards, air quality analyses, related limitations and
uncertainties, staff conclusions as presented in the Policy Assessment,
and the advice of CASAC. As an initial matter, the Administrator agreed
with the general approach discussed in the Policy Assessment as
summarized in sections III.A.3 and III.E.4.a above, and supported by
CASAC, of considering the protection afforded by the annual and 24-hour
standards taken together for mortality and morbidity effects associated
with both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 (77 FR
38939). Furthermore, based on the evidence and quantitative risk
assessment, the Administrator provisionally concluded it is appropriate
to set a ``generally controlling'' annual standard that will lower a
wide range of ambient 24-hour concentrations, with a 24-hour standard
focused on providing supplemental protection, particularly for areas
with high peak-to-mean ratios possibly associated with strong local or
seasonal sources, or PM2.5-related effects that may be
associated with shorter-than daily exposure periods. The Administrator
provisionally concluded this approach would likely reduce aggregate
risks associated with both long- and short-term exposures more
consistently than a generally controlling 24-hour standard and would be
the most effective and efficient way to reduce total PM2.5-
related population risk. Id.
In reaching decisions on alternative standard levels to propose,
the Administrator judged that it was most appropriate to examine where
the evidence of associations observed in the epidemiological studies
was strongest and, conversely, where she had appreciably less
confidence in the associations observed in the epidemiological studies.
Based on the characterization and assessment of the epidemiological and
other studies presented and assessed in the Integrated Science
Assessment and the Policy Assessment, the Administrator recognized the
substantial increase in the number and diversity of studies available
in this review including extended analyses of the seminal studies of
long-term PM2.5 exposures (i.e., ACS and Harvard Six Cities
studies) as well as important new long-term exposure studies (as
summarized in Figures 1 and 2). Collectively, the Administrator noted
that these studies, along with evidence available in the last review,
provided consistent and stronger evidence of an association with
premature mortality, with the strongest evidence related to
cardiovascular-related mortality, at lower ambient concentrations than
previously observed. The Administrator also recognized the availability
of stronger evidence of morbidity effects associated with long-term
PM2.5 exposures, including evidence of cardiovascular
effects from the WHI study and respiratory effects, including decreased
lung function growth, from the extended analyses for the Southern
California Children's Health Study. Furthermore, the Administrator
recognized new U.S. multi-city studies that greatly expanded and
reinforced our understanding of mortality and morbidity effects
associated with short-term PM2.5 exposures, providing
stronger evidence of associations at ambient concentrations similar to
those previously observed (as summarized in Figure 3). Id. at 38939-40.
The newly available scientific evidence built upon the previous
scientific data base to provide evidence of generally robust
associations and to provide a basis for greater confidence in the
reported associations than in the last review. The Administrator
recognized that the weight of evidence, as evaluated in the Integrated
Science Assessment, was strongest for health endpoints classified as
having evidence of a causal relationship. These relationships included
those between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and
mortality and cardiovascular effects. She recognized that the weight of
evidence was also
[[Page 3140]]
strong for health endpoints classified as having evidence of a likely
causal relationship, which included those between long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects. In addition, the
Administrator made note of the much more limited evidence for health
endpoints classified as having evidence suggestive of a causal
relationship, including developmental, reproductive and carcinogenic
effects. Id. at 38940.
Based on information discussed and presented in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the Administrator recognized that health effects
may occur over the full range of concentrations observed in the long-
and short-term epidemiological studies and that no discernible
threshold for any effects can be identified based on the currently
available evidence (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.3). She also
recognized, in taking note of CASAC advice and the distributional
statistics analysis discussed in section III.E.4.b.i above and in the
Policy Assessment, that there was significantly greater confidence in
observed associations over certain parts of the air quality
distributions in the studies, and conversely, that there was
significantly diminished confidence in ascribing effects to
concentrations toward the lower part of the distributions.
Consistent with the general approach summarized in section III.A.3
above, and supported by CASAC as discussed in section III.E.4.a above,
the Administrator generally agreed that it was appropriate to consider
a level for an annual standard that was somewhat below the long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations reported in long- and short-term
exposure studies. In recognizing that the evidence of an association in
any such study was strongest at and around the long-term average where
the data in the study are most concentrated, she understood that this
approach did not provide a bright line for reaching decisions about
appropriate standard levels. The Administrator noted that long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations were available for each study
considered and, therefore, represented the most robust data set to
inform her decisions on appropriate annual standard levels. She also
noted that the overall study mean PM2.5 concentrations were
generally calculated based on monitored concentrations averaged across
monitors in each study area with multiple monitors, referred to as a
composite monitor concentration, in contrast to the highest
concentration monitored in each study area, referred to as a maximum
monitor concentration, which are used to determine whether an area
meets a given standard. In considering such long-term mean
concentrations, the Administrator understood that it was appropriate to
consider the weight of evidence for the health endpoints evaluated in
such studies in giving weight to this information. Id.
Based on the information summarized in Figure 4 above and presented
in more detail in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, chapter 2)
for effects classified in the Integrated Science Assessment as having a
causal or likely causal relationship with PM2.5 exposures,
the Administrator observed an overall pattern of statistically
significant associations reported in studies of long-term
PM2.5 exposures with long-term mean concentrations ranging
from somewhat above the current standard level of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ down to
the lowest mean concentration in such studies of 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\ (in
Miller et al., 2007).\83\ She observed a similar pattern of
statistically significant associations in studies of short-term
PM2.5 exposures with long-term mean concentrations ranging
from around 15 [mu]g/m\3\ down to 12.8 [mu]g/m\3\ (in Burnett et al.,
2004). With regard to effects classified as providing evidence
suggestive of a causal relationship, the Administrator observed a small
number of long-term exposure studies related to developmental and
reproductive effects that reported statistically significant
associations with overall study mean PM2.5 concentrations
down to 11.9 [mu]g/m\3\ (in Bell et al., 2007).\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The EPA notes that the Miller et al., (2007) study provides
strong evidence of cardiovascular related effects associated with
long-term PM2.5 exposures. At the time of the proposal,
the EPA recognized the limited nature of the air quality data
considered in this study (77 FR 38918, fn. 62). The EPA has reviewed
those limitations, in conjunction with consideration of public
comments received on the proposal as discussed in section III.E.4.c,
in conjunction with reaching a final decision on the level of the
annual standard.
\84\ With respect to suggestive evidence related to cancer,
mutagenic, and genotoxic effects, the PM2.5
concentrations reported in studies generally included ambient
concentrations that are equal to or greater than ambient
concentrations observed in studies that reported mortality and
cardiovascular and respiratory effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
7.5), such that in selecting alternative standard levels that
provide protection from mortality and cardiovascular and respiratory
effects, it is reasonable to anticipate that protection will also be
provided for carcinogenic effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator also considered additional information from
epidemiological studies, consistent with CASAC advice, to take into
account the broader distribution of PM2.5 concentrations and
the degree of confidence in the observed associations over the broader
air quality distribution. In considering this additional information,
she understood that the Policy Assessment presented information on the
25th and 10th percentiles of the distributions of PM2.5
concentrations available from four multi-city studies to provide a
general frame of reference as to the part of the distribution in which
the data become appreciably more sparse and, thus, where her confidence
in the associations observed in epidemiological studies would become
appreciably less.
As summarized in Figure 4 above, the Administrator took note of
additional population-level data that were available for four studies
(Krewski et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2008;
Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009), each of which reported statistically
significant associations with health endpoints classified as having
evidence of a causal relationship. In considering the long-term
PM2.5 concentrations associated with the 25th percentile
values of the population-level data for these four studies, she
observed that these values ranged from somewhat above to somewhat below
12 [mu]g/m\3\. The Administrator recognized that these studies include
some of the strongest evidence available within the overall body of
scientific evidence and noted that three of these studies (Krewski et
al., 2009; Bell et al., 2008; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009) were used
as the basis for concentration-response functions used in the
quantitative risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.3.3).
In considering this information, the Administrator noted that CASAC
advised that information about the long-term PM2.5
concentrations that were most influential in generating the health
effect estimates in epidemiological studies can help to inform
selection of an appropriate annual standard level. However, the
Administrator also recognized that additional population-level data
were available for only these four studies and, therefore, she believed
that these studies comprised a more limited data set than one based on
long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations for which data were
available for all studies considered, as discussed above.
The Administrator recognized, as summarized in section III.B above,
that important uncertainties remain in the evidence and information
considered in this review of the primary fine particle standards. These
uncertainties are generally related to understanding the relative
toxicity of the different components in the fine particle mixture, the
role of PM2.5 in the complex ambient mixture, exposure
measurement errors inherent in epidemiological studies based on
concentrations measured at
[[Page 3141]]
fixed monitor sites, and the nature, magnitude, and confidence in
estimated risks related to increasingly lower ambient PM2.5
concentrations. Furthermore, the Administrator noted that
epidemiological studies have reported heterogeneity in responses both
within and between cities and geographic regions across the U.S. She
recognized that this heterogeneity may be attributed, in part, to
differences in fine particle composition in different regions and
cities. The Administrator also recognized that there are additional
limitations associated with evidence for reproductive and developmental
effects, identified as being suggestive of a causal relationship with
long-term PM2.5 exposures, including: the limited number of
studies evaluating such effects; uncertainties related to identifying
the relevant exposure time periods of concern; and limited
toxicological evidence providing little information on the mode of
action(s) or biological plausibility for an association between long-
term PM2.5 exposures and adverse birth outcomes. Id. at
38941.
The Administrator was mindful that considering what standards were
requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety
required public health policy judgments that neither overstated nor
understated the strength and limitations of the evidence or the
appropriate inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In considering
how to translate the available information into appropriate standard
levels, the Administrator weighed the available scientific information
and associated uncertainties and limitations. For the purpose of
determining what standard levels were appropriate to propose, the
Administrator recognized, as did EPA staff in the Policy Assessment,
that there was no single factor or criterion that comprised the sole
``correct'' approach to weighing the various types of available
evidence and information, but rather there were various approaches that
are appropriate to consider. The Administrator further recognized that
different evaluations of the evidence and other information before the
Administrator could reflect placing different weight on the relative
strengths and limitations of the scientific information, and different
judgments could be made as to how such information should appropriately
be used in making public health policy decisions on standard levels.
This recognition led the Administrator to consider various approaches
to weighing the evidence so as to identify appropriate standard levels
to propose. In so doing, the Administrator encouraged extensive public
comment on alternative approaches to weighing the evidence and other
information so as to inform her public health policy judgments before
reaching final decisions on appropriate standard levels.
In considering the available information, the Administrator noted
the advice of CASAC that the currently available scientific
information, including epidemiological and toxicological evidence as
well as risk and air quality information, provided support for
considering an annual standard level within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/
m\3\ and a 24-hour standard level within a range of 35 to 30 [mu]g/
m\3\. In addition, the Administrator recognized that the Policy
Assessment concluded that the available evidence and risk-based
information support consideration of annual standard levels in the
range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\, and that the Policy Assessment also
concluded that the evidence most strongly supported consideration of an
annual standard level in the range of 12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\. In
considering how the annual and 24-hour standards work together to
provide appropriate public health protection, the Administrator
observed that CASAC did not express support for any specific levels or
combinations of standards within these ranges. Nor did CASAC choose to
comment on additional information and analyses presented in the final
Policy Assessment prepared in response to CASAC's recommendations on
the second draft Policy Assessment (Wegman, 2011).
In considering the extent to which the currently available evidence
and information provided support for specific standard levels within
the ranges identified by CASAC and the Policy Assessment as appropriate
for consideration, the Administrator initially considered standard
levels within the range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual standard.
In so doing, the Administrator first considered the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in studies of effects
classified as having evidence of a causal or likely causal
relationship, as summarized in Figure 4 above and discussed more
broadly above. She noted that a level at the upper end of this range
would be below most but not all the overall study mean concentrations
from the multi-city studies of long- and short-term exposures, whereas
somewhat lower levels within this range would be below all such overall
study mean concentrations. In considering the appropriate weight to
place on this information, the Administrator again noted that the
evidence of an association in any such study was strongest at and
around the long-term average where the data in the study are most
concentrated, and that long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
were available for each study considered and, therefore, represented
the most robust data set to inform her decisions on appropriate annual
standard levels. Further, she was mindful that this approach did not
provide a bright line for reaching decisions about appropriate standard
levels. Id.
In considering the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
reported in studies of effects classified as having evidence suggestive
of a causal relationship, as summarized in Figure 4 for reproductive
and developmental effects, the Administrator noted that a level at the
upper end of this range would be below the overall study mean
concentration in one of the three studies, while levels in the mid- to
lower part of this range would be below the overall study mean
concentrations in two or three of these studies. In considering the
appropriate weight to place on this information, the Administrator
noted the very limited nature of this evidence of such effects and the
additional uncertainties in these epidemiological studies relative to
the studies that provide evidence of causal or likely causal
relationships.
The Administrator also considered the distributional analyses of
population-level information that were available from four of the
epidemiological studies that provide evidence of effects identified as
having a causal relationship with long- or short-term PM2.5
concentrations for annual standard levels within the same range of 13
to 11 [mu]g/m\3\. In so doing, the Administrator first noted that a
level in the mid-part of this range generally corresponds with
approximately the 25th percentile of the distributions of health events
data available in three of these studies. The Administrator also noted
that standard levels toward the upper part of this range would reflect
placing substantially less weight on this information, whereas standard
levels toward the lower part of this range would reflect placing
substantially more weight on this information. In considering this
information, the Administrator noted that there was no bright line that
delineates the part of the distribution of PM2.5
concentrations within which the data become appreciably more sparse
and, thus, where her confidence in the associations observed in
epidemiological studies became appreciably less.
In considering mean PM2.5 concentrations and
distributional
[[Page 3142]]
analyses from the various sets of epidemiological studies noted above,
the Administrator was mindful, as noted above, that such studies
typically report concentrations based on composite monitor
distributions, in which concentrations may be averaged across multiple
ambient monitors that may be present within each area included in a
given study. Thus, a policy approach that used data based on composite
monitors to identify potential alternative standard levels would
inherently build in a margin of safety of some degree relative to an
alternative standard level based on measurements at the monitor within
an area that records the highest concentration, or the maximum monitor,
since once a standard was set, concentrations at appropriate maximum
monitors within an area were generally used to determine whether an
area meets a given standard.
The Administrator also recognized that judgments about the
appropriate weight to place on any of the factors discussed above
should reflect consideration not only of the relative strength of the
evidence but also on the important uncertainties that remained in the
evidence and information being considered in this review. The
Administrator noted that the extent to which these uncertainties
influenced judgments about appropriate annual standard levels within
the range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ would likely be greater for standard
levels in the lower part of this range which would necessarily be based
on fewer available studies than would higher levels within this range.
Based on the above considerations, the Administrator concluded that
it was appropriate to propose to set a level for the primary annual
PM2.5 standard within the range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\. The
Administrator provisionally concluded that a standard set within this
range would reflect alternative approaches to appropriately placing the
most weight on the strongest available evidence, while placing less
weight on much more limited evidence and on more uncertain analyses of
information available from a relatively small number of studies.
Further, she provisionally concluded that a standard level within this
range would reflect alternative approaches to appropriately providing
an adequate margin of safety for the populations at risk for the
serious health effects classified as having evidence of a causal or
likely causal relationship, depending in part on the emphasis placed on
margin of safety considerations. The Administrator recognized that
setting an annual standard level at the lower end of this range would
reflect an approach that placed more emphasis on the entire body of the
evidence, including the analysis of the distribution of air quality
concentrations most influential in generating health effect estimates
in the studies, and on margin of safety considerations, than would
setting a level at the upper end of the range. Conversely, an approach
that would support a level at the upper end of this range would
generally support a view that the uncertainties remaining in the
evidence are such that the evidence does not warrant setting a lower
annual standard level. Id. at 38942.
At the time of the proposal, while the Administrator recognized
that CASAC advised, and the Policy Assessment concluded, that the
available scientific information provided support for considering a
range that extended down to 11 [mu]g/m\3\, she concluded that proposing
such an extended range would reflect a public health policy approach
that placed more weight on relatively limited evidence and more
uncertain information and analyses than she considered appropriate at
this time. Nonetheless, the Administrator solicited comment on a level
down to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ as well as on approaches for translating
scientific evidence and rationales that would support such a level.
Such an approach might reflect a view that the uncertainties associated
with the available scientific information warrant a highly
precautionary public health policy response that would incorporate a
large margin of safety.
The Administrator recognized that potential air quality changes
associated with meeting an annual standard set at a level within the
range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\ will result in lowering risks associated
with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures. However, the
Administrator recognized that such an annual standard intended to serve
as the primary means for providing protection from effects associated
with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures would not by
itself be expected to offer requisite protection with an adequate
margin of safety against the effects of all short-term PM2.5
exposures. As a result, in conjunction with proposing an annual
standard level in the range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\, the Administrator
provisionally concluded that it was appropriate to continue to provide
supplemental protection by means of a 24-hour standard set at the
appropriate level, particularly for areas with high peak-to-mean ratios
possibly associated with strong local or seasonal sources, or for
PM2.5-related effects that may be associated with shorter-
than-daily exposure periods.
Based on the approach discussed in section III.A.3 above, at the
time of the proposal the Administrator relied upon evidence from the
short-term exposure studies as the principal basis for selecting the
level of the 24-hour standard. In considering these studies as a basis
for the level of a 24-hour standard, and having selected a 98th
percentile form for the standard, the Administrator agreed with the
focus in the Policy Assessment of looking at the 98th percentile
values, as well as at the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations in these studies.
In considering the information provided by the short-term exposure
studies, the Administrator recognized that to the extent these studies
were conducted in areas that likely did not meet one or both of the
current standards, such studies did not help inform the
characterization of the potential public health improvements of
alternative standards set at lower levels. By reducing the
PM2.5 concentrations in such areas to just meet the current
standards, the Administrator anticipated that additional public health
protection would occur. Therefore, the Administrator focused on studies
that reported positive and statistically significant associations in
areas that would likely have met both the current 24-hour and annual
standards. She also considered whether or not these studies were
conducted in areas that would likely have met an annual standard level
of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\ to inform her decision regarding an appropriate
24-hour standard level. As discussed in section III.E.4.a, consistent
with the Policy Assessment, the Administrator concluded that multi-
city, short-term exposure studies provided the strongest data set for
informing her decisions on appropriate 24-hour standard levels. The
Administrator viewed the single-city, short-term exposure studies as a
much more limited data set providing mixed results and, therefore, she
had less confidence in using those studies as a basis for setting the
level of a 24-hour standard. With regard to the limited number of
single-city studies that reported positive and statistically
significant associations for a range of health endpoints related to
short-term PM2.5 concentrations in areas that would likely
have met the current suite of PM2.5 standards, the
Administrator recognized that many of those studies had significant
limitations (e.g., limited statistical power, limited exposure data) or
equivocal results (mixed results within the same study area) that made
them unsuitable to form the basis for setting the level of a 24-hour
standard.
[[Page 3143]]
With regard to multi-city studies that evaluated effects associated
with short-term PM2.5 exposures, the Administrator observed
an overall pattern of positive and statistically significant
associations in studies with 98th percentile values averaged across
study areas in the range of 45.8 to 34.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (Burnett et al.,
2004; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Bell et al., 2008; Dominici et al.,
2006a, Burnett and Goldberg, 2003; Franklin et al., 2008). The
Administrator noted that, to the extent air quality distributions were
reduced to reflect just meeting the current 24-hour standard,
additional protection would be anticipated for the effects observed in
the three multi-city studies with 98th percentile values greater than
35 [mu]g/m\3\ (Burnett et al., 2004; Burnett and Goldberg, 2003;
Franklin et al., 2008). In the three additional studies with 98th
percentile values below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, specifically 98th percentile
concentrations of 34.2, 34.3, and 34.8 [mu]g/m\3\, the Administrator
noted that these studies reported long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations of 12.9, 13.2, and 13.4 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively (Bell
et al., 2008; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Dominici et al., 2006a).
In proposing to revise the level of the annual standard to within
the range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\, as discussed above, the Administrator
recognized that additional protection would be provided for the short-
term effects observed in these multi-city studies in conjunction with
an annual standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\, and in two of these three
studies in conjunction with an annual standard level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\.
She noted that the study-wide mean concentrations were based on
averaging across monitors within study areas and that compliance with
the standard would be based on concentrations measured at the monitor
reporting the highest concentration within each area. The Administrator
believed it would be reasonable to conclude that revision to the 24-
hour standard would not be appropriate in conjunction with an annual
standard within this range. Based on the above considerations related
to the epidemiological evidence, the Administrator provisionally
concluded that it was appropriate to retain the level of the 24-hour
standard at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, in conjunction with a revised annual
standard level in the proposed range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\.
In addition to considering the epidemiological evidence, the
Administrator also took into account air quality information based on
county-level 24-hour and annual design values to understand the public
health implications of retaining the 24-hour standard level at 35
[mu]g/m\3\ in conjunction with an annual standard level within the
proposed range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\. She considered whether these
suites of standards would meet a public health policy goal which
included setting the annual standard to be the ``generally
controlling'' standard in conjunction with setting the 24-hour standard
to provide supplemental protection to the extent that additional
protection is warranted. As discussed above, the Administrator
provisionally concluded that this approach was the most effective and
efficient way to reduce total population risk associated with both
long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures, resulting in more
uniform protection across the U.S. than the alternative of setting the
24-hour standard to be the controlling standard.
In considering the air quality information, the Administrator first
recognized that there was no annual standard within the proposed range
of levels, when combined with a 24-hour standard at the proposed level
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, for which the annual standard would be the generally
controlling standard in all areas of the country. She further observed
that such a suite of PM2.5 standards with an annual standard
level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ would result in the annual standard as the
generally controlling standard in most regions across the country,
except for certain areas in the Northwest, where the annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations have historically been low but where
relatively high 24-hour concentrations occur, often related to seasonal
wood smoke emissions (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-89 to 2-91, Figure 2-10).
Although not explicitly delineated on Figure 2-10 in the Policy
Assessment, an annual standard of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ would be somewhat less
likely to be the generally controlling standard in some regions of the
U.S. outside the Northwest in conjunction with a 24-hour standard level
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
Taking the above considerations into account, the Administrator
proposed to revise the level of the primary annual PM2.5
standard from 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ to within the range of 12.0 to 13.0
[mu]g/m\3\ and to retain the 24-hour standard level at 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
In the Administrator's judgment, such a suite of primary
PM2.5 standards and the rationale supporting such levels
could reasonably be judged to reflect alternative approaches to the
appropriate consideration of the strength of the available evidence and
other information and their associated uncertainties and the advice of
CASAC.
The Administrator recognized that the final suite of standards
selected from within the proposed range of annual standard levels, or
the broader range of annual standard levels on which public comment was
solicited, must be clearly responsive to the issues raised by the DC
Circuit's remand of the 2006 primary annual PM2.5 standard.
Furthermore, at the time of the proposal, she recognized that the final
suite of standards will reflect her ultimate judgment in the final
rulemaking as to the suite of primary PM2.5 standards that
would be requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin
of safety from effects associated with fine particle exposures. The
final judgment to be made by the Administrator will appropriately
consider the requirement for a standard that is neither more nor less
stringent than necessary and will recognize that the CAA does not
require that primary standards be set at a zero-risk level, but rather
at a level that reduces risk sufficiently so as to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety.
At the time of the proposal, having reached her provisional
judgment to propose revising the annual standard level from 15.0 to
within a range of 12.0 to 13.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and to propose retaining the
24-hour standard level at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, the Administrator solicited
public comment on this range of levels and on approaches to considering
the available evidence and information that would support the choice of
levels within this range. The Administrator also solicited public
comment on alternative annual standard levels down to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ and
on the combination of annual and 24-hour standards that commenters may
believe is appropriate, along with the approaches and rationales used
to support such levels. In addition, given the importance the evidence
from epidemiologic studies played in considering the appropriate annual
and 24-hour levels, the Administrator solicited public comment on
issues related to translating epidemiological evidence into standards,
including approaches for addressing the uncertainties and limitations
associated with this evidence.
c. Comments on Standard Levels
This section addresses comments that relate to consideration of the
appropriate levels of the primary annual and 24-hour PM2.5
standards, including comments on the general approach used by the EPA
to translate the available scientific information into standard levels
and how specific PM2.5 exposure studies should be considered
as a basis for the standard levels. These comments on standard levels
expand upon the more general comments that either supported or opposed
any change to the current suite of primary PM2.5
[[Page 3144]]
standards, which are addressed above in section III.D.2.\85\ As
explained there, one group of commenters generally opposed any change
to the current primary PM2.5 standards and more specifically
disagreed with the basis for the EPA's proposal to revise the annual
standard level. Another group of commenters supported revising the
current suite of primary PM2.5 standards to provide
increased public health protection. Some commenters in this second
group argued that both the annual and 24-hour standard levels should be
lowered while other commenters in this group agreed with the EPA's
proposal to retain the level of the 24-hour standard in conjunction
with revising the level of the annual standard. While generally
supporting the EPA's proposal to lower the level of the annual
standard, many commenters in this group disagreed that a level within
the EPA's proposed range was adequately protective and supported a
level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ or below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Specific comments on the forms of the annual and 24-hour
standards are addressed in section III.E.3.a and III.E.3.b,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Annual Standard Level
The group of commenters opposed to any change to the current suite
of primary PM2.5 standards generally raised questions
regarding the underlying scientific evidence, including the causal
determinations reached in the Integrated Science Assessment, and
focused strongly on the uncertainties they saw in the scientific
evidence as a basis for their conclusion that no changes to the current
standard levels were warranted. In commenting on the proposed standard
levels, these commenters typically relied on the arguments summarized
and addressed above in section III.D.2 as to why they believed it was
inappropriate for the EPA to make any revisions to the suite of primary
PM2.5 standards. That is, they asserted that the EPA's
causal determinations were not adequately supported by the underlying
scientific information; the biological plausibility of health effects
observed in epidemiological studies has not been demonstrated in
controlled human exposure and toxicological studies; uncertainties in
the underlying health science are as great or greater than in 2006;
there is no evidence of greater risk since the last review to justify
tightening the current annual PM2.5 standard; and ``new''
studies not included in the Integrated Science Assessment continue to
increase uncertainty about possible health risks associated with
exposure to PM2.5.
With regard to the level of the annual standard, these commenters
strongly disagreed with the Agency's proposed decision to revise the
level to within a range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\ and argued that the
current standard level of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ should be retained. For
example, UARG, API, and other commenters in this group raised a number
of issues that they asserted called into question the EPA's
interpretation of the epidemiological evidence to support revising the
annual standard level. These commenters raised specific questions
related to the general approach used by the EPA to translate the air
quality and other information from specific epidemiological studies
into standard levels, including: (1) The EPA's approach for using
composite monitor air quality distributions reported in epidemiological
studies to select a standard level that would be compared to
measurements at the monitor recording the highest value in an area to
determine compliance with the standard; (2) the appropriate exposure
period for effects observed in long-term exposure mortality studies;
and (3) the use of the EPA's analysis of distributions of underlying
population-level data (i.e., health event and study population data)
for those epidemiological studies for which such information was
available. These commenters also raised questions regarding the EPA's
consideration of specific scientific evidence as a basis for setting a
standard level, including: (4) evidence of respiratory morbidity
effects in long-term exposure studies and (5) more limited evidence of
health effects which have been categorized in the Integrated Science
Assessment as suggestive of a causal relationship (i.e., developmental
and reproductive outcomes). These comments are discussed in turn below.
(1) Some commenters in this group argued that one reason why they
believe there is no basis for setting a standard level below 15 [mu]g/
m\3\ is that the air quality metric from epidemiological studies that
the EPA relied on in the proposal is not the same metric that will be
compared to the level of the standard to determine compliance with the
standard. That is, commenters noted that the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations that the EPA considered, shown in
Figure 4 above, are composite monitor mean concentrations (i.e.,
concentrations averaged across multiple monitors within areas with more
than one monitor), whereas the PM2.5 concentrations that
will be compared to the level of the standard are maximum monitor
concentrations (i.e., the concentration measured by the monitor within
an area reporting the highest concentration). This comment was
presented most specifically in UARG's comments (UARG, 2012, Attachment
1, pp. 2 to 6), which raised two overarching issues as discussed below.
First, the commenter noted that the EPA's approach of considering
composite monitor mean PM2.5 concentrations in selecting a
standard level, and then comparing the maximum monitor mean
PM2.5 concentration in each area to the standard level when
the standard is implemented, was characterized in the proposal as
inherently having the potential to build in a margin of safety (UARG,
2012, Attachment 1, p. 4, citing 77 FR 38905). The commenter asserted
that the Administrator is ignoring this distinction between composite
and maximum monitor concentrations, and that this approach creates an
unwarranted case for lowering the standard level, since in the
commenter's view, it would result in a margin of safety that would be
arbitrary, not based on evidence, and unquantified (UARG, 2012,
Attachment 1, p. 4). In support of this view, the commenter asserted
that there is a significant difference between composite monitor mean
PM2.5 concentrations and maximum monitor mean
PM2.5 concentrations. The commenter asserted that the
maximum monitor value will always be higher than the composite monitor
value (except in areas that contain only a single monitor), such that
when an area just attains the NAAQS, that area's composite monitor
long-term mean PM2.5 concentration will be lower than the
level of the standard (UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 3).
Second, the commenter asserted that a more ``reasoned and
consistent approach would be to decide on a mean composite monitor
PM2.5 level that should be achieved and then identify the
maximum monitor level that would result in that composite value''
(UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 4). The commenter conducted an analysis
of maximum monitor versus composite monitor annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations using monitoring data \86\ from 2006 to
2008 and presented results averaged across areas within two groups
(i.e., those with design values \87\ above the current standard level
and those with design values just below the
[[Page 3145]]
current standard level) to illustrate their suggested alternative
approach. The commenter interpreted this analysis as showing that the
composite monitor long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations from
the subset of the epidemiological studies shown in Figure 4 (of the
proposal and above) that the commenter considered to be an appropriate
focus for this analysis would be achieved across the U.S. if the
current annual NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ is retained and attained. The
commenter considered the subset of epidemiological studies that
included only long-term exposures studies of effects for which the
evidence is categorized as causal or likely causal, but did not
consider short-term exposure studies. On this basis, the commenter
asserted that attaining the current annual PM2.5 standard
would result in composite monitor long-term mean concentrations in all
areas that would be generally within or below the range of the
composite monitor long-term mean concentrations from such studies and,
as a result, there is no reason to lower the level of the current
annual NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ The commenter indicated that this analysis was based on
monitoring data for every core based statistical area (CBSA) in the
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
\87\ The design value is the air quality statistic that is
compared to the level of the NAAQS to determine the attainment
status of a given area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the first issue related to the EPA's approach, the
EPA notes that in proposing to revise both the form and level of the
annual standard, the Administrator clearly took into account the
distinction between the composite monitor long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations from the epidemiological studies,
considered as a basis for selecting an annual standard level, and
maximum monitor long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations. In
deciding to focus on the composite monitor long-term mean
concentrations in selecting the standard level, and on the maximum
monitor concentrations in selecting the form of the standard (i.e.,
consistent with proposing to eliminate the option for spatial averaging
across monitors within an area when implementing the standard \88\),
the Administrator reasonably considered the distinction between these
metrics in a manner that was consistent with advice from CASAC (Samet
et al., 2010d, pp. 2 to 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ As discussed above in section III.E.3.a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above in section III.A.3, the EPA recognizes that a
statistical metric (e.g., the mean of a distribution) based on maximum
monitor concentrations may be identical to or above the same
statistical metric based on composite monitor concentrations. More
specifically, many areas have only one monitor, in which case the
composite and maximum monitor concentrations are identical. Based on
the most recent data from the EPA's AQS from 2009 to 2011 in the 331
CBSAs in which valid PM2.5 data are available, as discussed
in Frank (2012a, Table 5), there were 208 such areas (with design
values ranging up to about 15 [mu]g/m\3\). Frank (2012a) also observed
that other areas have multiple monitors with composite and maximum
monitor mean PM2.5 concentrations that were the same or
relatively close, with 57 areas in which the maximum monitor mean
concentration was no more than 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than the composite
monitor mean concentration and 56 areas in which the difference was
between 0.6 and 2 [mu]g/m\3\. Further, there were only a few other
areas in which the maximum monitor mean concentration was appreciably
higher than the composite monitor mean concentration, such as areas in
which some monitors may be separately impacted by local sources. There
were only 10 such areas in the country in which the maximum monitor
mean concentration was between 2 to 6 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than the
composite monitor concentration (Frank, 2012a, Table 4).\89\ Thus, the
EPA does not agree that there is a significant difference between
composite monitor mean PM2.5 concentrations and maximum
monitor mean PM2.5 concentrations in the large majority of
areas across the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ The average difference between the maximum and composite
design value among the 123 CBSAs with two or more monitors is 0.8
[mu]g/m\3\ and the median difference is 0.6 [mu]g/m\3\. The 25th and
75th percentiles are 0.3 and 1.0 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively (Frank,
2012a, p. 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposing to revise the form of the annual PM2.5
standard, as discussed above in section III.E.3.a, the EPA noted that
when an annual PM2.5 standard was first set in 1997, the
form of the standard included the option for averaging across
measurements at appropriate monitoring sites within an area, generally
consistent with the composite monitor approach used in epidemiological
studies, with some constraints intended to ensure that spatial
averaging would not result in inequities in the level of protection for
communities within large metropolitan areas. In the last review the EPA
tightened the constraints on spatial averaging, and in this review has
eliminated the option altogether, on the basis of analyses in each
review that showed that such constraints may be inadequate to avoid
substantially greater exposures for people living in locations around
the monitors recording the highest PM2.5 concentrations in
some areas, potentially resulting in disproportionate impacts on at-
risk populations of persons with lower SES levels as well as
minorities. In light of these analyses, and consistent with the
Administrator's decision to revise the form of the annual
PM2.5 standard by eliminating the option for spatial
averaging, the EPA continues to conclude that a standard level based on
consideration of long-term mean concentrations from composite monitors,
and applied at each monitor within an area including the monitor
measuring the highest concentration, is the appropriate approach to use
in setting a standard that will protect public health, including the
health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety, as
required by the CAA.
The EPA acknowledges that at proposal, the Agency characterized the
approach of using maximum monitor concentrations to determine
compliance with the standard, while selecting the standard level based
on consideration of composite monitor concentrations, as one that
inherently had the potential to build in a margin of safety (77 FR
38905), and CASAC reiterated that view in supporting the EPA's approach
(Samet, 2010d, p. 3). Nonetheless, in light of the discussion above,
the EPA more specifically recognizes that this approach does not build
in any margin of safety in the large number of areas across the country
with only one monitor. Further, based on the analyses done to inform
consideration of the form of the standard (Schmidt, 2011, Analysis A),
the EPA concludes that this approach does not provide a margin of
safety for the at-risk populations that live around the monitor
measuring the highest concentration, such as in those few areas in
which the maximum monitor concentration is appreciably higher than the
composite monitor concentration. Rather, this approach properly treats
those at-risk populations the same way it does the broader populations
that live in areas with only one monitor, by providing the same degree
of protection for those at-risk populations that would otherwise be
disproportionately impacted as it does for the broader populations in
other areas, While the EPA recognizes that this approach can result in
some additional margin of safety for the subset of areas with multiple
monitors in which at-risk populations may not be disproportionately
represented in areas around the maximum monitor, which may be the case
in areas with relatively small differences between the maximum and
composite monitor concentrations, the EPA notes that this margin would
be relatively small in such areas.
Based on the above considerations, the EPA does not agree that the
Agency's approach of using maximum monitor concentrations to determine
compliance with the standard, while
[[Page 3146]]
selecting the standard level based on consideration of composite
monitor concentrations creates an unwarranted case for lowering the
standard level based on a margin of safety that would be arbitrary, not
based on evidence, or lack quantification. The EPA recognizes that
setting a standard to protect public health, including the health of
at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety, depends upon
selecting a standard level sufficiently below where the EPA has found
the strongest evidence of health effects so as to provide such
protection, and that the EPA's approach regarding consideration of
composite and maximum monitor concentrations is intended to, and does,
serve to address this requirement as part of and not separate from the
selection of an appropriate standard level based on the health effects
evidence.
In considering the second issue related to the commenter's
suggested alternative approach, the EPA strongly disagrees with the
commenter's view that a more ``reasoned and consistent approach would
be to decide on a mean composite monitor PM2.5 level that
should be achieved and then identify the maximum monitor level that
would result in that composite value'' (UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p.
4). As discussed above, the EPA notes that for areas with only one
monitor, or with multiple monitors that measure concentrations that are
very close in magnitude, the maximum monitor level that would limit the
composite monitor PM2.5 level to be no greater than the
level that should be achieved to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety, would essentially be the same as that composite
monitor level. Further, as discussed above, even for areas in which the
maximum monitor concentration is appreciably higher than other monitor
concentrations within the same area, public health would not be
protected with an adequate margin of safety if the disproportionately
higher exposures of at-risk, susceptible populations around the monitor
measuring the highest concentration were in essence averaged away with
measurements from monitors in other locations within large urban areas.
Further, the commenter's suggested approach would be based on annual
average PM2.5 concentrations that have been measured over
some past time period. Such an approach would reflect the air quality
that existed in the past, but it would not necessarily provide
appropriate constraints on the range of concentrations that would be
allowed by such a standard in the future, when relationships between
maximum and composite monitor concentrations in areas across the
country may be different. For these reasons, the EPA fundamentally
rejects the commenter's suggested approach because in the EPA's view it
would not protect public health, including providing protection for at-
risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety in areas across the
country.
More specifically, in further considering the commenter's analysis
of design values based on maximum versus composite monitor annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations using monitoring data from 2006 to 2008
which they assert supports retaining the current standard level of 15
[mu]g/m\3\, the EPA finds flaws with the numerical results and the
scope of the analysis, as well as flaws in the commenter's translation
of the analysis results into the basis for selecting an annual standard
level.
In considering the commenter's analysis, the EPA notes that the
analysis compared maximum versus composite monitor annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, averaged over 3 years, for two groups
of areas: (1) Areas with design values that exceed the current annual
standard level (i.e., greater than 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\) and (2) areas with
design values that are just attaining the current annual standard
(i.e., between 14.5 and 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\).\90\ The commenter indicated
that they used the full body of PM2.5 monitoring data from
the EPA's AQS database (UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 4), In attempting
to reproduce the commenter's results, the EPA repeated the calculations
using only valid air quality data (i.e., data that meet data
completeness and monitor siting criteria) from the AQS database for the
same time period (Frank, 2012a).\91\ Based on this corrected analysis,
the EPA finds that the composite monitor concentrations averaged across
the areas within each group are somewhat higher than those calculated
by the commenter, and the average differences between the maximum and
composite monitor concentrations are somewhat smaller (Frank, 2012a,
Table 3).\92\ Notably, the difference between the maximum and composite
monitor average concentrations for the second group of areas is
substantially reduced in the corrected analysis, such that the
difference (averaged across the 10 areas with valid data in the second
group) is approximately 0.5 [mu]g/m\3\, not 1.2 [mu]g/m\3\ as in the
commenter's analysis. In addition, the commenter's analysis compared
the average of the composite monitors to the average of the maximum
monitors for each subset of areas. This comparison of averages across
all the areas in each subset masks the fact that the large majority of
areas across the country have only one monitor, with the composite
monitor and maximum monitor values the same for such areas, and many
other areas have a maximum monitor value that is close to the composite
monitor value. As discussed above, these circumstances have a major
impact on the protection that would be achieved by the approach
suggested by the commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ For the first group of areas (which included 33 areas),
this analysis calculated an average across the areas of maximum
monitor annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, averaged over 3
years, of 17.2 [mu]g/m\3\ compared to an average of composite
monitor concentrations of 14.3 [mu]g/m\3\. For the second group of
areas (which included 11 areas), this analysis calculated an average
across the areas of maximum monitor annual mean concentrations,
averaged over 3 years, of 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\ compared to an average of
composite monitor concentrations of 13.6 [mu]g/m\3\ (UARG, 2012,
Attachment 1, Table 1).
\91\ The EPA notes that the Frank (2012a) analysis is similar to
an earlier EPA staff analysis (Hassett-Sipple et al., 2010), which
used air quality data from EPA's AQS database to compare maximum
versus composite monitor long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations across the study areas in six selected multi-city
epidemiological studies.
\92\ The EPA's analysis was intended to repeat the commenter's
analysis, but using only valid air quality data (from 2006 to 2008).
For the first group of areas (which included 21 areas with valid
data), the EPA's analysis calculated an average across the areas of
maximum monitor annual mean concentrations, averaged of 3 years, of
16.8 [mu]g/m\3\ compared to an average of composite monitor
concentrations of 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\. For the second group of areas
(which included 10 areas with valid data), the EPA's analysis
calculated an average across the areas of maximum monitor annual
mean concentrations, averaged over 3 years, of 14.8 [mu]g/m\3\
compared to an average of composite monitor concentrations of 14.2
[mu]g/m\3\ (Frank, 2012a, Table 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the scope of the commenter's analysis, the EPA finds
that by limiting the scope to a small subset of areas with design
values above or just below the current annual standard level of 15
[mu]g/m\3\, the analysis ignores the large number of areas across the
country with lower design values that are relevant to consider in light
of the epidemiological evidence of serious health effects at lower
concentrations, well below the level of the current standard.
In translating the analysis results into the basis for selecting an
annual standard level, the commenter's translation is premised on the
view that the ``natural focal point'' for setting an annual
PM2.5 standard level should be somewhere within the range of
the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations from the subset of
epidemiological studies that included only long-term exposure studies
of effects for which the evidence is categorized as causal or likely
causal, but not for effects categorized as suggestive of causality, nor
did it
[[Page 3147]]
include short-term exposure studies (which are included in Figure 4 of
the proposal notice and above). Such a view is not consistent with
setting a standard that would provide sufficient protection from the
serious health effects reported even in the limited subset of studies
considered by the commenter, including protecting public health with an
adequate margin of safety. As discussed below, the EPA does not agree
with the commenter's view as to the appropriate focal point for
selecting the level of an annual PM2.5 standard, or with the
limited set of studies considered by the commenter as a basis for
selecting the level of the annual PM2.5 standard.
Regarding an appropriate focal point for selecting the level of the
annual standard, as discussed in the proposal and as advised by CASAC,
the EPA has focused on PM2.5 concentrations somewhat below
the lowest long-term mean concentrations from each of the key studies
of both long- and short-term exposures of effects for which the
evidence is causal or likely causal, as considered by the EPA (i.e.,
the first two sets of studies shown in Figure 4). If the level of the
annual standard was set just somewhere within the range of the long-
term mean concentrations from the various long-term exposure studies,
then one or more of the studies would have a long-term mean
concentration below the selected level of the standard. Absent some
reason to ignore or discount these studies, which the commenter does
not provide (and of which the EPA is unaware), setting such a standard
would allow that level of air quality, where the evidence of health
effects is strongest, and its associated risk of PM2.5-
related mortality and/or morbidity effects to continue. Selecting such
a standard level could not be considered sufficient to protect the
public health with an adequate margin of safety.
Further, focusing on just the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations in the key epidemiological studies--even the lowest
long-term mean concentration from the set of key studies--is not
appropriate. Concentrations at and around the long-term mean
concentrations represent the part of the air quality distribution where
the data in any given study are most concentrated and, thus, where the
confidence in the magnitude and significance of an association in such
study is strongest. However, the evidence of an association with
adverse health effects in the studies is not limited to the
PM2.5 concentrations just at and around the long-term mean,
but rather extends more broadly to a lower part of the distribution,
recognizing that no discernible population-level threshold for any such
effects can be identified based on the available evidence. This broader
region of the distribution of PM2.5 concentrations should be
considered to the extent relevant information is available, recognizing
that the degree of confidence in the association identified in a study
would become lower as one moves below concentrations at and around the
long-term mean concentration in any given study. The commenter's
approach ignores this fundamental consideration.
Regarding the set of studies that is appropriate to inform the
selection of the level of the annual PM2.5 standard, the EPA
finds that limiting consideration only to the long-term exposure
studies, as this commenter suggests, would be tantamount to ignoring
the short-term exposure studies,\93\ which provide some of the
strongest evidence from the entire body of epidemiological studies.
Thus, selecting an annual standard level using the limited set of
studies suggested by the commenter would fail to provide a degree of
protection that would be sufficient to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ The commenter suggests that the EPA should not place
significant reliance on the long-term mean concentrations from
short-term exposure studies because ``[T]he short[hyphen]term
studies did not use the annual average of PM2.5 to
develop their associations; they used the daily 24-hour averages of
PM2.5. Thus, short-term studies do not provide a natural
indicator for the appropriate level of an annual standard * * *.''
(UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 3). The EPA finds this argument
unpersuasive. Quite simply, effects were observed in these studies
with an air quality distribution that can meaningfully be
characterized by these long-term mean concentrations. Indeed, in
remanding the 2006 standard, the D.C. Circuit discussed at length
the interrelationship of the long- and short-term standards and
studies, and remanded the 2006 standard to the EPA, in part, for
ignoring those relationships without adequate explanation. American
Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA. 559 F. 3d at 522-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all the reasons discussed above, the EPA finds the commenter's
concerns with the EPA's approach to considering composite and maximum
monitor PM2.5 concentrations in selecting the level of the
annual PM2.5 standard to be without merit. Further, the EPA
finds no support in the commenter's analysis for their suggested
alternative approach.
(2) With respect to the appropriate exposure period for mortality
effects observed in long-term exposure studies, some commenters in this
group generally expressed views consistent with comments from UARG that
argued that these studies ``are most likely detecting health risk from
earlier, higher PM2.5 levels and misattributing those risks
to more recent, lower PM2.5 levels'' (UARG, 2012, Attachment
1, p 7). Further, this commenter asserted that ``there is no knowledge
or evidence indicating whether premature deaths are the result of
PM2.5 exposures in the most recent year; or due to physical
damages incurred from PM2.5 exposures much earlier in life
(with the impact on lifespan only emerging later in life); or due to
total accumulated PM2.5 exposure over many years.'' Id. In
addition, the commenter asserted that the long-term exposure studies of
mortality are central to the EPA's basis for proposing to set a lower
annual standard level, since most of the estimated benefits associated
with a lower annual PM2.5 standard are based on reductions
in mortality related to long-term exposures to PM2.5.
As an initial matter, the EPA has recognized the challenge in
distinguishing between PM2.5-associated effects due to past
and recent long-term exposures, and in identifying the relevant latency
period for long-term exposure to PM and resultant health effects (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 7.6.4; 77 FR 38941/1). While the EPA has
acknowledged that there remain important uncertainties related to
characterizing the most relevant exposure periods in long-term exposure
studies, the assertion that there is ``no knowledge or evidence'' that
helps to inform this issue is not correct, as discussed below.
Both in the last review and in the current review, the EPA has
assessed studies that used different air quality periods for estimating
long-term exposure and tested associations with mortality for the
different exposure periods (U.S. EPA, 2004, section 8.2.3.5; U.S. EPA
2009a, section 7.6.4). In this review, the Integrated Science
Assessment discussed studies available since the last review that have
assessed the relationship between long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and mortality to explore the issue of the latency
period between exposure to PM2.5 and death (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 7.6.4).
Notably, in a recent analysis of the extended Harvard Six Cities
Study, Schwartz et al. (2008) used model averaging (i.e., multiple
models were averaged and weighted by probability of accuracy) to assess
exposure periods prospectively (77 FR 38907/1-2). The exposure periods
were estimated across a range of unconstrained distributed lag models
(i.e., same year, one year prior, two years prior to death). In
comparing lags, the authors reported that the effects of changes in
exposure to PM2.5 on mortality were strongest within a 2-
year period prior to death (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-92, Figure 7-9).
Similarly, a large
[[Page 3148]]
multi-city study of the elderly found that the mortality risk
associated with long-term exposure to PM10 reported
cumulative effects that extended over the years that deaths were
observed in the study population (i.e., the follow-up period) and for
the 3-year period prior to death (Zanobetti et al., 2008).
Further, in a study of two locations that experienced an abrupt
decline in PM2.5 concentrations (i.e., Utah Steel Strike,
coal ban in Ireland), R[ouml][ouml]sli et al. (2005) reported that
approximately 75 percent of health benefits were observed in the first
5 years (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 7-9). Schwartz et al. (2008) and Puett
et al. (2008) found, in a comparison of exposure periods ranging from 1
month to 48 months prior to death, that exposure to PM10 24
months prior to death exhibited the strongest association, and the
weakest association was reported for exposure in the time period of 1
month prior to death.
Overall, the EPA notes that the available evidence for determining
the exposure period that is causally related to the mortality effects
of long-term PM2.5 exposures, as discussed above, cannot
specifically disentangle the effects observed in long-term exposure
studies associated with more recent air quality measurements from
effects that may have been associated with earlier, and most likely
higher, PM2.5 exposures. While the evidence suggests that a
latency period of up to five years would account for the majority of
deaths, it does not provide a basis for concluding that it is solely
recent PM2.5 concentrations that account for the mortality
risk observed in such studies. Nonetheless, the more recent air quality
data does well at explaining the relationships observed between long-
term exposures to PM2.5 and mortality, with the strongest
association observed in the two years prior to death. Further, the EPA
recognizes that there is no discernible population-level threshold
below which effects would not occur, such that it is reasonable to
consider that health effects may occur over the full range of
concentrations observed in the epidemiological studies, including the
lower concentrations in the latter years.
In light of this evidence and these considerations, the EPA
concludes that it is appropriate to consider air quality concentrations
that are generally contemporaneous with the collection of health event
data (i.e., collected over the same time period) as being causally
associated with at least some proportion of the deaths assessed in a
long-term exposure study. This would include long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations from most of the key long-term exposure
studies of effects with causal or likely causal evidence shown in
Figure 4 above, which reported long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations ranging from 13.6 [micro]g/m\3\ to 14.3 [micro]g/m\3\.
These studies include studies of mortality by Eftim et al. (2008),
which separately analyzed the ACS and Harvard Six City sites, Zeger et
al. (2008), and Lipfert et al. (2006a), as well as studies of morbidity
endpoints by Goss et al. (2004), McConnell et al. (2003) and Gauderman
et al. (2004), and Dockery et al. (1996) and Razienne et al. (1996).
The EPA acknowledges that uncertainty in the relevant exposure period
is most notable in two other long-term exposure studies of mortality.
The Miller et al. (2007) reported a long-term mean PM2.5
concentration for a 1-year exposure period that post-dated the follow-
up period in which health event data were collected by two years. Also,
the Krewski et al. (2009) study reported a long-term mean
PM2.5 concentration for an exposure period that included
only the last two years of the 18-year follow-up period. Based on these
considerations, the EPA does not now consider it appropriate to put
weight on the reported long-term mean concentrations from these two
studies for the purpose of translating the information from the long-
term mortality studies into a basis for selecting the level of the
annual PM2.5 standard.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Nonetheless, the EPA notes that the Krewski et al. (2009)
and Miller et al. (2007) studies provide strong evidence of
mortality and cardiovascular-related effects associated with long-
term PM2.5 exposures to inform causality determinations
reached in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
sections 7.2.11 and 7.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the EPA acknowledges that exposure periods that extend
at least a couple years prior to the follow-up period in which health
event data were collected would likely more fully capture the PM-
related deaths in such studies. To explore how much higher the long-
term mean PM2.5 concentrations would likely have been had
air quality data prior to the follow-up years of the studies been
included, the EPA conducted a sensitivity analysis of long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations (Schmidt, 2012a) particularly
considering studies that only included deaths from a relatively recent
follow-up period. As examples of such studies, this analysis considered
the Eftim et al. (2008) study of mortality in the ACS sites and the
Harvard Six Cities sites, as well as sites in the eastern region in the
Zeger et al. (2008) study. Using data from the EPA's AQS database, the
analysis added the two years of air quality data just prior to the
follow-up period in each study, which was 2000 to 2002 in Eftim et al.
(2008) and 2000 to 2005 in Zeger et al. (2008). The analysis then
calculated the extended long-term mean PM2.5 concentration
for each study. As discussed in Schmidt (2012a), in each case the long-
term mean PM2.5 concentration averaged over the extended
exposure period was less than 0.4 [micro]g/m\3\ higher than the long-
term mean PM2.5 concentration averaged over the follow-up
period. The EPA finds it reasonable to conclude that such a relatively
small difference in long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
would likely apply for other long-term exposure studies that used
similarly recent follow-up periods as well (e.g., Goss et al., 2004;
Lipfert et al., 2006a).
Based on the above considerations, the EPA concludes that it is
appropriate to consider the available air quality information from the
long-term exposure studies, while taking into account the uncertainties
in the relevant long-term exposure periods in weighing the information
from these studies. The EPA recognizes that considering such
information in selecting an appropriate annual standard level has the
potential to build in some margin of safety. The EPA further concludes
that it is appropriate to consider the air quality information from the
set of long-term exposure studies discussed above in the context of the
broader array of epidemiological studies that inform the EPA's
consideration of the level of the annual PM2.5 standard.
The EPA also notes that while the long-term exposure studies are an
important component of the epidemiological evidence that informs the
Agency's consideration of the level of the annual standard, they do not
provide the only relevant information, nor are they the set of studies
for which the relevant long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
are the lowest. As discussed in the proposal, the EPA also considers
the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations from the short-term
mortality and morbidity studies as providing important information in
considering the level of the annual standard. As discussed above, a
large proportion of the aggregate risk associated with short-term
exposures results from the large number of days during which the 24-
hour average concentrations are in the low- to mid-range of the
concentrations observed in the studies. Thus, setting the level of the
annual standard based on long-term mean concentrations, as well as the
distribution of concentrations below the mean, in the short-term
exposure studies is the most effective and efficient way to reduce
total PM2.5-
[[Page 3149]]
related risk from the broad array of mortality and morbidity effects
associated with short-term exposures.
Further, the EPA notes that the relevant exposure period for the
short-term exposure studies is the period contemporaneous with the
collection of health event data, and that this exposure period is not
subject to the uncertainties discussed above related to the long-term
exposure studies. Recognizing that the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations from several of the multi-city short-term exposure
studies shown in Figure 4 are below the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations from the long-term exposure studies (with the exception
of Miller et al., 2007).\95\ It is reasonable that in selecting the
level of the annual standard primary consideration should be given to
the information from this set of short-term exposure studies. There is
no reasonable basis to discount the long-term mean concentrations of
the short-term exposure studies for purposes of setting the level of
the annual standard. Thus, the commenter is incorrect in asserting that
the long-term exposure studies, not the short-term exposure studies,
would be central in the Administrator's decision on the level of the
annual standard. The standard is ultimately intended to protect not
just against the single type of effect that contributes the most to
quantitative estimates of risk to public health, but rather to the
broad array of effects, including mortality and morbidity effects from
long- and short-term exposures across the range of at-risk populations
impacted by PM2.5-related effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ As noted above, the EPA is not placing weight on the
reported long-term mean concentrations from the Miller et al. (2007)
study for the purpose of translating the information from the long-
term mortality studies into a basis for selecting the level of the
annual PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) With regard to the EPA's analysis of distributions of
underlying population-level data (i.e., health event and study
population data) and corresponding air quality data from each study
area in certain key multi-city epidemiological studies (Rajan et al.,
2011), some commenters in this group raised a number of issues related
to this analysis (API, 2012, Attachment 1 pp. 5 to 6; McClellan, 2012,
pp.2 to 4). Some commenters noted the limited number of studies for
which health event and study population data were available, and
questioned whether these distributions would apply to other studies.
Commenters expressed concerns that this analysis had not been formally
reviewed by CASAC and was not published in the peer-review literature.
Based on such concerns, some commenters asserted that the EPA should
not consider this information as a basis for selecting a standard
level.
As an initial matter, as discussed in section III.E.4.b above, the
EPA agrees with CASAC's advice that it is appropriate to consider
additional data beyond the mean PM2.5 concentrations in key
multi-city studies to help inform selection of the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard. As both the EPA and CASAC recognize, in the
absence of a discernible threshold, health effects may occur over the
full range of concentrations observed in the epidemiological studies.
Nonetheless, the EPA recognizes that confidence in the magnitude and
significance of an association is highest at and around the long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations reported in the studies and the
degree of confidence becomes lower at lower concentrations within any
given study. Following CASAC's advice (Samet, 2010d, p.2), the EPA used
additional population-level and air quality data made available by
study authors to conduct an analysis of the distributions of such data,
to help inform consideration of how the degree of confidence in the
magnitude and significance of observed associations varies across the
range of long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations in study areas
within key multi-city epidemiological studies. In the EPA's view, such
consideration is important in selecting a level for an annual standard
that will protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
With regard to the number of multi-city studies for which an
analysis of the distributions of population-level data across the study
areas and the corresponding annual mean PM2.5 concentrations
was done, the EPA noted at proposal that data for such an analysis were
made available from study authors for four studies, including two long-
term exposure studies and two short-term exposure studies.\96\ The EPA
recognized that access to health event data can be restricted due to
confidentiality issues, such that it is not reasonable to expect that
such information could be made available from all studies. In
considering the information from these four studies, the EPA has
further taken into consideration uncertainties discussed in response to
the above comment related to the appropriate exposure period for long-
term exposure studies. Based on these considerations, as noted above,
the EPA concludes that such uncertainties are an important factor in
evaluating the usefulness of the air quality information from the two
long-term exposure studies in this analysis (Krewski et al., 2009;
Miller et al., 2007) and that it would not be appropriate to place
weight on the distributional analysis of health event and air quality
data from these two studies specifically for the purpose of translating
the information from the long-term mortality studies into a basis for
selecting the level of the annual PM2.5 standard. Such
uncertainties are not relevant to the short-term exposure studies, and
thus, the Agency focuses on the two short-term exposure studies in this
analysis (Bell et al., 2008; Zanobetti and Schwartz, (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Health event data and study population data were available
from two short-term exposure studies (Bell et al. 2008; Zanobetti
and Schwartz, 2009) and one long-term exposure study (Krewski et
al., 2009). Only study population data were available from another
long-term exposure study (Miller et al., 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In focusing on these two short-term exposure studies, the EPA first
notes that these studies are key multi-city studies that reported
positive and statistically significant associations between mortality
and cardiovascular-related hospital admissions across a large number of
areas throughout the U.S. (112 U.S. cities in Zanobetti and Schwartz,
2009; 202 U.S. counties in Bell et al., 2008) using relatively recent
air quality and health event data (i.e., 1999 through 2005 in both
studies). The EPA considers this to be a modest but important data set
to use for this distributional analysis to help inform consideration of
how much below the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations in
key multi-city long- and short-term exposure studies the annual
PM2.5 standard level should be set. While the EPA
acknowledges that having such data available from more studies would
have been useful, the Agency finds the information from this limited
set of studies to be an important consideration in selecting an annual
standard level, consistent with CASAC advice to consider such
information.
In considering the results of this distributional analysis, as
discussed more fully in the Response to Comments document, the EPA
considers PM2.5 concentrations between the 25th and 10th
percentiles of the distribution of health events to be a reasonable
range for providing a general frame of reference for that part of the
distribution in which confidence in the magnitude and significance of
the association may be appreciably lower than confidence at and around
the long-term mean concentration. For the two short-term exposure
studies included in this analysis, the EPA notes that the
PM2.5 concentrations corresponding to the 25th percentiles
of the distributions of
[[Page 3150]]
health events were 12.5 [micro]g/m\3\ and 11.5 [micro]g/m\3\,
respectively, for Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) and for Bell et al.
(2008), with the 10th percentiles being lower by approximately 2
[micro]g/m\3\ in each study (Rajan et al., 2011, Table 1). In
considering this information, the EPA recognizes, however, that there
is no clear dividing line or single percentile within a given
distribution (including both above and below the 25th percentile)
provided by the scientific evidence that is most appropriate or
`correct' to use to characterize where the degree of confidence in the
associations warrants setting the annual standard level. The decision
as to the appropriate standard level below the long-term mean
concentrations of the key studies is largely a public health policy
judgment to be made by the Administrator, taking into account all of
the evidence and its related uncertainties, as discussed in section
III.E.4.d below.
In response to concerns that this analysis was not reviewed by
CASAC nor published in the peer-reviewed literature, the EPA notes that
this analysis was conducted to directly respond to advice from CASAC,
as discussed in section III.E.4.b.i above, in conjunction with their
review of the Policy Assessment. The EPA notes that the same type of
distributional analysis was presented in the second draft Policy
Assessment based on air quality data, as well as population-weighted
air quality data, rather than health event or study population data. In
considering that distributional information, CASAC urged that the EPA
redo the analysis using health event or study population data, which is
exactly what the EPA did and presented in the final Policy Assessment.
The EPA provided CASAC with the final Policy Assessment and
communicated how the final staff conclusions reflected consideration of
its advice and that those staff conclusions were based in part on the
specific distributional analysis that CASAC had urged the EPA to
conduct (Wegman, 2011, Attachment p. 2). CASAC did not choose to
provide any additional comments or advice after receiving the final
Policy Assessment. The EPA considers this distributional analysis to be
the product of the peer review conducted by CASAC of the Policy
Assessment, and thus does not agree with commenters' characterization
that the analysis lacked appropriate peer review. The EPA's final
analysis was based on the comments provided by CASAC, the peer review
committee established pursuant to the CAA, on the draft analysis, such
that the final analysis stems directly from CASAC's advice and the
EPA's response to its comments.
Based on the above considerations, the EPA continues to conclude
that its analysis of distributions of health event and air quality data
from two key multi-city epidemiological studies provides important
information related to understanding the associations between health
events observed in each city (e.g., deaths, hospitalizations) and the
corresponding long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations observed
in the studies. While recognizing that this is a relatively modest data
set, the EPA further concludes that such information can appropriately
help to inform the selection of the level of an annual standard that
will protect public health with an adequate margin of safety from these
types of health effects which are causally related to long- and short-
term exposures to PM2.5.
(4) Some commenters in this group asserted there were limitations
in the long-term exposure studies of morbidity, including studies
evaluating respiratory effects in children. For example, one commenter
(UARG, 2012, p. 12, Attachment 1, pp. 14 to 16) asserted there were
serious limitations in the long-term exposure studies of respiratory
morbidity in each of the studies considered by the EPA (including
McConnell et al., 2003; Gauderman et al., 2004; Dockery et al., 1996;
Raizenne et al., 1996; and Goss et al., 2004) and argued that this
evidence provides only a ``weak association'' with PM2.5
exposures. This commenter asserted that many of these long-term
exposure studies evaluating respiratory effects were considered at the
time the EPA reaffirmed the current annual standard level of 15
[micro]g/m\3\ in 2006, that the Administrator in the last review
determined that the information they provided ``was too limited to
serve as the basis for setting a level of a national standard,'' and
that they should be given little weight in setting the level of the
annual standard in this review (UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 14).
More specifically, this commenter asserted that the McConnell et
al. (2003) and Gauderman et al. (2004) studies reported mixed results
for associations with PM2.5 and stronger associations with
NO2 (API, 2012, Attachment 1, pp. 14 to 15). Similarly, this
commenter argued that the Dockery et al. (1996) and Raizenne et al.
(1996) studies showed stronger associations with acidity than with fine
particles (measured as PM2.1). Id. pp. 15 to 16. With regard
to the cystic fibrosis study, this commenter noted that the association
between pulmonary exacerbations and PM2.5 in this study was
no longer statistically significant when the model adjusted for each
individual's baseline lung function. The commenters referred to the
data on lung function as an ``important explanatory variable,'' and
suggested that the EPA should rely on results from the model that
included individual baseline lung function information. Id. p. 16. For
the reasons discussed below and in more detail in the Response to
Comments document, the EPA disagrees with the commenters'
interpretation of these studies.
As an initial matter, the EPA notes that three of these studies
(McConnell et al., 2003; Dockery et al., 1996; Raizenne et al., 1996)
as well as the initial studies from the Southern California Children's
Health Study (Peters et al., 1999; McConnell et al., 1999; Gauderman et
al., 2000, 2002; Avol et al., 2001) were discussed and considered in
the 2004 Air Quality Criteria Document (U.S. EPA, 2004) and, thus,
considered within the air quality criteria supporting the EPA's final
decisions in the review completed in 2006. Two additional studies
(Gauderman et al., 2004; Goss et al., 2004) were discussed and
considered in the provisional science assessment conducted for the last
review (U.S. EPA, 2006a). The EPA concluded that ``new'' studies
considered in the provisional assessment completed in 2006 did not
materially change any of the broad scientific conclusions regarding the
health effects of PM exposure made in the Criteria Document (71 FR
61148 to 61149, October 17, 2006). All of these studies were considered
in the Integrated Science Assessment that informs the current review
(U.S. EPA, 2009a).
With regard to the Southern California Children's Health Study,
extended analyses considered in the Integrated Science Assessment
provided evidence that clinically important deficits in lung function
\97\ associated with long-term exposure to PM2.5 persist
into early adulthood (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-27; Gauderman et al.,
2004). These effects remained positive in copollutant models.\98\
Additional analyses of the
[[Page 3151]]
Southern California Children's Health Study cohort reported an
association between long-term PM2.5 exposure and bronchitic
symptoms (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-23 to 7-24; McConnell et al., 2003,
long-term mean concentration of 13.8 [micro]g/m\3\) that remained
positive in co-pollutant models, with the PM2.5 effect
estimates increasing in magnitude in some models and decreasing in
others, and a strong modifying effect of PM2.5 on the
association between lung function and asthma incidence (U.S. EPA,
2009a, 7-24; Islam et al., 2007). The outcomes observed in the more
recent reports from the Southern California Children's Health Study,
including evaluation of a broader range of endpoints and longer follow-
up periods, were larger in magnitude and more precise than reported in
the initial version of the study. Supporting these results were new
longitudinal cohort studies conducted by other researchers in varying
locations using different methods (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.3.9.1).
The EPA, therefore, disagrees with the commenters that the studies by
McConnell et al. (2003) and Gauderman et al. (2004) are flawed and
should not be used in the PM NAAQS review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Clinical significance was defined as an FEV1
below 80 percent of the predicted value, a criterion commonly used
in clinical settings to identify persons at increased risk for
adverse respiratory conditions (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-29 to 7-30).
The primary NAAQS for sulfur dioxide (SO2) also included
this interpretation for FEV1 (75 FR 35525, June 22,
2010).
\98\ Gauderman et al. (2004) clearly stated throughout their
analysis that NO2 was one component of a highly
correlated mixture that contains PM2.5. Gauderman et al.
(2004) did not present the results from copollutants models but
stated ``two-pollutant models for any pair of pollutants did not
provide a significantly better fit to the data than the
corresponding single-pollutant models.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 24-City study \99\ by Dockery et al. (1996) (long-term mean
concentration of 14.5 [micro]g/m\3\) was considered in the current as
well as two previous reviews (U.S. EPA, 2009a; U.S. EPA, 2004; U.S.
EPA, 1996). This study observed that PM, specifically ``particle strong
acidity'' and sulfate particles (indicators of fine particles), were
associated with reports of bronchitis in the previous year. Similarly,
the magnitude of the associations between bronchitis and
PM10 and PM2.1 were similar to those for acidic
aerosols and sulfate particles, though the confidence intervals for the
PM10 and PM2.1 associations were slightly wider
and the associations were not statistically significant. Acid aerosols,
sulfate, and fine particles are formed in secondary reactions of the
emissions from incomplete combustion and these pollutants have similar
regional and temporal distributions. As noted by the study authors,
``the strong correlations of several pollutants in this study,
especially particle strong acidity with sulfate (r=0.90) and
PM2.1 (r=0.82), make it difficult to distinguish the agent
of interest'' (Dockery et al., 1996, p. 505). Overall, Dockery et al.
(1996) (and, similarly, Raizenne et al., 1996) observed similar
associations between respiratory health effects and acid aerosols,
sulfate, PM10 and PM2.1 concentrations. The
commenters noted that the associations with particle acidity were
sensitive to the inclusion of the six Canadian sites. The EPA notes
that none of these Canadian cities were in the ``sulfate belt'' where
particle strong acidity was highest. Thus, the change in the effect
estimate when the six Canadian cities were excluded from the analysis
is likely due to the lower prevalence of bronchitis and the lower
concentrations of acid aerosols in these cities, and not due to some
difference in susceptibility to bronchitis between the U.S. and
Canadian populations that is not due to air pollution, as suggested by
the commenters (UARG, 2012, Attachment 1, p. 15). In fact, contrary to
the statements made by the commenters, the authors did not observe any
subgroups that appeared to be markedly more susceptible to the risk of
bronchitis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The 24-City study conducted by Dockery et al. (1996)
included 18 sites in the U.S. and 6 sites in Canada. The Raizenne et
al. (1996) study considered 22 of these 24 study areas. Athens, OH
and South Brunswick, NJ were not included in this study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goss et al. (2004) study considered a U.S. cohort of cystic
fibrosis patients and provided evidence of association between long-
term PM2.5 exposures and exacerbations of respiratory
symptoms resulting in hospital admissions or use of home intravenous
antibiotics (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-25; long-term mean concentration of
13.7 [micro]g/m\3\). The commenters noted that the association between
pulmonary exacerbations and PM2.5 in this study was no
longer statistically significant when the model adjusted for each
individual's baseline lung function. The commenters referred to the
data on lung function as an ``important explanatory variable,'' and
suggested that the EPA should rely on results from the model that
included individual baseline lung function information. The EPA
disagrees with the commenters' interpretation of this study. The Agency
concludes it is unlikely that lung function is a potential confounder
or an important explanatory variable in this study. In fact, the
authors noted that ``it is more likely that lung function decline may
be intimately associated with chronic exposure to air pollutants and
may be part of the causal pathway in worsening prognosis in CF [cystic
fibrosis]; in support of this explanation, we found both cross-
sectional and longitudinal strong inverse relationships between
FEV1 and PM levels'' (Goss et al., 2004, p. 819). The EPA
notes that adjusting for a variable that is on the causal pathway can
lead to overadjustment bias, which is likely to attenuate the
association (Schisterman et al. 2009); this is likely what was observed
by the authors. Thus, the EPA continues to believe it is appropriate to
focus on the results reported in Goss et al. (2004) that did not
include individual baseline lung function in the model.
In addition, the EPA disagrees with commenters' reliance solely on
statistical significance when interpreting the study results from
individual study results and the collective evidence across studies. As
discussed in section III.D.2 above, statistical significance of
individual study findings has played an important role in the EPA's
evaluation of the study's results and the EPA has placed greater
emphasis on studies reporting statistically significant results.
However, in the broader evaluation of the evidence from many
epidemiological studies, and subsequently during the process of forming
causality determinations in the Integrated Science Assessment by
integrating evidence from across epidemiological, controlled human
exposure, and toxicological studies, the EPA has emphasized the pattern
of results across epidemiological studies and whether the effects
observed were coherent across the scientific disciplines for drawing
conclusions on the relationship between PM2.5 and different
health outcomes.
As noted in section III.B.1.a of the proposal, with regard to
respiratory effects, the Integrated Science Assessment concluded that
extended analyses of studies available in the last review as well as
new epidemiological studies conducted in the U.S. and abroad provided
stronger evidence of respiratory-related morbidity associated with
long-term PM2.5 exposure (77 FR 38918). The strongest
evidence for respiratory-related effects available in this review was
from epidemiological studies that evaluated decrements in lung function
growth in children and increased respiratory symptoms and disease
incidence in adults (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.1.2, 7.3.1.1, and
7.3.2.1).
In considering the collective evidence from epidemiological,
toxicological, and controlled human exposure studies, including the
studies discussed above, the EPA recognizes that the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded that a causal relationship is likely to exist
between long-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-12, pp. 7-42 to 7-43). CASAC concurred with this
causality determination (Samet, 2009f, p.9).
[[Page 3152]]
The commenter's assertion that the EPA should adhere to its
assessment of these studies as it did in the review completed in 2006
is significantly mistaken. Most obviously, the EPA's final decision in
the last review was held to be deficient by the DC Circuit in remanding
the 2006 primary annual PM2.5 standard. As discussed in
section III.A.2 above, the DC Circuit specifically held that the EPA
did not provide a reasonable explanation of why certain morbidity
studies, including an earlier study from the Southern California
Children's Health Study (Gauderman et al., 2000, long-term mean
PM2.5 concentration approximately 15 [mu]g/m\3\) and the 24-
Cities Study (Raizenne et al., 1996, long-term mean concentrations
approximately 14.5 [micro]g/m\3\) did not warrant a more stringent
annual PM2.5 standard when the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in those studies were at or
lower than the level of the annual standard. American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA. 559 F. 3d at 525. Indeed, the court found that,
viewed together, the Gauderman et al. (2000) and Raizenne et al.,
(1996) studies ``are related and together indicate a significant public
health risk * * * On this record, therefore, it appears the EPA too
hastily discounted the Gauderman and 24-Cities studies as lacking in
significance.'' Id.
In this review, the EPA recognizes a significant amount of evidence
beyond these two studies that expands our understanding of respiratory
effects associated with long-term PM2.5 exposures. This body
of scientific evidence includes an extended and new analyses from the
Southern California Children's Health Study (Gauderman et al., 2004;
Islam et al., 2007; Stanojevic et al., 2008) as well as additional
studies that examined these health effects (Kim et al., 2004; Goss et
al., 2004). Thus, even more so than in the last review, the evidence
indicates a ``significant public health risk'' to children from long-
term PM2.5 exposures at concentrations below the level of
the current annual standard. A standard that does not reflect
appropriate consideration of this evidence would not be requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
(5) With regard to the use of studies of health effects for which
the EPA finds the evidence to be ``suggestive'' of a causal
relationship, some commenters argued that such studies ``do not merit
any weight in the setting of the annual NAAQS'' (e.g., UARG, 2012,
Appendix 1, p. 3).
The EPA disagrees with the commenter's view that studies of health
effects for which the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship,
rather than studies of health effects for which the evidence supports a
causal or likely causal relationship, merit no weight at all in setting
the NAAQS. To place no weight at all on such evidence would in essence
treat such evidence as though it had been categorized as ``not likely
to be a causal relationship.'' To do so would ignore the important
distinctions in the nature of the evidence supporting these different
causality determinations in the Integrated Science Assessment. It would
also ignore the CAA requirement that primary standards are to be set to
provide protection with an adequate margin of safety, including
providing protection for at-risk populations. Thus, ignoring this
information in making decisions on the appropriate standard level would
not be appropriate.\100\ Nonetheless, in considering studies of health
effects for which the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship,
the EPA does believe that it is appropriate to place less weight on
such studies than on studies of health effects for which there is
evidence of a causal or likely causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ As discussed in section II.A above, the requirement that
primary standards provide an adequate margin of safety was intended
to address uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and
technical information available at the time of standard setting. I
was also intended to provide a reasonable degree of protection
against hazards that research has not yet identified. This certainly
encompasses consideration of effects for which there is evidence
suggestive of a causal relationship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second group of commenters supported revising the suite of
primary PM2.5 standards to provide increased public health
protection. These commenters found the available scientific information
and technical analyses to be stronger and more compelling than in the
last review. These commenters generally placed substantial weight on
CASAC advice and on the EPA staff analyses presented in the final
Policy Assessment, which concluded that the evidence most strongly
supported an annual standard level within a range of 11 to 12 [mu]g/
m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-206). While some of these commenters felt
that the level should be set within the proposed range (12 to 13 [mu]g/
m\3\), most of these commenters advocated a level of 11 [mu]g/
m\3\.\101\ For example, ALA et al., asserted:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ As discussed in section III.E.4.c.ii, many of these
commenters also supported lowering the level of the primary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.
The EPA's proposed PM2.5 standards, while a step in
the right direction are insufficient to protect public health,
including the health of susceptible populations, with an adequate
margin of safety as required by the Clean Air Act * * *we will
discuss the enormous gap in public health protection afforded by an
annual standard of 13 [micro]g/m\3\, at the upper end of the
proposed range, compared to the more protective 11 [micro]g/m\3\, as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
advocated by our organizations (ALA et al., 2012, p. 6).
In general, these commenters expressed the view that given the
strength of the available scientific evidence, the serious nature of
the health effects associated with PM2.5 exposures, the
large size of the at-risk populations, the risks associated with long-
and short-term PM2.5 exposures, and the important
uncertainties inherently present in the evidence, the EPA should follow
a highly precautionary policy response by selecting an annual standard
level that incorporates a large margin of safety.
More specifically, these commenters offered a range of comments
related to the general approach used by the EPA to select standard
levels, including: (1) The EPA's approach for setting a generally
controlling annual standard; (2) the importance of the greatly expanded
and stronger overall scientific data base; (3) consideration of the
distributional statistical analysis conducted by the EPA and other
approaches for translating the air quality information from specific
epidemiological studies into standard levels; and (4) the significance
of the PM2.5-related public health impacts, especially
potential impacts on at-risk populations, including children, in
reaching judgments on setting standards that provide protection with an
adequate margin of safety. These comments are discussed in turn below.
(1) Some of these commenters disagreed with the EPA's approach for
setting a ``generally controlling'' annual standard in conjunction with
a 24-hour standard providing supplemental protection particularly for
areas with high peak-to-mean ratios. These commenters argued this
approach would lead to ``regional inequities'' as demonstrated in the
EPA's analyses contained in Appendix C of the Policy Assessment (ALA et
al., pp. 26 to 27). Specifically, these commenters argued:
There is no basis in the Clean Air Act for such a determination.
The Clean Air Act requires only that the NAAQS achieve public health
protection with an adequate margin of safety. It is well-documented
that both long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5 have
serious and sometimes irreversible health impacts. There is no
health protection reason to argue that one standard should be
``controlling'' as a matter of policy without regard to the health
consequences of such a policy. To adopt such a policy ignores the
obligation to provide equal protection under
[[Page 3153]]
the law to all Americans because it would result in uneven
protection from air pollution in different localities and regions of
the country (ALA et al., 2012, p. 26).
The EPA believes these commenters misunderstood the basis for the
EPA's policy goal of setting a ``generally controlling'' annual
standard. This approach relates exclusively to setting standards that
will provide requisite protection against effects associated with both
long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures. It does so by lowering
the overall air quality distributions across an area, recognizing that
changes in PM2.5 air quality designed to meet an annual
standard would likely result not only in lower annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations but also in fewer and lower peak 24-
hour PM2.5 concentrations. As discussed in section III.A.3
in the proposal and above, the EPA recognizes that there are various
ways to combine the two primary PM2.5 standards to achieve
an appropriate degree of public health protection. Furthermore, the
extent to which these two standards are interrelated in any given area
depends in large part on the relative levels of the standards, the
peak-to-mean ratios that characterize air quality patterns in an area,
and whether changes in air quality designed to meet a given suite of
standards are likely to be of a more regional or more localized nature.
In focusing on an approach of setting a generally controlling
annual standard, the EPA's intent is in fact to avoid the potential
``regional inequities'' that are of concern to the commenters. The EPA
judges that the most appropriate way to set standards that provide more
consistent public health protection is by using the approach of setting
a generally controlling annual standard. This judgment builds upon
information presented in the Policy Assessment as discussed in section
III.A.3 above. More specifically, the Policy Assessment recognized that
the short-term exposure studies primarily evaluated daily variations in
health effects with monitor(s) that measured the variation in daily
PM2.5 concentrations over the course of several years. The
strength of the associations observed in these epidemiological studies
was demonstrably in the numerous ``typical'' days within the air
quality distribution, not in the peak days (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-9).
In addition, the quantitative risk assessments conducted for this and
previous reviews demonstrated the same point, that is, much, if not
most, of the aggregate risk associated with short-term PM2.5
exposures results from the large number of days during which the 24-
hour average concentrations are in the low-to mid-range, below the peak
24-hour concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.2; U.S. EPA,
2010a, section 3.1.2.2). In addition, there was no evidence suggesting
that risks associated with long-term exposures were likely to be
disproportionately driven by peak 24-hour concentrations.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ In confirmation, a number of studies have presented
analyses excluding higher PM concentration days and reported a
limited effect on the magnitude of the effect estimates or
statistical significance of the association (e.g., Dominici, 2006b;
Schwartz et al., 1996; Pope and Dockery, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the Policy Assessment concluded that strategies
that focused primarily on reducing peak days were less likely to
achieve reductions in the PM2.5 concentrations that were
most strongly associated with the observed health effects. Furthermore,
the Policy Assessment concluded that an approach that focused on
reducing peak exposures would most likely result in more uneven public
health protection across the U.S. by either providing inadequate
protection in some areas or overprotecting in other areas (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-9; U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 5.2.3). This is because
reductions based on control of peak days are less likely to control the
bulk of the air quality distribution.
As a result, the EPA believes an approach that focuses on a
generally controlling annual standard would likely reduce aggregate
risks associated with both long- and short-term exposures more
consistently than a generally controlling 24-hour standard and,
therefore, would be the most effective and efficient way to reduce
total PM2.5-related population risk. The CASAC agreed with
this approach and considered it was ``appropriate to return to the
strategy used in 1997 that considers the annual and the short-term
standards together, with the annual standard as the controlling
standard, and the short-term standard supplementing the protection
afforded by the annual standard'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 1). For the reasons
discussed above, the EPA disagrees with the comments that this approach
will result in the concerns raised by the commenters; rather the EPA
concludes that this approach will help to address these concerns.
(2) Many of these commenters asserted that the currently available
scientific information is greatly expanded and stronger compared to the
last review. Some of these commenters highlighted the availability of
multiple, multi-city long- and short-term exposure studies providing
``repeated, consistent evidence of effects below the current annual
standard level'' (ALA et al., 2012, pp. 39 to 49) and, more
specifically, ``significant evidence of harm with strong confidence
well below EPA's proposed annual standard range of 12-13 [mu]g/m\3\''
(AHA et al., 2012, pp. 10 to 12).
The EPA recognizes that in setting standards that are requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, the
Administrator must weigh the various types of available scientific
information in reaching public health policy judgments that neither
overstate nor understate the strength and limitations of this
information or the appropriate inferences to be drawn from the
available science.
In general, the EPA agrees with these commenters' views that the
currently available scientific evidence is stronger ``because of its
breadth and the substantiation of previously observed health effects''
(77 FR 38906/2) and provides ``greater confidence in the reported
associations than in the last review'' (77 FR 38940/1). The EPA also
agrees with the commenters' position that it is appropriate to consider
the regions within the broader air quality distributions where we have
the strongest confidence in the associations reported in
epidemiological studies in setting the level of the annual standard.
However, as discussed in section III.E.4.d below, in weighing the
available evidence and technical analyses, as well as the associated
uncertainties and limitations in that information, the EPA disagrees
with the commenters' views regarding the extent to which the available
scientific information provides support for considering an annual
standard level below the proposed range (i.e., below 12 to 13 [mu]g/
m\3\). In particular, the EPA disagrees with the degree to which these
commenters place more weight on the relatively more uncertain evidence
that is suggestive of a causal relationship (e.g., low birth weight).
Consistent with CASAC advice (Samet, 2010d, p. 1), the Agency concludes
it is appropriate and reasonable to place the greatest emphasis on
health effects for which the Integrated Science Assessment concluded
there is evidence of a causal or likely causal relationship and to
place less weight on the health effects that provide evidence that is
only suggestive of a causal relationship.
(3) With regard to using the air quality information from
epidemiological studies to inform decisions on standard levels,
commenters in this group generally supported the EPA's efforts to
explore different statistical metrics from
[[Page 3154]]
epidemiological studies to inform the Administrator's decisions. These
commenters argued that by considering different analytic measures--
either concentrations one standard deviation below the long-term means
reported in the epidemiological studies or the EPA's distributional
statistical analysis of population-level data that extends the approach
used in previous PM NAAQS reviews to consider information beyond a
single statistical metric--``the annual standard must be significantly
lower than EPA has proposed'' (ALA et al., 2012, pp. 50 to 61).
Furthermore, with regard to characterizing the PM2.5 air
quality at which associations have been observed, some of these
commenters highlighted CASAC's recommendation that ``[f]urther
consideration should be given to using the 10th percentile as a level
for assessing various scenarios of levels for the PM NAAQS'' (Samet,
2010c, p. 11) (ALA et al., 2012, p. 55). Other commenters urged that
the EPA extend the distributional analysis to include additional
studies. For example, CHPAC urged the EPA to also conduct
distributional analysis for children's health studies to better inform
standards that would protect both children and adults from adverse
health outcomes (CHPAC, 2012, p. 3).
The EPA agrees with these commenters' views that it is appropriate
to take into account different statistical metrics from epidemiological
studies to inform the decisions on standard levels that are appropriate
to consider in setting a standard that will protect public health with
an adequate margin of safety. In the development of the Policy
Assessment, the EPA staff explored various approaches for using
information from epidemiological studies in setting the standards. The
general approach used in the final Policy Assessment, discussed in
sections III.A.3 and III.E.4.a above, reflects consideration of CASAC
advice (Samet, 2010c, d) and public comments on multiple drafts of the
Policy Assessment.
With regard to using the distributional statistical analysis to
characterize the confidence in the associations, the EPA emphasizes
that there is no clear dividing line provided by the scientific
evidence, and that choosing how far below the long-term mean
concentrations from the epidemiological studies is appropriate to
identify a standard level that will provide protection for the public
health with an adequate margin of safety is largely a public health
policy judgment. The EPA considers the region from approximately the
25th to 10th percentiles to be a reasonable range for providing a
general frame of reference as to the part of the distribution over
which our confidence in the magnitude and significance of the
associations observed in epidemiological studies is appreciably lower.
Based on these considerations, the EPA concludes that it is not
appropriate to place as much confidence in the magnitude and
significance of the associations over the lower percentiles of the
distributions in each study as at and around the long-term mean
concentrations. Thus, the EPA disagrees with the commenters' views that
this analysis compels placing more emphasis on the lower part of this
range in selecting a level for an annual standard that will protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety. The EPA recognizes
that this information comes primarily from two short-term exposure
studies, a relatively modest data set. In light of the limited nature
of this information, and in recognition of more general uncertainties
inherent in the epidemiological evidence, the Administrator deems it
reasonable not to place more emphasis on concentrations in the lower
part of this range, as discussed below in section III.E.4.d.
With regard to the scope of the distributional statistical
analysis, the EPA requested additional population-level data from the
study authors for a group of six multi-city studies for which previous
air quality analyses had been conducted (Hassett-Sipple et al., 2010;
Schmidt et al., 2010, Analysis 2). These six studies were originally
selected because they considered multiple locations representing
varying geographic regions across multiple years. Thus, these studies
provided evidence on the influence of different particle mixtures on
health effects associated with long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures. In addition, these multi-city studies considered relatively
more recent health events and air quality conditions (1999 to 2005). As
discussed in section III.E.4.b.i above, the EPA received and analyzed
population-level data for four of the six studies (Rajan et al., 2011).
Three of these four studies (Krewski et al., 2009; Bell et al., 2008;
Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009) served as the basis for the
concentration-response functions used to develop the core risk
estimates (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.3.3). While, the EPA agrees that
it would be useful to have such data from more studies, the Agency
believes that the additional data that was requested and received from
study authors provide useful information to help inform the
Administrator's selection of the annual standard level.
(4) Many commenters in this group highlighted PM2.5-
related impacts on at-risk populations, including potential impacts on
children, older adults, persons with pre-existing heart and lung
disease, and low-income populations, to support their views that the
annual standard should be revised to a level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ or lower
(CHPAC, 2012; AHA et al., 2012; ALA, 2012, pp. 29 to 38; Rom et al.,
2012; Air Alliance Houston, et al., 2012). These commenters urged the
EPA to adopt a policy approach that placed less weight on the remaining
uncertainties and limitations in the evidence and placed more emphasis
on margin of safety considerations, including providing protection
against effects for which there is more limited scientific evidence.
For example, CHPAC urged the EPA ``to place the same weight on studies
examining impacts on children's health as that of adult studies. * * *
The fact that there may be stronger evidence from adult studies does
not mean that standards based on adult studies will be protective for
children and consequently will meet the standard requisite to protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety'' (CHPAC, 2012 p. 3).
Furthermore, with regard to the EPA's approach for weighing
uncertainties, some of these commenters stated that ``we find no
justification in the preamble for an annual standard level as high as
13 [mu]g/m\3\, other than the vague assertion that uncertainties
increase at lower concentrations. Further, the final proposal
completely failed to address the Policy Assessment recommendations that
if 13 [mu]g/m\3\ was proposed, the 24-hour standard should be
strengthened as well'' (ALA et al., p. 7).
The EPA has carefully evaluated and considered evidence of effects
in at-risk populations. With regard to effects classified as having
evidence of a causal or likely causal relationship with long- or short-
term PM2.5 exposures (i.e., premature mortality,
cardiovascular effects, and respiratory effects), the Agency takes note
that it considered the full range of studies evaluating these effects,
including studies of at-risk populations, to inform its review of the
primary PM2.5 standards. Specific multi-city studies
summarized in Figures 1, 2, and 3 above highlight evidence of effects
observed in two different lifestages--children and older adults--that
have been identified as at-risk populations. Thus, the EPA places as
much weight on studies that explored effects in children for which the
evidence is causal or likely causal in
[[Page 3155]]
nature as on studies of such effects in adults, including older adults.
As discussed above in responses to commenters supporting the retention
of the current standards, in setting the standard, the EPA has focused
on considering PM2.5 concentrations somewhat below the
lowest long-term mean concentrations from each of the key studies of
both long- and short-term exposures of effects for which the evidence
supports a causal or likely causal relationship (i.e., the first two
sets of studies shown in Figure 4). Absent some reason to ignore or
discount these studies, which the commenter does not provide (and of
which the EPA is unaware), the EPA considers the available evidence of
effects in children as well as other at-risk populations.
With respect to the EPA's consideration of more limited studies
providing evidence suggestive of a causal relationship (e.g.,
developmental and reproductive effects), as noted above in responding
to comments from the first group of commenters, the Agency agrees that
it is important to place some weight on this body of evidence in
setting standards that provide protection for at-risk populations, as
required by the CAA. However, the Agency does not agree that the same
weight must be placed on this information as on the body of scientific
information for which there is evidence of a causal or likely causal
relationship. To do so would ignore the difference in the breadth and
strength of the evidence supporting the different causality
determinations reached in the Integrated Science Assessment.
With regard to weighing the uncertainties and limitations remaining
in the evidence and technical analyses, as discussed in section II.A
above, the EPA recognizes that in setting a primary NAAQS that provides
an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator must consider a number
of factors including the nature and severity of the health effects
involved, the size of sensitive population(s) at risk, and the kind and
degree of the uncertainties that remain. As discussed in section
III.E.4.d below, the Agency agrees with these commenters that, in
weighing the available evidence and technical analyses including the
uncertainties and limitations in this scientific information, there is
no justification for setting a primary PM2.5 annual standard
level as high as 13 [mu]g/m\3\.
Finally, some commenters in both groups also identified ``new''
studies that were not included in the Integrated Science Assessment as
providing further support for their views on the level of the annual
standard. As discussed in section II.B.3 above, the EPA completed a
provisional review and assessment of ``new'' studies published since
the close of the Integrated Science Assessment, including ``new''
studies submitted by commenters (U.S. EPA, 2012b). The provisional
assessment found that the ``new'' studies expand the scientific
information considered in the Integrated Science Assessment and provide
important insights on the relationship between PM2.5
exposure and health effects of PM (U.S. EPA, 2012b). However, the EPA
notes that the provisional assessment found that the ``new'' science
did not materially change the conclusions reached in the Integrated
Science Assessment. The EPA notes that, as in past NAAQS reviews, the
Agency is basing the final decisions in this review on the studies and
related information included in the Integrated Science Assessment that
have undergone CASAC and public review, and will consider newly
published studies for purposes of decision making in the next PM NAAQS
review.
ii. 24-Hour Standard Level
With respect to the level of the 24-hour standard, the EPA received
comments on the proposal from two distinct groups of commenters. One
group that included virtually all commenters representing industry
associations, businesses, and many States agreed with the Agency's
proposed decision to retain the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard. The other group of commenters included many medical groups,
numerous physicians and academic researchers, many public health
organizations, some State and local agencies, five State Attorneys
General, and a large number of individual commenters. These commenters
disagreed with the Agency's proposed decision and argued that EPA
should lower the level of the 24-hour standard to 30 or 25 [mu]g/m\3\.
Comments from these groups on the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard are addressed below and in the Response to Comments Document.
As noted above, of the public commenters who addressed the level of
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, all industry commenters and most
State and local commenters supported the proposed decision to retain
the current level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. In many cases, these groups agreed
with the rationale supporting the Administrator's proposed decision to
retain the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, including her
emphasis on the annual standard as the generally controlling standard
with the 24-hour standard providing supplementary protection, and her
conclusion that multi-city, short-term exposure studies provide the
strongest data set for informing decisions on the appropriate 24-hour
standard level. Many of these commenters agreed with the
Administrator's view that the single-city, short-term studies provided
a much more limited data set (e.g., limited statistical power, limited
exposure data) and more equivocal results (e.g., mixed results within
the same study area), making them an unsuitable basis for setting the
level of the 24-hour standard.
While these commenters agreed with the EPA's proposed decision to
retain the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, some did not
agree with the EPA's approach to considering the evidence from short-
term multi-city studies. For example, a commenter representing UARG
pointed out that the 98th percentile concentrations reported in the
proposal for multi-city studies reflect the averages of 98th percentile
concentrations across the cities included in those studies (UARG, 2012;
Attachment 1; p. 25). This commenter contended that such averaged 98th
percentile PM2.5 concentrations do not provide information
that can appropriately inform a decision on the adequacy of the public
health protection provided by the current or alternative 24-hour
standards.
While the EPA agrees that there is uncertainty in linking effects
reported in multi-city studies to specific air quality concentrations
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.3.4.1), the EPA disagrees with this
commenter's view that such uncertainty precludes the use of averaged
98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations to inform a decision on
the appropriateness of the protection provided by the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard. In particular, the EPA notes that averaged
98th percentile concentrations do provide information on the extent to
which study cities contributing to reported associations would likely
have met or violated the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard
during the study period. As evidence of this, the EPA notes the three
multi-city studies specifically highlighted by this commenter as having
averaged 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations below
35 [mu]g/m\3\ (Dominici et al., 2006a; Bell et al., 2008; Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009). Based on the 98th percentiles of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations in the individual cities evaluated in
these studies, the EPA notes that the majority of these study cities
would likely have met the current standard during the study periods
(Hassett-Sipple et al., 2010). Therefore, regardless of whether the
averaged 98th percentile concentrations or the 98th
[[Page 3156]]
percentile concentrations in each city are considered, these studies
provide evidence for associations between short-term PM2.5
and mortality or morbidity across a large number of U.S. cities, the
majority of which would likely have met the current 24-hour
PM2.5 standard during study periods. In their review of the
PM Policy Assessment, CASAC endorsed the conclusions drawn from
analyses of averaged 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations, and the EPA continues to conclude that this type of
information can appropriately inform the Administrator's decision on
the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ This is not to say that the EPA's decision on whether to
revise the 24-hour PM2.5 standard should be based on or
only be informed by considerations of whether studies reported
associations with mortality or morbidity in areas with averaged 98th
percentile PM2.5 concentrations less than 35 mg/m\3\. As
discussed below, in reaching a decision in this final notice on the
most appropriate approach to strengthen the suite of
PM2.5 standards, the Administrator considers the degree
of public health protection provided by the combination of the
annual and 24-hour standards together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another group of commenters argued that the 24-hour standard level
should be lowered. Many of these commenters supported setting the level
of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard at either 25 or 30 [mu]g/m\3\.
In support of their position, the ALA et. al., AHA et al., five state
Attorneys General, and a number of additional groups pointed to 98th
percentile PM2.5 concentrations in locations of multi-city
and single-city epidemiological studies. For example, the ALA and
others pointed to multi-city studies by Dominici et al. (2006a),
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009), Burnett et al. (2000), and Bell et al.
(2008) as providing evidence for associations with mortality and
morbidity in study locations with averaged (i.e., averaged across
cities) 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations below
35 [mu]g/m\3\. These commenters also pointed to several single-city and
panel studies reporting associations between short-term
PM2.5 and mortality or morbidity in locations with
relatively low 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations. Because some of
these multi- and single-city studies have reported associations with
health effects in locations with 98th percentile PM2.5
concentrations below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, commenters maintained that the
current 24-hour PM2.5 standard (i.e., with its level of 35
[mu]g/m\3\) does not provide an appropriate degree of protection in all
areas.
In further support of their position that the level of the current
24-hour standard should be lowered, these commenters pointed out the
variability across the U.S. in ratios of 24-hour to annual
PM2.5 concentrations. They noted that some locations,
including parts of the northwestern U.S., experience relatively low
annual PM2.5 concentrations but can experience relatively
high 24-hour concentrations at certain times of the year. In order to
provide protection against effects associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposures, especially in locations with high ratios of
24-hour to annual PM2.5 concentrations, these commenters
advocated setting a lower level for the 24-hour standard.
The EPA agrees with these commenters that it is appropriate to
maintain a 24-hour PM2.5 standard in order to supplement the
protection provided by the revised annual standard, particularly in
locations with relatively high ratios of 24-hour to annual
PM2.5 concentrations. However, in highlighting 98th
percentile PM2.5 concentrations in study locations without
also considering the impact of a revised annual standard on short-term
concentrations, these commenters ignore the fact that many areas would
be expected to experience decreasing short- and long-term
PM2.5 concentrations in response to a revised annual
standard.
In considering the specific multi-city studies highlighted by
public commenters who advocated a more stringent 24-hour standard, the
EPA notes that such studies have reported consistently positive and
statistically significant associations with short-term PM2.5
exposures in locations with averaged 98th percentile PM2.5
concentrations ranging from 45.8 to 34.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 13.4 to 12.9 (Burnett and
Goldberg, 2003; Burnett et al., 2004; Dominici et al., 2006a; Bell et
al., 2008; Franklin et al., 2008; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009).\104\
The EPA notes that to the extent air quality distributions are reduced
to meet the current 24-hour standard with its level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
and/or the revised annual standard with its level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\,
additional protection would be anticipated against the effects reported
in these short-term, multi-city studies. Put another way, to attain an
annual standard with a level below the long-term means in the locations
of these short-term studies (as EPA is adopting here), the overall air
quality distributions in the majority of study cities will necessarily
be reduced, resulting in lower daily PM2.5 ambient
concentrations. We therefore expect that the revised annual standard
will result in 98th percentile PM2.5 concentrations in these
cities that are lower than those measured in the studies, and that the
overall distributions of PM2.5 concentrations will be lower
than those reported to be associated with health effects. Thus, even
for effects reported in multi-city studies with averaged 98th
percentile concentrations below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, additional protection
from the risks associated with short-term exposures is anticipated from
the revised annual standard, without revising the 24-hour standard,
because long-term average PM2.5 concentrations in multi-city
study locations were above the level of the revised annual standard
(i.e., 12 [mu]g/m\3\).\105\ As discussed above, reducing the annual
standard is the most efficient way to reduce the risks from short-term
exposures identified in these studies, as the bulk of the risk comes
from the large number of days across the bulk of the air quality
distribution, not the relatively small number of days with peak
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Commenters also highlighted associations with short-term
PM2.5 concentrations reported in sub-analyses restricted
to days with 24-hour concentrations at or below 35 [mu]g/m\3\
(Dominici, 2006b). These sub-analyses were not included in the
original publication by Dominici et al. (2006a). Authors provided
results of sub-analyses for the Administrator's consideration in a
letter to the docket following publication of the proposed rule in
January 2006 (personal communication with Dr. Francesca Dominici,
2006b). As noted in section III.A.3, these sub-analyses are part of
the basis for the conclusion that there is no evidence suggesting
that risks associated with long-term exposures are likely to be
disproportionately driven by peak 24-hour concentrations. Because
the sub-analyses did not present long-term average PM2.5
concentrations, it is not clear whether they reflected
PM2.5 air quality that would have been allowed by the
revised annual PM2.5 standard being established in this
rule.
\105\ It is also the case that additional protection is
anticipated in locations with 98th percentile 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations above 35 [mu]g/m\3\, even if long-
term concentrations are below 12 [mu]g/m\3\. As noted in the
proposal and in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-
10), parts of the northwestern U.S. are more likely than other parts
of the country to violate the 24-hour standard and meet the revised
annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the single-city studies highlighted by public
commenters who advocated a more stringent 24-hour standard, the EPA
first notes that, overall, these single-city studies reported mixed
results. Specifically, some studies reported positive and statistically
significant associations with PM2.5, some studies reported
positive but non-significant associations, and several studies reported
negative associations or a mix of positive and negative associations
with PM2.5. In light of these inconsistent results, the
proposal noted that the overall body of evidence from single-city
studies is mixed, particularly in locations with 98th percentiles of
24-hour concentrations below 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Therefore, although some
single-city
[[Page 3157]]
studies reported effects at appreciably lower PM2.5
concentrations than short-term multi-city studies, the uncertainties
and limitations associated with the single-city studies were noted to
be greater. In light of these greater uncertainties and limitations,
the Administrator concluded in the proposal that she had less
confidence in using these studies as a basis for setting the level of
the standard (77 FR 38943).
Given the considerations and conclusions noted above, in the
proposal the Administrator concluded that the short-term multi-city
studies provide the strongest evidence to inform decisions on the level
of the 24-hour standard. Further, she viewed single-city, short-term
exposure studies as a much more limited data set providing mixed
results, and she had less confidence in using these studies as a basis
for setting the level of a 24-hour standard (77 FR 38942). In
highlighting specific single-city studies, public health,
environmental, and State and local commenters appear to have
selectively focused on studies reporting associations with
PM2.5 and to have overlooked studies that reported more
equivocal results (e.g., Ostro et al., 2003; Rabinovitch et al., 2004;
Slaughter et al., 2005; Villeneuve et al., 2006) (U.S. EPA, 2011,
Figure 2-9). As such, these commenters have not presented new
information that causes the EPA to reconsider its decision to emphasize
multi-city studies over single-city studies when identifying the
appropriate level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.
In further considering the single-city studies highlighted by
public commenters, the EPA notes that some commenters advocating for a
lower level for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard also discussed
short-term studies that have been published since the close of the
Integrated Science Assessment. These recent studies were conducted in
single cities or in small panels of volunteers. As in prior NAAQS
reviews and as discussed above in more detail (section II.B.3), the EPA
is basing its decisions in this review on studies and related
information assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment. The studies
assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment, and the conclusions
based on those studies, have undergone extensive critical review by the
EPA, CASAC, and the public. The rigor of that review makes the studies
assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment, and the conclusions
based on those studies, the most reliable source of scientific
information on which to base decisions on the NAAQS.
However, as discussed above (section II.B.3), the EPA recognizes
that ``new studies'' may sometimes be of such significance that it is
appropriate to delay a decision on revision of a NAAQS and to
supplement the pertinent air quality criteria so the studies can be
taken into account. In the present case, the EPA's provisional
consideration of ``new studies'' concludes that, taken in context, the
``new'' information and findings do not materially change any of the
broad scientific conclusions made in the air quality criteria regarding
the health effects of PM2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2012b).
For this reason, reopening the air quality criteria review would
not be warranted, even if there were time to do so under the court
order governing the schedule for completing this review. Accordingly,
the EPA is basing its final decisions in this review on the studies and
related information included in the PM Integrated Science Assessment
(i.e., the air quality criteria) that has undergone CASAC and public
review. The EPA will consider the ``new studies'' in the next periodic
review of the PM NAAQS, which will provide an opportunity to fully
assess these studies through a more rigorous review process involving
the EPA, CASAC, and the public.
Some public health, medical, and environmental commenters also
criticized the EPA's interpretation of PM2.5 risk results.
These commenters presented risk estimates for combinations of annual
and 24-hour standards using more recent air quality data than that used
in the EPA's Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010a). Based on these
additional risk analyses, the ALA and other commenters contended that
public health benefits could continue to increase as annual and 24-hour
standard levels decrease below 13 [mu]g/m\3\ and 35 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively.
The EPA agrees with commenters that important public health
benefits are expected as a result of revising the level of the annual
standard to 12 [mu]g/m\3\, as is done in this rule, rather than 13
[mu]g/m\3\. The Agency also acknowledges that estimated
PM2.5-associated health risks continue to decrease with
annual standard levels below 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and/or with 24-hour standard
levels below 35 [mu]g/m\3\. However, the EPA disagrees with the
commenters' views regarding the extent to which risk estimates support
setting standard levels below 12 [mu]g/m\3\ (annual standard) and 35
[mu]g/m\3\ (24-hour standard).\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ This section focuses on the 24-hour standard. Section
III.E.4.c.i above also discusses these commenters' recommendations
within the context of the annual PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA charges the Administrator with setting NAAQS that are
``requisite'' (i.e., neither more nor less stringent than necessary) to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. In setting
such standards the Administrator must weigh the available scientific
evidence and information, including associated uncertainties and
limitations. As described above, in reaching her proposed decisions on
the PM2.5 standards that would provide ``requisite''
protection, the Administrator carefully considered the available
scientific evidence and risk information, making public health policy
judgments that, in her view, neither overstated nor understated the
strengths and limitations of that evidence and information. In
contrast, as discussed more fully above, public health, medical, and
environmental commenters who recommended levels below 35 [mu]g/m\3\ for
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard have not provided new information
or analyses to suggest that such standard levels are appropriate, given
the uncertainties and limitations in the available health evidence,
particularly uncertainties in studies conducted in locations with 98th
percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations below 35 [mu]g/m\3\
and long-term average concentrations below 12 [mu]g/m\3\.
d. Administrator's Final Conclusions on the Primary PM2.5
Standard Levels
In reaching her conclusions regarding appropriate standard levels,
the Administrator has considered the epidemiological and other
scientific evidence, estimates of risk reductions associated with just
meeting alternative annual and/or 24-hour standards, air quality
analyses, related limitations and uncertainties, the advice of CASAC,
and extensive public comments on the proposal. After careful
consideration of all of these, the Administrator has decided to revise
the level of the primary annual PM2.5 standard from 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\ to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and to retain the level of the primary
24-hour standard at 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
As an initial matter, the Administrator agrees with the approach
supported by CASAC and discussed in the Policy Assessment as summarized
in sections III.A.3 and III.E.4.a above, of considering the annual and
24-hour standards together in determining the protection afforded
against mortality and morbidity effects associated with both long- and
short-term exposures to PM2.5. This approach is consistent
with the approach taken in the review
[[Page 3158]]
completed in 1997, in contrast to the approach used in the review
completed in 2006 where each standard was considered independently of
the other (i.e., only data from long-term exposure studies were used to
inform the level of the annual standard and only data from short-term
exposure studies were used to inform the level of the 24-hour
standard).\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See 71 FR 61148 and 61168, October 17, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the evidence and quantitative risk assessment, the
Administrator concludes that it is appropriate to set an annual
standard that is generally controlling, which will lower the broad
distribution of 24-hour average concentrations in an area as well as
the annual average concentration, so as to provide protection from both
long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures. In conjunction with
this, it is appropriate to set a 24-hour standard focused on providing
supplemental protection, particularly for areas with high peak-to-mean
ratios of 24-hour concentrations, possibly associated with strong local
or seasonal sources, and for PM2.5-related effects that may
be associated with shorter-than daily exposure periods. The
Administrator concludes this approach will reduce aggregate risks
associated with both long- and short-term exposures more consistently
than a generally controlling 24-hour standard and is the most effective
and efficient way to reduce total PM2.5-related population
risk and to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety.
In selecting the level of the annual PM2.5 standard,
based on the characterization and assessment of the epidemiological and
other studies presented and assessed in the Integrated Science
Assessment and the Policy Assessment, the Administrator recognizes the
substantial increase in the number and diversity of studies available
in this review. This expanded body of evidence includes extended
analyses of the seminal studies of long-term PM2.5 exposures
(i.e., ACS and Harvard Six Cities studies) as well as important new
long-term exposure studies (as summarized in Figures 1 and 2).
Collectively, the Administrator notes that these studies, along with
evidence available in the last review, provide consistent and stronger
evidence than previously observed of an association between long-term
PM2.5 exposures and premature mortality in areas with lower
long-term ambient concentrations than previously observed, with the
strongest evidence related to cardiovascular-related mortality. The
Administrator also recognizes the availability of stronger evidence of
morbidity effects associated with long-term PM2.5 exposures,
including evidence of respiratory effects such as decreased lung
function growth, from the extended analyses for the Southern California
Children's Health Study and evidence of cardiovascular effects from the
WHI study. Furthermore, the Administrator recognizes new U.S. multi-
city studies that greatly expand and reinforce our understanding of
mortality and morbidity effects associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposures, providing stronger evidence of associations
in areas with ambient concentrations similar to those previously
observed in short-term exposure studies considered in the previous
review (as summarized in Figure 3).
The Administrator recognizes the strength of the scientific
evidence for evaluating health effects associated with fine particles,
noting that the newly available scientific evidence builds upon the
previous scientific data base to provide evidence of generally robust
associations and a basis for greater confidence in the reported
associations than in the last review. She notes the conclusion of the
Integrated Science Assessment that this body of evidence supports a
causal relationship between long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures and mortality and cardiovascular effects and a likely causal
relationship between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures
and respiratory effects. In addition, the Administrator notes
additional, but more limited evidence, for a broader range of health
endpoints including evidence suggestive of a causal relationship for
developmental and reproductive effects as well as for carcinogenic
effects.
Based on information discussed and presented in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the Administrator recognizes that health effects
may occur over the full range of concentrations observed in the
epidemiological studies of both long-term and short-term exposures,
since no discernible population-level threshold for any such effects
can be identified based on the currently available evidence (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 2.4.3). To inform her decisions on an appropriate level
for the annual standard that will protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety, in the absence of any discernible
population-level thresholds, the Administrator judges that it is
appropriate to consider the relative degree of confidence in the
magnitude and significance of the associations observed in
epidemiological studies across the range of long-term PM2.5
concentrations in such studies. Further, she recognizes, in taking note
of CASAC advice and the distributional statistics analysis discussed in
the Policy Assessment and in section III.E.4.a above, that there is
significantly greater confidence in the magnitude and significance of
observed associations for the part of the air quality distribution
corresponding to where the bulk of the health events evaluated in each
study have been observed, generally at and around the long-term mean
concentrations. Conversely, she also recognizes that there is
significantly diminished confidence in the magnitude and significance
of observed associations in the lower part of the air quality
distribution corresponding to where a relatively small proportion of
the health events were observed. Further, the Administrator recognizes
that the long-term mean concentrations, or any other specific point in
the air quality distribution of each study, do not represent a ``bright
line'' at and above which effects have been observed and below which
effects have not been observed.
In considering the long-term mean concentrations reported in
epidemiological studies, the Administrator recognizes that in selecting
a level of the annual standard that will protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety, it is not sufficient to focus on a
concentration generally somewhere within the range of long-term mean
concentrations from the key long-term and short-term exposure studies
that reported lower concentrations than had been observed in earlier
reviews. These key studies provide information for various types of
serious health endpoints (including mortality and morbidity effects),
different study populations (which may include at-risk populations such
as children and older adults), and different air quality distributions
that are specific to each study. A level somewhere within the range of
long-term mean concentrations of the full set of key studies would be
higher than the long-term mean of at least one of the studies being
considered and therefore would not provide a sufficient degree of
protection against the health effects observed in that study. Absent
some reasoned basis to place less weight on the evidence in the
epidemiological study with the lowest long-term mean concentration
among these key studies, this approach would not be consistent with the
requirement to set a standard that will protect public health with an
[[Page 3159]]
adequate margin of safety.\108\ Thus, the Administrator recognizes it
is important to protect against the serious effects observed in each of
these studies so as to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety. In so doing, she looks to identify the study with the lowest
long-term mean concentration within the full set of key studies to help
inform her decision of the appropriate standard level which will
provide protection for the broad array of health outcomes observed in
all of the studies, including effects observed in at-risk populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512,
525-26 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, consistent with the general approach summarized in section
III.E.4.a above and supported by CASAC as discussed in section
III.E.4.b.ii above, the Administrator recognizes that it is appropriate
to consider a level for an annual standard that is not just at but
rather is somewhat below the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations reported in each of the key long- and short-term
exposure studies. In so doing, she focuses especially on multi-city
studies that evaluated health endpoints for which the associations are
causal or likely causal (i.e., mortality and cardiovascular and
respiratory effects associated with both long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures). As discussed above, the importance of
considering a level somewhat below the lowest long-term mean
concentrations in this set of key studies is to establish a standard
that would be protective against the observed effects in all of the
studies, and that takes into account the relative degree of confidence
in the magnitude and significance of observed associations across the
air quality distributions in these studies.
The Administrator recognizes that there is no clear way to identify
how much below the long-term mean concentrations of key studies to set
a standard that would provide requisite protection with an adequate
margin of safety. She therefore must use her judgment to weigh the
available scientific and technical information, and associated
uncertainties, to reach a final decision on the appropriate standard
level. In considering the information in Figures 1-4 for effects
classified as having evidence of a causal or likely causal relationship
with long- or short-term PM2.5 exposures, she observes a
cluster of short-term exposure studies with long-term mean
concentrations within a range of 13.4 [mu]g/m\3\ down to 12.8 [mu]g/
m\3\ (Dominici et al., 2006a; Burnett and Goldberg, 2003; Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009; Bell et al., 2008; Burnett et al., 2004). She also
observes a cluster of long-term exposure studies with long-term mean
concentrations within a range of 14.5 [mu]g/m\3\ to 13.6 [mu]g/m\3\
(Dockery et al., 1996; Lipfert et al., 2006a; Zeger et al., 2008;
McConnell et al., 2003; Goss et al., 2004; Eftim et al., 2008). For the
reasons discussed in response to public comments in section III.E.4.c
above, the Administrator is less influenced by the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations from the Miller et al. (2007) and
Krewski et al. (2009) studies with reported long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations of 12.9 and 14.0 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively. In each case, the most relevant exposure periods would
likely have had higher mean PM2.5 concentrations than those
reported in the studies.\109\ Thus, the Administrator considers the
long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations from these two studies
to be a highly uncertain basis for informing her selection of the
annual standard level.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ In the case of Miller et al. (2007), the mean
concentration is based on a single year of air quality data which
post-dated by two years the period for which the health events data
were collected. In the case of Krewski et al. (2009), the air
quality data were based on the last two years of the 18-year period
for which the health event data were collected.
\110\ Nonetheless, as noted above, the EPA notes that the
Krewski et al. (2009) and Miller et al. (2007) studies provide
strong evidence of mortality and cardiovascular-related effects
associated with long-term PM2.5 exposures to inform
causality determinations reached in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 7.2.11 and 7.6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To help guide her judgment of the appropriate level below the long-
term mean concentrations in the epidemiological studies at which to set
the standard, the Administrator considered additional information from
epidemiological studies concerning the broader distribution of
PM2.5 concentrations which correspond to the health events
observed in these studies (e.g., deaths, hospitalizations). The
Administrator observes that the development and use of this information
in considering standard levels is consistent with CASAC's advice, as
discussed in section III.E.4.b.ii above, to focus on understanding the
concentrations that were most influential in generating the health
effect estimates in individual studies (Samet, 2010d, p. 2).
In considering this additional population-level information, the
Administrator recognizes that, in general, the confidence in the
magnitude and significance of an association identified in a study is
strongest at and around the long-term mean concentration for the air
quality distribution, as this represents the part of the distribution
in which the data in any given study are generally most concentrated.
She also recognizes that the degree of confidence decreases as one
moves towards the lower part of the distribution. Consistent with the
approach used in the Policy Assessment, the Administrator believes that
the range from approximately the 25th to 10th percentiles is a
reasonable range for providing a general frame of reference as to the
part of the distribution in which her confidence in the associations
observed in epidemiological studies is appreciably lower. However, as
noted above, it is important to emphasize that there is no clear
dividing line or single percentile within a given distribution provided
by the scientific evidence that is most appropriate or `correct' to use
to characterize where the degree of confidence in the associations
warrants setting the annual standard level. The decision of the
appropriate standard level below the long-term mean concentrations of
the key studies, which in conjunction with the other elements of the
standard would protect public health with an adequate margin of safety,
is largely a public health policy judgment, taking into account all of
the evidence and its related uncertainties.
As discussed in section III.E.4.b, the Administrator takes note of
additional population-level data that were made available to the EPA by
study authors.\111\ In considering this information, the Administrator
particularly focuses on the analysis of the distributions of the health
event data for each area within these studies and the corresponding air
quality data for the two short-term exposure studies (Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009; Bell et al., 2008). These short-term exposure studies
evaluate the relationship between daily changes (one or more days) in
PM2.5 concentrations and daily changes in health events
(e.g., deaths, hospitalizations), such that the air quality
concentrations that comprise the most relevant exposure periods in
these
[[Page 3160]]
studies are contemporaneous with the health event data. In addition,
these studies considered more recent air quality data, representing
generally lower PM2.5 concentrations, in a large number of
study areas across the U.S. Thus, such studies provide the most useful
evidence for an analysis evaluating the distribution of health event
data and the corresponding long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations across the areas included in each multi-city study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ As summarized in section III.E.4.a, population-level data
were provided to the EPA for four studies. These four studies
represent some of the strongest evidence showing associations
between health effects and PM2.5 within the overall body
of scientific evidence and include three studies (Krewski et al.,
2009; Bell et al., 2008; and Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009) that were
used as the basis for concentration-response functions in the
quantitative risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.3.3). The
Administrator recognizes that the additional population-level data
available for these four multi-city studies represents a more
limited data set compared to the set of long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations which were available in the
published literature for all studies considered in the Integrated
Science Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administrator also considered the additional population-level
data that were made available to EPA for two long-term exposure studies
(Krewski et al., 2009; Miller et al., 2007). She recognizes that in
long-term exposure studies investigators follow a specific group of
study participants (i.e., cohort) over time and across urban study
areas, and evaluate how PM2.5 concentrations averaged over a
period of years are associated with specific health endpoints (e.g.,
deaths) across cities. As discussed in response to public comments in
section III.E.4.c, disentangling the effects observed in long-term
exposure studies associated with more recent air quality measurements
from effects that may have been associated with earlier, and most
likely higher, PM2.5 exposures introduces some uncertainty
with regard to understanding the appropriate exposure window associated
with the observed effects. This is in contrast to the short-term
exposure studies where the relevant exposure period is contemporaneous
to the period for which the health data were collected. In light of
these considerations, as noted above, the Administrator considers the
analysis of air quality concentrations that correspond to the
distribution of population-level data in these two studies to be a
highly uncertain basis for informing her selection of the annual
standard level.
Based on the above considerations, the Administrator views the
additional population-level data for the two short-term exposure
studies as appropriate to help inform her judgment of how much below
the long-term mean concentrations to set the level of the annual
standard. The Administrator notes that the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations corresponding with study areas
contributing to the 25th percentiles of the distribution of deaths and
cardiovascular-related hospitalizations in these two short-term
exposure studies were 12.5 [micro]g/m\3\ and 11.5 [micro]g/m\3\,
respectively, for Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) and for Bell et al.
(2008), with the 10th percentiles being lower by approximately 2
[micro]g/m\3\ in each study.
The Administrator recognizes, as summarized in section III.B above
and discussed more fully in section III.B.2 of the proposal, that
important uncertainties remain in the evidence and information
considered in this review of the primary fine particle standards. These
uncertainties are generally related to understanding the relative
toxicity of the different components in the fine particle mixture, the
role of PM2.5 in the complex ambient mixture, exposure
measurement errors, and the nature and magnitude of estimated risks
related to increasingly lower ambient PM2.5 concentrations.
Furthermore, the Administrator notes that epidemiological studies have
reported heterogeneity in responses both within and between cities and
geographic regions across the U.S. She recognizes that this
heterogeneity may be attributed, in part, to differences in fine
particle composition in different regions and cities.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Nonetheless, as explained in section III.E.1, the
currently available evidence is not sufficient to support replacing
or supplementing the PM2.5 indicator with any other
indicator defined in terms of a specific fine particle component or
group of components associated with any source categories of fine
particles. Furthermore, the evidence is not sufficient to support
eliminating any component or group of components associated with any
source categories of fine particles from the mix of fine particles
included in the PM2.5 indicator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to evidence for reproductive and developmental effects
identified as being suggestive of a causal relationship with long-term
PM2.5 exposures, the Administrator recognizes that there are
a number of limitations associated with this body of evidence
including: the limited number of studies evaluating such effects;
uncertainties related to identifying the relevant exposure time periods
of concern; and limited toxicological evidence providing little
information on the mode of action(s) or biological plausibility for an
association between long-term PM2.5 exposures and adverse
birth outcomes. Nonetheless, the Administrator believes that this more
limited body of evidence provides some support for considering that
serious effects may be occurring in a susceptible population at
concentrations lower than those associated with effects classified as
having a causal or likely causal relationship with long-term
PM2.5 exposures (i.e., mortality, cardiovascular, and
respiratory effects).
Overall, the Administrator believes that the available evidence
interpreted in light of the remaining uncertainties, as summarized
above and discussed more fully in the Integrated Science Assessment and
the Policy Assessment, provides increased confidence relative to
information available in the last review and provides a strong basis
for informing her final decisions in the current review. The
Administrator is mindful that considering what standards are requisite
to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety requires
public health policy judgments that neither overstate nor understate
the strength and limitations of the evidence or the appropriate
inferences to be drawn from the evidence. In considering how to
translate the available information into appropriate standard levels,
the Administrator weighs the available scientific information and
associated uncertainties and limitations. For the purpose of
determining what annual standard level is appropriate the Administrator
recognizes that there is no single factor or criterion that comprises
the ``correct'' approach to weighing the various types of available
evidence and information.
In considering this information, the Administrator notes the advice
of CASAC that ``there are significant public health consequences at the
current levels of the standards that justify consideration of lowering
the PM2.5 NAAQS further'' (Samet, 2010c, p. 12). In
addition, she recognizes that CASAC concluded, ``although there is
increasing uncertainty at lower levels, there is no evidence of a
threshold (i.e., a level below which there is no risk for adverse
effects)'' (Samet, 2010d, p.ii) and that the final decisions on
standard levels must reflect a judgment of the available scientific
information with respect to her interpretation of the CAA's requirement
to set primary standards that provide requisite protection to public
health with an adequate margin of safety (Samet, 2010d, p. 4). The
Administrator recognizes CASAC's advice that the currently available
scientific information provided support for considering an annual
standard level within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ and a 24-hour
standard level within a range of 35 to 30 [mu]g/m\3\. In considering
how the annual and 24-hour standards work together to provide
appropriate public health protection, the Administrator observes that
CASAC did not express support for any specific levels or combinations
of standards within these ranges. She also notes that CASAC encouraged
the EPA staff to consider additional data from epidemiological studies
to help quantify the characterization of the PM2.5
concentrations that were most influential in generating the health
[[Page 3161]]
effect estimates in these studies (Samet, 2010d, p. 2).
In response to CASAC's advice, the Administrator recognizes that
the EPA staff acquired additional data from authors of key
epidemiological studies and analyzed these data to characterize the
distribution of PM2.5 concentrations in relation to health
events data to better understand the degree of confidence in the
associations observed in the studies as discussed above. The
Administrator recognizes that the final Policy Assessment included
consideration of these additional analyses in reaching final staff
conclusions with regard to the broadest range of alternative standard
levels supported by the science. She takes note that the final Policy
Assessment concluded that while alternative standard levels within the
range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ were appropriate to consider, the evidence
most strongly supported consideration of an annual standard level in
the range of 12 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\. The Administrator is aware that, in
transmitting the final Policy Assessment to CASAC, the Agency notified
CASAC that the final staff conclusions reflected consideration of
CASAC's advice and that those staff conclusions were based, in part, on
the specific distributional analysis that CASAC had urged the EPA to
conduct (Wegman, 2011). Thus, CASAC had an opportunity to comment on
the final Policy Assessment, but chose not to provide any additional
comments or advice after receiving it.
In selecting the annual standard level, the Administrator has
considered many factors including the nature and severity of the health
effects involved, the strength of the overall body of scientific
evidence as considered in reaching causality determinations, the size
of the at-risk populations, and the estimated public health impacts.
She has also considered the kind and degree of the uncertainties that
remain in the available scientific information. She recognizes that the
association between PM2.5 and serious health effects is well
established, including at concentrations below those allowed by the
current standard. Further, she recognizes the CAA requirement that
requires primary standards to provide an adequate margin of safety was
intended to address uncertainties associated with inconclusive
scientific and technical information as well as to provide a reasonable
degree of protection against hazards that research has not yet
identified. In considering the currently available evidence, as
summarized and discussed more broadly above, the information on risk,
CASAC advice, the conclusions of the Policy Assessment, and public
comments on the proposal, the Administrator strongly believes that a
lower annual standard level is needed to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety.
In reaching her final decision on the appropriate annual standard
level to set, the Administrator is mindful that the CAA does not
require that primary standards be set at a zero-risk level, but rather
at a level that reduces risk sufficiently so as to protect public
health, including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate
margin of safety. On balance, the Administrator concludes that an
annual standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ would be requisite to protect
the public health with an adequate margin of safety from effects
associated with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures, while
still recognizing that uncertainties remain in the scientific
information.
In the Administrator's judgment, an annual standard of 12 [mu]g/
m\3\ appropriately reflects placing greatest weight on evidence of
effects for which the Integrated Science Assessment determined there is
a causal or likely causal relationship with long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures. An annual standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\
is below the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations reported in
each of the key multi-city, long- and short-term exposures studies
providing evidence of an array of serious health effects (e.g.,
premature mortality, increased hospitalization for cardiovascular and
respiratory effects). As noted above, the importance of considering a
level somewhat below the lowest long-term mean concentration in the
full set of studies considered is to set a standard that would provide
appropriate protection against the observed effects in all such
studies.
In reaching her decision, the Administrator has taken into account
that at and around the mean PM2.5 concentration in any given
study represents a part of the air quality distribution in which the
health event data in that study are generally most concentrated.
Furthermore, in identifying an appropriate annual standard level below
the long-term mean concentrations, she recognizes that there is no
evidence to support the existence of any discernible threshold, and,
therefore, she has a high degree of confidence that the observed
effects are associated with concentrations not just at but extending
somewhat below the long-term mean concentration. To further inform her
judgment in setting the annual standard level so as to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety, the Administrator has placed
weight on additional population-level information available from a
subset of these epidemiological studies, consistent with CASAC advice.
In particular, she has drawn from two short-term exposure studies,
which provide the most relevant information for evaluating the
distribution of health events and corresponding long-term
PM2.5 concentrations. As explained above, this helps inform
her judgment as to the degree of confidence in the observed
associations in the epidemiological studies. In this regard, the
Administrator generally judges the region around the 25th percentile as
a reasonable part of the distribution to help guide her decision on the
appropriate standard level. Since this evidence comes primarily from
two studies, a relatively modest data set, the Administrator deems it
reasonable not to draw further inferences from air quality and health
event data in the lower part of the distribution for the purpose of
setting a standard level. The Administrator notes that the long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations around the 25th percentile of the
distributions of deaths and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations
were approximately around 12 [mu]g/m\3\ in these two studies. The
Administrator views this information as helpful in guiding her
determination as to where her confidence in the magnitude and
significance of the associations is reduced to such a degree that a
standard set at a lower level would not be warranted to provide
requisite protection that is neither more nor less than needed to
provide an adequate margin of safety.
The Administrator also recognizes that a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\
places some weight on studies which provide evidence of reproductive
and developmental effects (e.g., infant mortality, low birth weight).
These studies were identified in the Integrated Science Assessment as
having evidence suggestive of a causal relationship with long-term
PM2.5 concentrations. A level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ is
approximately the same level as the lowest long-term mean concentration
reported in such studies (Figures 2 and 4; 11.9 [mu]g/m\3\ for Bell et
al., 2007).\113\ While the Administrator
[[Page 3162]]
acknowledges that this evidence is limited, she believes it is
appropriate to place some weight on these studies in order to set a
standard that provides protection with an adequate margin of safety,
including providing protection for at-risk populations, as required by
the CAA. Due to the limited nature of this evidence, she has determined
it is not necessary to set a standard below the lowest long-term mean
concentration in these studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ With respect to cancer, mutagenic, and genotoxic effects,
the Administrator observes that the PM2.5 concentrations
reported in studies evaluating these effects generally included
ambient concentrations that are equal to or greater than ambient
concentrations observed in studies that reported mortality and
cardiovascular and respiratory effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
7.5). Therefore, the Administrator concludes that in selecting
alternative standard levels that provide protection from mortality
and cardiovascular and respiratory effects, it is reasonable to
anticipate that protection will also be provided for carcinogenic
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reflecting on extensive public comments received on the proposal
as discussed in section III.E.4.c above, the Administrator recognizes
that some commenters have offered different evaluations of the evidence
and other information available in this review and would make different
judgments about the weight to place on the relative strengths and
limitations of the scientific information and about how such
information could be used in making public health policy decisions on
the annual standard level. One group of such commenters who supported a
higher annual standard level (e.g., above 13 [mu]g/m\3\) would place
greater weight on the remaining uncertainties in the evidence as a
basis for supporting a higher standard level than the Administrator
judges to be appropriate. Such an approach is based on these
commenters' judgment that the uncertainties remaining in the evidence
are too great to warrant setting an annual standard below the current
level. The Administrator does not agree.
As an initial matter, an annual standard level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ or
higher would be above the long-term mean concentrations reported in two
well-conducted, multi-city short-term exposure studies reporting
positive and statistically significant associations of serious effects
(Burnett et al., 2004 and Bell et al., 2008). These important studies
are fully consistent with the pattern of evidence presented by the
large body of evidence in this review. As the Administrator recognized
in the proposal, and as advised by CASAC, the appropriate focus for
selecting the level of the annual PM2.5 standard is on
concentrations somewhat below the lowest long-term mean concentrations
from the set of key studies of both long-term and short-term
PM2.5 exposures considered by the EPA (i.e., as shown in
Figure 4). Thus, a standard level set at 13 [mu]g/m\3\ or higher would
clearly not provide protection for the effects observed in the full set
epidemiological studies and, therefore, this standard level could not
be judged to be requisite with an adequate margin of safety.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ The Administrator is mindful that, in reviewing the 2006
final PM NAAQS decisions, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
concluded that the EPA failed to adequately explain why that annual
standard provided requisite protection from effects associated with
both long- and short-term exposures or from morbidity effects in
children and other at-risk populations when long-term means of
important short-term studies were below the level the Administrator
selected for the annual standard. See American Farm Bureau v. EPA.
559 F. 3d 512, 524-26. There is no reasonable basis to discount
these two studies for purposes of setting the level of the annual
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted above, in recognizing that there is no
evidence to support the existence of a discernible threshold below
which an effect would not occur, the Administrator is mindful that
effects occur around and below the long-term mean concentrations
reported in both the short-term and long-term the epidemiological
studies. A standard level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ or higher would not
appropriately take into account evidence from the two well-conducted,
multi-city, short-term exposure studies reporting serious effects with
long-term mean concentrations below 13 [mu]g/m\3\ noted above (Burnett
et al, 2004; Bell et al., 2008). Such a standard level would also not
appropriately take into account additional population-level data from a
limited number of epidemiological studies. This approach would ignore
CASAC's advice to consider such information in order to better
understand the concentrations over which there is a high degree of
confidence regarding the magnitude and significance of the associations
observed in individual epidemiological studies and where there is
appreciably less confidence.
Furthermore, a standard level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ or higher would not
appropriately take into account the more limited evidence of effects in
some at-risk populations (e.g., low birth weight). In the
Administrator's view, a standard set at this level would not provide
protection with an adequate margin of safety, including providing
protection for at-risk populations. The Administrator is mindful that
the CAA requirement that primary standards provide an adequate margin
of safety, discussed in section II.A above, was intended to address
uncertainties associated with inconclusive scientific and technical
information available at the time of standard setting as well as to
provide a reasonable degree of protection against hazards that research
has not yet identified.
In light of the entire body of evidence as discussed above, the
Administrator judges that an annual standard level set above 12 [mu]g/
m\3\ would not be sufficient to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety from the serious health effects associated with long-
and short-term exposure to PM2.5.
The Administrator also recognizes that a second group of commenters
supported a lower annual standard level (e.g., no higher than 11 [mu]g/
m\3\). Such a standard level would reflect placing essentially as much
weight on the relatively more limited data providing evidence
suggestive of a causal relationship for effects observed in some at-
risk populations (e.g., low birth weight) as on more certain evidence
of effects classified as having a causal or likely causal relationship
with PM2.5 exposures. In the Administrator's view, while it
is important to place some weight on such suggestive evidence, it would
not be appropriate to place as much weight on it as the commenters
would do.
An annual standard level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ would also reflect these
commenters' judgment that it is appropriate to focus on a lower part of
the distributions of health event data from the small number of
epidemiological studies for which this information was made available
than the Administrator believes is warranted. In the Administrator's
view, using this type of information to set a standard level of 11
[mu]g/m\3\ or below would assume too high a degree of confidence in the
magnitude and significance of the associations observed in the lower
part of the distributions of health events observed in these studies.
Given the uncertainties in the evidence and the limited set of studies
for which the EPA has information on the distribution of health event
data and corresponding air quality data, the Administrator believes it
is not appropriate to focus on the lower part of the distributions of
health events data.
On balance, the Administrator finds that the available evidence
interpreted in light of the remaining uncertainties does not justify a
standard level set below 12 [mu]g/m\3\ as necessary to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety.
After carefully considering the above considerations and the public
comments summarized in section III.E.4.c above, the Administrator has
decided to set the level of the primary annual PM2.5
standard at 12 [mu]g/m\3\. In her judgment, a standard set at this
level provides the requisite degree of public health protection,
including the health of at-risk populations, with an adequate margin of
safety and is neither more nor less stringent than necessary for this
purpose.
[[Page 3163]]
As discussed above, the Administrator concludes that an approach
that focuses on setting a generally controlling annual standard is the
most effective and efficient way to reduce total population risk
associated with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures.
Such an approach would result in more uniform protection across the
U.S. than the alternative of setting the levels of the 24-hour and
annual standard such that the 24-hour standard would generally be the
controlling standard in areas across the country (see section III.A.3).
The Administrator recognizes that potential air quality changes
associated with meeting an annual standard level of 12.[mu]g/m\3\ will
result in lowering risks associated with both long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures by lowering the overall air quality
distribution. However, the Administrator recognizes that such an annual
standard alone would not be expected to offer sufficient protection
with an adequate margin of safety against the effects of short-term
PM2.5 exposures in all parts of the country. As a result, in
conjunction with an annual standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\, the
Administrator concludes that it is appropriate to continue to provide
supplemental protection by means of a 24-hour standard set at the
appropriate level, particularly for areas with high peak-to-mean ratios
possibly associated with strong local or seasonal sources and for areas
with PM2.5-related effects that may be associated with
shorter-than-daily exposure periods.
In selecting the level of a 24-hour standard meant to provide such
supplemental protection, the Administrator relies upon evidence and air
quality information from key short-term exposure studies. In
considering these studies, the Administrator notes that to the extent
air quality distributions in the study areas considered are reduced to
meet the current 24-hour standard (at a level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\) or to
meet the revised annual standard discussed above (at a level of 12
[mu]g/m\3\), additional protection would be anticipated against the
effects observed in these studies. In light of this, when selecting the
appropriate level for the 24-hour standard, the Administrator considers
both the 98th percentiles of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations
and the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations in the locations
of the short-term exposure studies. She notes that such consideration
of both short- and long-term PM2.5 concentrations can inform
her decision on the extent to which a given 24-hour standard, in
combination with the revised annual standard established in this rule,
would provide protection against the health effects reported in short-
term studies.
As discussed in section III.E.4.a above, the Administrator
concludes that multi-city short-term exposure studies provide the
strongest data set for informing her decisions on appropriate 24-hour
standard levels. With regard to the limited number of single-city
studies that reported positive and statistically significant
associations for a range of health endpoints related to short-term
PM2.5 concentrations in areas that would likely have met the
current suite of PM2.5 standards, the Administrator
recognizes that many of these studies had significant limitations
(e.g., limited statistical power, limited exposure data) or equivocal
results (mixed results within the same study area) that make them
unsuitable to form the basis for setting the level of a 24-hour
standard.
With regard to multi-city studies that evaluated effects associated
with short-term PM2.5 exposures, the Administrator observes
an overall pattern of positive and statistically significant
associations in studies with 98th percentile 24-hour values averaged
across study areas within the range of 45.8 to 34.2 [mu]g/m\3\ (Burnett
et al., 2004; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Bell et al., 2008; Dominici
et al., 2006a, Burnett and Goldberg, 2003; Franklin et al., 2008). The
Administrator notes that, to the extent air quality distributions are
reduced to reflect just meeting the current 24-hour standard,
additional protection would be provided for the effects observed in the
three multi-city studies with 98th percentile values greater than 35
[mu]g/m\3\ (Burnett et al., 2004; Burnett and Goldberg, 2003; Franklin
et al., 2008). In the three additional multi-city studies with 98th
percentile values below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, specifically 98th percentile
concentrations of 34.2, 34.3, and 34.8 [mu]g/m\3\, the Administrator
notes that these studies reported long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations of 12.9, 13.2, and 13.4 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively (Bell
et al., 2008; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Dominici et al., 2006a). In
revising the level of the annual standard to 12 [mu]g/m\3\, as
discussed above, the Administrator recognizes that additional
protection would be provided for the short-term effects observed in
these multi-city studies such that revision to the 24-hour standard
would not be warranted. That is, by lowering the level of the annual
standard to 12 [mu]g/m\3\, the 98th percentile of the distribution
would be lowered as well such that additional protection from effects
associated with short-term exposures would be afforded. Therefore, the
epidemiological evidence supports a conclusion that it is appropriate
to retain the level of the 24-hour standard at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, in
conjunction with a revised annual standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\.
In addition to considering the epidemiological evidence, the
Administrator also has taken into account air quality information based
on county-level 24-hour and annual design values to understand the
implications of revising the annual standard level from 15 to 12 [mu]g/
m\3\ in conjunction with retaining the 24-hour standard level at 35
[mu]g/m\3\. She has considered this information to evaluate the public
health protection provided by the two standards in combination and to
evaluate the most appropriate means of developing a suite of standards
providing requisite public health protection with an adequate margin of
safety.
In considering the air quality information, the Administrator
observes that a suite of PM2.5 standards that includes an
annual standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and a 24-hour standard level of
35 [mu]g/m\3\ would result in the annual standard as the generally
controlling standard in most regions across the country, except for
certain areas in the Northwest, where the annual mean PM2.5
concentrations have historically been low but where relatively high 24-
hour concentrations occur, often related to seasonal wood smoke
emissions (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-89 to 2-91, Figure 2-10). In fact,
these are the type of areas for which the supplemental protection
afforded by the 24-hour standard is intended, such that the two
standards together provide the requisite degree of protection. The
Administrator concludes the current 24-hour standard at a level of 35
[mu]g/m\3\, in conjunction with a revised annual standard level of 12
[mu]g/m\3\, will provide appropriate protection from effects observed
in studies in such areas in which the long-term mean concentrations
were below 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and the 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations
were above 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (e.g., areas in the Northwest U.S.).
After carefully taking the public comments and above considerations
into account, the Administrator has decided to retain the current level
of the primary PM2.5 24-hour standard at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ in
conjunction with revising the annual standard level from 15.0 [mu]g/
m\3\ to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.\115\ In the Administrator's
[[Page 3164]]
judgment, this suite of primary PM2.5 standards and the
rationale supporting these levels appropriately reflects consideration
of the strength of the available evidence and other information and its
associated uncertainties as well as the advice of CASAC and
consideration of public comments. In the Administrator's judgment, this
suite of primary PM2.5 standards is sufficient but not more
protective than necessary to protect the public health, including at-
risk populations, with an adequate margin of safety from effects
associated with long- and short-term exposures to fine particles. This
suite of standards will provide significant protection from serious
health effects including premature mortality and cardiovascular and
respiratory morbidity effects that are causally or likely causally
related to long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures. These
standards will also provide an appropriate degree of protection against
other health effects for which there is more limited evidence of
effects and causality, such as reproductive and developmental effects.
This judgment by the Administrator appropriately considers the
requirement for a standard that is requisite to protect public health
but is neither more nor less stringent than necessary.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ As noted in section II.B.1, Table 1 and section III.E.4.a
above, the annual standard level is defined to one decimal place.
Throughout this section, the annual standard levels discussed have
been denoted as integer values (e.g., 12 [mu]g/m\3\) for simplicity.
\116\ The Administrator also judges that this suite of standards
addresses the issues raised by the D.C. Circuit's remand of the 2006
primary annual PM2.5 standard by appropriately revising
that standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Administrator's Final Decisions on Primary PM2.5 Standards
For the reasons discussed above, and taking into account the
information and assessments presented in the Integrated Science
Assessment, Risk Assessment, and Policy Assessment, the advice and
recommendations of CASAC, and public comments to date, the
Administrator revises the current suite of primary PM2.5
standards. Specifically, the Administrator revises: (1) The level of
the primary annual PM2.5 standard to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\ and (2)
the form of the primary annual PM2.5 standard to one based
on the highest appropriate area-wide monitor in an area, with no option
for spatial averaging. In conjunction with revising the primary annual
PM2.5 standard to provide protection from effects associated
with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures, the Administrator
retains the level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and the 98th percentile form of the
primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard to continue to provide
supplemental protection for areas with high peak PM2.5
concentrations. The Administrator is not revising the current
PM2.5 indicator or the annual and 24-hour averaging times
for the primary PM2.5 standards. The Administrator concludes
that this suite of standards would be requisite to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety against health effects
potentially associated with long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures.
IV. Rationale for Final Decision on Primary PM10 Standard
This section presents the rationale for the Administrator's final
decision to retain the current 24-hour primary PM10 standard
in order to continue to provide public health protection against short-
term exposures to inhalable particles in the size range of 2.5 to 10
[mu]m (i.e., PM10-2.5 or thoracic coarse particles). These
are particles capable of reaching the most sensitive areas of the lung,
including the trachea, bronchi, and deep lungs. The current standard
uses PM10 as the indicator for thoracic coarse particles,
and thus is referred to as a PM10 standard.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Throughout this section of the preamble, we are using the
terms ``thoracic coarse particles'', ``inhalable coarse particles'',
and ``PM10-2.5'' synonymously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed more fully in the proposal and below, this rationale
is based on a thorough review of the latest scientific evidence,
published through mid-2009 and assessed in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a), evaluating human health effects
associated with long- and short-term exposures to thoracic coarse
particles. The Administrator's final decision also takes into account:
(1) The EPA staff analyses of air quality information and health
evidence and staff conclusions regarding the current and potential
alternative standards, as presented in the Policy Assessment for the PM
NAAQS (U.S. EPA, 2011a); (2) CASAC advice and recommendations, as
reflected in discussions at public meetings of drafts of the Integrated
Science Assessment and Policy Assessment, and in CASAC's letters to the
Administrator; (3) the multiple rounds of public comments received
during the development of the Integrated Science Assessment and Policy
Assessment, both in connection with CASAC meetings and separately; and
(4) public comments (including testimony at the public hearings)
received on the proposal.
In presenting the rationale for the final decision to retain the
current primary PM10 standard, this section discusses the
EPA's past reviews of the PM NAAQS and the general approach taken to
review the current standard (section IV.A), the health effects
associated with exposures to ambient PM10-2.5 (section
IV.B), the consideration of the current and potential alternative
standards in the Policy Assessment (section IV.C), CASAC
recommendations regarding the current and potential alternative
standards (section IV.D), the Administrator's proposed decision to
retain the current primary PM10 standard (section IV.E),
public comments received in response to the Administrator's proposed
decision (section IV.F), and the Administrator's final decision to
retain the current primary PM10 standard (section IV.G).
A. Background
The following sections discuss previous reviews of the PM NAAQS
(section IV.A.1), the litigation of the EPA's 2006 decision on the
PM10 standards (section IV.A.2), and the general approach
taken to review the primary PM10 standard in the current
review (section IV.A.3).
1. Previous Reviews of the PM NAAQS
a. Reviews Completed in 1987 and 1997
The PM NAAQS have always included some type of a primary standard
to protect against effects associated with exposures to thoracic coarse
particles. In 1987, when the EPA first revised the PM NAAQS, the EPA
changed the indicator for PM from TSP to focus on inhalable particles,
those which can penetrate into the trachea, bronchi, and deep lungs (52
FR 24634, July 1, 1987). In that review, the EPA changed the PM
indicator to PM10 based on evidence that the risk of adverse
health effects associated with particles with a nominal mean
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 [mu]m was significantly
greater than risks associated with larger particles (52 FR 24639, July
1, 1987).
In the 1997 review, in conjunction with establishing new fine
particle (i.e., PM2.5) standards (discussed above in
sections II.B.1 and III.A.1), the EPA concluded that continued
protection was warranted against potential effects associated with
thoracic coarse particles in the size range of 2.5 to 10 [mu]m. This
conclusion was based on particle dosimetry, toxicological information,
and on limited epidemiological evidence from studies that measured
PM10 in areas where the coarse fraction was likely to
dominate PM10 mass (62 FR 38677, July 18, 1997). The EPA
concluded there that a PM10 standard could provide requisite
protection against effects associated with particles
[[Page 3165]]
in the size range of 2.5 to 10 [mu]m.\118\ Although the EPA considered
a more narrowly defined indicator for thoracic coarse particles in that
review (i.e., PM10-2.5), the EPA concluded that it was more
appropriate, based on existing evidence, to continue to use
PM10 as the indicator. This decision was based, in part, on
the recognition that the only studies of clear quantitative relevance
to health effects most likely associated with thoracic coarse particles
used PM10. These were two studies conducted in areas where
the coarse fraction was the dominant fraction of PM10, and
which substantially exceeded the 24-hour PM10 standard (62
FR 38679). In addition, there were only very limited ambient air
quality data then available specifically for PM10-2.5, in
contrast to the extensive monitoring network already in place for
PM10. Therefore, the EPA considered it more administratively
feasible to use PM10 as an indicator. The EPA also stated
that the PM10 standards would work in conjunction with the
PM2.5 standards by regulating the portion of particulate
pollution not regulated by the then newly adopted PM2.5
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ With regard to the 24-hour PM10 standard, the
EPA retained the indicator, averaging time, and level (150 [mu]g/
m\3\), but revised the form (i.e., from one-expected-exceedance to
the 99th percentile).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 1998, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit found ``ample support'' for the EPA's
decision to regulate coarse particle pollution, but vacated the 1997
PM10 standards, concluding that the EPA had failed to
adequately explain its choice of PM10 as the indicator for
thoracic coarse particles American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F.
3d 1027, 1054-56 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In particular, the court held that
the EPA had not explained the use of an indicator under which the
allowable level of coarse particles varied according to the amount of
PM2.5 present, and which, moreover, potentially double
regulated PM2.5. The court also rejected considerations of
administrative feasibility as justification for use of PM10
as the indicator for thoracic coarse PM, since NAAQS (and their
elements) are to be based exclusively on health and welfare
considerations. Id. at 1054. Pursuant to the court's decision, the EPA
removed the vacated 1997 PM10 standards from the CFR (69 FR
45592, July 30, 2004) and deleted the regulatory provision (at 40 CFR
50.6(d)) that controlled the transition from the pre-existing 1987
PM10 standards to the 1997 PM10 standards (65 FR
80776, December 22, 2000). The pre-existing 1987 PM10
standards thus remained in place. Id. at 80777.
b. Review Completed in 2006
In the review of the PM NAAQS that concluded in 2006, the EPA
considered the growing, but still limited, body of evidence supporting
associations between health effects and thoracic coarse particles
measured as PM10-2.5.\119\ The new studies available in the
2006 review included epidemiological studies that reported associations
with health effects using direct measurements of PM10-2.5,
as well as dosimetric and toxicological studies. In considering this
growing body of PM10-2.5 evidence, as well as evidence from
studies that measured PM10 in locations where the majority
of PM10 was in the PM10-2.5 fraction (U.S. EPA,
2005, section 5.4.1), staff concluded that the level of protection
afforded by the existing 1987 PM10 standard remained
appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 5-67) but recommended that the
indicator for the standard be revised. Specifically, staff recommended
replacing the PM10 indicator with an indicator of urban
thoracic coarse particles in the size range of 10-2.5 [mu]m (U.S. EPA,
2005, pp. 5-70 to 5-71). The agency proposed to retain a standard for a
subset of thoracic coarse particles, proposing a qualified
PM10-2.5 indicator to focus on the mix of thoracic coarse
particles generally present in urban environments. More specifically,
the proposed revised thoracic coarse particle standard would have
applied only to an ambient mix of PM10-2.5 dominated by
resuspended dust from high-density traffic on paved roads and/or by
industrial and construction sources. The proposed revised standard
would not have applied to any ambient mix of PM10-2.5
dominated by rural windblown dust and soils. In addition, agricultural
sources, mining sources, and other similar sources of crustal material
would not have been subject to control in meeting the standard (71 FR
2667 to 2668, January 17, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ The PM Staff Paper (U.S. EPA, 2005) also presented results
of a quantitative assessment of health risks for
PM10-2.5. However, staff concluded that the nature and
magnitude of the uncertainties and concerns associated with this
risk assessment weighed against its use as a basis for recommending
specific levels for a thoracic coarse particle standard (U.S. EPA,
2005, p. 5-69).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency received a large number of comments overwhelmingly and
persuasively opposed to the proposed qualified PM10-2.5
indicator (71 FR 61188 to 61197, October 17, 2006). After careful
consideration of the scientific evidence and the recommendations
contained in the 2005 Staff Paper, the advice and recommendations from
CASAC, and the public comments received regarding the appropriate
indicator for coarse particles, and after extensive evaluation of the
alternatives available to the Agency, the Administrator decided it
would not be appropriate to adopt the proposed qualified
PM10-2.5 indicator, or any qualified indicator. Underlying
this determination was the Administrator's decision that it was
requisite to provide protection from exposure to all thoracic coarse
PM, regardless of its origin. The Administrator thus rejected arguments
that there are no health effects from community-level exposures to
coarse PM in non-urban areas (71 FR 61189). The EPA concluded that
dosimetric, toxicological, occupational and epidemiological evidence
supported retention of a primary standard for short-term exposures that
included all thoracic coarse particles (i.e., particles of both urban
and non-urban origin), consistent with the Act's requirement that
primary NAAQS must be requisite to protect the public health and
provide an adequate margin of safety. At the same time, the Agency
concluded that the standard should target protection toward urban
areas, where the evidence of health effects from exposure to
PM10-2.5 was strongest (71 FR at 61193, 61197). The proposed
indicator was not suitable for that purpose. Not only did it
inappropriately provide no protection at all to many areas, but it
failed to identify many areas where the ambient particle mix was
dominated by coarse particles contaminated with urban/industrial types
of coarse particles for which evidence of health effects was strongest
(71 FR 61193).
The Agency ultimately concluded that the existing indicator,
PM10, was most consistent with the evidence. Although
PM10 includes both coarse and fine PM, the Agency concluded
that it remained an appropriate indicator for thoracic coarse particles
because, as discussed in the PM Staff Paper (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 2-54,
Figures 2-23 and 2-24), fine particle levels are generally higher in
urban areas and, therefore, a PM10 standard set at a single
unvarying level will generally result in lower allowable concentrations
of thoracic coarse particles in urban areas than in non-urban areas (71
FR 61195-96). The EPA considered this to be an appropriate targeting of
protection given that the strongest evidence for effects associated
with thoracic coarse particles came from epidemiological studies
conducted in urban areas and that elevated fine particle concentrations
in urban areas could result in increased contamination of coarse
fraction particles by PM2.5,
[[Page 3166]]
potentially increasing the toxicity of thoracic coarse particles in
urban areas (id.). Given the evidence that the existing (i.e., 1987)
PM10 standard was established at a level and form which
afforded requisite protection with an adequate margin of safety, the
Agency retained the level and form of the 24-hour PM10
standard.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Thus, the standard is met when a 24-hour average
PM10 concentration of 150 [mu]g/m\3\ is not exceeded more
than one day per year, on average over a three-year period. As noted
above, the 1987 PM10 standard was not adopted solely to
control thoracic coarse particles. However, when reviewing this
standard in the 2006 review, EPA determined that the level and form
of the standard being reviewed (i.e., the 1987 PM10
standard) provided requisite protection with an adequate margin of
safety from short-term exposures to thoracic coarse particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Agency also revoked the annual PM10 standard, in
light of the conclusion in the PM Criteria Document (U.S. EPA, 2004, p.
9-79) that the available evidence does not suggest an association with
long-term exposure to PM10-2.5 and the conclusion in the
Staff Paper (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 5-61) that there is no quantitative
evidence that directly supports retention of an annual standard. This
decision was consistent with CASAC advice and recommendations
(Henderson, 2005a,b).
In the same rulemaking, the EPA also included a new FRM for the
measurement of PM10-2.5 in the ambient air (71 FR 61212 to
61213, October 17, 2006). Although the standard for thoracic coarse
particles does not use a PM10-2.5 indicator, the new FRM for
PM10-2.5 was established to provide a basis for approving
FEMs and to promote the gathering of scientific data to support future
reviews of the PM NAAQS (71 FR 61202/3, October 17, 2006).\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ As noted below, however, with this rule the EPA is
revoking the requirement for PM10-2.5 speciation at NCore
monitoring sites due to technical issues related to the development
of appropriate monitoring methods (section VIII.B.3.c). The
requirement for PM10-2.5 mass measurements at NCore sites
is being retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Litigation Related to the 2006 Primary PM10 Standards
A number of groups filed suit in response to the final decisions
made in the 2006 review. See American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA,
559 F. 3d 512 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Among the petitions for review were
challenges from industry groups on the decision to retain the
PM10 indicator and the level of the PM10 standard
and from environmental and public health groups on the decision to
revoke the annual PM10 standard. The court upheld both the
decision to retain the 24-hour PM10 standard and the
decision to revoke the annual standard.
First, the court upheld the EPA's decision for a standard to
encompass all thoracic coarse PM, both of urban and non-urban origin.
The court rejected arguments that the evidence showed there are no
risks from exposure to non-urban coarse PM. The court further found
that the EPA had a reasonable basis not to set separate standards for
urban and non-urban coarse PM, namely the inability to reasonably
define what ambient mixes would be included under either `urban' or
`non-urban;' and the evidence in the record that supported the EPA's
appropriately cautious decision to provide ``some protection from
exposure to thoracic coarse particles * * * in all areas.'' 559 F. 3d
at 532-33. Specifically, the court stated,
Although the evidence of danger from coarse PM is, as EPA
recognizes, ``inconclusive,'' (71 FR 61193, October 17, 2006), the
agency need not wait for conclusive findings before regulating a
pollutant it reasonably believes may pose a significant risk to
public health. The evidence in the record supports the EPA's
cautious decision that ``some protection from exposure to thoracic
coarse particles is warranted in all areas.'' Id. As the court has
consistently reaffirmed, the CAA permits the Administrator to ``err
on the side of caution'' in setting NAAQS. 559 F. 3d at 533.
The court also upheld the EPA's decision to retain the level of the
standard at 150 [mu]g/m\3\ and to use PM10 as the indicator
for thoracic coarse particles. In upholding the level of the standard,
the court referred to the conclusion in the Staff Paper that there is
``little basis for concluding that the degree of protection afforded by
the current PM10 standards in urban areas is greater than
warranted, since potential mortality effects have been associated with
air quality levels not allowed by the current 24-hour standard, but
have not been associated with air quality levels that would generally
meet that standard, and morbidity effects have been associated with air
quality levels that exceeded the current 24-hour standard only a few
times.'' 559 F. 3d at 534. The court also rejected arguments that a
PM10 standard established at an unvarying level will result
in arbitrarily varying levels of protection given that the level of
coarse PM would vary based on the amount of fine PM present. The court
agreed that the variation in allowable coarse PM was in accord with the
strength of the evidence: Typically less coarse PM would be allowed in
urban areas (where levels of fine PM are typically higher), in accord
with the strongest evidence of health effects from coarse particles.
559 F. 3d at 535-36. In addition, such regulation would not
impermissibly double regulate fine particles, since any additional
control of fine particles (beyond that afforded by the primary
PM2.5 standard) would be for a different purpose: To prevent
contamination of coarse particles by fine particles. 559 F. 3d at 535,
536. These same explanations justified the choice of PM10 as
an indicator and provided the reasoned explanation for that choice
lacking in the record for the 1997 standard. 559 F. 3d at 536.
With regard to the challenge from environmental and public health
groups, the court upheld the EPA's decision to revoke the annual
PM10 standard. The court rejected the argument that the EPA
is required by law to have an annual PM10 standard, holding
that section 109(d)(1) of the Act allows the EPA to revoke a standard
no longer warranted by the current scientific understanding. 559 F. 3d
at 538. The court further held that the EPA's decision to revoke the
annual standard was supported by the science:
The EPA reasonably decided that an annual coarse PM standard is
not necessary because, as the Criteria Document and the Staff Paper
make clear, the latest scientific data do not indicate that long-
term exposure to coarse particles poses a health risk. The CASAC
also agreed that an annual coarse PM standard is unnecessary. 559 F.
3d at 538-39.
3. General Approach Used in the Current Review
The approach taken to considering the existing and potential
alternative primary PM10 standards in the current review
builds upon the approaches used in previous PM NAAQS reviews. This
approach is based most fundamentally on using information from
epidemiological studies and air quality analyses to inform the
identification of a range of policy options for consideration by the
Administrator. The Administrator considers the appropriateness of the
current and potential alternative standards, taking into account the
four elements of the NAAQS: Indicator, averaging time, form, and level.
Evidence-based approaches to using information from epidemiological
studies to inform decisions on PM standards are complicated by the
recognition that no population threshold, below which it can be
concluded with confidence that PM-related effects do not occur, can be
discerned from the available evidence (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.4.3
and 6.5.2.7).\122\ As a result, any approach to
[[Page 3167]]
reaching decisions on what standards are appropriate requires judgments
about how to translate the information available from the
epidemiological studies into a basis for appropriate standards, which
includes consideration of how to weigh the uncertainties in reported
associations across the distributions of PM concentrations in the
studies. The approach taken to informing these decisions in the current
review recognizes that the available health effects evidence reflects a
continuum consisting of ambient levels at which scientists generally
agree that health effects are likely to occur through lower levels at
which the likelihood and magnitude of the response become increasingly
uncertain. Such an approach is consistent with setting standards that
are neither more nor less stringent than necessary, recognizing that a
zero-risk standard is not required by the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ Studies that have characterized the concentration-response
relationships for PM exposures have evaluated PM10, which
includes both coarse and fine particles, and PM2.5 (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 2.4.3 and 6.5.2.7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the purpose of the PM10 standard is to protect
against exposures to PM10-2.5, it is most appropriate to
focus on PM10-2.5 health studies when considering the degree
of public health protection provided by the current PM10
standard. Compared to health studies of PM10, studies that
evaluate associations with PM10-2.5 provide clearer evidence
for health effects following exposures to thoracic coarse particles. In
contrast, it is difficult to interpret PM10 studies within
the context of a standard meant to protect against exposures to
PM10-2.5 because PM10 is comprised of both fine
and coarse particles, even in locations with the highest concentrations
of PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-4). Therefore, the
extent to which PM10 effect estimates reflect associations
with PM10-2.5 versus PM2.5 can be highly
uncertain. In light of this uncertainty, it is preferable to consider
PM10-2.5 studies when such studies are available. Given the
availability in this review of a number of studies that evaluated
associations with PM10-2.5, and given that the Integrated
Science Assessment weight-of-evidence conclusions for thoracic coarse
particles were based on studies of PM10-2.5, in this review
the EPA focuses primarily on studies that have specifically evaluated
PM10-2.5.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ It should also be noted that CASAC endorsed the approach
adopted in the Integrated Science Assessment, which draws weight-of-
evidence conclusions for PM2.5 and PM10-2.5,
but not for PM10 (Samet, 2009f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in more detail in the Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2010a, Appendix H), the EPA did not conduct a quantitative assessment
of health risks associated with PM10-2.5. The Risk
Assessment concluded that limitations in the monitoring network and in
the health studies that rely on that monitoring network, which would be
the basis for estimating PM10-2.5 health risks, would
introduce significant uncertainty into a PM10-2.5 risk
assessment such that the risk estimates generated would be of limited
value in informing review of the standard. Therefore, it was judged
that a quantitative assessment of PM10-2.5 risks is not
supportable at this time (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 2-6). This decision does
not indicate that health effects are not associated with exposure to
thoracic coarse particles. Rather, as noted above, it reflects the
conclusion that limitations in the available health studies and air
quality information would introduce significant uncertainty into a
quantitative assessment of PM10-2.5 risks such that the risk
estimates generated would be of limited value in informing review of
the standard.
B. Health Effects Related to Exposure to Thoracic Coarse Particles
This section briefly outlines the key information presented in
section IV.B of the proposal (77 FR 38947 to 38951, June 29, 2012), and
discussed more fully in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2009a, Chapters 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) and the Policy Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Chapter 3), related to health effects associated with
thoracic coarse particle exposures. In looking across the new
scientific evidence available in this review, our overall understanding
of health effects associated with thoracic coarse particle exposures
has been expanded, though important uncertainties remain. Some
highlights of the key policy-relevant scientific evidence available in
this review include the following:
(1) A number of multi-city and single-city epidemiological
studies have evaluated associations between short-term
PM10-2.5 and mortality, cardiovascular effects (e.g.,
including hospital admissions and emergency department visits), and/
or respiratory effects. Despite differences in the approaches used
to estimate ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations, the majority
of these studies have reported positive, though often not
statistically significant, associations with short-term
PM10-2.5 concentrations. Most PM10-2.5 effect
estimates remained positive in co-pollutant models that included
either gaseous or particulate co-pollutants. In U.S. study locations
likely to have met the current PM10 standard during the
study period, a few PM10-2.5 effect estimates were
statistically significant and remained so in co-pollutant
models.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ The statistical significance of effect estimates provides
important information on their statistical precision. However, when
a group of studies report effect estimates that are similar in
direction and magnitude, such a pattern of results warrants
consideration of those studies even if not all reported
statistically significant associations in single- or co-pollutant
models (section III.D.2, above). In considering the
PM10-2.5 epidemiologic studies below, the Administrator
considers both the pattern of results across studies and the
statistical significance of those results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) A small number of controlled human exposure studies have
reported alterations in heart rate variability or increased
pulmonary inflammation following short-term exposure to
PM10-2.5, providing some support for the associations
reported in epidemiological studies. Toxicological studies that have
examined the effects of PM10-2.5 have used intratracheal
instillation and, because these studies do not directly mirror any
real-world mode of exposure, they provide only limited evidence for
the biological plausibility of PM10-2.5-induced effects.
(3) Using a more formal framework for reaching causal
determinations than used in previous reviews, the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded that the existing evidence is ``suggestive'' of
a causal relationship between short-term PM10-2.5
exposures and mortality, cardiovascular effects, and respiratory
effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3.3).\125\ In contrast, the
Integrated Science Assessment concluded that available evidence is
``inadequate'' to infer a causal relationship between long-term
PM10-2.5 exposures and various health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ The causal framework draws upon the assessment and
integration of evidence from across epidemiological, controlled
human exposure, and toxicological studies, and the related
uncertainties that ultimately influence our understanding of the
evidence. This framework employs a five-level hierarchy that
classifies the overall weight-of-evidence using the following
categorizations: Causal relationship, likely to be causal
relationship, suggestive of a causal relationship, inadequate to
infer a causal relationship, and not likely to be a causal
relationship (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 1-3). In the case of a
``suggestive'' determination, ``the evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship with relevant pollutant exposures, but is
limited because chance, bias and confounding cannot be ruled out.
For example, at least one high-quality epidemiologic study shows an
association with a given health outcome but the results of other
studies are inconsistent'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 1-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) There are several at-risk populations that may be especially
susceptible or vulnerable to PM-related effects, including effects
associated with exposures to coarse particles. These groups include
those with preexisting heart and lung diseases, specific genetic
differences, and lower socioeconomic status as well as the
lifestages of childhood and older adulthood. Evidence for PM-related
effects in these at-risk populations has expanded and is stronger
than previously observed. There is emerging, though still limited,
evidence for additional potentially at-risk populations, such as
those with diabetes, people who are obese, pregnant women, and the
developing fetus.
(5) The Integrated Science Assessment concludes that currently
available evidence is insufficient to draw distinctions in particle
toxicity based on composition and notes that recent studies have
reported that PM (both PM2.5 and PM10-2.5)
from a variety of sources,
[[Page 3168]]
including sources likely to be present in urban and non-urban
locations, is associated with adverse health effects.
Although new PM10-2.5 scientific studies have become
available since the last review and have expanded our understanding of
the association between PM10-2.5 and adverse health effects
(see above and U.S. EPA, 2009a, Chapter 6), important uncertainties
remain. These uncertainties, and their implications for interpreting
the scientific evidence, include the following:
(1) The potential for confounding by co-occurring pollutants,
especially PM2.5, has been addressed with co-pollutant
models in only a relatively small number of PM10-2.5
epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3.3). This is a
particularly important limitation given the relatively small body of
experimental evidence (i.e., controlled human exposure and animal
toxicological studies) available to support the associations between
PM10-2.5 and adverse health effects. The net impact of
such limitations is to increase uncertainty in characterizations of
the extent to which PM10-2.5 itself, rather than one or
more co-occurring pollutants, is responsible for the mortality and
morbidity effects reported in epidemiological studies.
(2) There is greater spatial variability in PM10-2.5
concentrations than PM2.5 concentrations, resulting in
increased exposure error for PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
p. 2-8). Available measurements do not provide sufficient
information to adequately characterize the spatial distribution of
PM10-2.5 concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
3.5.1.1). The net effect of these uncertainties on
PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies is to bias the results
of such studies toward the null hypothesis. That is, as noted in the
Integrated Science Assessment, these limitations in estimates of
ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations ``would tend to increase
uncertainty and make it more difficult to detect effects of
PM10-2.5 in epidemiologic studies'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p.
2-21).
(3) Only a relatively small number of PM10-2.5
monitoring sites are currently operating and such sites have been in
operation for a relatively short period of time, limiting the
spatial and temporal coverage for routine measurement of
PM10-2.5 concentrations. Given these limitations in
routine monitoring, epidemiological studies have employed different
approaches for estimating PM10-2.5 concentrations. Given
the relatively small number of PM10-2.5 monitoring sites,
the relatively large spatial variability in ambient
PM10-2.5 concentrations (see above), the use of different
approaches to estimating ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations
across epidemiological studies, and the limitations inherent in such
estimates, the distributions of thoracic coarse particle
concentrations over which reported health outcomes occur remain
highly uncertain (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.2.3, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, and
3.5.1.1).
(4) There is relatively little information on the chemical and
biological composition of PM10-2.5 and the effects
associated with the various components (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
2.3.4). Without more information on the chemical speciation of
PM10-2.5, the apparent variability in associations with
health effects across locations is difficult to characterize (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 6.5.2.3).
(5) One of the implications of the uncertainties and limitations
discussed above is that the Risk Assessment concluded it would not
be appropriate to conduct a quantitative assessment of health risks
associated with PM10-2.5. The lack of a quantitative
PM10-2.5 risk assessment in the current review adds to
the uncertainty in any conclusions about the extent to which
revision of the current PM10 standard would be expected
to improve the protection of public health, beyond the protection
provided by the current standard.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ As noted above, the EPA's decision not to conduct a
quantitative risk assessment reflects uncertainty regarding the
value of such an assessment, but does not indicate that health
effects are not associated with exposure to thoracic coarse
particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Consideration of the Current and Potential Alternative Standards in
the Policy Assessment
The following sections discuss the Policy Assessment's
consideration of the current and potential alternative standards to
protect against exposures to thoracic coarse particles (U.S. EPA,
2011a, chapter 3). Section IV.C.1 discusses the consideration of the
current standard while section IV.C.2 discusses the consideration of
potential alternative standards in terms of the basic elements of a
standard: Indicator, averaging time, form, and level.
1. Consideration of the Current Standard in the Policy Assessment
As discussed above the 24-hour PM10 standard is meant to
protect the public health against exposures to thoracic coarse
particles (i.e., PM10-2.5). In considering the adequacy of
the current PM10 standard, the Policy Assessment considered
the health effects evidence linking short-term PM10-2.5
exposures with mortality and morbidity (U.S. EPA, 2009a, chapters 2 and
6), the ambient PM10 concentrations in PM10-2.5
study locations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1), the uncertainties and
limitations associated with this health evidence (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 3.2.1), and the consideration of these uncertainties and
limitations as part of the weight of evidence conclusions in the
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a).
In considering the health evidence, air quality information, and
associated uncertainties as they relate to the current PM10
standard, the Policy Assessment noted that a decision on the adequacy
of the public health protection provided by that standard is a public
health policy judgment in which the Administrator weighs the evidence
and information, as well as its uncertainties. Therefore, depending on
the emphasis placed on different aspects of the evidence, information,
and uncertainties, consideration of different conclusions on the
adequacy of the current standard could be supported. For example, the
Policy Assessment noted that one approach to considering the evidence,
information, and its associated uncertainties would be to place
emphasis on the following (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.3):
(1) While most of PM10-2.5 effect estimates reported
for mortality and morbidity were positive, many were not
statistically significant, even in single-pollutant models. This
includes effect estimates reported in study locations with
PM10 concentrations above those allowed by the current
24-hour PM10 standard.
(2) The number of epidemiological studies that have employed co-
pollutant models to address the potential for confounding,
particularly by PM2.5, remains limited. Therefore, the
extent to which PM10-2.5 itself, rather than one or more
co-pollutants, contributes to reported health effects remains
uncertain.
(3) Only a limited number of experimental studies provide
support for the associations reported in epidemiological studies,
resulting in further uncertainty regarding the plausibility of a
causal link between PM10-2.5 and mortality and morbidity.
(4) Limitations in PM10-2.5 monitoring and the
different approaches used to estimate PM10-2.5
concentrations across epidemiological studies result in uncertainty
as to the ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations at which the
reported effects occur.
(5) The chemical and biological composition of
PM10-2.5, and the effects associated with the various
components, remains uncertain. Without more information on the
chemical speciation of PM10-2.5, the apparent variability
in associations across locations is difficult to interpret.
(6) In considering the available evidence and its associated
uncertainties, the Integrated Science Assessment concluded that the
evidence is ``suggestive'' of a causal relationship between short-
term PM10-2.5 exposures and mortality, cardiovascular
effects, and respiratory effects. These weight-of-evidence
conclusions contrast with those for the relationships between
PM2.5 exposures and adverse health effects, which were
judged in the Integrated Science Assessment to be either ``causal''
or ``likely causal'' for mortality, cardiovascular effects, and
respiratory effects.
The Policy Assessment concluded that, to the extent a decision on
the adequacy of the current 24-hour PM10 standard were to
place emphasis on the considerations noted above, it could be judged
that, although it remains appropriate to maintain a standard to protect
against short-term exposures to
[[Page 3169]]
thoracic coarse particles, the available evidence suggests that the
current 24-hour PM10 standard appropriately protects public
health and provides an adequate margin of safety against effects that
have been associated with PM10-2.5 exposures. Although such
an approach to considering the adequacy of the current standard would
recognize the positive, and in some cases statistically significant,
associations between all types of PM10-2.5 and mortality and
morbidity, it would place relatively greater emphasis on the
limitations and uncertainties noted above, which tend to complicate the
interpretation of that evidence.
In addition, the Policy Assessment noted the judgment that, given
the uncertainties and limitations in the PM10-2.5 health
evidence and air quality information, it would not have been
appropriate to conduct a quantitative assessment of health risks
associated with PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-6; U.S. EPA,
2010a, pp. 2-6 to 2-7, Appendix H). As discussed above, the lack of a
quantitative PM10-2.5 risk assessment adds to the
uncertainty associated with any characterization of potential public
health improvements that would be realized with a revised standard.
The Policy Assessment also noted an alternative approach to
considering the evidence and its uncertainties would place emphasis on
the following (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.3):
(1) Several multi-city epidemiological studies conducted in the
U.S., Canada, and Europe, as well as a number of single-city
studies, have reported generally positive, and in some cases
statistically significant, associations between short-term
PM10-2.5 concentrations and adverse health endpoints
including mortality and cardiovascular-related and respiratory-
related hospital admissions and emergency department visits.
(2) Both single-city and multi-city analyses, using different
approaches to estimate ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations,
have reported positive PM10-2.5 effect estimates in
locations that would likely have met the current 24-hour
PM10 standard. In a few cases, these PM10-2.5
effect estimates were statistically significant.
(3) While limited in number, studies that have evaluated co-
pollutant models have generally reported that PM10-2.5
effect estimates remain positive, and in a few cases statistically
significant, when these models include gaseous pollutants or fine
particles.
(4) Support for the plausibility of the associations reported in
epidemiological studies is provided by a small number of controlled
human exposure studies reporting that short-term (i.e., 2-hour)
exposures to PM10-2.5 decrease heart rate variability and
increase markers of pulmonary inflammation.
This approach to considering the health evidence, air quality
information, and the associated uncertainties would place substantial
weight on the generally positive PM10-2.5 effect estimates
that have been reported for mortality and morbidity, even those effect
estimates that are not statistically significant. The Policy Assessment
concluded that this could be judged appropriate given that consistent
results have been reported across multiple studies using different
approaches to estimate ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations and
that exposure measurement error, which is likely to be larger for
PM10-2.5 than for PM2.5, tends to bias the
results of epidemiological studies toward the null hypothesis, making
it less likely that associations will be detected. Such an approach
would place less weight on the uncertainties and limitations in the
evidence that resulted in the Integrated Science Assessment conclusions
that the evidence is only suggestive of a causal relationship.
Given all of the above, the Policy Assessment concluded that it
would be appropriate to consider either retaining or revising the
current 24-hour PM10 standard, depending on the approach
taken to considering the available evidence, air quality information,
and the uncertainties and limitations associated with that evidence and
information (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.3).
2. Consideration of Potential Alternative Standards in the Policy
Assessment
Given the conclusion that it would be appropriate to consider
either retaining or revising the current PM10 standard, the
Policy Assessment also considered what potential alternative standards,
if any, could be supported by the available scientific evidence in
order to increase public health protection against exposures to
PM10-2.5. The Policy Assessment considered such potential
alternative standards defined in terms of the elements of a standard
(i.e., indicator, averaging time, form, and level). Key conclusions
from the Policy Assessment regarding indicator, averaging time, and
form included the following:
(1) A PM10 indicator would continue to appropriately
target protection against thoracic coarse particle exposures to
those locations where the evidence is strongest for associations
with adverse health effects (i.e., urban areas).
(2) The available evidence supports the importance of
maintaining a standard that protects against short-term exposures to
all thoracic coarse particles. Given that the majority of this
evidence is based on 24-hour average thoracic coarse particle
concentrations, consideration of a 24-hour averaging time remains
appropriate.
(3) Given the limited body of evidence supporting
PM10-2.5-related effects following long-term exposures,
which resulted in the Integrated Science Assessment conclusion that
the available evidence is ``inadequate'' to infer a causal
relationship between long-term PM10-2.5 exposures and a
variety of health effects, consideration of an annual thoracic
coarse particle standard is not supported at this time.
(4) To the extent it is judged appropriate to revise the current
24-hour PM10 standard, it would be appropriate to
consider revising the form to the 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of the annual distribution of 24-hour PM10
concentrations.
In considering the available evidence and air quality information
within the context of identifying potential alternative standard levels
for consideration (assuming a decision were made that it is appropriate
to amend the standard), the Policy Assessment first noted that a
standard level as high as about 85 [mu]g/m\3\, for a 24-hour
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form, could be
supported. Based on considering air quality concentrations in study
locations, the Policy Assessment noted that such a standard level would
be expected to maintain PM10 and PM10-2.5
concentrations below those present in U.S. locations of single-city
studies where PM10-2.5 effect estimates have been reported
to be positive and statistically significant and below those present in
some locations where single-city studies reported PM10-2.5
effect estimates that were positive, but not statistically significant.
These include some locations likely to have met the current
PM10 standard during the study periods (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 3.3.4).
The Policy Assessment also noted that, based on analysis of the
number of people living in counties that could violate the current and
potential alternative PM10 standards, a 24-hour
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form and a level
between 75 and 80 [mu]g/m\3\ would provide a level of public health
protection that is generally equivalent, across the U.S., to that
provided by the current standard. Given this, the Policy Assessment
concluded that it would be appropriate to consider standard levels in
the range of approximately 75 to 80 [mu]g/m\3\ (with a 98th percentile
form), to the extent population counts were emphasized in comparing the
public health protection provided by the current and potential
alternative standards and to the extent it was judged appropriate to
set a revised standard providing at least the level of public health
protection that is provided by the current standard, based on such
population counts (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4).
[[Page 3170]]
The Policy Assessment also concluded that alternative approaches to
considering the evidence could lead to consideration of standard levels
below 75 [mu]g/m\3\ for a standard with a 98th percentile form. For
example, a number of single-city epidemiological studies have reported
positive, though not statistically significant, PM10-2.5
effect estimates in locations with 98th percentile PM10
concentrations below 75 [mu]g/m\3\. Given that exposure error is
particularly important for PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies
and can bias the results of these studies toward the null hypothesis
(see section IV.B above), the Policy Assessment noted that it could be
judged appropriate to place more weight on positive associations
reported in these epidemiological studies, even when those associations
are not statistically significant. In addition, the Policy Assessment
noted that multi-city averages of 98th percentile PM10
concentrations in the locations evaluated by U.S. multi-city studies of
thoracic coarse particles (Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Peng et al.,
2008) were near or below 75 ppb. Despite uncertainties in the extent to
which effects reported in multi-city studies are associated with the
short-term air quality in any particular location, the Policy
Assessment noted that emphasis could be placed on these multi-city
averaged concentrations. The Policy Assessment concluded that, to the
extent more weight is placed on single-city studies reporting positive,
but not statistically significant, PM10-2.5 effect estimates
and on multi-city studies, it could be appropriate to consider standard
levels as low as 65 [mu]g/m\3\ with a 98th percentile form (U.S. EPA,
2011a, section 3.3.4).
In considering potential alternative standard levels below 65
[mu]g/m\3\, the Policy Assessment noted that the overall body of
PM10-2.5 health evidence is relatively uncertain, with
somewhat stronger support in U.S. studies for associations with
PM10-2.5 in locations with 98th percentile PM10
concentrations above 85 [mu]g/m\3\ than in locations with 98th
percentile PM10 concentrations below 65 [mu]g/m\3\. In light
of the limitations in the evidence for a relationship between
PM10-2.5 and adverse health effects in locations with
relatively low PM10 concentrations, along with the overall
uncertainties in the body of PM10-2.5 health evidence as
described above and in the Integrated Science Assessment, the Policy
Assessment concluded that consideration of standard levels below 65
[mu]g/m\3\ was not appropriate (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4).
D. CASAC Advice
Following their review of the first and second draft Policy
Assessments, CASAC provided advice and recommendations regarding the
current and potential alternative standards for thoracic coarse
particles (Samet, 2010c,d). With regard to the existing PM10
standard, CASAC concluded that ``the current data, while limited, is
sufficient to call into question the level of protection afforded the
American people by the current standard'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 7). In
drawing this conclusion, CASAC noted the positive associations in
multi-city and single-city studies, including in locations with
PM10 concentrations below those allowed by the current
standard. In addition, CASAC gave ``significant weight to studies that
have generally reported that PM10-2.5 effect estimates
remain positive when evaluated in co-pollutant models'' and concluded
that ``controlled human exposure PM10-2.5 studies showing
decreases in heart rate variability and increases in markers of
pulmonary inflammation are deemed adequate to support the plausibility
of the associations reported in epidemiologic studies'' (Samet, 2010d,
p. 7).\127\ Given all of the above conclusions CASAC recommended that
``the primary standard for PM10 should be revised'' (Samet,
2010d, p. ii and p. 7). In discussing potential revisions, while CASAC
noted that the scientific evidence supports adoption of a standard at
least as stringent as the current standard, they recommended revising
the current standard in order to increase public health protection. In
considering potential alternative standards, CASAC drew conclusions and
made recommendations in terms of the major elements of a standard:
indicator, averaging time, form, and level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Nonetheless, CASAC endorsed the Integrated Science
Assessment weight of evidence conclusions for PM10-2.5
(i.e., that the evidence is only ``suggestive'' of a causal
relationship between short-term exposures and mortality, respiratory
effects, and cardiovascular effects) (Samet, 2009e; Samet, 2009f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CASAC agreed with the EPA staff's conclusions that the
available evidence supports consideration in the current review of
retaining the current PM10 indicator and the current 24-hour
averaging time (Samet, 2010c, Samet, 2010d). Specifically, with regard
to indicator, CASAC concluded that ``[w]hile it would be preferable to
use an indicator that reflects the coarse PM directly linked to health
risks (PM10-2.5), CASAC recognizes that there is not yet
sufficient data to permit a change in the indicator from
PM10 to one that directly measures thoracic coarse
particles'' (Samet, 2010d, p. ii). In addition, CASAC ``vigorously
recommends the implementation of plans for the deployment of a network
of PM10-2.5 sampling systems so that future epidemiological
studies will be able to more thoroughly explore the use of
PM10-2.5 as a more appropriate indicator for thoracic coarse
particles'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 7).
The CASAC also agreed that the evidence supports consideration of a
potential alternative form. Specifically, CASAC ``felt strongly that it
is appropriate to change the statistical form of the PM10
standard to a 98th percentile'' (Samet, 2010d, p.7). In reaching this
conclusion, CASAC noted that ``[p]ublished work has shown that the
percentile form has greater power to identify non-attainment and a
smaller probability of misclassification relative to the expected
exceedance form of the standard'' (Samet, 2010d. p. 7).
With regard to standard level, in conjunction with a 98th
percentile form, CASAC concluded that ``alternative standard levels of
85 and 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (based on consideration of 98th percentile
PM10 concentration) could be justified'' (Samet, 2010d,
p.8). However, in considering the evidence and uncertainties, CASAC
recommended a standard level from the lower part of the range discussed
in the Policy Assessment, recommending a level ``somewhere in the range
of 75 to 65 [mu]g/m\3\'' (Samet, 2010d, p. ii).
In making this recommendation, CASAC noted that the number of
people living in counties with air quality not meeting the current
standard is approximately equal to the number living in counties that
would not meet a 98th percentile standard with a level between 75 and
80 [mu]g/m\3\. CASAC used this information as the basis for their
conclusion that a 98th percentile standard between 75 and 80 [mu]g/m\3\
would be ``comparable to the degree of protection afforded to the
current PM10 standard'' (Samet, 2010d, p. ii). Given this
conclusion regarding the comparability of the current and potential
alternative standards, as well as their conclusion on the public health
protection provided by the current standard (i.e., that available
evidence is sufficient to call it into question), CASAC recommended a
level within a range of 75 to 65 [mu]g/m\3\ in order to increase public
health protection, relative to that provided by the current standard
(Samet 2010d, p. ii).
[[Page 3171]]
E. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy of the
Current Primary PM10 Standard
In considering the evidence and information as they relate to the
adequacy of the current 24-hour PM10 standard, the
Administrator first noted in the proposal that this standard is meant
to protect the public health against effects associated with short-term
exposures to PM10-2.5. In the last review, it was judged
appropriate to maintain such a standard given the ``growing body of
evidence suggesting causal associations between short-term exposure to
thoracic coarse particles and morbidity effects, such as respiratory
symptoms and hospital admissions for respiratory diseases, and possibly
mortality'' (71 FR 61185, October 17, 2006). Given the continued
expansion in the body of scientific evidence linking short-term
PM10-2.5 to health outcomes such as premature death and
hospital visits, discussed in detail in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Chapter 6) and summarized in the proposal,
the Administrator provisionally concluded that the available evidence
continued to support the appropriateness of maintaining a standard to
protect the public health against effects associated with short-term
(e.g., 24-hour) exposures to all PM10-2.5. In drawing
provisional conclusions in the proposal as to whether the current
PM10 standard remains requisite (i.e., neither more nor less
stringent than necessary) to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety against such exposures, the Administrator considered
the following:
(1) The extent to which it is appropriate to maintain a standard
that provides some measure of protection against all
PM10-2.5, regardless of composition or source of origin;
(2) The extent to which it is appropriate to retain a
PM10 indicator for a standard meant to protect against
exposures to ambient PM10-2.5; and
(3) The extent to which the current PM10 standard
provides an appropriate degree of public health protection.
With regard to the first point, the proposal noted the conclusion
from the last review that dosimetric, toxicological, occupational, and
epidemiological evidence supported retention of a primary standard to
provide some measure of protection against short-term exposures to all
thoracic coarse particles, regardless of their source of origin or
location, consistent with the Act's requirement that primary NAAQS
provide requisite protection with an adequate margin of safety (71 FR
61197). In that review, the EPA concluded that PM from a number of
source types, including motor vehicle emissions, coal combustion, oil
burning, and vegetative burning, are associated with health effects
(U.S. EPA, 2004). This information formed part of the basis for the
D.C. Circuit's holding that it was appropriate for the thoracic coarse
particle standard to provide ``some protection from exposure to
thoracic coarse particles * * * in all areas'' (American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at 532-33).
In considering this issue in the proposal, the Administrator judged
that the expanded body of scientific evidence in this review provides
even more support for a standard that protects against exposures to all
thoracic coarse particles, regardless of their location or source of
origin. Specifically, the Administrator noted that epidemiological
studies have reported positive associations between PM10-2.5
and mortality or morbidity in a large number of cities across North
America, Europe, and Asia, encompassing a variety of environments where
PM10-2.5 sources and composition are expected to vary
widely. See 77 FR 38959. In considering this evidence, the Integrated
Science Assessment concluded that ``many constituents of PM can be
linked with differing health effects'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-26).
While PM10-2.5 in most of these study areas is of largely
urban origin, the Administrator noted that some recent studies have
also linked mortality and morbidity with relatively high ambient
concentrations of thoracic coarse particles of non-urban crustal
origin. In considering these studies, she noted the Integrated Science
Assessment's conclusion that ``PM (both PM2.5 and
PM10-2.5) from crustal, soil or road dust sources or PM
tracers linked to these sources are associated with cardiovascular
effects'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-26).
In light of this body of available evidence reporting
PM10-2.5-associated health effects across different
locations with a variety of sources, as well as the Integrated Science
Assessment's conclusions regarding the links between adverse health
effects and PM sources and composition, the Administrator provisionally
concluded in the proposal that it is appropriate to maintain a standard
that provides some measure of protection against exposures to all
thoracic coarse particles, regardless of their location, source of
origin, or composition (77 FR 38959-60).
With regard to the second point, in considering the appropriateness
of a PM10 indicator for a standard meant to provide such
public health protection, the Administrator noted that the rationale
used in the last review to support the unqualified PM10
indicator (see above) remains relevant in the current review.
Specifically, as an initial consideration, she noted that
PM10 mass includes both coarse PM (PM10-2.5) and
fine PM (PM2.5). As a result, the concentration of
PM10-2.5 allowed by a PM10 standard set at a
single level declines as the concentration of PM2.5
increases. At the same time, the Administrator noted that
PM2.5 concentrations tend to be higher in urban areas than
in rural areas (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 2-54, and Figures 2-23 and 2-24)
and, therefore, a PM10 standard will generally allow lower
PM10-2.5 concentrations in urban areas than in rural areas.
77 FR 38960.
In considering the appropriateness of this variation in allowable
PM10-2.5 concentrations, the Administrator considered the
relative strength of the evidence for health effects associated with
PM10-2.5 of urban origin versus non-urban origin. She
specifically noted that, as described above and similar to the
scientific evidence available in the last review, the large majority of
the available evidence for thoracic coarse particle health effects
comes from studies conducted in locations with sources more typical of
urban and industrial areas than of rural areas. Although as just noted,
associations with adverse health effects have been reported in some
study locations where PM10-2.5 is largely non-urban in
origin (i.e., in dust storm studies), particle concentrations in these
study areas are typically much higher than reported in study locations
where the PM10-2.5 is of urban origin. Therefore, the
Administrator noted that the strongest evidence for a link between
PM10-2.5 and adverse health impacts, particularly for such a
link at relatively low particle concentrations, comes from studies
where exposure is to PM10-2.5 of urban or industrial origin.
77 FR 38960.
The Administrator also noted that chemical constituents present at
higher levels in urban or industrial areas, including byproducts of
incomplete combustion (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) emitted
as PM2.5 from motor vehicles as well as metals and other
contaminants emitted from anthropogenic sources, can contaminate
PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-344; 71 FR 2665). While the
Administrator acknowledged the uncertainty expressed in the Integrated
Science Assessment regarding the extent to which, based on available
evidence, particle composition can be linked to health outcomes, she
also considered the possibility that PM10-2.5 contaminants
typical of urban or industrial areas could increase the
[[Page 3172]]
toxicity of thoracic coarse particles in urban locations (77 FR 38960).
Given that the large majority of the evidence for
PM10-2.5 toxicity, particularly at relatively low particle
concentrations, comes from study locations where thoracic coarse
particles are of urban origin, and given the possibility that
PM10-2.5 contaminants in urban areas could increase particle
toxicity, the Administrator provisionally concluded in the proposal
that it remains appropriate to maintain a standard that targets public
health protection to urban locations. Specifically, she concluded at
proposal that it is appropriate to maintain a standard that allows
lower ambient concentrations of PM10-2.5 in urban areas,
where the evidence is strongest that thoracic coarse particles are
linked to mortality and morbidity, and higher concentrations in non-
urban areas, where the public health concerns are less certain. Id.
Given all of the above considerations and conclusions, the
Administrator judged that the available evidence supported retaining a
PM10 indicator for a standard that is meant to protect
against exposure to thoracic coarse particles. In reaching this initial
judgment, she noted that, to the extent a PM10 indicator
results in lower allowable concentrations of thoracic coarse particles
in some areas compared to others, lower concentrations will be allowed
in those locations (i.e., urban or industrial areas) where the science
has shown the strongest evidence of adverse health effects associated
with exposure to thoracic coarse particles and where we have the most
concern regarding PM10-2.5 toxicity. Therefore, the
Administrator provisionally concluded that the varying amounts of
coarse particles that are allowed in urban vs. non-urban areas under
the 24-hour PM10 standard, based on the varying levels of
PM2.5 present, appropriately reflect the differences in the
strength of evidence regarding coarse particle effects in urban and
non-urban areas (77 FR 38960).
In reaching this provisional conclusion, the Administrator also
noted that, in their review of the second draft Policy Assessment,
CASAC concluded that ``[w]hile it would be preferable to use an
indicator that reflects the coarse PM directly linked to health risks
(PM10-2.5), CASAC recognizes that there is not yet
sufficient data to permit a change in the indicator from
PM10 to one that directly measures thoracic coarse
particles'' (Samet, 2010d, p. ii). In addition, CASAC ``vigorously
recommends the implementation of plans for the deployment of a network
of PM10-2.5 sampling systems so that future epidemiological
studies will be able to more thoroughly explore the use of
PM10-2.5 as a more appropriate indicator for thoracic coarse
particles'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 7). Given this recommendation, the
Administrator further judged that, although current evidence is not
sufficient to identify a standard based on an alternative indicator
that would be requisite to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety across the United States, consideration of alternative
indicators (e.g., PM10-2.5) in future reviews is desirable
and could be informed by additional research, as described in the
Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.5).
With regard to the third point, in evaluating the degree of public
health protection provided by the current PM10 standard, the
Administrator noted that the Policy Assessment discussed two different
approaches to considering the scientific evidence and air quality
information (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.3). These different
approaches, which are described above (section IV.C.1), lead to
different conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the degree of
public health protection provided by the current PM10
standard. The Administrator further noted that the primary difference
between the two approaches lies in the extent to which weight is placed
on the following (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.3):
(1) The PM10-2.5 weight-of-evidence classifications
presented in the Integrated Science Assessment concluding that the
existing evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship between
short-term PM10-2.5 exposures and mortality,
cardiovascular effects, and respiratory effects (a classification
supported by CASAC);
(2) Individual PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies
reporting associations in locations that meet the current
PM10 standard, including associations that are not
statistically significant;
(3) The limited number of PM10-2.5 epidemiological
studies that have evaluated co-pollutant models;
(4) The limited number of PM10-2.5 controlled human
exposure studies;
(5) Uncertainties in the PM10-2.5 air quality
concentrations reported in epidemiological studies, given
limitations in PM10-2.5 monitoring data and the different
approaches used across studies to estimate ambient
PM10-2.5 concentrations; and
(6) Uncertainties and limitations in the evidence that tend to
call into question the presence of a causal relationship between
PM10-2.5 exposures and mortality/morbidity.
In evaluating the different possible approaches to considering the
public health protection provided by the current PM10
standard, the Administrator first noted that when the available
PM10-2.5 scientific evidence and its associated
uncertainties are considered, the Integrated Science Assessment
concluded that the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term PM10-2.5 exposures and mortality,
cardiovascular effects, and respiratory effects. As discussed in
section IV.B.1 above and in more detail in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5), a suggestive determination
is made when the ``[e]vidence is suggestive of a causal relationship
with relevant pollutant exposures, but is limited because chance, bias
and confounding cannot be ruled out.'' In contrast, the Administrator
noted that she proposed to strengthen the annual fine particle standard
based on a body of scientific evidence judged sufficient to conclude
that a causal relationship exists (i.e., mortality, cardiovascular
effects) or is likely to exist (i.e., respiratory effects) (section
III.B). 77 FR 38961. The suggestive judgment for PM10-2.5
reflects the greater degree of uncertainty associated with this body of
evidence, as discussed above (sections IV.B and IV.C) and summarized
below.
In the proposal (77 FR 38961), the Administrator noted that the
important uncertainties and limitations associated with the scientific
evidence and air quality information raise questions as to whether
public health benefits would be achieved by revising the existing
PM10 standard. Such uncertainties and limitations include
the following:
(1) While PM10-2.5 effect estimates reported for
mortality and morbidity were generally positive, most were not
statistically significant, even in single-pollutant models. This
includes effect estimates reported in some study locations with
PM10 concentrations above those allowed by the current
24-hour PM10 standard.
(2) The number of epidemiological studies that have employed co-
pollutant models to address the potential for confounding,
particularly by PM2.5, remains limited. Therefore, the
extent to which PM10-2.5 itself, rather than one or more
co-pollutants, contributes to reported health effects is less
certain.
(3) Only a limited number of experimental studies (i.e.,
controlled human exposure and animal toxicological) provide support
for the associations reported in epidemiological studies, resulting
in further uncertainty regarding the plausibility of the
associations between PM10-2.5 and mortality and morbidity
reported in epidemiological studies.
(4) Limitations in PM10-2.5 monitoring data and the
different approaches used by epidemiological study researchers to
estimate PM10-2.5 concentrations across epidemiological
studies result in uncertainty in the ambient PM10-2.5
concentrations at which the reported effects occur, increasing
uncertainty in estimates of the extent to
[[Page 3173]]
which changes in ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations would
likely impact public health.
(5) The lack of a quantitative PM10-2.5 risk
assessment further contributes to uncertainty regarding the extent
to which any revisions to the current PM10 standard would
be expected to improve the protection of public health, beyond the
protection provided by the current standard (see section III.B.5
above).
(6) The chemical and biological composition of
PM10-2.5, and the effects associated with the various
components, remains uncertain. Without more information on the
chemical speciation of PM10-2.5, the apparent variability
in associations across locations is difficult to interpret.
In considering these uncertainties and limitations, the
Administrator noted in particular the considerable degree of
uncertainty in the extent to which health effects reported in
epidemiological studies are due to PM10-2.5 itself, as
opposed to one or more co-occurring pollutants. As discussed above,
this uncertainty reflects the fact that there are a relatively small
number of PM10-2.5 studies that have utilized co-pollutant
models, particularly co-pollutant models that have included
PM2.5, and a very limited body of controlled human exposure
evidence supporting the biological plausibility of a causal
relationship between PM10-2.5 and mortality and morbidity at
ambient concentrations. The Administrator noted that these important
limitations in the overall body of health evidence introduce
uncertainty into the interpretation of individual epidemiological
studies, particularly those studies reporting associations with
PM10-2.5 that are not statistically significant. Given this,
the Administrator reached the provisional conclusion in the proposal
that it is appropriate to place relatively little weight on
epidemiological studies reporting associations with PM10-2.5
that are not statistically significant in single-pollutant and/or co-
pollutant models. Id.
With regard to this provisional conclusion, the Administrator noted
that, for single-city mortality studies conducted in the United States
where ambient PM10 concentration data were available for
comparison to the current standard, positive and statistically
significant PM10-2.5 effect estimates were only reported in
study locations that would likely have violated the current
PM10 standard during the study period (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
Figure 3-2). In U.S. study locations that would likely have met the
current standard, PM10-2.5 effect estimates for mortality
were positive, but not statistically significant (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
Figure 3-2). In considering U.S. study loc`ations where single-city
morbidity studies were conducted, and which would likely have met the
current PM10 standard during the study period, the
Administrator noted that PM10-2.5 effect estimates were both
positive and negative, with most not statistically significant (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-3).
In addition, in considering single-city analyses for the locations
evaluated in a large U.S. multi-city mortality study (Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009), the Administrator noted that associations in most of
the study locations were not statistically significant and that this
was the only study to estimate ambient PM10-2.5
concentrations as the difference between county-wide PM10
and PM2.5 mass. As discussed in the Policy Assessment and in
the proposal, it is not clear how computed PM10-2.5
measurements, such as those used by Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009),
compare with the PM10-2.5 concentrations obtained in other
studies either by direct measurement or by calculating the difference
using co-located samplers (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.5.2.3). For these
reasons, in the proposal the Administrator noted that ``there is
considerable uncertainty in interpreting the associations in these
single-city analyses'' (77 FR 38961-62).
The Administrator acknowledged that an approach to considering the
available scientific evidence and air quality information that
emphasizes the above considerations differs from the approach taken by
CASAC. Specifically, in its review of the draft Policy Assessment CASAC
placed a substantial amount of weight on individual studies,
particularly those reporting positive health effects associations for
PM10-2.5 in locations that met the current PM10
standard during the study period. In emphasizing these studies, as well
as the limited number of supporting studies that have evaluated co-
pollutant models and the small number of supporting experimental
studies, CASAC concluded that ``the current data, while limited, is
sufficient to call into question the level of protection afforded the
American people by the current standard'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 7) and
recommended revising the current PM10 standard (Samet,
2010d).
The Administrator carefully considered CASAC's advice and
recommendations. She noted that in making its recommendation on the
current PM10 standard, CASAC did not discuss its approach to
considering the important uncertainties and limitations in the health
evidence, and did not discuss how these uncertainties and limitations
were reflected in its recommendation. Nor did CASAC discuss
uncertainties in the reported concentrations of PM10-2.5 in
the epidemiological studies, or how reported concentrations in the
various studies relate to one another when differing measurement
methodologies are used. As discussed above, such uncertainties and
limitations contributed to the conclusions in the Integrated Science
Assessment that the PM10-2.5 evidence is only suggestive of
a causal relationship, a conclusion that CASAC endorsed (Samet,
2009e,f). Given the importance of these uncertainties and limitations
to the interpretation of the evidence, as reflected in the weight of
evidence conclusions in the Integrated Science Assessment and as
discussed above, the Administrator judged it appropriate to consider
and account for them when drawing conclusions about the potential
implications of individual PM10-2.5 health studies for the
current standard.
In light of the above approach to considering the scientific
evidence, air quality information, and associated uncertainties, the
Administrator reached the following provisional conclusions in the
proposal:
(1) When viewed as a whole the available evidence and
information suggests that the degree of public health protection
provided against short-term exposures to PM10-2.5 does
not need to be increased beyond that provided by the current
PM10 standard. This provisional conclusion noted the
important uncertainties and limitations associated with the overall
body of health evidence and air quality information for
PM10-2.5, as discussed above and as reflected in the
Integrated Science Assessment weight-of-evidence conclusions; that
PM10-2.5 effect estimates for the most serious health
effect, mortality, were not statistically significant in U.S.
locations that met the current PM10 standard and where
coarse particle concentrations were either directly measured or
estimated based on co-located samplers; and that PM10-2.5
effect estimates for morbidity endpoints were both positive and
negative in locations that met the current standard, with most not
statistically significant.
(2) The degree of public health protection provided by the
current standard is not greater than warranted. This provisional
conclusion noted that positive and statistically significant
associations with mortality were reported in single-city U.S. study
locations likely to have violated the current PM10
standard.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ There are similarities with the conclusions drawn by the
Administrator in the last review. There, the Administrator concluded
that there was no basis for concluding that the degree of protection
afforded by the current PM10 standards in urban areas is
greater than warranted, since potential mortality effects have been
associated with air quality levels not allowed by the current 24-
hour standard, but have not been associated with air quality levels
that would generally meet that standard, and morbidity effects have
been associated with air quality levels that exceeded the current
24-hour standard only a few times (71 FR 61202). In addition, the
Administrator concluded that there was a high degree of uncertainty
in the relevant population exposures implied by the morbidity
studies suggesting that there is little basis for concluding that a
greater degree of protection is warranted. Id. The D.C. Circuit in
American Farm Bureau Federation v EPA explicitly endorsed this
reasoning. 559 F. 3d at 534.
[[Page 3174]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching these provisional conclusions, the Administrator noted
that the Policy Assessment also discussed the potential for a revised
PM10 standard (i.e., with a revised form and level) to be
``generally equivalent'' to the current standard, but to better target
public health protection to locations where there is greater concern
regarding PM10-2.5-associated health effects (U.S. EPA,
2011a, sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4). In considering such a potential
revised standard, the Policy Assessment discussed the large amount of
variability in PM10 air quality correlations across
monitoring locations and over time (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-7) and
the regional variability in the relative degree of public health
protection that could be provided by the current and potential
alternative standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Table 3-2). In light of this
variability, the Administrator noted the Policy Assessment conclusion
that no single revised PM10 standard (i.e., with a revised
form and level) would provide public health protection equivalent to
that provided by the current standard, consistently over time and
across locations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4). That is, a revised
standard, even one that is meant to be ``generally equivalent'' to the
current PM10 standard, could increase protection in some
locations while decreasing protection in others (77 FR 38962).
In considering the appropriateness of revising the current
PM10 standard in this way, the Administrator noted the
following:
(1) Positive PM10-2.5 effect estimates for mortality
were not statistically significant in U.S. locations that met the
current PM10 standard and where coarse particle
concentrations were either directly measured or estimated based on
co-located samplers, while positive and statistically significant
associations with mortality were reported in locations likely to
have violated the current PM10 standard.
(2) Effect estimates for morbidity endpoints in locations that
met the current standard were both positive and negative, with most
not statistically significant.
(3) Important uncertainties and limitations associated with the
overall body of health evidence and air quality information for
PM10-2.5, as discussed above and as reflected in the
Integrated Science Assessment weight-of-evidence conclusions, call
into question the extent to which the type of quantified and refined
targeting of public health protection envisioned under a revised
standard could be reliably accomplished.
Given all of the above considerations, the Administrator noted that
there is a large amount of uncertainty in the extent to which public
health would be improved by changing the locations to which the
PM10 standard targets protection. Therefore, she reached the
provisional conclusion that the current PM10 standard should
not be revised in order to change that targeting of protection.
In considering all of the above, including the scientific evidence,
the air quality information, the associated uncertainties, and CASAC's
advice, the Administrator reached the provisional conclusion that the
current 24-hour PM10 standard is requisite (i.e., neither
more protective nor less protective than necessary) to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety against effects that have been
associated with PM10-2.5. In light of this provisional
conclusion, the Administrator proposed to retain the current
PM10 standard in order to protect against health effects
associated with short-term exposures to PM10-2.5 (77 FR
38963).
The Administrator recognized that her proposed conclusions and
decision to retain the current PM10 standard differed from
CASAC's recommendations, stemming from the differences in how the
Administrator and CASAC considered and accounted for the evidence and
its limitations and uncertainties. In light of CASAC's views and
recommendation to revise the current PM10 standard, the
Administrator welcomed the public's views on these different approaches
to considering and accounting for the evidence and its limitations and
uncertainties, as well as on the appropriateness of revising the
primary PM10 standard, including revising the form and level
of the standard. In doing so, the Administrator solicited comment on
all aspects of the proposed decision, including her rationale for
reaching the provisional conclusion that the current PM10
standard is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin
of safety and the provisional conclusion that it is not appropriate to
revise the current PM10 standard by setting a ``generally
equivalent'' standard with the goal of better targeting public health
protection.
F. Public Comments on the Administrator's Proposed Decision To Retain
the Primary PM10 Standard
This section discusses the major public comments received on the
Administrator's proposed decision to retain the primary PM10 standard.
Additional comments are addressed in the Response to Comments Document
(U.S. EPA, 2012a).
Many public commenters agreed with the Administrator's proposed
decision to retain the current 24-hour primary PM10
standard. Among those expressing a position on this proposed decision,
industry groups and most State and Local commenters endorsed the
Administrator's proposed rationale for retaining the current primary
PM10 standard, including her consideration of the available
scientific evidence and associated uncertainties and her consideration
of CASAC recommendations.
Although industry commenters generally agreed with the
Administrator's proposed decision to retain the current primary
PM10 standard, some also contended that the current standard
is ``excessively precautionary'' (NMA and NCBA, 2012, p. 4) and a few
expressed support for a less stringent standard for coarse particles
that are comprised largely of crustal material. For example, the Coarse
Particulate Matter Coalition (CPMC) (2012) and several other industry
commenters recommended that the final decision allow application of a
98th percentile form for the current standard (i.e. with its level of
150 [mu]g/m\3\) in cases where coarse particles consist primarily of
crustal material. Such an approach would allow more yearly exceedances
of the existing standard level than are allowed with the current one-
expected-exceedance form. These industry commenters contended that a
98th percentile form applied in this way would provide appropriate
regulatory relief for areas where the evidence for coarse particle-
related health effects is relatively uncertain.
In reaching her conclusion that the current primary PM10
standard is requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin
of safety, the Administrator considered the degree of public health
protection provided by the current standard as a whole, including all
elements of that standard (i.e., indicator, averaging time, form,
level). As discussed above and in the following section, this
conclusion reflects the Administrator's judgments that (1) the current
standard appropriately provides some measure of protection against
exposures to all thoracic coarse
[[Page 3175]]
particles, regardless of their location, source of origin, or
composition and (2) the current standard appropriately allows lower
ambient concentrations of PM10-2.5 in urban areas, where the
evidence is strongest that thoracic coarse particles are linked to
mortality and morbidity, and higher concentrations in non-urban areas,
where the public health concerns are less certain.
Because the considerations that led to these judgments, and to the
conclusion that the current primary PM10 standard is
requisite to protect public health, took into account the degree of
public health protection provided by the standard as a whole, it would
not be appropriate to consider revising one element of the standard
(e.g., the form, as suggested by commenters in this case) without
considering the extent to which the other elements of the standard
should also be revised. The change in form requested by industry
commenters, without also lowering the level of the standard, would
markedly reduce the public health protection provided against exposures
to thoracic coarse particles.\129\ However, industry commenters have
not presented new evidence or analyses to support their conclusion that
an appropriate degree of public health protection could be achieved by
allowing the use of an alternative form (i.e., 98th percentile) for
some coarse particles, while retaining the other elements of the
current standard. Nor have these commenters presented new evidence or
analyses challenging the basis for the conclusion in the proposal that
the varying amounts of coarse particles allowed in urban versus non-
urban areas under the current 24-hour PM10 standard, based
on the varying levels of PM2.5 present, appropriately
reflect the differences in the strength of evidence regarding coarse
particle effects in urban and non-urban areas. In light of this, EPA
does not believe that a reduction in public health protection, such as
that requested by industry commenters, is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ Based on regression analyses presented in the PA (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Figures 3-7 and 3-8), PM10 one-expected-
exceedance concentration-equivalent design values were between
approximately 175 and 300 [mu]g/m\3\ at monitoring locations
recording 3-year averages of 98th percentile 24-hour PM10
concentrations around 150 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., the level of the current
standard). This suggests that, depending on the location, a 24-hour
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form in conjunction
with the current level (i.e., as recommended by these commenters)
could be ``generally equivalent'' to a 24-hour PM10
standard with a one-expected-exceedance form and a level as high as
approximately 300 [mu]g/m\3\. Based on this analysis, a 24-hour
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form and a level of
150 [mu]g/m\3\ would be markedly less health protective than the
current standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In further considering these comments, it is to be remembered that
epidemiologic studies have not demonstrated that coarse particles of
non-urban origin do not cause health effects, and commenters have not
provided additional evidence on this point. While there are fewer
studies of non-urban coarse particles than of urban coarse particles,
several studies have reported positive and statistically significant
associations between coarse particles of crustal, non-urban origin and
mortality or morbidity (Ostro et al., 2003; Bell et al., 2008; Chan et
al., 2008; Middleton et al., 2008; Perez et al., 2008). These studies
formed part of the basis for the PM Integrated Science Assessment
conclusion that ``recent studies have suggested that PM (both
PM2.5 and PM10-2.5) from crustal, soil or road
dust sources or PM tracers linked to these sources are associated with
cardiovascular effects'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-26). Moreover, crustal
coarse particles may be contaminated with toxic trace elements and
other components from previously deposited fine PM from ubiquitous
sources such as mobile source engine exhaust, as well as by toxic
metals from smelters or other industrial activities, animal waste, or
pesticides (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-344). In the proposal, the
Administrator acknowledged the potential for this type of contamination
to increase the toxicity of coarse particles of crustal, non-urban
origin (77 FR 38960; see also 71 FR 61190).
In suggesting a change in the form of the current standard,
industry commenters also did not address the manifold difficulties
noted above, and in the last review, associated with developing an
indicator that could reliably identify ambient mixes dominated by
particular types of sources of coarse particles. See above and 71 FR
61193. Yet such an indicator would be a prerequisite of the type of
standard these commenters request.
For all of the reasons discussed above, the EPA does not agree with
industry commenters who recommended allowing the application of a 98th
percentile form for the current standard in cases where coarse
particles consist primarily of crustal material.
Some industry commenters contended that the uncertainties and
limitations that precluded a quantitative risk assessment also preclude
revising the PM10 standard. Although the EPA agrees that
there are important uncertainties and limitations in the extent to
which the quantitative relationships between ambient
PM10-2.5 and health outcomes can be characterized in risk
models, the Agency does not agree that such limitations alone preclude
the option of revising a NAAQS. As noted above, the lack of a
quantitative PM10-2.5 risk assessment in the current review
adds uncertainty to conclusions about the extent to which revision of
the current PM10 standard would be expected to improve the
protection of public health, beyond the protection provided by the
current standard. However, the EPA does not agree that such
uncertainties necessarily preclude revision of a NAAQS. Indeed, with
respect to thoracic coarse particles, the DC Circuit noted that
``[a]lthough the evidence of danger from coarse PM is, as the EPA
recognizes, `inconclusive', the agency need not wait for conclusive
findings before regulating a pollutant it reasonably believes may pose
a significant risk to public health.'' 559 F. 3d at 533. Thus, the
Administrator's conclusion that the current 24-hour PM10
standard provides requisite protection of public health relies on her
consideration of the broad body of evidence, rather than solely on the
uncertainties that led to the decision not to conduct a quantitative
assessment of PM10-2.5 health risks.
Commenters representing a number of environmental groups and
medical organizations disagreed with the Administrator's proposal to
retain the current primary PM10 standard. These commenters
generally requested that the EPA revise the PM10 standard to
increase public health protection, consistent with the recommendations
from CASAC.
As discussed above and in the proposal, in reaching provisional
conclusions in the proposal regarding the current standard, the
Administrator carefully considered CASAC's advice and recommendations.
She specifically noted that in making its recommendation on the current
PM10 standard, CASAC did not discuss its approach to
considering the important uncertainties and limitations in the health
evidence, and did not discuss how these uncertainties and limitations
were reflected in its recommendations. Such uncertainties and
limitations contributed to the conclusions in the Integrated Science
Assessment that the PM10-2.5 evidence is only suggestive of
a causal relationship, a conclusion that CASAC endorsed (Samet,
2009e,f). These commenters also did not address the important
uncertainties in the epidemiologic studies on which their comments are
based. Given the importance of these uncertainties and limitations to
the interpretation of the
[[Page 3176]]
evidence, as reflected in the weight of evidence conclusions in the
Integrated Science Assessment and as discussed in the proposal, the
Administrator judges that it is appropriate to consider and account for
them when drawing conclusions about the implications of individual
PM10-2.5 health studies for the current standard. Commenters
have not provided new information that would change the Administrator's
views on the evidence and uncertainties.
In recommending that the PM10 standard be revised, some
commenters supported their conclusions by referencing studies that
evaluated PM10, rather than PM10-2.5. These
commenters contended that ``[t]he most relevant studies to the setting
of a PM10 standard are the thousands of studies that have
reported adverse effects associated with PM10 pollution''
(ALA et al., 2012).
As discussed in the Policy Assessment, the proposal, and above,
since the establishment of the primary PM2.5 standards, the
purpose of the primary PM10 standard has been to protect
against health effects associated with exposures to
PM10-2.5. PM10 is the indicator, not the target
pollutant. With regard to the appropriateness of considering
PM10 health studies for the purpose of reaching conclusions
on a standard meant to protect against exposures to
PM10-2.5, the proposal noted that PM10 includes
both fine and coarse particles, even in locations with the highest
concentrations of PM10-2.5. Therefore, the extent to which
PM10 effect estimates reflect associations with
PM10-2.5 versus PM2.5 can be highly uncertain and
it is often unclear how PM10 health studies should be
interpreted when considering a standard meant to protect against
exposures to PM10-2.5. Given this uncertainty and the
availability of a number of PM10-2.5 health studies in this
review, the Integrated Science Assessment considered
PM10-2.5 studies, but not PM10 studies, when
drawing weight-of-evidence conclusions regarding the coarse
fraction.\130\ In light of the uncertainty in ascribing
PM10-related health effects to the coarse or fine fractions,
indicating that the best evidence for effects associated with exposures
to PM10-2.5 comes from studies evaluating
PM10-2.5 itself, and given CASAC's support for the approach
adopted in the Integrated Science Assessment, which draws weight-of-
evidence conclusions for PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 but
not for PM10 (Samet, 2009f), the EPA continues to conclude
that it is appropriate to focus on PM10-2.5 health studies
when considering the degree of public health protection provided by the
current primary PM10 standard, a standard intended
exclusively to provide protection against exposures to
PM10-2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Although EPA relied in the 1997 review on evidence from
PM10 studies, EPA did so out of necessity (i.e., there
were as yet no reliable studies measuring PM10-2.5). In
the 2006 review, EPA placed primary reliance on epidemiologic
studies measuring or estimating PM10-2.5, although there
were comparatively few such studies. In this review, a larger body
of PM10-2.5 studies are available. EPA regards these
studies as the evidence to be given principal weight in reviewing
the adequacy of the PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Administrator's Final Decision on the Primary PM10 Standard
In reaching a final decision on the primary PM10
standard, the Administrator takes into account the available scientific
evidence, and the assessment of that evidence, in the Integrated
Science Assessment; the analyses and staff conclusions presented in the
Policy Assessment; the advice and recommendations of CASAC; and public
comments on the proposal. In particular, as in the proposal, the
Administrator places emphasis on her consideration of the following
issues:
(1) The extent to which it is appropriate to maintain a standard
that provides some measure of protection against all
PM10-2.5, regardless of composition or source of origin;
(2) The extent to which it is appropriate to retain a
PM10 indicator for a standard meant to protect against
exposures to ambient PM10-2.5; and
(3) The extent to which the current PM10 standard
provides an appropriate degree of public health protection.
Each of these issues is discussed below.
With regard to the first issue, as in the proposal the
Administrator judges that the expanded body of scientific evidence
available in this review provides ample support for a standard that
protects against exposures to all thoracic coarse particles, regardless
of their location or source of origin. There was already ample evidence
for this position in the previous review,\131\ and that evidence has
since increased. Specifically, the Administrator notes that
epidemiological studies have reported positive associations between
PM10-2.5 and mortality or morbidity in a large number of
cities across North America, Europe, and Asia, encompassing a variety
of environments where PM10-2.5 sources and composition are
expected to vary widely. In considering this evidence, the Integrated
Science Assessment concludes that ``many constituents of PM can be
linked with differing health effects'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-26).
Although PM10-2.5 in most of these study areas is of largely
urban origin, the Administrator notes that some recent studies have
also linked mortality and morbidity with relatively high ambient
concentrations of particles of non-urban crustal origin. In considering
these studies, she notes the Integrated Science Assessment's conclusion
that ``PM (both PM2.5 and PM10-2.5) from crustal,
soil or road dust sources or PM tracers linked to these sources are
associated with cardiovascular effects'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-26).
The Administrator likewise notes CASAC's emphatic advice that a
standard remains needed for all types of thoracic coarse PM.\132\ In
light of this body of available evidence reporting PM10-2.5-
associated health effects across different locations with a variety of
sources, the Integrated Science Assessment's conclusions regarding the
links between adverse health effects and PM sources and composition,
and CASAC's advice, the Administrator concludes in the current review
that it is appropriate to maintain a standard that provides some
measure of protection against exposures to all thoracic coarse
particles, regardless of their location, source of origin, or
composition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ The D.C. Circuit agreed. See 559 F. 3d at 532-33.
\132\ Indeed, CASAC recommended making the standard for all
types of thoracic coarse PM more stringent (Samet, 2010d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the second issue, in considering the appropriateness
of a PM10 indicator for a standard meant to provide such
public health protection, the Administrator notes that the rationale
used in the last review to support the unqualified PM10
indicator remains relevant in the current review. Specifically, as an
initial consideration, she notes that PM10 mass includes
both coarse PM (PM10-2.5) and fine PM (PM2.5). As
a result, the concentration of PM10-2.5 allowed by a
PM10 standard set at a single level declines as the
concentration of PM2.5 increases. At the same time, the
Administrator notes that PM2.5 concentrations tend to be
higher in urban areas than rural areas (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 2-54, and
Figures 2-23 and 2-24) and, therefore, a PM10 standard will
generally allow lower PM10-2.5 concentrations in urban areas
than in rural areas.
In considering the appropriateness of this variation in allowable
PM10-2.5 concentrations, the Administrator considers the
relative strength of the evidence for health effects associated with
PM10-2.5 of urban origin versus non-urban origin. She
specifically notes that, as discussed in the proposal, the large
majority of the available evidence for
[[Page 3177]]
thoracic coarse particle health effects comes from studies conducted in
locations with sources more typical of urban and industrial areas than
rural areas. While associations with adverse health effects have been
reported in some study locations where PM10-2.5 is largely
non-urban in origin (i.e., in dust storm studies), particle
concentrations in these study areas are typically much higher than
reported in study locations where the PM is of urban origin. Therefore,
the Administrator notes that the strongest evidence for a link between
PM10-2.5 and adverse health impacts, particularly for such a
link at relatively low particle concentrations, comes from studies of
urban or industrial PM10-2.5.
The Administrator also notes that chemical constituents present at
higher levels in urban or industrial areas, including byproducts of
incomplete combustion (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) emitted
as PM2.5 from motor vehicles as well as metals and other
contaminants emitted from anthropogenic sources, can contaminate
PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-344; 71 FR 2665, January 17,
2006). While the Administrator acknowledges the uncertainty expressed
in the Integrated Science Assessment regarding the extent to which
particle composition can be linked to health outcomes based on
available evidence, she also considers the possibility that
PM10-2.5 contaminants typical of urban or industrial areas
could increase the toxicity of thoracic coarse particles in urban
locations.
Given that the large majority of the evidence for
PM10-2.5 toxicity, particularly at relatively low particle
concentrations, comes from study locations where thoracic coarse
particles are of urban origin, and given the possibility that
PM10-2.5 contaminants in urban areas could increase particle
toxicity, the Administrator concludes that it remains appropriate to
maintain a standard that provides some protection in all areas but
targets public health protection to urban locations. Specifically, she
concludes that it is appropriate to maintain a standard that allows
lower ambient concentrations of PM10-2.5 in urban areas,
where the evidence is strongest that thoracic coarse particles are
linked to mortality and morbidity, and higher concentrations in non-
urban areas, where the public health concerns are less certain.
Given all of the above considerations and conclusions, the
Administrator judges that the available evidence supports retaining a
PM10 indicator for a standard that is meant to protect
against exposures to thoracic coarse particles. In reaching this
judgment, she notes that, to the extent a PM10 indicator
results in lower allowable concentrations of thoracic coarse particles
in some areas compared to others, lower concentrations will be allowed
in those locations (i.e., urban or industrial areas) where the science
has shown the strongest evidence of adverse health effects associated
with exposure to thoracic coarse particles and where we have the most
concern regarding PM10-2.5 toxicity. Therefore, the
Administrator concludes that the varying amounts of coarse particles
that are allowed in urban vs. non-urban areas under the 24-hour
PM10 standard, based on the varying levels of
PM2.5 present, appropriately reflect the differences in the
strength of evidence regarding coarse particle effects in urban and
non-urban areas.133 134
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ As discussed in the proposal, the Administrator recognizes
that this relationship is qualitative. That is, the varying coarse
particle concentrations allowed under the PM10 standard
do not precisely correspond to the variable toxicity of thoracic
coarse particles in different areas (insofar as that variability is
understood). Although currently available information does not allow
any more precise adjustment for relative toxicity, the Administrator
believes the standard will generally ensure that the coarse particle
levels allowed will be lower in urban areas and higher in non-urban
areas. Addressing this qualitative relationship, the DC Circuit held
that ``[i]t is true that the EPA relies on a qualitative analysis to
describe the protection the coarse PM NAAQS will provide. But the
fact that the EPA's analysis is qualitative rather than quantitative
does not undermine its validity as an acceptable rationale for the
EPA's decision.'' 559 F. 3d at 535.
\134\ The D.C. Circuit agreed with similar conclusions in the
last review and held that this rationale reasonably supported use of
an unqualified PM10 indicator for thoracic coarse
particles. American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d at 535-
36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching this conclusion, the Administrator also notes that, in
their review of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC concluded
that ``[w]hile it would be preferable to use an indicator that reflects
the coarse PM directly linked to health risks (PM10-2.5),
CASAC recognizes that there is not yet sufficient data to permit a
change in the indicator from PM10 to one that directly
measures thoracic coarse particles'' (Samet, 2010d, p. ii). Thus,
consistent the considerations presented above and with CASAC advice,
the Administrator concludes that it is appropriate to retain
PM10 as the indicator for thoracic coarse particles.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ In addition, CASAC ``vigorously recommends the
implementation of plans for the deployment of a network of
PM10-2.5 sampling systems so that future epidemiological
studies will be able to more thoroughly explore the use of
PM10-2.5 as a more appropriate indicator for thoracic
coarse particles'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 7). Consideration of
alternative indicators (e.g., PM10-2.5) in future reviews
could be informed by additional research, as described in the Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the third issue, in evaluating the degree of public
health protection provided by the current PM10 standard, the
Administrator first notes that when the available PM10-2.5
scientific evidence and its associated uncertainties were considered,
the Integrated Science Assessment concluded that the evidence is
suggestive of a causal relationship between short-term
PM10-2.5 exposures and mortality, cardiovascular effects,
and respiratory effects. As discussed above and in more detail in the
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5), a
suggestive determination is made when the ``[e]vidence is suggestive of
a causal relationship with relevant pollutant exposures, but is limited
because chance, bias and confounding cannot be ruled out.'' In
contrast, the Administrator notes that she is strengthening the annual
fine particle standard based on a body of scientific evidence judged
sufficient to conclude that a causal relationship exists (i.e.,
mortality, cardiovascular effects) or is likely to exist (i.e.,
respiratory effects). The suggestive judgment for PM10-2.5
reflects the greater degree of uncertainty associated with this body of
evidence, as discussed above and in more detail in the proposal, and as
summarized below.
The Administrator notes that the important uncertainties and
limitations associated with the scientific evidence and air quality
information raise questions as to whether public health benefits would
be achieved by revising the existing PM10 standard. Such
uncertainties and limitations include the following:
(1) While PM10-2.5 effect estimates reported for
mortality and morbidity were generally positive, most were not
statistically significant, even in single-pollutant models. This
includes effect estimates reported in some study locations with
PM10 concentrations above those allowed by the current
24-hour PM10 standard.
(2) The number of epidemiological studies that have employed co-
pollutant models to address the potential for confounding,
particularly by PM2.5, remains limited. Therefore, the
extent to which PM10-2.5 itself, rather than one or more
co-pollutants, contributes to reported health effects remains
uncertain.
(3) Only a limited number of experimental studies provide
support for the associations reported in epidemiological studies,
resulting in further uncertainty regarding the plausibility of the
associations between PM10-2.5 and mortality and morbidity
reported in epidemiological studies.
[[Page 3178]]
(4) Limitations in PM10-2.5 monitoring data and the
different approaches used to estimate PM10-2.5
concentrations across epidemiological studies result in uncertainty
in the ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations at which the
reported effects occur, increasing uncertainty in estimates of the
extent to which changes in ambient PM10-2.5
concentrations would likely impact public health.
(5) The lack of a quantitative PM10-2.5 risk
assessment further contributes to uncertainty regarding the extent
to which any revisions to the current PM10 standard would
be expected to improve the protection of public health, beyond the
protection provided by the current standard (see section III.B.5
above).
(6) The chemical and biological composition of
PM10-2.5, and the effects associated with the various
components, remains uncertain. Without more information on the
chemical speciation of PM10-2.5, the apparent variability
in associations across locations is difficult to characterize.
In considering these uncertainties and limitations, the
Administrator notes in particular the considerable degree of
uncertainty in the extent to which health effects reported in
epidemiological studies are due to PM10-2.5 itself, as
opposed to one or more co-occurring pollutants. As discussed above,
this uncertainty reflects the fact that there are a relatively small
number of PM10-2.5 studies that have evaluated co-pollutant
models, particularly co-pollutant models that have included
PM2.5, and a very limited body of controlled human exposure
evidence supporting the plausibility of a causal relationship between
PM10-2.5 and mortality and morbidity at ambient
concentrations. The Administrator notes that these important
limitations in the overall body of health evidence introduce
uncertainty into the interpretation of individual epidemiological
studies, particularly those studies reporting associations with
PM10-2.5 that are not statistically significant. Given this,
the Administrator reaches the conclusion that it is appropriate to
place relatively little weight on epidemiological studies reporting
associations with PM10-2.5 that are not statistically
significant in single-pollutant and/or co-pollutant models.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ The Administrator acknowledges that this approach to
interpreting the evidence differs in emphasis from the approach she
has adopted for the evidence relating to PM2.5. As
discussed above in section III.E.4, for fine particles the
Administrator has considered not only whether study results are
statistically significant (or remain so after application of co-
pollutant models), but she also places emphasis on the overall
pattern of results across the epidemiological literature. This
includes giving some credence to studies that reported statistically
non-significant associations. This difference in emphasis stems from
the much stronger overall body of evidence available for fine
particles, compared to coarse particles. As discussed above, when
the available PM2.5 scientific evidence and its
associated uncertainties were considered, the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded that the evidence was sufficient to conclude
that causal relationships exist with mortality and cardiovascular
effects, and that a causal relationship is likely to exist with
respiratory effects. In contrast, the Integrated Science Assessment
concluded that the evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship
between short-term PM10-2.5 exposures and mortality,
cardiovascular effects, and respiratory effects. A suggestive
determination is made when the ``[e]vidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship with relevant pollutant exposures, but is
limited because chance, bias and confounding cannot be ruled out''
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5). The suggestive judgment for
PM10-2.5 reflects the greater degree of uncertainty
associated with this body of evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to this conclusion, the Administrator notes that, for
single-city mortality studies conducted in the United States where
ambient PM10 concentration data were available for
comparison to the current standard, positive and statistically
significant PM10-2.5 effect estimates were only reported in
study locations that would likely have violated the current
PM10 standard during the study period (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
Figure 3-2). In U.S. study locations that would likely have met the
current standard, PM10-2.5 effect estimates for mortality
were positive, but not statistically significant (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
Figure 3-2). In considering U.S. study locations where single-city
morbidity studies were conducted, and which would likely have met the
current PM10 standard during the study period, the
Administrator notes that PM10-2.5 effect estimates were both
positive and negative, with most not statistically significant (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-3).
In addition, in considering single-city analyses for the locations
evaluated in a large U.S. multi-city mortality study (Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009), the Administrator notes that associations in most of
the study locations were not statistically significant and that this
was the only study to estimate ambient PM10-2.5
concentrations as the difference between county-wide PM10
and PM2.5 mass. As discussed in the proposal, the
Administrator notes that it is not clear how computed
PM10-2.5 measurements, such as those used by Zanobetti and
Schwartz (2009), compare with the PM10-2.5 concentrations
obtained in other studies either by direct measurement by calculating
the difference using co-located samplers (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
6.5.2.3). For these reasons, as in the proposal, the Administrator
notes that there is considerable uncertainty in interpreting the
associations, and especially the concentrations at which such
associations may have occurred, in these single-city analyses.
The Administrator acknowledges that an approach to considering the
available scientific evidence and air quality information that
emphasizes the above considerations differs from the approach taken by
CASAC. Specifically, CASAC placed a substantial amount of weight on
individual studies, particularly those reporting positive health
effects associations in locations that met the current PM10
standard during the study period. In emphasizing these studies, as well
as the limited number of supporting studies that have evaluated co-
pollutant models and the small number of supporting experimental
studies, CASAC concluded that ``the current data, while limited, is
sufficient to call into question the level of protection afforded the
American people by the current standard'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 7) and
recommended revising the current PM10 standard (Samet,
2010d).
The Administrator has carefully considered CASAC's advice and
recommendations. She notes that in making its recommendation on the
current PM10 standard, CASAC did not discuss its approach to
considering the important uncertainties and limitations in the health
evidence, and did not discuss how these uncertainties and limitations
are reflected in its recommendation. As discussed above, such
uncertainties and limitations contributed to the conclusions in the
Integrated Science Assessment that the PM10-2.5 evidence is
only suggestive of a causal relationship, a conclusion that CASAC
endorsed (Samet, 2009e,f). Given the importance of these uncertainties
and limitations to the interpretation of the evidence, as reflected in
the weight of evidence conclusions in the Integrated Science Assessment
and as discussed above, the Administrator judges that it is appropriate
to consider and account for them when drawing conclusions about the
potential implications of individual PM10-2.5 health studies
for the current standard.
In light of the above approach to considering the scientific
evidence, air quality information, and associated uncertainties, the
Administrator reaches the following conclusions:
(1) When viewed as a whole the available evidence and
information suggests that the degree of public health protection
provided against short-term exposures to PM10-2.5 should
be maintained but does not need to be increased beyond that provided
by the current PM10 standard. This conclusion emphasizes
the important uncertainties and limitations associated with the
overall body
[[Page 3179]]
of health evidence and air quality information for
PM10-2.5, as discussed above and as reflected in the
Integrated Science Assessment weight-of-evidence conclusions; that
PM10-2.5 effect estimates for the most serious health
effect, mortality, were not statistically significant in U.S.
locations that met the current PM10 standard and where
coarse particle concentrations were either directly measured or
estimated based on co-located samplers; and that PM10-2.5
effect estimates for morbidity endpoints were both positive and
negative in locations that met the current standard, with most not
statistically significant.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ This is not to say that the EPA could not adopt or revise
a standard for a pollutant for which the evidence is suggestive of a
causal relationship. Indeed, with respect to thoracic coarse
particles itself, the DC Circuit noted that ``[a]lthough the
evidence of danger from coarse PM is, as the EPA recognizes,
`inconclusive', the agency need not wait for conclusive findings
before regulating a pollutant it reasonably believes may pose a
significant risk to public health.'' American Farm Bureau Federation
v EPA 559 F. 3d at 533. As explained in the text above, it is the
Administrator's judgment that significant uncertainties presented by
the evidence and information before her in this review, both as to
causality and as to concentrations at which effects may be
occurring, best support a decision to retain rather than revise the
current primary 24-hour PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The degree of public health protection provided by the
current standard is not greater than warranted. This conclusion
notes that positive and statistically significant associations with
mortality were reported in single-city U.S. study locations likely
to have violated the current PM10 standard.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ There are similarities with the conclusions drawn by the
Administrator in the last review. There, the Administrator concluded
that there was no basis for concluding that the degree of protection
afforded by the current PM10 standards in urban areas is
greater than warranted, since potential mortality effects have been
associated with air quality levels not allowed by the current 24-
hour standard, but have not been associated with air quality levels
that would generally meet that standard, and morbidity effects have
been associated with air quality levels that exceeded the current
24-hour standard only a few times. 71 FR 61202. In addition, the
Administrator concluded that there was a high degree of uncertainty
in the relevant population exposures implied by the morbidity
studies suggesting that there is little basis for concluding that a
greater degree of protection is warranted. Id. The D.C. Circuit in
American Farm Bureau Federation v EPA explicitly endorsed this
reasoning. 559 F. 3d at 534.
In reaching these conclusions, the Administrator notes that the
Policy Assessment also discussed the potential for a revised
PM10 standard (i.e., with a revised form and level) to be
``generally equivalent'' to the current standard, but to better target
public health protection to locations where there is greater concern
regarding PM10-2.5-associated health effects (U.S. EPA,
2011a, sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4).\139\ In considering such a potential
revised standard, the Policy Assessment discusses the large amount of
variability in PM10 air quality correlations across
monitoring locations and over time (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-7) and
the regional variability in the relative degree of public health
protection that could be provided by the current and potential
alternative standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Table 3-2). In light of this
variability, the Administrator notes the Policy Assessment conclusion
that no single revised PM10 standard (i.e., with a revised
form and level) would provide public health protection equivalent to
that provided by the current standard, consistently over time and
across locations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4). That is, a revised
standard, even one that is meant to be ``generally equivalent'' to the
current PM10 standard, could increase protection in some
locations while decreasing protection in other locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ As discussed in detail above (section IV.C.2.d) and in the
Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4), a
revised standard that is generally equivalent to the current
PM10 standard could provide a degree of public health
protection that is similar to the degree of protection provided by
the current standard, across the United States as a whole. However,
compared to the current PM10 standard, such a generally
equivalent standard would change the degree of public health
protection provided in some specific areas, providing increased
protection in some locations and decreased protection in other
locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the appropriateness of revising the current
PM10 standard in this way, the Administrator notes the
following:
(1) As discussed above, positive PM10-2.5 effect
estimates for mortality were not statistically significant in U.S.
locations that met the current PM10 standard and where
coarse particle concentrations were either directly measured or
estimated based on co-located samplers, while positive and
statistically significant associations with mortality were reported
in locations likely to have violated the current PM10
standard.
(2) Also as discussed above, effect estimates for morbidity
endpoints in locations that met the current standard were both
positive and negative, with most not statistically significant.
(3) Important uncertainties and limitations associated with the
overall body of health evidence and air quality information for
PM10-2.5, as discussed above and as reflected in the
Integrated Science Assessment weight-of-evidence conclusions, call
into question the extent to which the type of quantified and refined
targeting of public health protection envisioned under a revised
standard could be reliably accomplished.
Given all of the above considerations, the Administrator notes that
there is a large amount of uncertainty in the extent to which public
health would be improved by changing the locations to which the
PM10 standard targets protection. Therefore, she reaches the
conclusion that the current PM10 standard should not be
revised in order to change that targeting of protection.
In considering all of the above, including the scientific evidence,
the air quality information, the associated uncertainties, CASAC's
advice, and public comments received on the proposed rule, the
Administrator reaches the conclusion in the current review that the
existing 24-hour PM10 standard, with its one-expected
exceedance form and a level of 150 [mu]g/m\3\, is requisite (i.e.,
neither more protective nor less protective than necessary) to protect
public health with an adequate margin of safety against effects that
have been associated with PM10-2.5. In light of this
conclusion, with this rule the Administrator retains the current
PM10 standard.
V. Communication of Public Health Information
Sections 319(a)(1) and (3) of the CAA require the EPA to establish
a uniform air quality index for reporting of air quality. These
sections specifically direct the Administrator to ``promulgate
regulations establishing an air quality monitoring system throughout
the United States which utilizes uniform air quality monitoring
criteria and methodology and measures such air quality according to a
uniform air quality index'' and ``provides for daily analysis and
reporting of air quality based upon such uniform air quality index * *
*'' In 1979, the EPA established requirements for index reporting (44
FR 27598, May 10, 1979). The requirement for State and local agencies
to report the AQI appears in 40 CFR 58.50, and the specific
requirements (e.g., what to report, how to report, reporting frequency,
calculations) are in appendix G to 40 CFR part 58.
Information on the public health implications of ambient
concentrations of criteria pollutants is currently made available
primarily by AQI reporting through EPA's AIRNow Web site.\140\ The
current AQI has been in use since its inception in 1999.\141\ It
provides accurate, timely, and easily understandable information about
daily levels of pollution (40 CFR 58.50). The AQI establishes a
nationally uniform system of indexing pollution levels for ozone,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen
[[Page 3180]]
dioxide, PM, and sulfur dioxide. The AQI is also recognized
internationally as a proven tool to effectively communicate air quality
information to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ See http://www.airnow.gov/.
\141\ In 1976, the EPA established a nationally uniform air
quality index, then called the Pollutant Standard Index (PSI), for
use by State and local agencies on a voluntary basis (41 FR 37660,
September 7, 1976). In August 1999, the EPA adopted revisions to
this air quality index (64 FR 42530, August 4, 1999) and renamed the
index the AQI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The AQI converts pollutant concentrations in a community's air to a
number on a scale from 0 to 500. Reported AQI values enable the public
to know whether air pollution levels in a particular location are
characterized as good (0-50), moderate (51-100), unhealthy for
sensitive groups (101- 150), unhealthy (151-200), very unhealthy (201-
300), or hazardous (301-500). The AQI index value of 100 typically
corresponds to the level of the short-term (e.g., daily or hourly
standard) NAAQS for each pollutant. Below an index value of 100, an
intermediate value of 50 was defined either as the level of the annual
standard if an annual standard has been established (e.g.,
PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide), or as a concentration equal to
one-half the value of the short-term standard used to define an index
value of 100 (e.g., carbon monoxide). An AQI value greater than 100
means that a pollutant is in one of the unhealthy categories (i.e.,
unhealthy for sensitive groups, unhealthy, very unhealthy, or
hazardous) on a given day. An AQI value at or below 100 means that a
pollutant concentration is in one of the satisfactory categories (i.e.,
moderate or good). The underlying health information that supports the
NAAQS review also supports the selection of the AQI ``breakpoints''--
the ambient concentrations that delineate the various AQI categories
for each pollutant.
Historically, state and local agencies have primarily used the AQI
to provide general information to the public about air quality and its
relationship to public health. For more than a decade, many states and
local agencies, as well as the EPA and other Federal agencies, have
been developing new and innovative programs and initiatives to provide
more information to the public in a more timely way. These initiatives,
including air quality forecasting, real-time data reporting through the
AirNow Web site, and state and local air quality action day programs,
can serve to provide useful, up-to-date, and timely information to the
public about air pollution and its effects. Such information will help
individuals take actions to avoid or to reduce exposures to ambient
pollution at levels of concern to them. Thus, these programs have
significantly broadened the ways in which state and local agencies can
meet the nationally uniform AQI reporting requirements and contribute
to state and local efforts to provide community health protection.
With respect to an AQI value of 50, the historical approach is to
set it at the same level of the annual primary standard, if there is
one. This is consistent with the previous AQI sub-index for
PM2.5, in which the AQI value of 50 was set at 15 [micro]g/
m\3\ in 1999, consistent with the level of the annual PM2.5
standard at that time. In recognition of the proposed change to the
annual PM2.5 standard summarized in section III.F of the
proposal, the EPA proposed a conforming change to the PM2.5
sub-index of the AQI to be consistent with the proposed change to the
annual standard. As discussed below, no state or local agencies, or
their organizations (e.g., NACAA), that commented on the proposed
changes to the AQI disagreed with our proposed approach. Based on these
comments, the EPA continues to see no basis for deviating from this
approach in this review. Thus, the EPA is taking final action to set an
AQI value of 50 at 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, consistent with
the final decision on the annual PM2.5 standard level
(section III.F).
With respect to an AQI value of 100, which is the basis for
advisories to individuals in sensitive groups, in the proposal we
described two general approaches that could be used to select the
associated PM2.5 level. By far the most common approach,
which has been used with all of the other sub-indices, is to set an AQI
value of 100 at the same level as the short-term standard. In the
proposal, the EPA recognized that some state and local air quality
agencies have expressed a strong preference that the Agency set an AQI
value of 100 equal to any short-term standard (77 FR 38964). These
agencies typically express the view that this linkage is useful for the
purpose of communicating with the public about the standard, as well as
providing consistent messages about the health impacts associated with
daily air quality. The EPA proposed to use this approach to set the AQI
value of 100 at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, consistent with the
proposed decision to retain the current 24-hour PM2.5
standard. Id.
An alternative approach discussed in the proposal (77 FR 38964),
was to directly evaluate the health effects evidence to select the
level for an AQI value of 100. This was the approach used in the 1999
rulemaking to set the AQI value of 100 at a level of 40 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-
hour average,\142\ when the 24-hour standard level was 65 [mu]g/m\3\.
This alternative approach was used in the case of the PM2.5
sub-index, because the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards
set in 1997 were designed to work together, and the intended degree of
health protection against short-term risks was not defined by the 24-
hour standard alone, but rather by the combination of the two standards
working in concert. Indeed, at that time, the 24-hour standard was set
to provide supplemental protection relative to the principal protection
provided by the annual standard. In the proposal, the EPA solicited
comment on this alternative approach in recognition that, as proposed,
the 24-hour PM2.5 standard is intended to continue to
provide supplemental protection against effects associated with short-
term exposures of PM2.5 by working in conjunction with the
annual standard to reduce 24-hour exposures to PM2.5. The
EPA recognized that in the past, some state and local air quality
agencies have expressed support for this alternative approach. Using
this alternative approach could have resulted in consideration of a
lower level for an AQI value of 100, based on the discussion of the
health information pertaining to the level of the 24-hour standard in
section III.E.4 of the proposal. The EPA encouraged state and local air
quality agencies to comment on both the approach and the level at which
to set an AQI value of 100 together with any supporting rationale. Of
the state or local agencies, or their organizations (e.g., NACAA), that
commented on the proposed changes to the AQI, only one organization,
NESCAUM, expressed some support for this approach. In its comments,
NESCAUM expressed support for a 24-hour standard set at 30 [mu]g/m\3\,
24-hour average. NESCAUM also expressed the view that EPA should
carefully consider how to set the breakpoint for an AQI value of 100.
NESCAUM expressed the view that if the EPA were to keep the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, the annual standard would
be controlling, and a 24-hour breakpoint at that level (35 [mu]g/m\3\)
would not be very effective for the purposes of public health
messaging. However, other agencies, such as Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (Georgia DNR), expressed the view that linkage
between the short-term standard and the AQI of 100 is useful for the
purpose of communicating with the public about the standard as well as
providing consistent messages about the health
[[Page 3181]]
impacts associated with the daily air quality. Based on these comments,
the EPA sees no basis for deviating from the approach proposed in this
review. Thus, the EPA is taking final action to set an AQI value of 100
at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, consistent with the final decision
on the 24-hour PM2.5 standard level (section III.F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Currently, we are cautioning members of sensitive groups
at the AQI value of 100 at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average,
consistent with more recent guidance from the EPA with regard to the
development of State emergency episode contingency plans (Harnett,
2009, Attachment B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to an AQI value of 150, this level is based upon the
same health effects information that informs the selection of the level
of the 24-hour standard and the AQI value of 100. The AQI value of 150
was set in the 1999 rulemaking at a level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour
average. In considering what level to propose for an AQI value of 150,
we stated the view that the health effects evidence indicates that the
level of 55 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, is appropriate to use \143\ in
conjunction with an AQI value of 100 set at the level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
The Agency's approach to selecting the levels at which to set the AQI
values of 100 and 150 inherently recognizes that the epidemiological
evidence upon which these decisions are based provides no evidence of
discernible thresholds, below which effects do not occur in either
sensitive groups or in the general population, at which to set these
two breakpoints. Therefore, the EPA concluded the use of a proportional
adjustment would be appropriate. Commenters did not comment on this
proposed approach to revising the AQI value of 150; thus, the EPA is
taking final action to set an AQI value of 150 at 55 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-
hour average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ We note that this level is consistent with the level
recommended in the more recent EPA guidance (Harnett, 2009,
Attachment B), which is in use by many State and local agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the air quality and health considerations discussed in
section V of the proposal, the EPA concluded that it was appropriate to
propose to retain the current level of 500 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average,
for the AQI value of 500. In addition, the EPA solicited comment on
alternative levels and approaches to setting a level for the AQI value
of 500, as well as supporting information and rationales for such
alternative levels. The EPA also solicited any additional information,
data, research or analyses that may be useful to inform a final
decision on the appropriate level to set the AQI value of 500.
Receiving no information with which to inform alternative approaches to
setting an AQI value of 500, the EPA is taking final action to retain
the current level of 500 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, for the AQI value
of 500.
For the intermediate breakpoints in the AQI between the values of
150 and 500, the EPA proposed PM2.5 concentrations that
generally reflected a linear relationship between increasing index
values and increasing PM2.5 values (77 FR 38965). The
available scientific evidence of health effects related to population
exposures to PM2.5 concentrations between the level of the
24-hour standard and an AQI value of 500 suggested a continuum of
effects in this range, with increasing PM2.5 concentrations
being associated with increasingly larger numbers of people likely to
experience such effects. The generally linear relationship between AQI
values and PM2.5 concentrations in this range is consistent
with the health evidence. This also is consistent with the Agency's
practice of setting breakpoints in symmetrical fashion where health
effects information does not suggest particular levels.
Table 2 below summarizes the finalized breakpoints for the
PM2.5 sub-index.\144\ Table 2 shows the intermediate
breakpoints for AQI values of 200, 300 and 400 based on a linear
interpolation between the proposed levels for AQI values of 150 and
500. If a different level were to be set for an AQI value of 150 or
500, intermediate levels would be calculated based on a linear
relationship between the selected levels for AQI values of 150 and 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\ As discussed in section VII.C below, the EPA is also
updating the data handling procedures for reporting the AQI and
corresponding updates for other AQI-sub-indices presented in Table 2
of appendix G of 40 CFR part 58.
Table 2--Breakpoints for PM2.5 Sub-Index
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed breakpoints
AQI category Index values ([mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour
average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good................................................................ 0-50 0.0-(12.0)
Moderate............................................................ 51-100 (12.1)-35.4
Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups...................................... 101-150 35.5-55.4
Unhealthy........................................................... 151-200 55.5-150.4
Very Unhealthy...................................................... 201-300 150.5-250.4
Hazardous........................................................... 301-400 250.5-350.4
401-500 350.5-500.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In retaining the 500 level for the AQI as described above, we note
that the EPA is not establishing a Significant Harm Level (SHL) for
PM2.5. The SHL is an important part of air pollution
Emergency Episode Plans, which are required for certain areas by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(G) and associated regulations at 40 CFR 51.150, under
the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes program. The Agency
believes that air quality responses established through an Emergency
Episode Plan should be developed through a collaborative process
working with State and Tribal air quality, forestry and agricultural
agencies, Federal land management agencies, private land managers and
the public. Therefore, if in future rulemaking the EPA proposes
revisions to the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes
program, the proposal will include a SHL for PM2.5 that is
developed in collaboration with these organizations. As discussed in
the 1999 Air Quality Index Reporting Rule (64 FR 42530), if a future
rulemaking results in a SHL that is different from the 500 value of the
AQI for PM2.5, the AQI will be revised accordingly.
The EPA also received more general comments on AQI reporting,
comments that did not pertain to setting specific breakpoints. One set
of commenters (e.g., API and UARG), expressed the view that changes to
the AQI are not appropriate. They noted that air quality is getting
better, and in fact is better than when EPA established the AQI. These
commenters stated that the proposed changes to the annual standard and
the AQI would mean that the public would hear less often that air
quality is good, and thereby would receive apparently inconsistent or
misleading messages that air quality is
[[Page 3182]]
worse. The AQI has been revised several times in conjunction with
revisions to the standards. State and local air quality agencies and
organizations are proficient at communicating with the public about the
reasons for changes to the AQI. Therefore, the EPA strongly disagrees
with these commenters that the public will receive inconsistent or
misleading messages. Recognizing the importance of the AQI as a
communication tool that allows the public to take exposure reduction
measures when air quality may pose health risks, the EPA agrees with
state and local air quality agencies and organizations that favored
revising the AQI at the same time as the primary standard.
A few state and local air quality agencies and organizations
recommended against using near-roadway PM2.5 monitors for
AQI reporting. In support of this comment, they expressed the following
views, that near-roadway monitors are source-oriented, represent micro-
scale conditions, and the agencies don't have experience using them for
AQI reporting. The EPA disagrees with the comment in that these
monitors will be sited at existing near-road stations sited to be
representative of area-wide PM2.5 concentrations indicative
of general population exposure. Accordingly, data from these near-road
monitors should be included in the AQI since they provide information
about PM2.5 levels that millions of people, who work, live
and go to school near busy roadways, are exposed to. The stations are
representative of somewhat elevated concentrations in near-road
environments, but since these stations represent many such locations
throughout a metropolitan area, they are appropriate for characterizing
exposure in typical portions of major urban areas. The EPA is committed
to helping air quality agencies develop appropriate ways to report
PM2.5 levels from these monitors using the AQI.
VI. Rationale for Final Decisions on the Secondary PM Standards
This section presents the Administrator's final decisions regarding
the need to revise the current suite of secondary PM2.5 and
PM10 standards to address visibility impairment and other
welfare effects considered in this review. Specifically, this section
describes the Administrator's final decision to retain the current
suite of secondary PM standards to address PM-related visibility
impairment as well as other PM-related welfare effects, including
ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate impacts. This
suite of standards includes an annual PM2.5 standard of 15
[mu]g/m\3\, a 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and a
24-hour PM10 standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\. The Administrator
is revising only the form of the secondary annual PM2.5
standard to remove the option for spatial averaging consistent with
this change to the primary annual PM2.5 standard. Contrary
to what was proposed, the Administrator has decided not to establish a
distinct standard to address PM-related visibility impairment. The
rationale for this decision is presented below.
The Administrator's final decisions on the secondary standards are
based on a thorough review of the latest scientific information
published through mid-2009 on welfare effects associated with fine and
coarse particles in the ambient air, as presented in the Integrated
Science Assessment. The final decisions also take into account: (1)
Staff assessments of the most policy-relevant information presented and
assessed in the Integrated Science Assessment and staff analyses of air
quality and visibility effects presented in the Visibility Assessment
and the Policy Assessment, upon which staff conclusions regarding
appropriate considerations in this review are based; (2) CASAC advice
and recommendations, as reflected in discussions of drafts of the
Integrated Science Assessment, Visibility Assessment, and Policy
Assessment at public meetings, in separate written comments, and in
CASAC's letters to the Administrator; (3) the multiple rounds of public
comments received during the development of these documents, both in
connection with CASAC meetings and separately; and (4) public comments
received on the proposal.
In particular, this section presents background information on the
EPA's previous and current reviews of the secondary PM standards
(section VI.A), a summary of the proposed decisions regarding the
secondary PM standards (section VI.B), a discussion of significant
public comments received on those proposed decisions (section VI.C),
and the Administrator's final decisions on the secondary PM standards
(section VI.D).
A. Background
The current suite of secondary PM standards is identical to the
suite of primary PM standards set in 2006, including 24-hour and annual
PM2.5 standards and a 24-hour PM10 standard. The
current secondary PM2.5 standards are intended to provide
protection from PM-related visibility impairment, whereas the entire
suite of secondary PM standards is intended to provide protection from
other PM-related effects on public welfare, including effects on
sensitive ecosystems, materials damage and soiling, and climatic and
radiative processes.
The approach used for reviewing the current suite of secondary PM
standards built upon and broadened the approaches used in previous PM
NAAQS reviews. The following discussion focuses particularly on the
current secondary PM2.5 standards related to visibility
impairment and provides a summary of the approaches used to review and
establish secondary PM2.5 standards in the last two reviews
(section VI.A.1); judicial review of the 2006 standards that resulted
in the remand of the secondary annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS to the EPA (section VI.A.2); and the approach used in this review
for evaluating the secondary PM2.5 standards (section
VI.A.3).
1. Approaches Used in Previous Reviews
The original secondary PM2.5 standards were established
in 1997, and a revision to the 24-hour standard was made in 2006. The
approaches used in making final decisions on secondary standards in
those reviews, as well as the current review, utilized different ways
to consider the underlying body of scientific evidence. They also
reflected an evolution in EPA's understanding of the nature of the
effect on public welfare from PM-related visibility impairment, from an
approach that focused only on Federal Class I area visibility impacts
to a more multifaceted approach that also considered PM-related impacts
on visibility in non-Federal Class I areas, such as in urban areas.
This evolution occurred in conjunction with the expansion of available
PM data and information from visibility-related studies of public
perception, valuation, and personal comfort and well-being.
In 1997, the EPA revised the PM NAAQS in part by establishing new
identical primary and secondary PM2.5 standards. In revising
the secondary standards, the EPA recognized that PM produces adverse
effects on visibility and that impairment of visibility was being
experienced throughout the U.S., in multi-state regions, urban areas,
and remote mandatory Federal Class I areas alike. However, in
considering an appropriate level for a secondary standard to address
adverse effects of PM2.5 on visibility, the EPA concluded
that the determination of a single national level was complicated by
important regional differences influenced by factors such as
[[Page 3183]]
background and current levels of PM2.5, composition of
PM2.5, and average relative humidity. Variations in these
factors across regions could thus result in situations where attaining
an appropriately protective concentration of fine particles in one
region might or might not provide adequate protection in a different
region. The EPA also determined that there was insufficient information
at that time to establish a level for a national secondary standard
that would represent a threshold above which visibility conditions
would always be adverse and below which visibility conditions would
always be acceptable.
Based on an assessment of the potential visibility improvements
that would result from reaching attainment with the new primary
standards for PM2.5, the EPA concluded that attainment of
the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 primary standards would lead to
visibility improvements in the eastern U.S. at both urban and regional
scales, but little or no change in the western U.S., except in and near
certain urban areas.
The EPA also considered the potential effectiveness of a regional
haze program, required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA \145\ to
address those effects of PM on visibility that would not be addressed
through attainment of the primary PM2.5 standards. The
regional haze program would be designed to address the widespread,
regionally uniform type of haze caused by a multitude of sources. The
structure and requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA provide
for visibility protection programs that can be more responsive to the
factors contributing to regional differences in visibility than can
programs addressing the kinds of nationally applicable secondary NAAQS
considered in the 1997 review. The regional haze visibility goal is
more protective than a secondary NAAQS since the goal is to eliminate
any anthropogenic impairment rather than to provide a level of
protection from visibility impairment that is requisite to protect the
public welfare. Thus, an important factor considered in the 1997 review
was whether a regional haze program, in conjunction with secondary
standards set identical to the suite of PM2.5 primary
standards, would provide appropriate protection for visibility in non-
Federal Class I areas. The EPA concluded that the two programs and
associated control strategies should provide such protection due to the
regional approaches needed to manage emissions of pollutants that
impair visibility in many of these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ In 1977, Congress established as a national goal ``the
prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Federal Class I areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution,'' section 169A(a)(1)
of the CAA. The EPA is required by section 169A(a)(4) of the CAA to
promulgate regulations to ensure that ``reasonable progress'' is
achieved toward meeting the national goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, in 1997 the EPA concluded that a national
regional haze program, combined with a nationally applicable level of
protection achieved through secondary PM2.5 standards set
identical to the primary PM2.5 standards, would be more
effective for addressing regional variations in the adverse effects of
PM2.5 on visibility than would be national secondary
standards for PM with levels lower than the primary PM2.5
standards. The EPA further recognized that people living in certain
urban areas may place a high value on unique scenic resources in or
near these areas and as a result might experience visibility problems
attributable to sources that would not necessarily be addressed by the
combined effects of a regional haze program and PM2.5
secondary standards. The EPA concluded that in such cases, state or
local regulatory approaches, such as past action in Colorado to
establish a local visibility standard for the City of Denver, would be
more appropriate and effective in addressing these special situations
because of the localized and unique characteristics of the problems
involved. Visibility in an urban area located near a mandatory Federal
Class I area could also be improved through state implementation of the
then-current visibility regulations, by which emission limitations can
be imposed on a source or group of sources found to be contributing to
``reasonably attributable'' impairment in the mandatory Federal Class I
area.
Based on these considerations, in 1997 the EPA set secondary
PM2.5 standards identical to the primary PM2.5
standards, that would work in conjunction with the Regional Haze
Program to be established under sections 169A and 169B of the CAA, as
the most appropriate and effective means of addressing the public
welfare effects associated with visibility impairment. Together, the
two programs and associated control strategies were expected to provide
appropriate protection against PM-related visibility impairment and
enable all regions of the country to make reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal.
In 2006, the EPA revised the suite of secondary PM2.5
standards to address visibility impairment by making the suite of
secondary standards identical to the revised suite of primary
PM2.5 standards. The EPA's decision regarding the need to
revise the suite of secondary PM2.5 standards reflected a
number of new developments that had occurred and sources of information
that had become available following the 1997 review. First, the EPA
promulgated a Regional Haze Program in 1999 (65 FR 35713, July 1, 1999)
which required states to establish goals for improving visibility in
Federal Class I areas and to adopt control strategies to achieve these
goals. Second, extensive new information from visibility and fine
particle monitoring networks had become available, allowing for updated
characterizations of visibility trends and PM concentrations in urban
areas, as well as Federal Class I areas. These new data allowed the EPA
to better characterize visibility impairment in urban areas and the
relationship between visibility and PM2.5 concentrations.
Finally, additional studies in the U.S. and abroad provided the basis
for the establishment of standards and programs to address specific
visibility concerns in a number of local areas. These studies (Denver,
Phoenix, and British Columbia) utilized photographic representations of
visibility impairment and produced reasonably consistent results in
terms of the visual ranges found to be generally acceptable by study
participants. The EPA considered the information generated by these
studies useful in characterizing the nature of particle-induced haze
and for informing judgments about the acceptability of various levels
of visual air quality in urban areas across the U.S. Based largely on
this information, the Administrator concluded that it was appropriate
to revise the secondary PM2.5 standards to provide increased
protection from visibility impairment principally in urban areas, in
conjunction with the regional haze program for protection of visual air
quality in Federal Class I areas.
In so doing, the Administrator recognized that PM-related
visibility impairment is principally related to fine particle
concentrations and that perception of visibility impairment is most
directly related to short-term, nearly instantaneous levels of visual
air quality. Thus, in considering whether the then-current suite of
secondary standards would provide the appropriate degree of protection,
he concluded that it was appropriate to focus on just the 24-hour
secondary PM2.5 standard to provide requisite protection.
The Administrator then considered whether PM2.5 mass
remained the appropriate indicator for a secondary
[[Page 3184]]
standard to protect visibility, primarily in urban areas. The
Administrator noted that PM-related visibility impairment is
principally related to fine particle levels. Hygroscopic components of
fine particles, in particular sulfates and nitrates, contribute
disproportionately to visibility impairment under high humidity
conditions. Particles in the coarse mode generally contribute only
marginally to visibility impairment in urban areas. With the
substantial addition to the air quality and visibility data made
possible by the national urban PM2.5 monitoring networks, an
analysis conducted for the 2006 review found that, in urban areas,
visibility levels showed far less difference between eastern and
western regions on a 24-hour or shorter time basis than implied by the
largely non-urban data available in the 1997 review. In analyzing how
well PM2.5 concentrations correlated with visibility in
urban locations across the U.S., the 2005 Staff Paper concluded that
clear correlations existed between 24-hour average PM2.5
concentrations and calculated (i.e., reconstructed) light extinction,
which is directly related to visual range (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 7-6).
These correlations were similar in the eastern and western regions of
the U.S. These correlations were less influenced by relative humidity
and more consistent across regions when PM2.5 concentrations
were averaged over shorter, daylight time periods (e.g., 4 to 8 hours)
when relative humidity in eastern urban areas was generally lower and
thus more similar to relative humidity in western urban areas. The 2005
Staff Paper noted that a standard set at any specific PM2.5
concentration would necessarily result in visual ranges that vary
somewhat in urban areas across the country, reflecting the variability
in the correlations between PM2.5 concentrations and light
extinction. The 2005 Staff Paper concluded that it was appropriate to
use PM2.5 as an indicator for standards to address
visibility impairment in urban areas, especially when the indicator is
defined for a relatively short period (e.g., 4 to 8 hours) of daylight
hours (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 7-6). Based on their review of the Staff
Paper, most CASAC Panel members also endorsed such a PM2.5
indicator for a secondary standard to address visibility impairment
(Henderson, 2005a, p. 9). Based on the above considerations, the
Administrator concluded that PM2.5 should be retained as the
indicator for fine particles as part of a secondary standard to address
visibility protection, in conjunction with averaging times from 4 to 24
hours.
In considering what level of protection against PM-related
visibility impairment would be appropriate, the Administrator took into
account the results of the public perception and attitude surveys
regarding the acceptability of various degrees of visibility impairment
in the U.S. and Canada, state and local visibility standards within the
U.S., and visual inspection of photographic representations of several
urban areas across the U.S. In the Administrator's judgment, these
sources provided useful but still quite limited information on the
range of levels appropriate for consideration in setting a national
visibility standard primarily for urban areas, given the generally
subjective nature of the public welfare effect involved. Based on
photographic representations of varying levels of visual air quality,
public perception studies, and local and state visibility standards,
the 2005 Staff Paper had concluded that 30 to 20 [mu]g/m\3\
PM2.5 represented a reasonable range for a national
visibility standard primarily for urban areas, based on a sub-daily
averaging time (U.S. EPA, 2005, p. 7-13). The upper end of this range
was below the levels at which illustrative scenic views are
significantly obscured, and the lower end was around the level at which
visual air quality generally appeared to be good based on observation
of the illustrative views. This concentration range generally
corresponded to median visual ranges in urban areas within regions
across the U.S. of approximately 25 to 35 km, a range that was bounded
above by the visual range targets selected in specific areas where
state or local agencies placed particular emphasis on protecting visual
air quality. In considering a reasonable range of forms for a
PM2.5 standard within this range of levels, the 2005 Staff
Paper had concluded that a concentration-based percentile form was
appropriate, and that the upper end of the range of concentration
percentiles for consideration should be consistent with the 98th
percentile used for the primary standard and that the lower end of the
range should be the 92nd percentile, which represented the mean of the
distribution of the 20 percent most impaired days, as targeted in the
regional haze program (U.S. EPA, 2005 pp. 7-11 to 7-13). While
recognizing that it was difficult to select any specific level and form
based on then-currently available information (Henderson, 2005a, p. 9),
the CASAC Panel was generally in agreement with the ranges of levels
and forms presented in the 2005 Staff Paper.
The Administrator also considered the level of protection that
would be afforded by the proposed suite of primary PM2.5
standards (71 FR 2681, January 17, 2006), on the basis that although
significantly more information was available than in the 1997 review
concerning the relationship between fine PM levels and visibility
across the country, there was still little available information for
use in making the relatively subjective value judgment needed in
selecting the appropriate degree of protection to be afforded by such a
standard. In so doing, the Administrator compared the extent to which
the proposed suite of primary standards would require areas across the
country to improve visual air quality with the extent of increased
protection likely to be afforded by a standard based on a sub-daily
averaging time. Based on such an analysis, the Administrator observed
that the predicted percent of counties with monitors not likely to meet
the proposed suite of primary PM2.5 standards was actually
somewhat greater than the predicted percent of counties with monitors
not likely to meet a sub-daily secondary standard with an averaging
time of 4 daylight hours, a level toward the upper end of the range
recommended in the 2005 Staff Paper, and a form within the recommended
range. Based on this comparison, the Administrator tentatively
concluded that revising the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard
to be identical to the proposed revised primary PM2.5
standard (and retaining the then-current annual secondary
PM2.5 standard) was a reasonable policy approach to
addressing visibility protection primarily in urban areas. In proposing
this approach, the Administrator also solicited comment on a sub-daily
(4- to 8-hour averaging time) secondary PM2.5 standard (71
FR 2675 to 2781, January 17, 2006).
In commenting on the proposed decision, the CASAC requested that a
sub-daily standard to protect visibility ``be favorably reconsidered''
(Henderson, 2006a, p.6). The CASAC noted three cautions regarding the
proposed reliance on a secondary PM2.5 standard identical to
the proposed 24-hour primary PM2.5 standard: (1)
PM2.5 mass measurement is a better indicator of visibility
impairment during daylight hours, when relative humidity is generally
low; the sub-daily standard more clearly matches the nature of
visibility impairment, whose adverse effects are most evident during
the daylight hours; using a 24-hour PM2.5 standard as a
proxy introduces error and
[[Page 3185]]
uncertainty in protecting visibility; and sub-daily standards are used
for other NAAQS and should be the focus for visibility; (2) CASAC and
its monitoring subcommittees had repeatedly commended EPA's initiatives
promoting the introduction of continuous and near-continuous PM
monitoring and recognized that an expanded deployment of continuous
PM2.5 monitors would be consistent with setting a sub-daily
standard to protect visibility; and (3) the analysis showing a
similarity between percentages of counties not likely to meet what the
CASAC Panel considered to be a lenient 4- to 8-hour secondary standard
and a secondary standard identical to the proposed 24-hour primary
standard was a numerical coincidence that was not indicative of any
fundamental relationship between visibility and health. The CASAC Panel
further stated that ``visual air quality is substantially impaired at
PM2.5 concentrations of 35 [mu]g/m\3\'' and that ``[i]t is
not reasonable to have the visibility standard tied to the health
standard, which may change in ways that make it even less appropriate
for visibility concerns'' (Henderson, 2006a, pp. 5 to 6).
In reaching a final decision, the Administrator focused on the
relative protection provided by the proposed primary standards based on
the above-mentioned similarities in percentages of counties meeting
alternative standards and on the limitations in the information
available concerning studies of public perception and attitudes
regarding the acceptability of various degrees of visibility impairment
in urban areas, as well as on the subjective nature of the judgment
required. In so doing, the Administrator concluded that caution was
warranted in establishing a distinct secondary standard for visibility
impairment and that the available information did not warrant adopting
a secondary standard that would provide either more or less protection
against visibility impairment in urban areas than would be provided by
secondary standards set equal to the proposed primary PM2.5
standards.
2. Remand of 2006 Secondary PM2.5 Standards
As noted above in section II.B.2 above, several parties filed
petitions for review challenging EPA's decision to set the secondary
NAAQS for fine PM identical to the primary NAAQS. On judicial review,
the D.C. Circuit remanded to the EPA for reconsideration the secondary
NAAQS for fine PM because the Agency's decision was unreasonable and
contrary to the requirements of section 109(b)(2). American Farm Bureau
Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512 (D.C. Cir., 2009).
The petitioners argued that the EPA's decision lacked a reasoned
basis. First, they asserted that the EPA never determined what level of
visibility was ``requisite to protect the public welfare.'' They argued
that the EPA unreasonably rejected the target level of protection
recommended by its staff, while failing to provide a target level of
its own. The court agreed, stating that ``the EPA's failure to identify
such a level when deciding where to set the level of air quality
required by the revised secondary fine PM NAAQS is contrary to the
statute and therefore unlawful. Furthermore, the failure to set any
target level of visibility protection deprived the EPA's decision-
making of a reasoned basis.'' 559 F. 3d at 530.
Second, the petitioners challenged EPA's method of comparing the
protection expected from potential standards. They contended that the
EPA relied on a meaningless numerical comparison, ignored the effect of
humidity on the usefulness of a standard using a daily averaging time,
and unreasonably concluded that the primary standards would achieve a
level of visibility roughly equivalent to the level the EPA staff and
CASAC deemed ``requisite to protect the public welfare.'' The court
found that the EPA's equivalency analysis based on the percentages of
counties exceeding alternative standards ``failed on its own terms.''
The same table showing the percentages of counties exceeding
alternative secondary standards, used for comparison to the percentages
of counties exceeding alternative primary standards to show
equivalency, also included six other alternative secondary standards
within the recommended CASAC range that would be more ``protective''
under EPA's definition than the adopted primary standards. Two-thirds
of the potential secondary standards within the CASAC's recommended
range would be substantially more protective than the adopted primary
standards. The court found that the EPA failed to explain why it looked
only at one of the few potential secondary standards that would be less
protective, and only slightly less so, than the primary standards. More
fundamentally, however, the court found that the EPA's equivalency
analysis based on percentages of counties demonstrated nothing about
the relative protection offered by the different standards, and that
the tables offered no valid information about the relative visibility
protection provided by the standards. 559 F. 3d at 530-31.
Finally, the Staff Paper had made clear that a visibility standard
using PM2.5 mass as the indicator in conjunction with a
daily averaging time would be confounded by regional differences in
humidity. The court noted that the EPA acknowledged this problem, yet
did not address this issue in concluding that the primary standards
would be sufficiently protective of visibility. 559 F. 3d at 530.
Therefore, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for
reconsideration the secondary PM2.5 NAAQS.
3. General Approach Used in the Policy Assessment for the Current
Review
The approach used in this review broadened the general approaches
used in the last two PM NAAQS reviews by utilizing, to the extent
available, enhanced tools, methods, and data to more comprehensively
characterize visibility impacts. As such, the EPA took into account
considerations based on both the scientific evidence (``evidence-
based'') and a quantitative analysis of PM-related impacts on
visibility (``impact-based'') to inform conclusions related to the
adequacy of the current secondary PM2.5 standards and
alternative standards that were appropriate for consideration in this
review. As in past reviews, the EPA also considered that the secondary
NAAQS should address PM-related visibility impairment in conjunction
with the Regional Haze Program, such that the secondary NAAQS would
focus on protection from visibility impairment principally in urban
areas in conjunction with the Regional Haze Program that is focused on
improving visibility in Federal Class I areas. The EPA again recognized
that such an approach remains the most appropriate and effective means
of addressing the public welfare effects associated with visibility
impairment in areas across the country.
The Policy Assessment drew from the qualitative evaluation of all
studies discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2009a). Specifically, the Policy Assessment considered the extensive
new air quality and source apportionment information available from the
regional planning organizations, long-standing evidence of PM effects
on visibility, and limited public preference study information from
four urban areas (U.S. EPA, 2009a, chapter 9), as well as the
integration of evidence across disciplines (U.S. EPA, 2009a, chapter
2). In addition, limited information that had become available
regarding the characterization of public preferences in urban areas
provided
[[Page 3186]]
some new perspectives on the usefulness of this information in
informing the selection of target levels of urban visibility
protection. On these bases, the Policy Assessment again focused
assessments on visibility conditions in urban areas.
The conclusions in the Policy Assessment reflected EPA staff's
understanding of both evidence-based and impact-based considerations to
inform two overarching questions related to (1) the adequacy of the
current suite of PM2.5 standards and (2) what potential
alternative standards, if any, should be considered in this review to
provide appropriate protection from PM-related visibility impairment.
In addressing these broad questions, the discussions in the Policy
Assessment were organized around a series of more specific questions
reflecting different aspects of each overarching question (U.S. EPA,
2011a, Figure 4-1). When evaluating the visibility protection afforded
by the current or any alternative standards considered, the Policy
Assessment took into account the four basic elements of the NAAQS:
indicator, averaging time, level, and form.
B. Proposed Decisions on Secondary PM Standards
At the time of proposal, the Administrator proposed to revise the
suite of secondary PM standards by adding a distinct standard for
PM2.5 to address PM-related visibility impairment, focused
primarily on visibility in urban areas. This proposed standard was to
be defined in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index, which would
use measured PM2.5 mass concentration, in combination with
speciation and relative humidity data, to calculate PM2.5
light extinction, translated into the deciview (dv) scale; a 24-hour
averaging time; a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years; and a
level of 28-30 dv. To address other non-visibility welfare effects, the
Administrator proposed to retain the current suite of secondary PM
standards generally, while revising only the form of the secondary
annual PM2.5 standard to remove the option for spatial
averaging consistent with this proposed change to the primary annual
PM2.5 standard. Each of these proposed decisions is
described in more detail in the proposal and below.
1. PM-Related Visibility Impairment
As discussed in Section VI.B of the proposal, the Administrator's
proposed decision regarding a distinct secondary standard to provide
protection from visibility impairment reflected careful consideration
of the following: (1) The latest scientific information on visibility
effects associated with PM as described in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a); (2) insights gained from assessments of
correlations between ambient PM2.5 and visibility impairment
prepared by EPA staff in the Visibility Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010b);
and (3) specific conclusions regarding the need for revisions to the
current standards (i.e., indicator, averaging time, form, and level)
that, taken together, would be requisite to protect the public welfare
from adverse effects on visual air quality. This section summarizes key
information from the proposal regarding the nature of visibility
impairment, including the relationship between ambient PM and
visibility, temporal variations in light extinction, periods during the
day of interest for assessing visibility conditions, and exposure
durations of interest (section VI.B.1.a); limited public perceptions
and attitudes about visibility impairment and the impacts of visibility
impairment on public welfare (section VI.B.1.b); CASAC advice regarding
the need for, and design of, secondary standards to protect visibility
(section VI.B.1.c); and the Administrator's proposed conclusions
regarding setting a distinct standard to address visibility impairment
(section VI.B.1.d).
a. Nature of PM-Related Visibility Impairment
As noted at the time of proposal, the fundamental science
characterizing the contribution of PM, especially fine particles, to
visibility impairment is well understood. This science provides the
basis for the Integrated Science Assessment designation of the
relationship between PM and visibility impairment as causal. New
research available in this review, discussed in chapter 9 of the
Integrated Science Assessment, continues to support and refine EPA's
understanding of the effect of PM on visibility and the source
contributions to that effect in rural and remote locations. This
research provides new insights regarding the regional source
contributions to urban visibility impairment and better
characterization of the increment in PM concentrations and visibility
impairment that occur in many cities (i.e., the urban excess) relative
to conditions in the surrounding rural areas (i.e., regional
background). Ongoing urban PM2.5 speciated and aggregated
mass monitoring has produced new information that has allowed for
updated characterization of current visibility levels in urban areas.
i. Relationship Between Ambient PM and Visibility
Visibility impairment is caused by the scattering and absorption of
light by suspended particles and gases in the atmosphere. When PM is
present in the air, its contribution to light extinction typically
greatly exceeds that of gases. The combined effect of light scattering
and absorption by both particles and gases is characterized as light
extinction, i.e., the fraction of light that is scattered or absorbed
in the atmosphere. Light extinction can be quantified by a light
extinction coefficient with units of 1/distance, which is often
expressed as 1/(1 million meters) or inverse megameters (abbreviated
Mm-1) or in terms of an alternative scale known as the
deciview scale, defined by the following equation: \146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ As used in the Regional Haze Program, the term
bext refers to light extinction due to PM2.5,
PM10-2.5, and ``clean'' atmospheric gases. In the Policy
Assessment, in focusing on light extinction due to PM2.5,
the deciview values include only the effects of PM2.5 and
the gases. The ``Rayleigh'' term associated with clean atmospheric
gases is represented by the constant value of 10 Mm-\1\.
Omission of the Rayleigh term would create the possibility of
negative deciview values when the PM2.5 concentration is
very low.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deciview (dv) = 10 ln (bext/ 10 Mm-1)
The deciview scale is frequently used in the scientific literature on
visibility, as well as in the Regional Haze Program. In particular, the
deciview scale is used in the public perception studies that were
considered in the past and current reviews to inform judgments about an
appropriate degree of protection to be provided by a secondary NAAQS.
The amount of light extinction contributed by PM depends on the
particle concentration as well as on the particle size distribution and
composition and also on the relative humidity. As described in detail
in section VI.B.1.a of the proposal, visibility scientists have
developed an algorithm, known as the IMPROVE algorithm,\147\ to
estimate light extinction using routinely monitored fine particle
(PM2.5) speciation and coarse particle mass
(PM10-2.5) data, as well as data on relative humidity. There
is both an original and a revised version of the IMPROVE algorithm
(Pitchford et al., 2007). The revised version was developed to address
observed biases in the predictions using the original algorithm under
very low and very high
[[Page 3187]]
light extinction conditions.\148\ These IMPROVE algorithms are
routinely used to calculate light extinction levels on a 24-hour basis
in Federal Class I areas under the Regional Haze Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ The algorithm is referred to as the IMPROVE algorithm
because it was developed specifically to use the aerosol monitoring
data generated at network sites and with equipment specifically
designed to support the IMPROVE program and was evaluated using
IMPROVE optical measurements at the subset of sites that make those
measurements (Malm et al., 1994).
\148\ These biases were detected by comparing light extinction
estimates generated from the IMPROVE algorithm to direct optical
measurements in a number of rural Federal Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In either version of the IMPROVE algorithm, the concentration of
each of the major aerosol components is multiplied by a dry extinction
efficiency value and, for the hygroscopic components (i.e., ammoniated
sulfate and ammonium nitrate), also multiplied by an additional factor
to account for the water growth to estimate these components'
contribution to light extinction. Summing the contribution of each
component gives the estimate of total light extinction per unit
distance denoted as the light extinction coefficient (bext), as shown
below for the original IMPROVE algorithm.
bext [ap] 3 x f(RH) x [Sulfate]
+ 3 x f(RH) x [Nitrate]
+ 4 x [Organic Mass]
+ 10 x [Elemental Carbon]
+ 1 x [Fine Soil]
+ 0.6 x [Coarse Mass]
+ 10
Light extinction (bext) is in units of Mm-1,
the mass concentrations of the components indicated in brackets are in
units of [mu]g/m\3\, and f(RH) is the unitless water growth term that
depends on relative humidity. The final term of 10 Mm-1 is
known as the Rayleigh scattering term and accounts for light scattering
by the natural gases in unpolluted air. Despite the simplicity of this
algorithm, it performs reasonably well and permits the contributions to
light extinction from each of the major components (including the water
associated with the sulfate and nitrate compounds) to be separately
approximated. Inspection of the PM component-specific terms in the
simple original IMPROVE algorithm shows that most of the
PM2.5 components contribute 5 times or more light extinction
than a similar concentration of PM10-2.5.
The f(RH) term in the original algorithm reflects the increase in
light scattering caused by particulate sulfate and nitrate under
conditions of high relative humidity. Particles with hygroscopic
components (e.g., particulate sulfate and nitrate) contribute more
light extinction at higher relative humidity than at lower relative
humidity because they change size in the atmosphere in response to
ambient relative humidity conditions. For relative humidity below 40
percent the f(RH) value is 1, but it increases to 2 at approximately 66
percent, 3 at approximately 83 percent, 4 at approximately 90 percent,
5 at approximately 93 percent, and 6 at approximately 95 percent
relative humidity. The result is that both particulate sulfate and
nitrate are more efficient per unit mass in light extinction than any
other aerosol component for relative humidity above approximately 85
percent where their total light extinction efficiency exceeds the 10
m\2\/g associated with elemental carbon (EC). PM containing elemental
or black carbon (BC) absorbs light as well as scattering it, making it
the component with the greatest light extinction contributions per unit
of mass concentration, except for the hygroscopic components under
these high relative humidity conditions.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ The IMPROVE algorithm does not explicitly separate the
light-scattering and light-absorbing effects of elemental carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, subsequent to the development of the original
IMPROVE algorithm, an alternative algorithm (variously referred to as
the ``revised algorithm'' or the ``new algorithm'' in the literature)
was developed. The revised IMPROVE algorithm is different from the
original algorithm in several important ways. First, the revised
algorithm employs a more complex split-component mass extinction
efficiency to correct biases believed to be related to particle size
distributions.\150\ Specifically, the revised algorithm incorporates
terms to account for particles representing the different dry
extinction and water uptake from two size modes of sulfate, nitrate and
organic mass.\151\ Second, the revised algorithm uses a different
multiplier for organic carbon for purposes of estimating organic
carbonaceous material to better represent aged aerosol found in remote
areas.\152\ In addition, the revised algorithm includes a term for
hygroscopic sea salt that can be important for remote coastal areas,
and site-specific Rayleigh light scattering terms in place of a
universal Rayleigh light scattering value. As noted in section VI.B.1.a
of the proposal, the revised IMPROVE algorithm can yield higher
estimates of current light extinction levels in urban areas on days
with relatively poor visibility as compared to the original algorithm
(Pitchford, 2010). This difference is primarily attributable to the
split-component mass extinction efficiency treatment in the revised
algorithm. This revised algorithm was evaluated at 21 remote locations
and is generally used by RPOs and States for implementation of the
Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ In either version of the IMPROVE algorithm, the
concentration of each of the major aerosol components is multiplied
by a dry extinction efficiency value and, for the hygroscopic
components (i.e., ammoniated sulfate and ammonium nitrate), also
multiplied by an additional factor to account for the water growth
to estimate these components' contribution to light extinction. Both
the dry extinction efficiency and water growth terms have been
developed by a combination of empirical assessment and theoretical
calculation using typical particle size distributions associated
with each of the major aerosol components.
\151\ The relative contributions of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic mass concentrations to visibility impairment with the
revised algorithm are different than with the original algorithm due
to the combination of the dry extinction coefficient and f(RH)
functions for derived concentrations of small and large particles.
The apportionment of the total fine particle concentration of each
of the three PM2.5 components into the concentrations of
the small and large size fractions was empirically developed for
remote areas. The fraction of the fine particle component that is in
the large mode is estimated by dividing the total concentration of
the component by 20 [mu]g/m\3\. If the total concentration of a
component exceeds 20 [mu]g/m\3\, all of it is assumed to be in the
large mode.
\152\ The revised IMPROVE algorithm uses a multiplier of 1.8 for
rural areas instead of 1.4 as used in the original algorithm for the
mean ratio of organic mass to organic carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Temporal Variations of Light Extinction
Particulate matter concentrations and light extinction in urban
environments vary from hour to hour throughout the 24-hour day due to a
combination of diurnal changes in meteorological conditions and
systematic changes in emissions activity (e.g., rush hour traffic).
Various factors combine to make early morning the most likely time for
peak urban light extinction; although the net effects of the systematic
urban- and larger-scale variations mean that peak daytime PM light
extinction levels can occur any time of day, in many areas they occur
most often in early morning hours (U.S. EPA, 2010b, sections 3.4.2 and
3.4.3; Figures 3-9, 3-10, and 3-12). This temporal pattern in urban
areas contrasts with the general lack of a strong diurnal pattern in PM
concentrations and light extinction in most Federal Class I areas,
reflective of a relative lack of local sources as compared to urban
areas. The use in the Regional Haze Program of 24-hour average
concentrations in the IMPROVE algorithm is consistent with this general
lack of a strong diurnal pattern in Federal Class I areas.
iii. Periods During the Day of Interest for Assessment of Visibility
As noted in sections VI.B.1.b and VI.B.1.c of the proposal, daytime
visibility has dominated the attention of
[[Page 3188]]
those who have studied the visibility effects of air pollution,
particularly in urban areas. The EPA recognizes, however, that
physically PM light extinction behaves the same at night as during the
day and can contribute to nighttime visibility effects by enhancing the
scattering of anthropogenic light, contributing to the ``skyglow''
within and over populated areas, adding to the total sky brightness,
and contributing to the reduction in contrast of stars against the
background. However, little research has been conducted on nighttime
visibility, and the state of the science is not comparable to that
associated with daytime visibility impairment, particularly in terms of
the impact on human welfare. The Policy Assessment notes that the
science is not available at this time to support adequate
characterization specifically of nighttime PM light extinction
conditions and the related effects on public welfare (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 4-18). Therefore the EPA has focused its assessments of PM
visibility impacts in urban areas on daylight hours during this review.
iv. Exposure Durations of Interest
As noted in section VI.B.1.d of the proposal, the roles that
exposure duration and variations in visual air quality within any given
exposure period play in determining the acceptability or
unacceptability of a given level of visual air quality have not been
investigated via preference studies. In the preference studies
available for this review, subjects were simply asked to rate the
acceptability or unacceptability of each image of a haze-obscured
scene, without being provided any suggestion of assumed duration or of
assumed conditions before or after the occurrence of the scene
presented. Preference and/or valuation studies show that atmospheric
visibility conditions can be quickly assessed and preferences
determined. The EPA is unaware of any studies that characterize the
extent to which different frequencies and durations of exposure to
visibility conditions contribute to the degree of public welfare impact
that occurs.
The Policy Assessment considered a variety of circumstances that
are commonly expected to occur in evaluating the potential impact of
visibility impairment on the public welfare based on available
information (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 4-19 to 4-20). In some circumstances,
such as infrequent visits to scenic vistas in natural or urban
environments, people are motivated specifically to take the opportunity
to view a valued scene and are likely to do so for many minutes to
hours to appreciate various aspects of the vista they choose to view.
However, the public has many more opportunities to notice visibility
conditions on a daily basis in settings associated with performing
daily routines (e.g., during commutes and while working, exercising, or
recreating outdoors). As noted in the Policy Assessment, information
regarding the fraction of the public that has only one or a few
opportunities to experience visibility during the day, or on the role
the duration of the observed visibility conditions has on wellbeing
effects associated with those visibility conditions, is not available
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-20). However, it is possible that people with
limited opportunities to experience visibility conditions on a daily
basis would receive the entire impact of the day's visual air quality
based on the visibility conditions that occur during the short time
period when they can see it. Since this group could be affected on the
basis of observing visual air quality conditions for periods as short
as one hour or less, and because during each daylight hour there are
some people outdoors, commuting, or near windows, the Policy Assessment
judged that it would be appropriate to use the maximum hourly value of
PM light extinction during daylight hours for each day for purposes of
evaluating the adequacy of the current suite of secondary standards.
Other observers may have access to visibility conditions throughout the
day. For this group, it might be that an hour with poor or
``unacceptable'' visibility can be offset by one or more other hours
with clearer conditions. Therefore, the proposal acknowledged that it
might also be appropriate to consider a multi-hour daylight exposure
period.
v. Periods of Fog and Rain
As discussed in section VI.C of the proposal, the EPA also
recognized that it is appropriate to give special treatment to periods
of fog and rain when considering whether current PM2.5
standards adequately protect public welfare from PM-related visibility
impairment. Visibility impairment occurs during periods with fog or
precipitation irrespective of the presence or absence of PM. Therefore,
it is logical that periods with naturally impaired visibility due to
fog or precipitation should not be treated as having PM-impaired
visibility. There are multiple ways to adjust visibility data to reduce
the effects of fog and precipitation. In the Visibility Assessment,
following the advice of CASAC, the EPA evaluated the effect of
excluding daylight hours for which relative humidity was greater than
90 percent from analyses in order to avoid precipitation and fog
confounding estimates of PM visibility impairment. For the 15 urban
areas included in the Visibility Assessment, the EPA found that a 90
percent relative humidity cutoff criterion was effective in that on
average less than 6 percent of the daylight hours were removed from
consideration, yet those hours had on average ten times the likelihood
of rain, six times the likelihood of snow/sleet, and 34 times the
likelihood of fog compared with hours with 90 percent or lower relative
humidity. In the Regional Haze program, the EPA utilizes monthly
average relative humidity values based on 10 years of climatological
data to reduce the effect of fog and precipitation. This approach
focuses on longer-term averages for each monitoring site and thereby
eliminates the effect of very high humidity conditions on visibility at
those locations.
b. Public Perception of Visibility Impairment
As described in section VI.B.2 of the proposal, there are two main
types of studies that evaluate the public perception of urban
visibility impairment: urban visibility preference studies and urban
visibility valuation studies. As noted in the Integrated Science
Assessment, ``[b]oth types of studies are designed to evaluate
individuals' desire (or demand) for good visual air quality (VAQ) where
they live, using different metrics to evaluate demand. Urban visibility
preference studies examine individuals' demand by investigating what
amount of visibility degradation is unacceptable while economic studies
examine demand by investigating how much one would be willing to pay to
improve visibility'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 9-66). Because of the limited
number of new studies on urban visibility valuation, the Integrated
Science Assessment cites to the discussion in the 2004 Criteria
Document of the various methods one can use to determine the economic
valuation of changes in visibility, which include hedonic valuation,
contingent valuation and contingent choice, and travel cost.
Contingent valuation studies are a type of stated preference study
that measures the strength of preferences and expresses that preference
in dollar values. Contingent valuation studies often include payment
vehicles that require respondents to consider implementation costs and
their ability to pay for visibility improvements in their responses.
This study design
[[Page 3189]]
aspect is critical because the EPA cannot consider implementations
costs in setting either primary or secondary NAAQS. Therefore in
considering the information available to help inform the standard-
setting process, the EPA has focused on the public perception studies
that do not embed consideration of implementation costs. Nonetheless,
the EPA recognizes that valuation studies do provide additional
evidence that the public is experiencing losses in welfare due to
visibility impairment.\153\ The public perception studies are described
in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ In the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) accompanying this
rulemaking, the EPA describes a revised approach to estimate urban
residential visibility benefits that applies the results of several
contingent valuation studies. The EPA is unable to apply the public
perception studies to estimate benefits because they do not provide
sufficient information on which to develop monetized benefits
estimates. Specifically, the public perception studies do not
provide preferences expressed in dollar values, even though they do
provide additional evidence that the benefits associated with
improving residential visibility are not zero. As previously noted
in this preamble, the RIA is done for informational purposes only,
and the proposed decisions on the NAAQS in this rulemaking are not
in any way based on consideration of the information or analyses in
the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to identify levels of visibility impairment appropriate
for consideration in setting secondary PM NAAQS to protect the public
welfare, the Visibility Assessment comprehensively examined information
that was available in this review regarding people's stated preferences
regarding acceptable and unacceptable visual air quality.
Light extinction is an atmospheric property that by itself does not
directly translate into a public welfare effect. Instead, light
extinction becomes meaningful in the context of the impact of
differences in visibility on the human observer. This has been studied
in terms of the acceptability or unacceptability expressed for the
visibility impact of a given level of light extinction by a human
observer. The perception of the visibility impact of a given level of
light extinction occurs in conjunction with the associated
characteristics and lighting conditions of the viewed scene.\154\ Thus,
a given level of light extinction may be perceived differently by
observers looking at different scenes or the same scene with different
lighting characteristics. Likewise, different observers looking at the
same scene with the same lighting may have different preferences
regarding the associated visual air quality. When scene and lighting
characteristics are held constant, the perceived appearance of a scene
(i.e., how well the scenic features can be seen and the amount of
visible haze) depends only on changes in light extinction. This has
been demonstrated using the WinHaze model (Molenar et al., 1994) that
uses image processing technology to apply user-specified changes in
light extinction values to the same base photograph with set scene and
lighting characteristics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ By ``characteristics of the scene'' the EPA means the
distance(s) between the viewer and the object(s) of interest, the
shapes and colors of the objects, the contrast between objects and
the sky or other background, and the inherent interest of the
objects to the viewer. Distance is particularly important because at
a given value of light extinction, which is a property of air at a
given point(s) in space, more light is actually absorbed and
scattered when light passes through more air between the object and
the viewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of what is known about the acceptability of levels of
visibility comes from survey studies in which participants were asked
questions about their preference or the value they place on various
visibility levels as displayed to them in scenic photographs and/or
WinHaze images with a range of known light extinction levels. The
Visibility Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010b, chapter 2) reviewed the limited
number of urban visibility preference studies currently available
(i.e., four studies) to assess the light extinction levels judged by
the participant to have acceptable visibility for those particular
scenes.
The reanalysis of urban preference studies conducted in the
Visibility Assessment for this review included three completed western
urban visibility preference survey studies plus a pair of smaller focus
studies designed to explore and further develop urban visibility survey
instruments. The three western studies included one in Denver, Colorado
(Ely et al., 1991), one in the lower Fraser River valley near
Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), Canada (Pryor, 1996), and one in
Phoenix, Arizona (BBC Research & Consulting, 2003). A pilot focus group
study was also conducted for Washington, DC (Abt Associates Inc.,
2001). In response to an EPA request for public comment on the Scope
and Methods Plan (74 FR 11580, March 18, 2009), comments were received
(Smith, 2009) about the results of a new focus group study of scenes
from Washington, DC, that had been conducted on subjects from both
Houston, Texas, and Washington, DC, using scenes, methods and
approaches similar to the method and approach employed in the EPA pilot
study (Smith and Howell, 2009). When taken together, these studies from
the four different urban areas included a total of 852 individuals,
with each individual responding to a series of questions while viewing
a set of images of various urban visual air quality conditions.
The approaches used in the four studies were similar and were all
derived from the method first developed for the Denver urban visibility
study. In particular, the studies all used a similar group interview
type of survey to investigate the level of visibility impairment that
participants described as ``acceptable.'' In each preference study,
participants were initially given a set of ``warm up'' exercises to
familiarize them with how the scene in the photograph or image appears
under different VAQ conditions. The participants next were shown 25
randomly ordered photographs (images), and asked to rate each one based
on a scale of 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent). They were then shown the same
photographs or images again, in the same order, and asked to judge
whether each of the photographs (images) would violate what they would
consider to be an appropriate urban visibility standard (i.e. whether
the level of impairment was ``acceptable'' or ``unacceptable''). The
term ``acceptable'' was not defined, so that each person's response was
based on his/her own values and preferences for VAQ. However, when
answering this question, participants were instructed to consider the
following three factors: (1) The standard would be for their own urban
area, not a pristine national park area where the standards might be
stricter; (2) The level of an urban visibility standard violation
should be set at a VAQ level considered to be unreasonable,
objectionable, and unacceptable visually; and (3) Judgments of
standards violations should be based on visibility only, not on health
effects. While the results differed among the four urban areas, results
from a rating exercise show that within each preference study,
individual survey participants consistently distinguish between photos
or images representing different levels of light extinction, and that
more participants rate as acceptable images representing lower levels
of light extinction than they do images representing higher levels.
Given the similarities in the approaches used, the EPA staff
concluded that it was reasonable to compare the results to identify
overall trends in the study findings and to conclude that this
comparison can usefully inform the selection of a range of levels for
use in further analyses. However, the staff also noted that variations
in the specific materials and methods used in each study introduce
uncertainties that should also be considered when interpreting the
results
[[Page 3190]]
of these comparisons. Key differences between the studies include the
following: (1) Scene characteristics; (2) image presentation methods
(e.g., projected slides of actual photos, projected images generated
using WinHaze (a significant technical advance in the method of
presenting visual air quality conditions), or use of a computer monitor
screen; (3) number of participants in each study; (4) participant
representativeness of the general population of the relevant
metropolitan area; and (5) specific wording used to frame the questions
used in the group interview process.
In the Visibility Assessment, each study was evaluated separately
and figures developed to display the percentage of participants that
rated the visual air quality depicted in each photograph as
``acceptable.'' Ely et al. (1991) introduced a ``50% acceptability''
criterion analysis of the Denver preference study results. The 50
percent acceptability criterion is designed to identify the visual air
quality level (defined in terms of deciviews or light extinction) that
best divides the photographs into two groups: Those with a visual air
quality rated as acceptable by the majority of the participants, and
those rated not acceptable by the majority of participants. The
Visibility Assessment adopted this criterion as a useful index for
comparison between studies. The results of each analysis were then
combined graphically to allow for visual comparison. This information
was then carried forward into the Policy Assessment. Figure 5 presents
the graphical summary of the results of the studies in the four cities
and draws on results previously presented in Figures 2-3, 2-5, 2-7, and
2-11 of chapter 2 in the Visibility Assessment. Figure 5 also contains
lines at 20 dv and 30 dv that generally identify a range where the 50
percent acceptance criteria occur across all four of the urban
preference studies (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-24). Out of the 114 data
points shown in Figure 5, only one photograph (or image) with a visual
air quality below 20 dv was rated as acceptable by less than 50 percent
of the participants who rated that photograph.\155\ Similarly, only one
image with a visual air quality above 30 dv was rated acceptable by
more than 50 percent of the participants who viewed it.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Only 47 percent of the British Columbia participants rated
a 19.2 dv photograph as acceptable.
\156\ In the 2001 Washington, DC study, a 30.9 dv image was used
as a repeated slide. The first time it was shown 56 percent of the
participants rated it as acceptable, but only 11 percent rated it as
acceptable the second time it was shown. The same visual air quality
level was rated as acceptable by 4 percent of the participants in
the 2009 study (Test 1). All three points are shown in Figure 5.
\157\ Top scale shows light extinction in inverse megameter
units; bottom scale in deciviews. Logit analysis estimated response
functions are shown as the color-coded curved lines for each of the
four urban areas.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.004
As Figure 5 above shows, each urban area has a separate and unique
response curve that appears to indicate that it is distinct from the
others.\158\ These curves are the result of a logistical regression
analysis using a logit model of the greater than 19,000 ratings of haze
images as acceptable or unacceptable. The model results can be used to
estimate the visual air quality in terms of dv values where the
estimated response functions cross the 50 percent acceptability level,
as well as any alternative criteria levels. Selected examples of these
are shown in Table 4-
[[Page 3191]]
1 of the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a; U.S. EPA, 2010b, Table 2-
4). This table shows that the logit model results also support the
upper and lower ends of the range of 50th percentile acceptability
values (e.g., near 20 dv for Denver and near 30 dv for Washington, DC)
already identified in Figure 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ At present, data is only available for four urban areas,
as presented in Figure 5 and discussed throughout this section.
Additional research could help inform whether the range identified
by combining the results of the studies depicted in Figure 5 is more
broadly representative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the composite results and the effective range of 50th
percentile acceptability across the four urban preference studies shown
in Figure 5 and Table 4-1 of the Policy Assessment, benchmark levels of
(total) light extinction were selected in a range from 20 dv to 30 dv
(75 to 200 Mm-1) \159\ for the purpose of provisionally
assessing whether visibility conditions would be considered acceptable
(i.e., less than the low end of the range), unacceptable (i.e., greater
than the high end of the range), or potentially acceptable (within the
range) based on the very limited public preference information. A
midpoint of 25 dv (120 Mm-1) was also selected for use in
the assessment. This level is also very near to the 50th percentile
criterion value from the Phoenix study (i.e., 24.2 dv), which is by far
the best of the four studies in terms of the fit of the data to the
response curve and the representativeness of study participants. Based
on the currently available information, the Policy Assessment concluded
that the use of 25 dv to represent the middle of the distribution of
results seemed well supported (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ These values were rounded from 74 Mm-1 and 201
Mm-1 to avoid an implication of greater precision than is
warranted. Note that the middle value of 25 dv when converted to
light extinction is 122 Mm-1 is rounded to 120
Mm-1 for the same reason. Assessments conducted for the
Visibility Assessment and the first and second drafts of the Policy
Assessment used the unrounded values. The Policy Assessment
considered the results of assessment using unrounded values to be
sufficiently representative of what would result if the rounded
values were used that it was unnecessary to redo the assessments.
That is why some tables and figures in the Policy Assessment
reflected the unrounded values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These three benchmark values provide a low, middle, and high set of
light extinction conditions that are used to provisionally define
daylight hours with urban haze conditions that have been judged
unacceptable by at least 50 percent of the participants in one or more
of these preference studies. As discussed above, PM light extinction is
taken to be (total) light extinction minus the Rayleigh scatter,\160\
such that the low, middle, and high levels correspond to PM light
extinction levels of about 65 Mm-1, 110 Mm-1, and
190 Mm-1. In the Visibility Assessment, these three light
extinction levels were called Candidate Protection Levels (CPLs). This
term was also used in the Policy Assessment and in the proposal notice.
It is important to note, however, that the degree of protection
provided by a secondary NAAQS is not determined solely by any one
component of the standard but by all the components (i.e., indicator,
averaging time, form, and level) being applied together. Therefore, the
Policy Assessment noted that the term CPL is meant only to indicate
target levels of visibility within a range that the EPA staff felt
appropriate for consideration that could, in conjunction with other
elements of the standard, including indicator, averaging time, and
form, potentially provide an appropriate degree of visibility
protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Rayleigh scatter is light scattering by atmospheric gases
which is on average about 10 Mm-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In characterizing the Policy Assessment's confidence in each CPL
and across the range, a number of issues were considered (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 4-26). Looking first at the two studies that define the upper
and lower bounds of the range, the Policy Assessment considered whether
they represent a true regional distinction in preferences for urban
visibility conditions between western and eastern U.S. There was little
information available to help evaluate the possibility of a regional
distinction especially given that there have been preference studies in
only one eastern urban area. Smith and Howell (2009) found little
difference in preference response to Washington, DC, haze photographs
between the study participants from Washington, DC, and those from
Houston, Texas.\161\ This provides some limited evidence that the value
judgment of the public in different areas of the country may not be an
important factor in explaining the differences in these study results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ The first preference study using WinHaze images of a
scenic vista from Washington, DC was conducted in 2001 using
subjects who were residents of Washington, DC. More recently, Smith
and Howell (2009) interviewed additional subjects using the same
images and interview procedure. The additional subjects included
some residents of the Washington, DC area and some residents of the
Houston, Texas area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In further considering what factors could explain the observed
differences in preferences across the four urban areas, the Policy
Assessment noted that the urban scenes used in each study had different
characteristics (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-26). For example, each of the
western urban visibility preference study scenes included mountains in
the background while the single eastern urban study did not. It is also
true that each of the western scenes included objects at greater
distances from the camera location than in the eastern study. There is
no question that objects at a greater distance have a greater
sensitivity to perceived visibility changes as light extinction is
changed compared to otherwise similar scenes with objects at a shorter
range. This alone might explain the difference between the results of
the eastern study and those from the western urban studies. Having
scenes with the object of greatest intrinsic value nearer and hence
less sensitive in the eastern urban area compared with more distant
objects of greatest intrinsic value in the western urban areas could
further explain the difference in preference results.
Another question considered was whether the high CPL value that is
based on the eastern preference results is likely to be generally
representative of urban areas that do not have associated mountains or
other valued objects visible in the distant background. Such areas
would include the middle of the country, many areas in the eastern
U.S., and possibly some areas in the western U.S. as well.\162\ Based
on the currently available information, the Policy Assessment concluded
that the high end of the CPL range (30 dv) is an appropriate level to
consider (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ In order to examine this issue, an effort would have to be
made to see if scenes in such areas could be found that would be
generally comparable to the western scenes (e.g., scenes that
contain valued scenic elements at more sensitive distances than that
used in the eastern study). This is only one of a family of issues
concerning how exposure to urban scenes of varying sensitivity
affects public perception for which no preference study information
is currently available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the low end of the range, the Policy Assessment
considered factors that might further refine its understanding of the
robustness of this level. The Policy Assessment concluded that
additional urban preference studies, especially with a greater variety
in types of scenes, could help evaluate whether the lower CPL value of
20 dv is generally supportable (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-27). Further, the
reason for the noisiness in data points around the curves apparent in
both the Denver and British Columbia results compared to the smoother
curve fit of Phoenix study results could be explored. One possible
explanation discussed in the Policy Assessment is that these older
studies use photographs taken at different times of day and on
different days to capture the range of light extinction levels needed
for the preference studies. In contrast, the use of WinHaze in the
Phoenix (and Washington, DC) study reduced variations that affect scene
appearance preference rating and avoided the uncertainty inherent in
using ambient measurements to
[[Page 3192]]
represent sight path-averaged light extinction values. Reducing these
sources of noisiness and uncertainty in the results of future studies
of sensitive urban scenes could provide more confidence in the
selection of a low CPL value.
Based on the above considerations, and recognizing the limitations
in the currently available information, the Policy Assessment concluded
that it is reasonable to consider a range of CPL values including a
high value of 30 dv, a mid-range value of 25 dv, and a low value of 20
dv (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-27). Based on its review of the second draft
Policy Assessment, CASAC also supported this set of CPLs for
consideration by the EPA in this review. CASAC noted that these CPL
values were based on all available visibility preference data and that
they bound the study results as represented by the 50 percent
acceptability criteria. While recommending that further visibility
preference studies be conducted to reduce remaining uncertainties,\163\
CASAC concluded that this range of levels was ``adequately supported by
the evidence presented'' (Samet, 2010d, p. iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ ``CASAC has also identified needs for the next review
cycle in terms of further research on a number of topics related to
urban visibility; * * *. In particular, there is a need for the
Agency to conduct additional urban visibility preference studies
over a broad range of urban areas and viewing conditions, to further
evaluate and refine the range of visibility levels considered to be
acceptable in the current assessment.'' (Samet, 2010a)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Summary of Proposed Conclusions
i. Adequacy of the Current Standards for PM-Related Visibility
Impairment
At the time of proposal, the Administrator provisionally concluded
that the current suite of secondary PM standards is not sufficiently
protective of visual air quality, and that consideration should be
given to an alternative secondary standard that would provide
additional protection against PM-related visibility impairment, with a
focus primarily in urban areas. This proposed conclusion was based on
the information presented in the proposal with regard to the nature of
PM-related visibility impairment, the results of public perception
surveys on the acceptability of varying degrees of visibility
impairment in urban areas, analyses of the number of days that are
estimated to exceed a range of candidate protection levels under
conditions simulated to just meet the current standards, and the advice
of CASAC. This section summarizes key points from section VI.C of the
proposal regarding visibility under current conditions, the degree of
protection afforded by the current standards, and CASAC's advice
regarding the adequacy of the current standards.
As discussed in section VI.C.1 of the proposal, to evaluate
visibility under current conditions the Visibility Assessment and
Policy Assessment estimated PM-related light extinction\164\ levels for
15 urban areas\165\ in the United States. Consistent with the emphasis
in this review on the hourly or multi-hour time periods that might
reasonably characterize the visibility effects experienced by various
segments of the population, these analyses focused on using maximum 1-
hour and 4-hour values of PM light extinction during daylight hours for
purposes of evaluating the degree of visibility impairment. Hourly
average PM-related light extinction was analyzed in terms of both
PM10 and PM2.5 light extinction. For reasons
discussed above, hours with relative humidity greater than 90 percent
were excluded from consideration. Recent visibility conditions in these
urban areas were then compared to the CPLs identified above. The
Visibility Assessment, which focused on PM10 light
extinction in 14 of the 15 urban areas during the 2005 to 2007 time
period,\166\ found that all 14 areas had daily maximum hourly
PM10 light extinction values estimated to exceed even the
highest CPL some of the days. Except for the two Texas areas and the
non-California western urban areas, all of the other urban areas were
estimated to have maximum hourly PM10 concentrations that
exceeded the high CPL on about 20 percent to over 60 percent of the
days. All 14 of the urban areas were estimated to have maximum hourly
PM10 concentrations that exceeded the low CPL on about 40
percent to over 90 percent of the days. In general, areas in the East
and in California tend to have a higher frequency of hourly visibility
conditions estimated to be above the high CPL compared with those in
the western U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ PM-related light extinction is used here to refer to the
light extinction caused by PM regardless of particle size;
PM10 light extinction refers to the contribution by
particles sampled through an inlet with a particle size 50 percent
cutpoint of 10 [mu]m diameter; and PM2.5 light extinction
refers to the contribution by particles sampled through an inlet
with a particle size 50 percent cutpoint of 2.5 [mu]m diameter.
\165\ The 15 urban areas are Tacoma, Fresno, Los Angeles,
Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Houston, St. Louis, Birmingham,
Atlanta, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York.
\166\ Comments on the second draft Visibility Assessment from
those familiar with the monitoring sites in St. Louis indicated that
the site selected to provide continuous PM10 monitoring,
although less than a mile from the site of the PM2.5
data, was not representative of the urban area and resulted in
unrealistically large PM10-2.5 values. The EPA staff
considered these comments credible and set aside the St. Louis
assessment results for PM10 light extinction. Thus,
results and statements in the Policy Assessment regarding
PM10 light extinction applied to only the other 14 areas.
However, results regarding PM2.5 light extinction in most
cases applied to all 15 study areas because the St. Louis estimates
for PM2.5 light extinction were not affected by the
PM10 monitoring issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment repeated the Visibility Assessment-type
modeling based on PM2.5 light extinction and data from the
more recent 2007 to 2009 time period for the same 15 study areas
(including St. Louis). While the estimates of the percentage of daily
maximum hourly PM2.5 light extinction values exceeding the
CPLs were somewhat lower than for PM10 light extinction, the
patterns of these estimates across the study areas was found to be
similar. More specifically, except for the two Texas and the non-
California western urban areas, all of the other urban areas were
estimated to have maximum hourly PM2.5 concentrations that
exceeded the high CPL on about 10 percent up to about 50 percent of the
days based on PM2.5 light extinction, while all 15 areas
were estimated to have maximum hourly PM2.5 concentrations
that exceeded the low CPL on over 10 percent to over 90 percent of the
days.
To evaluate how PM-related visibility would be affected by just
meeting the current suite of PM2.5 secondary standards, the
Policy Assessment applied the proportional rollback approach described
in section VI.C.2 of the proposal to all the PM2.5
monitoring sites in each study area.\167\ After adjusting for
composition, the Policy Assessment applied the original IMPROVE
algorithm to calculate the PM10 light extinction, using
``rolled back'' PM2.5 component concentrations, the current
conditions PM10-2.5 concentration for the day and hour, and
relative humidity for the day and hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Phoenix and Salt Lake City met the current
PM2.5 NAAQS under current conditions and required no
reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these analyses, the Policy Assessment estimated both
PM2.5 and PM10 light extinction in terms of both
daily maximum 1-hour average values and multi-hour (i.e., 4-hour)
average values for daylight hours. Figure 4-7 and Table 4-6 of the
Policy Assessment displayed the results of the rollback procedures as a
box and whisker plot of daily maximum daylight 1-hour PM2.5
light extinction and the percentage of daily maximum hourly
PM2.5 light extinction values estimated to exceed the CPLs
when just meeting the current
[[Page 3193]]
suite of PM2.5 secondary standards for all 15 areas
considered in the Visibility Assessment (including St. Louis)
(excluding hours with relative humidity greater than 90 percent). These
displays showed that the daily maximum 1-hour average PM2.5
light extinction values in all of the study areas other than the three
western non-California areas were estimated to exceed the high CPL on
about 8 percent up to over 30 percent of the days and to exceed the
middle CPL on about 30 percent up to about 70 percent of the days,
while all areas except Phoenix were estimated to have daily maximum 1-
hour average PM2.5 light extinction values that exceeded the
low CPL on over 15 percent to about 90 percent of the days. Figure 4-8
and Table 4-7 of the Policy Assessment present results based on daily
maximum 4-hour average values. These displays show that the daily
maximum 4-hour average PM2.5 light extinction values in all
of the study areas other than the three western non-California areas
and the two areas in Texas were estimated to exceed the high CPL on
about 4 percent up to over 15 percent of the days and to exceed the
middle CPL on about 15 percent up to about 45 percent of the days,
while all areas except Phoenix were estimated to have daily maximum 4-
hour average PM2.5 light extinction values that exceeded the
low CPL on over 10 percent to about 75 percent of the days. A similar
set of figures and tables were developed in terms of PM10
light extinction (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figures 4-5 and 4-6, Tables 4-4 and
4-5).
Taking the results of these analyses focusing on 1-hour and 4-hour
maximum light extinction values into account, the Policy Assessment
concluded that the available information in this review clearly called
into question the adequacy of the current suite of PM2.5
standards in the context of public welfare protection from visibility
impairment, primarily in urban areas, and supported consideration of
alternative standards to provide appropriate protection (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 4-39). This conclusion was based in part on the large
percentage of days, in many urban areas, that were estimated to have
maximum 1-hour or 4-hour light extinction values that exceed the range
of CPLs identified for consideration under simulations of conditions
that would just meet the current suite of PM2.5 secondary
standards. In particular, for air quality that was simulated to just
meet the current PM2.5 standards, greater than 10 percent of
the days were estimated to have peak light extinction values that
exceed the highest, least protective CPL of 30 dv in terms of
PM2.5 light extinction for 9 of the 15 urban areas, based on
1-hour average values, and would thus likely fail to meet a 90th
percentile-based standard at that level. For these areas, the percent
of days estimated to have maximum 1-hour values that exceed the highest
CPL ranged from over 10 percent to over 30 percent. Similarly, when the
middle CPL of 25 dv was considered, greater than 30 percent up to
approximately 70 percent of the days were estimated to have peak light
extinction that exceeded that CPL in terms of PM2.5 light
extinction, for 11 of the 15 urban areas, based on 1-hour average
values. Based on a 4-hour averaging time, 5 of the areas were estimated
to have at least 10 percent of the days with peak light extinction
exceeding the highest CPL in terms of PM2.5 light
extinction, and 8 of the areas were estimated to have at least 30
percent of the days with peak light extinction exceeding the middle CPL
in terms of PM2.5 light extinction. For the lowest CPL of 20
dv, the percentages of days with 4-hour maximum light extinction
estimated to exceed that CPL are even higher for all cases considered.
Based on all of the above, the Policy Assessment concluded that PM
light extinction estimated to be associated with just meeting the
current suite of PM2.5 secondary standards in many areas
across the country exceeded levels and percentages of days that could
reasonably be considered to be important from a public welfare
perspective (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-40).
Further, the Policy Assessment concluded that use of the current
indicator of PM2.5 mass, in conjunction with the current 24-
hour and annual averaging times, is clearly called into question for a
national standard intended to protect public welfare from PM-related
visibility impairment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-40). This is because such
a standard is inherently variable in the degree of protection provided
because of regional differences in relative humidity and species
composition of PM2.5, which are critical factors in the
relationship between the mix of fine particles in the ambient air and
the associated impairment of visibility. The Policy Assessment noted
that this concern was one of the important elements in the court's
decision to remand the PM2.5 secondary standards set in 2006
to the Agency.
Thus, in addition to concluding that the available information
clearly calls into question the adequacy of the protection against PM-
related visibility impairment afforded by the current suite of
PM2.5 standards, the Policy Assessment also concluded that
it clearly calls into question the appropriateness of each of the
current standard elements: indicator, averaging time, form, and level
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-40).
After reviewing the information and analysis in the second draft
Policy Assessment, CASAC concluded that the ``currently available
information clearly calls into question the adequacy of the current
standards and that consideration should be given to revising the suite
of standards to provide increased public welfare protection'' (Samet,
2010d, p. iii). CASAC noted that the detailed estimates of hourly PM
light extinction associated with just meeting the current standards
``clearly demonstrate that current standards do not protect against
levels of visual air quality which have been judged to be unacceptable
in all of the available urban visibility preference studies.'' Further,
CASAC stated, with respect to the current suite of secondary
PM2.5 standards, that ``[T]he levels are too high, the
averaging times are too long, and the PM2.5 mass indicator
could be improved to correspond more closely to the light scattering
and absorption properties of suspended particles in the ambient air''
(Samet, 2010d, p. 9).
After considering the available evidence and the advice of CASAC,
the Administrator concluded at the time of proposal that such
information did provide an appropriate basis to inform a conclusion as
to whether the current standards afford adequate protection against PM-
related visibility impairment in urban areas. The Administrator took
into account the information discussed above with regard to the nature
of PM-related visibility impairment, the results of public perception
surveys on the acceptability of varying degrees of visibility
impairment in urban areas, analyses of the number of days on which peak
1-hour or 4-hour light extinction values are estimated to exceed a
range of candidate protection levels under conditions simulated to just
meet the current standards, and the advice of CASAC. She noted the
clear causal relationship between PM in the ambient air and impairment
of visibility, the evidence from the visibility preference studies, and
the rationale for determining a range of candidate protection levels
based on those studies. She also noted the relatively large number of
days when maximum 1-hour or 4-hour light extinction values were
estimated to exceed the three candidate protection levels, including
the highest level of 30 dv, under the current standards. While
recognizing the limitations in the available information on public
[[Page 3194]]
perceptions of the acceptability of varying degree of visibility
impairment and the information on the number of days estimated to
exceed the CPLs, she concluded that such information provided an
appropriate basis to inform a conclusion as to whether the current
standards provide adequate protection against PM-related visibility
impairment in urban areas. Based on these considerations, and placing
great importance on the advice of CASAC, the Administrator
provisionally concluded that the current standards are not sufficiently
protective of visual air quality, and that consideration should be
given to an alternative secondary standard that would provide
additional protection against PM-related visibility impairment, with a
focus primarily in urban areas.
Having reached this conclusion, the Administrator also stated at
the time of proposal that the current indicator of PM2.5
mass, in conjunction with the current 24-hour and annual averaging
times, is not well suited for a national standard intended to protect
public welfare from PM-related visibility impairment. As noted in the
proposal, the current standards do not incorporate information on the
concentrations of various species within the mix of ambient particles,
nor do they incorporate information on relative humidity, both of which
play a central role in determining the relationship between the mix of
PM in the ambient air and impairment of visibility. Such considerations
were reflected both in CASAC's advice to set a distinct secondary
standard that would more directly reflect the relationship between
ambient PM and visibility impairment and in the court's remand of the
current secondary PM2.5 standards. Based on the above
considerations, at the time of proposal the Administrator provisionally
concluded that the current secondary PM2.5 standards, taken
together, are neither sufficiently protective nor suitably structured
to provide an appropriate degree of public welfare protection from PM-
related visibility impairment, primarily in urban areas. This led the
EPA to consider alternative standards by looking at each of the
elements of the standards--indicator, averaging time, form, and level--
as discussed below.
ii. Indicator
At the time of proposal, the EPA considered three alternative
indicators for a PM2.5 standard designed to protect against
visibility impairment: The current PM2.5 mass indicator;
directly measured PM2.5 light extinction; and calculated
PM2.5 light extinction. Directly measured PM2.5
light extinction is a measurement (or combination of measurements) of
the light absorption and scattering caused by PM2.5 under
ambient conditions. Calculated PM2.5 light extinction uses
the IMPROVE algorithm to calculate PM2.5 light extinction
using measured PM2.5 mass, speciated PM2.5 mass,
and measured relative humidity. The Policy Assessment evaluated each of
these alternatives, finally concluding that consideration should be
given to establishing a new calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-51).
As discussed in section VI.D.1 of the proposal, the Policy
Assessment concluded that consideration of the use of either directly
measured PM2.5 light extinction or calculated
PM2.5 light extinction as an indicator is justified because
light extinction is a physically meaningful measure of the
characteristic of ambient PM2.5 that is most relevant and
directly related to PM-related visibility effects (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
4-41). Further, as noted above, PM2.5 is the component of PM
responsible for most of the visibility impairment in most urban areas.
In these areas, the contribution of PM10-2.5 is a minor
contributor to visibility impairment most of the time. The Policy
Assessment also indicated that the available evidence demonstrated a
strong correspondence between calculated PM2.5 light
extinction and PM-related visibility impairment, as well as the
significant degree of variability in visibility protection across the
U.S. allowed by a PM2.5 mass indicator. The Policy
Assessment recognized that while in the future it would be appropriate
to consider a direct measurement of PM2.5 light extinction
it was not an appropriate option in this review because a suitable
specification of the equipment and associated performance verification
procedures cannot be developed in the time frame for this review.
(a) PM2.5 Mass
In terms of utilizing a PM2.5 mass indicator, the
proposal noted that PM2.5 mass monitoring methods are in
widespread use, including the FRM involving the collection of periodic
(usually 1-day-in-6 or 1-day-in-3) 24-hour filter samples. However,
these routine monitoring activities do not include measurement of the
full water content of the ambient PM2.5 that contributes,
often significantly, to visibility impacts. Further, the
PM2.5 mass concentration monitors do not provide information
on the composition of the ambient PM2.5, which plays a
central role in the relationship between PM-related visibility
impairment and ambient PM2.5 mass concentrations. Additional
analyses discussed in the proposal that looked at the contribution of
PM2.5 to total PM-related light extinction (defined in terms
of hourly PM10 calculated light extinction) indicate that
there is a poor correlation between hourly PM10 light
extinction and hourly PM2.5 mass principally due to the
impact of the water content of the particles on light extinction, which
depends on both the composition of the PM2.5 and the ambient
relative humidity. Both composition and especially relative humidity
vary during a single day, as well as from day-to-day, at any site and
time of year. Also, there are systematic regional and seasonal
differences in the distribution of ambient humidity and
PM2.5 composition conditions that make it impossible to
select a PM2.5 concentration that generally would correspond
to the same PM-related light extinction levels across all areas of the
nation. Analyses discussed in the proposal quantify the projected
uneven protection that would result from the use of 1-hour average
PM2.5 mass as the indicator.
(b) Directly Measured PM2.5 Light Extinction
PM light extinction has a nearly one-to-one relationship to light
extinction, unlike PM2.5 mass concentration. As explained
above, PM2.5 is the component responsible for the large
majority of PM light extinction in most places and times.
PM2.5 light extinction can be directly measured using
several instrumental methods, some of which have been used for decades
to routinely monitor the two components of PM2.5 light
extinction (light scattering and absorption) or to jointly measure both
as total light extinction (from which Rayleigh scattering is subtracted
to get PM2.5 light extinction). As noted at the time of
proposal, there are a number of advantages to direct measurements of
light extinction for use in a secondary standard relative to estimates
of PM2.5 light extinction calculated using PM2.5
mass and speciation data. These include greater accuracy of direct
measurements with shorter averaging times and overall greater
simplicity when compared to the need for measurements of multiple
parameters to calculate PM light extinction.
In evaluating whether direct measurement of PM2.5 or
PM10 light extinction is appropriate to consider in the
context of this PM NAAQS review, the EPA solicited comment from the
Ambient Air Monitoring and Methods
[[Page 3195]]
Subcommittee (AAMMS) of CASAC. The CASAC AAMMS recommended that
consideration of direct measurement should be limited to
PM2.5 light extinction, and that although instruments
suitable for this purpose are commercially available at present,
research is expected to produce even better instruments in the near
term. The CASAC AAMMS advised against choosing any currently available
commercial instrument, or even a general measurement approach, as an
FRM because to do so could discourage development of other potentially
superior approaches. Instead, the CASAC AAMMS recommended that the EPA
develop performance-based approval criteria for direct measurement
methods in order to put all approaches on a level playing field.
At the present time, the EPA has not undertaken to develop and test
such performance-base approval criteria. The EPA anticipates that if an
effort were begun it would take at least several years before such
criteria would be ready for regulatory use. Thus, the Policy Assessment
concluded that while in the future it would be appropriate to consider
a direct measurement of PM2.5 light extinction, or the sum
of separate measurements of light scattering and light absorption, as
the indicator for the secondary PM2.5 standard, this is not
an appropriate option in this review because a suitable specification
of the equipment or appropriate performance-based verification
procedures cannot be developed in the time frame for this review (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 4-51, -52).
(c) Calculated PM2.5 Light Extinction
For the reasons discussed above, the Policy Assessment concluded
that a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator would be
the preferred approach. PM2.5 light extinction can be
calculated from PM2.5 mass, combined with speciated
PM2.5 mass concentration data plus relative humidity data,
as is presently routinely done on a 24-hour average basis under the
Regional Haze Program using data from the rural IMPROVE monitoring
network. This same calculation procedure, using a 24-hour average
basis, could be used for a NAAQS focused on protecting against PM-
related visibility impairment primarily in urban areas. This approach
would use the type of data that is routinely collected from the urban
CSN \168\ in combination with monthly average relative humidity data
based on long-term climatological means as used in the Regional Haze
Program (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix G, section G.2). The proposal
discussed the complex approach utilized in the Visibility Assessment
for calculating hourly PM2.5 light extinction \169\ and
discussed various simplified approaches for calculating these hourly
values that were analyzed in the Policy Assessment. The Policy
Assessment concluded that each of these simplified approaches provided
reasonably good estimates of PM2.5 light extinction and each
would be appropriate to consider as the indicator for a distinct hourly
or multi-hour secondary standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-48). The
proposal also recognized that the Policy Assessment identified a number
of variations on these simplified approaches that it would be
appropriate to consider, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ About 200 sites in the CSN routinely measure 24-hour
average PM2.5 chemical components using filter-based
samplers and chemical analysis in a laboratory, on either a 1-day-
in-3 or 1-day-in-6 schedule (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix B, section
B.1.3).
\169\ As noted at the time of proposal, the sheer size of the
ambient air quality, meteorological, and chemical transport modeling
data files involved with the Visibility Assessment approach would
make it very difficult for state agencies or any interested party to
consistently apply such an approach on a routine basis for the
purpose of implementing a national standard defined in terms of the
Visibility Assessment approach.
(1) The use of the split-component mass extinction efficiency
approach from the revised IMPROVE algorithm\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ If the revised IMPROVE algorithm were used to define the
calculated PM2.5 mass-based indicator, it would not be
possible to algebraically reduce the revised algorithm to a two-
factor version as described above and in Appendix F of the Policy
Assessment for the simplified approaches. Instead, five component
fractions would be determined from each day of speciated sampling,
and then either applied to hourly measurements of PM2.5
mass on the same day or averaged across a month and then applied to
measurements of PM2.5 mass on each day of the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The use of more refined value(s) for the organic carbon
multiplier \171\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ An organic carbon (OC)-to-organic mass (OM) multiplier of
1.6 was used for the assessment, which was found to produce a value
of OM comparable to the one derived with the original, albeit more
complex, Visibility Assessment method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) The use of the reconstructed 24-hour PM2.5 mass
(i.e., the sum of the five PM2.5 components from
speciated monitoring) as a normalization value for the hourly
measurements from the PM2.5 instrument as a way of better
reflecting ambient nitrate concentrations
(4) The use of historical monthly or seasonal, or regional,
speciation averages
Overall, the analyses conducted for the Visibility Assessment and
Policy Assessment indicated that the use of a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator would provide a much higher
degree of uniformity in terms of the degree of protection from
visibility impairment across the country than a PM2.5 mass
indicator, because a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator would directly incorporate the effects of humidity and
PM2.5 composition differences between various regions.
Further, the proposal noted that the Policy Assessment concluded that
consideration could be given to defining a calculated PM2.5
light extinction indicator on either a 24-hour or a sub-daily basis
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-52). However, the Policy Assessment noted that
approval of continuous FEM monitors has been based only on 24-hour
average, not hourly, PM2.5 mass. In addition, there are
mixed results of data quality assessments on a 24-hour basis for these
monitors, as well as the near absence of performance data for sub-daily
averaging periods. Thus, while it is possible to utilize data from
PM2.5 continuous FEMs on a 1-hour or multi-hour (e.g., 4-
hour) basis, these factors increase the uncertainty of utilizing
continuous methods to support 1-hour or 4-hour PM2.5 mass
measurements as an input to the light extinction calculation.
Therefore, as noted at the time of proposal, until issues regarding the
comparability of 24-hour PM2.5 mass values derived from
continuous FEMs and filter-based FRMs \172\ are resolved, there is
reason to be cautious about relying on a calculation procedure that
uses hourly PM2.5 mass values reported by continuous FEMs in
combination with speciated PM2.5 mass values from 24-hour
filter-based samplers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ Filter-based FRMs are designed to adequately quantify the
amount of PM2.5 collected over 24-hours. They cannot be
presumed to be appropriate for quantifying average concentrations
over 1-hour or 4-hour periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) CASAC Advice
In reviewing the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC stated that
it ``overwhelmingly * * * would prefer the direct measurement of light
extinction,'' recognizing it as the property of the atmosphere that
most directly relates to visibility effects (Samet, 2010d, p. iii).
CASAC noted that ``[I]t has the advantage of relating directly to the
demonstrated harmful welfare effect of ambient PM on human visual
perception.'' However, CASAC also concluded that the calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator ``appears to be a
reasonable approach for estimating hourly light extinction'' (Samet,
2010d, p. 11). Further, based on CASAC's understanding of the time that
would be required to develop an FRM for this indicator, CASAC agreed
with the staff preference presented in the second draft Policy
Assessment for a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator. CASAC noted that ``[I]ts reliance on procedures that
[[Page 3196]]
have already been implemented in the CSN and routinely collected
continuous PM2.5 data suggest that it could be implemented
much sooner than a directly measured indicator'' (Samet, 2010d, p.
iii).\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ In commenting on the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC
did not have an opportunity to review the assessment of continuous
PM2.5 FEMs compared to collocated FRMs (Hanley and Reff,
2011) as presented and discussed in the final Policy Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(e) Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Indicator
At the time of proposal, while agreeing with CASAC that a directly
measured PM light extinction indicator would provide the most direct
link between PM in the ambient air and PM-related light extinction, the
Administrator provisionally concluded that this was not an appropriate
option in this review because a suitable specification of currently
available equipment or performance-based verification procedures cannot
be developed in the time frame of this review. Taking all of the above
considerations and CASAC advice into account, the Administrator
provisionally concluded that a new calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator, similar to that used in the Regional Haze Program
(i.e., using an IMPROVE algorithm as translated into the deciview
scale), was the appropriate indicator to replace the current
PM2.5 mass indicator. Such an indicator, referred to as a
PM2.5 visibility index, would appropriately reflect the
relationship between ambient PM and PM-related light extinction, based
on the analyses discussed in the proposal and incorporation of factors
based on measured PM2.5 speciation concentrations and
relative humidity data. In addition, selection of this type of
indicator would address, in part, the issues raised in the court's
remand of the 2006 p.m.2.5 standards. The Administrator also
noted that such a PM2.5 visibility index would afford a
relatively high degree of uniformity of visual air quality protection
in areas across the country by virtue of directly incorporating the
effects of differences in PM2.5 composition and relative
humidity across the country.
Based on these above considerations, the Administrator proposed to
set a distinct secondary standard for PM2.5 defined in terms
of a PM2.5 visibility index (i.e., a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator, translated into the
deciview scale) to protect against PM-related visibility impairment
primarily in urban areas. The Administrator proposed that such an index
be based on the original IMPROVE algorithm in conjunction with monthly
average relative humidity data based on long-term climatological means
as used in the Regional Haze Program. The EPA solicited comment on all
aspects of the proposed indicator, especially:
(1) The proposed use of a PM2.5 visibility index
rather than a PM10 visibility index which would include
an additional term for coarse particles;
(2) Using the revised IMPROVE algorithm rather than the original
IMPROVE algorithm;
(3) The use of alternative values for the organic carbon
multiplier in conjunction with either the original or revised
IMPROVE algorithm;
(4) The use of historical monthly, seasonal, or regional
speciation averages;
(5) Alternative approaches to determining relative humidity; and
(6) Simplified approaches to generating hourly PM2.5
light extinction values for purposes of calculating an hourly or
multi-hour indicator.
iii. Averaging Times
In this review, as discussed in section VI.D.2 of the proposal,
consideration of appropriate averaging times for use in conjunction
with a PM2.5 visibility index was informed by information
related to the nature of PM visibility effects and the nature of inputs
to the calculation of PM2.5 light extinction, as discussed
above. The EPA considered both sub-daily (1- and 4-hour averaging
times) and 24-hour averaging times. In considering sub-daily averaging
times, the EPA has also considered what diurnal periods and ambient
relative humidity conditions would be appropriate to consider in
conjunction with such an averaging time.
As an initial matter, the Policy Assessment considered sub-daily
averaging times. Taking into account what is known from available
studies concerning how quickly people experience and judge visibility
conditions, the possibility that some fraction of the public
experiences infrequent or short periods of exposure to ambient
visibility conditions, and the typical rate of change of the path-
averaged PM light extinction over urban areas, the initial analyses
conducted as part of the Visibility Assessment focused on a 1-hour
averaging time. In its review of the first draft Policy Assessment,
CASAC agreed that a 1-hour averaging time would be appropriate to
consider, noting that PM effects on visibility can vary widely and
rapidly over the course of a day and such changes are almost
instantaneously perceptible to human observers (Samet, 2010c, p. 19).
The Policy Assessment noted that this view related specifically to a
standard defined in terms of a directly measured PM light extinction
indicator, in that CASAC also noted that a 1-hour averaging time is
well within the instrument response times of the various currently
available and developing optical monitoring methods.
However, CASAC also advised that if a PM2.5 mass
indicator were to be used, it would be appropriate to consider
``somewhat longer averaging times--2 to 4 hours--to assure a more
stable instrumental response'' (Samet, 2010c, p. 19). In considering
this advice, the Policy Assessment concluded that since a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator relies in part on measured
PM2.5 mass, it would be appropriate to consider a multi-hour
averaging time on the order of a few hours (e.g. 4-hours). A multi-hour
averaging time might reasonably characterize the visibility effects
experienced by the segment of the population who have access to
visibility conditions often or continuously throughout the day. For
this segment of the population, it may be that their perception of
visual air quality reflects some degree of offsetting an hour with poor
visual air quality with one or more hours of clearer visual conditions.
Further, the Policy Assessment recognized that a multi-hour averaging
time would have the effect of averaging away peak hourly visibility
impairment, which can change significantly from one hour to the next
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-53; U.S. EPA, 2010b, Figure 3-12).
In considering either 1-hour or multi-hour averaging times, the
Policy Assessment recognized that no data are available with regard to
how the duration and variation of time a person spends outdoors during
the daytime impacts his or her judgment of the acceptability of
different degrees of visibility impairment. As a consequence, it is not
clear to what degree, if at all, the protection levels found to be
acceptable in the public preference studies would change for a multi-
hour averaging time as compared to a 1-hour averaging time. Thus, the
Policy Assessment concluded that it is appropriate to consider a 1-hour
or multi-hour (e.g., 4-hour) averaging time as the basis for a sub-
daily standard defined in terms of a calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-53).
In addition, as discussed above, some data quality uncertainties
have been observed with regard to hourly data collected by FEMs.
Specifically, as part of the review of data from all continuous FEM
PM2.5 instruments operating at state/local monitoring sites,
the Policy Assessment noted that the occurrence of questionable
outliers in 1-
[[Page 3197]]
hour data submitted to AQS from continuous FEM PM2.5
instruments had been observed at some of these sites (Evangelista,
2011). Some of these outliers were questionable simply by virtue of
their extreme magnitude, as high as 985 [mu]g/m\3\, whereas other
values were questionable because they were isolated to single hours
with much lower values before and after, a pattern that is much less
plausible than if the high concentrations were more sustained.\174\ The
Policy Assessment noted that any current data quality problems might be
resolved in the normal course of monitoring program evolution as
operators become more adept at instrument operation and maintenance and
data validation or by improving the approval criteria and testing
requirements for continuous instruments. Regardless, the Policy
Assessment noted that multi-hour averaging of FEM data could serve to
reduce the effects of such outliers relative to the use of a 1-hour
averaging time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Similarly questionable hourly data were not observed in
the 2005 to 2007 continuous PM2.5 data used in the
Visibility Assessment, all of which came from early-generation
continuous instruments that had not been approved as FEMs. However,
only 15 sites and instruments were involved in the Visibility
Assessment analyses, versus about 180 currently operating FEM
instruments submitting data to AQS. Therefore, there were more
opportunities for very infrequent measurement errors to be observed
in the larger FEM data set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment noted that there are significant reasons to
consider using PM2.5 light extinction calculated on a 24-
hour basis to reduce the various data quality concerns described above
with respect to relying on continuous PM2.5 monitoring data.
However, the Policy Assessment recognized that 24 hours is far longer
than the hourly or multi-hour time periods that might reasonably
characterize the visibility effects experienced by various segments of
the population, including both those who do and do not have access to
visibility conditions often or continuously throughout the day. Thus,
the Policy Assessment concluded that the appropriateness of considering
a 24-hour averaging time would depend upon the extent to which PM-
related light extinction calculated on a 24-hour average basis would be
a reasonable and appropriate surrogate for PM-related light extinction
calculated on a sub-daily basis.
To examine this relationship, the EPA conducted comparative
analyses of 24-hour and 4-hour averaging times in conjunction with a
calculated PM2.5 indicator. For these analyses, 4-hour
average PM2.5 light extinction was calculated based on using
the Visibility Assessment approach. The 24-hour average
PM2.5 light extinction was calculated using the original
IMPROVE algorithm and long-term relative humidity conditions to
calculate PM2.5 light extinction. Based on these
analyses,\175\ which are presented and discussed in Appendix G of the
Policy Assessment, scatter plots comparing 24-hour and 4-hour
calculated PM2.5 light extinction were constructed for each
of the 15 cities included in the Visibility Assessment and for all 15
cities pooled together (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figures G-4 and G-5). Though
there was some scatter around the regression line for each city because
the calculated 4-hour light extinction values included day-specific and
hour-specific influences that are not captured by the simpler 24-hour
approach, these analyses generally showed good correlation between 24-
hour and 4-hour average PM2.5 light extinction, as evidenced
by reasonably high city-specific and pooled R\2\ values, generally in
the range of over 0.6 to over 0.8.\176\ This suggested that
PM2.5 light extinction calculated on a 24-hour basis is a
reasonable and appropriate surrogate to PM2.5 light
extinction calculated on a sub-daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ These analyses are also based on the use of a 90th
percentile form, averaged over 3 years, as discussed below in
section VI.D.3 and in section 4.3.3 of the Policy Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2011a).
\176\ The EPA staff noted that the R\2\ value (0.44) for Houston
was notably lower than for the other cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking the above considerations and CASAC's advice into account,
the Policy Assessment concluded that it would be appropriate to
consider a 24-hour averaging time, in conjunction with a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator and an appropriately
specified standard level, as discussed below. By using site-specific
daily data on PM2.5 composition and site-specific long-term
relative humidity conditions, this 24-hour average indicator would
provide more consistent protection from PM2.5-related
visibility impairment than would a secondary PM2.5 NAAQS
based only on 24-hour or annual average PM2.5 mass. In
particular, this approach would account for the systematic difference
in humidity conditions between most eastern states and most western
states. The Policy Assessment also concluded that it would also be
appropriate to consider a multi-hour, sub-daily averaging time, for
example a period of 4 hours, in conjunction with a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator and with further
consideration of the data quality issues discussed above. Such an
averaging time, to the extent that data quality issues can be
appropriately addressed, would be more directly related to the short-
term nature of the perception of visibility impairment, short-term
variability in PM-related visual air quality, and the short-term nature
(hourly to multiple hours) of relevant exposure periods for segments of
the viewing public. Such an averaging time would still result in an
indicator that is less sensitive than a 1-hour averaging time to short-
term instrument variability with respect to PM2.5 mass
measurement. In conjunction with consideration of a multi-hour, sub-
daily averaging time, the Policy Assessment concluded that
consideration should be given to including daylight hours only and to
applying a relative humidity screen of approximately 90 percent to
remove hours in which fog or precipitation is much more likely to
contribute to the observed visibility impairment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
4-58). Recognizing that a 1-hour averaging time would be even more
sensitive to data quality issues, including short-term variability in
hourly data from currently available continuous monitoring methods, the
Policy Assessment concluded that it would not be appropriate to
consider a 1-hour averaging time in conjunction with a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator in this review (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 4-58).
As noted above, in its review of the first draft Policy Assessment,
CASAC concluded that PM effects on visibility can vary widely and
rapidly over the course of a day and such changes are almost
instantaneously perceptible to human observers (Samet, 2010c, p. 19).
Based in part on this consideration, CASAC agreed that a 1-hour
averaging time would be appropriate to consider in conjunction with a
directly measured PM light extinction indicator, noting that a 1-hour
averaging time is well within the instrument response times of the
various currently available and developing optical monitoring methods.
At that time, CASAC also advised that if a PM2.5 mass
indicator were to be used, it would be appropriate to consider
``somewhat longer averaging times--2- to 4-hours--to assure a more
stable instrumental response'' (Samet, 2010c, p. 19). Thus, CASAC's
advice on averaging times that would be appropriate for consideration
was predicated in part on the capabilities of monitoring methods that
were available for the alternative indicators discussed in the draft
Policy Assessment. CASAC's views on a multi-hour averaging time would
also apply to the calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator since hourly PM2.5 mass measurements are also
required for this
[[Page 3198]]
indicator when calculated on a sub-daily basis.
It is important to note that at the time it provided advice on
suitable averaging times, CASAC did not have the benefit of EPA's
subsequent assessment of the data quality issues associated with the
use of continuous FEMs as the basis for hourly PM2.5 mass
measurements. Furthermore, since CASAC only commented on the first and
second drafts of the Policy Assessment, neither of which included
discussion of a calculated PM2.5 indicator based on a 24-
hour averaging time, CASAC did not have a basis to offer advice
regarding a 24-hour averaging time. In addition, the 24-hour averaging
time is not based on consideration of 24-hours as a relevant exposure
period, but rather as a surrogate for a sub-daily period of 4 hours,
which is consistent with CASAC's advice concerning an averaging time
associated with the use of a PM2.5 mass indicator.
Taking into account the information discussed above with regard to
analyses and conclusions presented in the final Policy Assessment the
Administrator recognized that hourly or sub-daily, multi-hour averaging
times, within daylight hours and excluding hours with relative humidity
above approximately 90 percent, are more directly related than a 24-
hour averaging time to the short-term nature of the perception of PM-
related visibility impairment and the relevant exposure periods for
segments of the viewing public. On the other hand, she recognized that
data quality uncertainties have recently been associated with currently
available instruments that would be used to provide the hourly
PM2.5 mass measurements that would be needed in conjunction
with an averaging time shorter than 24-hours. As a result, while the
Administrator recognized the desirability of a sub-daily averaging
time, she had strong reservations about proposing to set a standard at
this time in terms of a sub-daily averaging time.
In considering the information and analyses related to
consideration of a 24-hour averaging time, the Administrator recognized
that the Policy Assessment concluded that PM2.5 light
extinction calculated on a 24-hour averaging basis is a reasonable and
appropriate surrogate for sub-daily PM2.5 light extinction
calculated on a 4-hour average basis. In light of this finding and the
views of CASAC based on its reviews of the first and second drafts of
the Policy Assessment, the Administrator proposed to set a distinct
secondary standard with a 24-hour averaging time in conjunction with a
PM2.5 visibility index.
iv. Form
As discussed in section VI.D.3 of the proposal, the ``form'' of a
standard defines the air quality statistic that is to be compared to
the level of the standard in determining whether the standard is
achieved. The form of the current 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is
such that the level of the standard is compared to the 3-year average
of the annual 98th percentile value of the measured indicator. The
purpose in averaging for three years is to provide stability from the
occasional effects of inter-annual meteorological variability that can
result in unusually high pollution levels for a particular year. The
use of a multi-year percentile form, among other things, makes the
standard less subject to the possibility of transient violations caused
by statistically unusual indicator values, thereby providing more
stability to the air quality management process that may enhance the
practical effectiveness of efforts to implement the NAAQS. Also, a
percentile form can be used to take into account the number of times an
exposure might occur as part of the judgment on protectiveness in
setting a NAAQS. For all of these reasons, the Policy Assessment
concluded it would be appropriate to consider defining the form of a
distinct secondary standard in terms of a 3-year average of a specified
percentile air quality statistic (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-58).
The urban visibility preference studies that provided results
leading to the range of CPLs being considered in this review offer no
information that addresses the frequency of time that visibility levels
should be below those values. Given this lack of information, and
recognizing that the nature of the public welfare effect is one of
aesthetics and/or feelings of well-being, the Policy Assessment
concluded that it would not be appropriate to consider eliminating all
exposures above the level of the standard and that allowing some number
of hours/days with reduced visibility can reasonably be considered
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-59). In the Visibility Assessment, 90th, 95th,
and 98th percentile forms were assessed for alternative PM light
extinction standards (U.S. EPA, 2010b, section 4.3.3). In considering
these alternative percentiles, the Policy Assessment noted that the
Regional Haze Program targets the 20 percent most impaired days for
improvements in visual air quality in Federal Class I areas. If
improvement in the 20 percent most impaired days were similarly judged
to be appropriate for protecting visual air quality in urban areas, a
percentile well above the 80th percentile would be appropriate to
increase the likelihood that all days in this range would be improved
by control strategies intended to attain the standard. A focus on
improving the 20 percent most impaired days suggests that the 90th
percentile, which represents the median of the distribution of the 20
percent worst days, would be an appropriate form to consider.
Strategies that are implemented so that 90 percent of days have visual
air quality that is at or below the level of the standard would
reasonably be expected to lead to improvements in visual air quality
for the 20 percent most impaired days. Higher percentile values within
the range assessed could have the effect of limiting the occurrence of
days with peak PM-related light extinction in urban areas to a greater
degree. In considering the limited information available from the
public preference studies, the Policy Assessment found no basis to
conclude that it would be appropriate to consider limiting the
occurrence of days with peak PM-related light extinction in urban areas
to a greater degree.
Another aspect of the form discussed in the proposal for a sub-
daily averaging time was whether to include all daylight hours or only
the maximum daily daylight hour(s). The maximum daily daylight 1-hour
or multi-hour form would be most directly protective of the welfare of
people who have limited, infrequent or intermittent exposure to
visibility during the day (e.g., during commutes), but spend most of
their time without an outdoor view. For such people a view of poor
visibility during their morning commute may represent their perception
of the day's visibility conditions until the next time they venture
outside during daylight, which may be hours later or perhaps the next
day. Other people have exposure to visibility conditions throughout the
day. For those people, it might be more appropriate to include every
daylight hour in assessing compliance with a standard, since it is more
likely that each daylight hour could affect their welfare.
The Policy Assessment did not have information regarding the
fraction of the public that has only one or a few opportunities to
experience visibility during the day, nor did it have information on
the role the duration of the observed visibility conditions has on
wellbeing effects associated with those visibility conditions. However,
it is logical to conclude that people with limited opportunities to
experience visibility conditions on a daily basis
[[Page 3199]]
would experience the entire impact associated with visibility based on
their short-term exposure. The impact of visibility for those who have
access to visibility conditions often or continuously during the day
may be based on varying conditions throughout the day.
In light of these considerations, the analyses conducted as part of
the Visibility Assessment analyses included both the maximum daily hour
and the all daylight hours forms. The Policy Assessment noted that
there is a close correspondence between the level of protection
afforded for all 15 urban areas by a maximum daily daylight 1-hour
approach using the 90th percentile form and an all daylight hours
approach combined with the 98th percentile form (U.S. EPA, 2010b,
section 4.1.4). This suggested that reductions in visibility impairment
required to meet either form of the standard would provide protection
to both fractions of the public (i.e., those with limited opportunities
and those with greater opportunities to view PM-related visibility
conditions). CASAC generally supported consideration of both types of
forms without expressing a preference based on its review of
information presented in the second draft Policy Assessment (Samet,
2010d, p. 11).
In conjunction with a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator and alternative 24-hour or sub-daily (e.g., 4-hour) averaging
times, based on the above considerations, and given the lack of
information on and the high degree of uncertainty over the impact on
public welfare of the number of days with visibility impairment over a
year, the Policy Assessment concluded that it would be appropriate to
give primary consideration to a 90th percentile form, averaged over
three years (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-60). Further, in the case of a
multi-hour, sub-daily alternative standard, the Policy Assessment
concluded that it would be appropriate to give primary consideration to
a form based on the maximum daily multi-hour period in conjunction with
the 90th percentile form (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-60). This sub-daily
form would be expected to provide appropriate protection for various
segments of the population, including those with limited opportunities
during a day and those with more extended opportunities over the
daylight hours to experience PM-related visual air quality.
Though CASAC did not provide advice as to a specific form that
would be appropriate, it took note of the alternative forms considered
in that document and encouraged further analyses in the final Policy
Assessment that might help to clarify a basis for selecting from within
the range of forms identified. In considering the available information
and the conclusions in the final Policy Assessment in light of CASAC's
comments, at the time of proposal the Administrator concluded that a
90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years, is appropriate, and
proposed such a form in conjunction with a PM2.5 visibility
index and a 24-hour averaging time.
v. Level
As discussed in section VI.D.4 of the proposal, in considering
appropriate levels for a 24-hour standard defined in terms of a
PM2.5 visibility index and an 90th percentile form, averaged
over 3 years, the Policy Assessment took into account the evidence- and
impact-based considerations discussed above, with a focus on the
results of public perception and attitude surveys related to the
acceptability of various levels of visual air quality and on the
important limitations in the design and scope of such available
studies. The Policy Assessment considered a variety of approaches for
identifying appropriate levels for such a standard, including utilizing
both adjusted and unadjusted CPLs derived from the visibility
preference studies.
The Policy Assessment interpreted the results from the visibility
preferences studies conducted in four urban areas to define a range of
low, middle, and high CPLs for a sub-daily standard (e.g., 1- to 4-hour
averaging time) of 20, 25, and 30 dv, which are approximately
equivalent to PM2.5 light extinction of values of 65, 110,
and 190 Mm-1. The CASAC generally supported this approach,
noting that the ``EPA staff's approach for translating and presenting
the technical evidence and assessment results is logically conceived
and clearly presented. The 20-30 deciview range of levels chosen by EPA
staff as `Candidate Protection Levels' is adequately supported by the
evidence presented'' (Samet, 2010d, p. 11).\177\ The Policy Assessment
also recognized that to define a range of alternative levels that would
be appropriate to consider for a 24-hour calculated PM2.5
light extinction standard, it would be appropriate to consider whether
some adjustment to these CPLs is warranted since these preference
studies cannot be directly interpreted as applying to a 24-hour
exposure period (as noted above and in Policy Assessment section
4.3.1). Considerations related to such adjustments are more
specifically discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ In 2009, the DC Circuit remanded the secondary
PM2.5 standards to the EPA in part because the Agency
failed to identify a target level of protection, even though EPA
staff and CASAC had identified a range of target levels of
protection that were appropriate for consideration. The court
determined that the Agency's failure to identify a target level of
protection as part of its final decision was contrary to the statute
and therefore unlawful, and that it deprived EPA's decision-making
of a reasoned basis. See 559F. 3d at 528-31; see also section VI.A.2
above and the Policy Assessment, section 4.1.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering alternative levels for a sub-daily standard based
directly on the four preference study results, the Policy Assessment
noted that the individual low and high CPLs are in fact generally
reflective of the results from the Denver and Washington, DC studies
respectively, and the middle CPL is very near to the 50th percentile
criteria result from the Phoenix study, which was by far the best of
the studies, providing somewhat more support for the middle CPL.
In considering the results from the four visibility preference
studies, the Policy Assessment recognized that currently available
studies are limited in that they were conducted in only four areas,
three in the U.S. and one in Canada. Further, the Policy Assessment
recognized that available studies provide no information on how the
duration and variation of time a person spends outdoors during the
daytime may impact their judgment of the acceptability of different
degrees of visibility impairment. As such, there is a relatively high
degree of uncertainty associated with using the results of these
studies to inform consideration of a national standard for any specific
averaging time. Nonetheless, the Policy Assessment concluded, as did
CASAC, that these studies are appropriate to use for this purpose (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 4-61).
Using approaches described in section VI.C.4 of the proposal, the
Policy Assessment explored various approaches to adjusting the CPLs
derived from the preference studies to inform alternative levels for a
24-hour standard. These various approaches, based on analyses of 2007-
2009 data from the 15 urban areas assessed in the Visibility
Assessment, focused on estimating CPLs for a 24-hour standard that
would provide generally equivalent protection as that provided by a 4-
hour standard with CPLs of 20, 25, and 30 dv. In conducting these
analyses, staff initially expected that the values of 24-hour average
PM2.5 light extinction and daily maximum daylight 4-hour
average PM2.5 light extinction would differ on any given
day, with the shorter term peak value generally being larger. This
would mean that, in concept, the level of a 24-hour standard should
include a
[[Page 3200]]
downward adjustment compared to the level of a 4-hour standard to
provide generally equivalent protection. As discussed more fully in
section G.5 of Appendix G and summarized below, this initial
expectation was not found to be the case across the range of CPLs
considered. In fact, as shown in Tables G-7 and G-8 of Appendix G and
in the corrected version of Table G-6 found in Frank et al.
(2012b),\178\ in considering estimates aggregated or averaged over all
15 cities as well as the range of city-specific estimates for the
various approaches considered, these analyses indicated that the
generally equivalent 24-hour levels ranged from somewhat below the 4-
hour level to just above the 4-hour level for each of the CPLs.\179\ In
all cases, the range of city-specific estimates of generally equivalent
24-hour levels included the 4-hour level for each of the CPLs of 20,
25, and 30 dv. As noted in the proposal, looking more broadly at these
results could support consideration of using the same CPL for a 24-hour
standard as for a 4-hour standard, recognizing that there is no one
approach that can most closely identify a generally equivalent 24-hour
standard level in each urban area for each CPL. The use of such an
unadjusted CPL for a 24-hour standard would place more emphasis on the
relatively high degree of spatial and temporal variability in relative
humidity and fine particle composition observed in urban areas across
the country, so as to reduce the potential of setting a 24-hour
standard level that would require more than the intended degree of
protection in some areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ Note that the city-specific ranges shown in Table G-6,
Appendix G of the Policy Assessment are incorrectly stated for
Approaches C and E. Drawing from the more detailed and correct
results for Approaches C and E presented in Tables G-7 and G-8,
respectively, the city-specific ranges in Table G-6 for Approach C
should be 17-21 dv for the CPL of 20 dv; 21-25 dv for the CPL of 25
dv; and 24-30 dv for the CPL of 30 dv; the city-specific ranges in
Table G-6 for Approach E should be 17-21 dv for the CPL of 20 dv;
21-26 dv for the CPL of 25 dv; and 25-31 dv for the CPL of 30 dv. In
the EPA's reanalysis comparing 4- vs. 24-hour values, Frank et al.
(2012b) recreated Table G-6 using the correct values from Tables G-7
and G-8.
\179\ As discussed in more detail in Appendix G of the Policy
Assessment, some days have higher values for 24-hour average light
extinction than for daily maximum 4-hour daylight light extinction,
and consequently an adjusted ``equivalent'' 24-hour CPL can be
greater than the original 4-hour CPL. This can happen for two
reasons. First, the use of monthly average historical RH data will
lead to cases in which the f(RH) values used for the calculation of
24-hour average light extinction are higher than all or some of the
four hourly values of f(RH) used to determine daily maximum 4-hour
daylight light extinction on the same day. Second, PM2.5
concentrations may be greater during non-daylight periods than
during daylight hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the appropriate level of a secondary standard
focused on protection from PM-related urban visibility impairment based
on either a 24-hour or a multi-hour, sub-daily (e.g., 4-hour) averaging
time, the EPA has been mindful of the important limitations in the
available evidence from public preference studies. These uncertainties
and limitations are due in part to the small number of stated
preference studies available for this review; the relatively small
number of study participants and the extent to which the study
participants may not be representative of the broader study area
population in some of the studies; and the variations in the specific
materials and methods used in each study such as scene characteristics,
the range of VAQ levels presented to study participants, image
presentation methods and specific wording used to frame the questions
used in the group interviews. In addition the EPA has noted that the
scenic vistas available on a daily basis in many urban areas across the
country generally may not have the inherent visual interest or the
distance between viewer and object of greatest intrinsic value as in
the Denver and Phoenix preference studies, and that there is the
possibility that there could be regional differences in individual
preferences for VAQ.
It is also important to note that as in past reviews, the EPA is
considering a national visibility standard in conjunction with the
Regional Haze Program as a means of achieving appropriate levels of
protection against PM-related visibility impairment in urban, non-
urban, and Federal Class I areas across the country. The EPA recognizes
that programs implemented to meet a national standard focused primarily
on the visibility problems in urban areas can be expected to improve
visual air quality in surrounding non-urban areas as well, as would
programs now being developed to address the requirements of the
Regional Haze Program established for protection of visual air quality
in Federal Class I areas. The EPA also believes that the development of
local programs, such as those in Denver and Phoenix, can continue to be
an effective and appropriate approach to provide additional protection,
beyond that afforded by a national standard, for unique scenic
resources in and around certain urban areas that are particularly
highly valued by people living in those areas.
The Policy Assessment concluded that it is appropriate to give
primary consideration to alternative standard levels toward the upper
end of the ranges identified above for 24-hour and sub-daily standards,
respectively (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-63). Thus, the Policy Assessment
concluded it is appropriate to consider the following alternative
levels: A level of 28 dv or somewhat below, down to 25 dv, for a
standard defined in terms of a calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator, a 90th percentile form, and a 24-hour averaging
time; and a standard level of 30 dv or somewhat below, down to 25 dv,
for a similar standard but with a 4-hour averaging time (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 4-63). The Policy Assessment judged that such standards would
provide appropriate protection against PM-related visibility impairment
primarily in urban areas. The Policy Assessment noted that CASAC
generally supported consideration of the 20-30 dv range as CPLs and,
more specifically, that support for consideration of the upper part of
the range of the CPLs derived from the public preference studies was
expressed by some CASAC Panel members during the public meeting on the
second draft Policy Assessment. The Policy Assessment concluded that
such a standard would be appropriate in conjunction with the Regional
Haze Program to achieve appropriate levels of protection against PM-
related visibility impairment in areas across the country (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 4-63).
Based on the considerations discussed above and in section VI.D.4
of the proposal, and taking into account the advice of CASAC, at the
time of proposal the Administrator concluded that it would be
appropriate to establish a target level of protection--for a standard
defined in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index; a 90th
percentile form averaged over 3 years; and a 24-hour averaging time--
equivalent to the protection afforded by such a sub-daily (i.e., 4-
hour) standard at a level of 30 dv, which is the upper end of the range
of CPLs identified in the Policy Assessment and generally supported by
CASAC. More specifically, the Administrator provisionally concluded
that a 24-hour level of either 30 dv or 28 dv could be construed as
providing such a degree of protection, and that either level was
supported by the available information and was generally consistent
with the advice of CASAC. Thus, the EPA proposed two options for the
level of a new 24-hour standard (defined in terms of a PM2.5
visibility index and a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years) to
provide appropriate protection from PM-related visibility impairment:
Either 30 dv or 28 dv. As noted in the proposal, the option of setting
such a 24-hour standard at a level of 30 dv would reflect recognition
that there is considerable spatial and
[[Page 3201]]
temporal variability in the key factors that determine the value of the
PM2.5 visibility index in any given urban area, such that
there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty as to the most
appropriate approach to use in selecting a 24-hour standard level that
would be generally equivalent to a specific 4-hour standard level.
Selecting a 24-hour standard level of 30 dv would reflect a judgment
that such substantial degrees of variability and uncertainty should be
reflected in a higher standard level than would be appropriate if the
underlying information were more consistent and certain. Alternatively,
the option of setting such a 24-hour standard at a level of 28 dv would
reflect placing more weight on statistical analyses of aggregated data
from across the study cities and not placing as much emphasis on the
city-to-city variability as a basis for determining an appropriate
degree of protection on a national scale.
The information available for the Administrator to consider when
setting the secondary PM standard raises a number of uncertainties.
While CASAC supported moving forward with a new standard on the basis
of the available information, CASAC also recognized these
uncertainties, referencing the discussion of key uncertainties and
areas for future research in the second draft of the Policy Assessment.
In discussing areas of future research, CASAC stated that: ``The range
of 50% acceptability values discussed as possible standards are based
on just four studies (Figure 4-2), which, given the large spread in
values, provide only limited confidence that the benchmark candidate
protection levels cover the appropriate range of preference values.
Studies using a range of urban scenes (including, but not limited to,
iconic scenes--``valued scenic elements'' such as those in the
Washington, DC study), should also be considered'' (Samet, 2010d, p.
12). The EPA solicited comment on how the Administrator should weigh
those uncertainties as well as any additional comments and information
to inform her consideration of these uncertainties.
In addition, the EPA solicited comment on a number of other issues
related to the level of the standard, including:
(1) Both of the proposed levels and the various approaches to
identifying generally equivalent levels upon which the alternative
proposed levels are based.
(2) A broader range of levels down to 25 dv in conjunction with
a 24-hour averaging time.
(3) A range of alternative levels from 30 to 25 dv in
conjunction with a sub-daily (e.g., 4-hour) averaging time.
(4) The strengths and limitations associated with the public
preference studies and the use of these studies to inform the
selection of a range of levels that could be used to provide an
appropriate degree of public welfare protection when combined with
the other elements of the standard (i.e. indicator, form and
averaging time).
(5) Specific aspects of the public preference studies, including
the extent to which the 50 percent acceptability criterion is an
appropriate basis for establishing target protection levels in the
context of establishing a distinct secondary NAAQS to address PM-
related visibility impairment in urban areas; how the variability
among preference studies in the extent to which study participants
may be representative of the broader study area population should be
weighed in the context of considering these studies in reaching
proposed conclusions on a distinct secondary NAAQS; and the extent
to which the ranges of VAQ levels presented to participants in each
of the studies may have influenced study results and on how this
aspect of the study designs should appropriately be weighed in the
context of considering these studies in the context of this review.
vi. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Regarding PM Standards To
Protect Visibility
At the time of proposal, based on the considerations described
above, the Administrator proposed to revise the suite of secondary PM
standards by adding a distinct standard for PM2.5 to address
PM-related visibility impairment, focused primarily on visibility in
urban areas. This proposed visibility standard was to be defined in
terms of a PM2.5 visibility index, which would use measured
PM2.5 mass, combined with PM2.5 speciation data
and relative humidity data, to calculate PM2.5 light
extinction, translated into the deciview (dv) scale; a 24-hour
averaging time; a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years; and a
level of 28-30 dv.
vii. Related Technical Analysis
At the time of proposal, the EPA conducted a two-pronged technical
analysis of the relationships between the proposed PM2.5
visibility index standard and the current 24-hour PM2.5
mass-based standard (Kelly, et al., 2012a). This analysis was designed
to provide technical information to inform key issues related to
implementing a distinct secondary standard for visibility as proposed.
Specifically, the EPA recognized that significant technical issues were
likely to arise for new or modified emissions sources conducting air
quality analyses for purposes of demonstrating that they would not
cause or contribute to a violation of the visibility standard under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Such a
demonstration for the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility
index standard could require each PSD applicant to predict, via air
quality modeling, the increase in visibility impairment, in terms of
the proposed PM2.5 visibility index, that would result from
the proposed source's emissions in conjunction with an assessment of
existing air quality (visibility impairment) conditions in terms of the
proposed PM2.5 visibility index. The EPA noted that if this
demonstration were to be attempted using the six-step procedure that
the EPA proposed to use for calculating PM2.5 visibility
index design values from monitored air concentrations of
PM2.5 components, significant technical issues with the
modeling procedures could arise.
To address these technical issues, the EPA sought to explore
whether sources that met the requirements pertaining to the 24-hour
mass-based standard of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ would also meet the
requirements pertaining to the proposed visibility index standard. As
described in Kelly et al. (2012a), the first prong of the analysis
addressed aspects of a PSD significant impact analysis by evaluating
whether an individual source's impact resulting in a small increase in
the ambient PM2.5 concentration would produce a comparably
small increase in visibility impairment. This analysis included
estimates of PM2.5 speciation profiles based on direct
PM2.5 emission profiles for a broad range of source
categories and for theoretical upper and lower bound scenarios.
The second prong of the analysis addressed aspects of a PSD
cumulative impact analysis by exploring the relationship between the
three-year design values for the existing 24-hour PM2.5
standard and coincident design values for the proposed PM2.5
visibility index standard based on recent air quality data. This aspect
of the analysis indicated that increases in 24-hour PM2.5
design values generally correspond to increases in visibility index
design values, and vice-versa. The analysis further explored the
appropriateness of using a demonstration that a source does not cause
or contribute to a violation of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard
as a surrogate for a demonstration that a source does not cause or
contribute to a violation of the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index standard. This analysis was based on 2008 to 2010 air
quality data, and compared the proposed level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ for the
24-hour PM2.5 standard and for illustrative purposes an
alternative standard level of 12 [micro]g/m\3\ for the annual
PM2.5 standard with the
[[Page 3202]]
proposed levels of 28 or 30 dv for the secondary PM2.5
visibility index standard with a 24-hour averaging time and a 90th
percentile form. The results indicated that all (for the 30 dv level)
or nearly all (for the 28 dv level) areas in attainment of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard would also have been in attainment of the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard.
Based on this technical analysis, the EPA proposed that there is
sufficient evidence that a demonstration that a source does not cause
or contribute to a violation of the mass-based 24-hour PM2.5
standard serves as a suitable surrogate for demonstrating that a source
does not cause or contribute to a violation of the proposed secondary
24-hour PM2.5 visibility index standard under the PSD
program. As such, the EPA proposed to conclude that many or all sources
undergoing PSD review for PM2.5 could rely upon their
analysis for demonstrating that they do not cause or contribute to a
violation of the mass-based 24-hour PM2.5 standard to also
show that they do not cause or contribute to a violation of the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard, if a
distinct visibility standard were finalized.
Although this proposed ``surrogacy policy'' was designed to address
an implementation-related issue, the second prong of the technical
analysis addresses the broader technical question of the relationship
between the existing 24-hour PM2.5 standard and the proposed
PM2.5 visibility index standard in terms of the degree of
protection likely to be afforded by each standard. Specifically, the
analysis indicated that depending on the level of the proposed
PM2.5 visibility index standard, the existing 24-hour
PM2.5 mass-based standard would be as protective or in some
areas more protective of visibility than a distinct secondary standard
set within the range of levels proposed. Commenters on the proposed
PM2.5 visibility index explored the implications of this
analysis at length, as discussed further below in section VI.C.1.f. For
this reason, the analysis is described in some detail here.
Kelly et al. (2012a) noted that the relationship between design
values for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and the proposed
secondary visibility index standard is not obvious a priori because of
differences in design value calculations for the standards. However,
closer examination of this relationship indicated that increases or
decreases in 24-hour PM2.5 design values correspond,
respectively, to increases or decreases in visibility index values.
Specifically, based on measurements from 102 sites with complete data
from 2008-2010, Kelly et al. (2012a) found linear correlations between
the 24-hour PM2.5 design values and the visibility index
design values with r\2\ values ranging from 0.65 to 0.98 across these
sites, with an average r\2\ value of 0.75 across all U.S. sites.
Moreover, the data indicated that no design value existed where the
visibility index design value exceeded 30 dv, but the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ was attained.
Visibility index design values for certain sites in the Industrial
Midwest were shown to exceed 28 dv despite the fact that the 24-hour
PM2.5 design values for these sites were below 35 [micro]g/
m\3\. This was attributed to the combination of high nitrate and
sulfate fractions, substantial RH adjustment factors, and
PM2.5 distribution characteristics that led to relatively
high visibility index design values for a given 24-hour
PM2.5 design value for counties in the Industrial
Midwest.\180\ Kelly et al. (2012a) concluded that the ``overall, design
values based on 2008-2010 data suggest that counties that attain 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ would attain the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS level of 30
dv and generally attain the level of 28 dv'' (pp. 17-18). In addition,
the Kelly et al. analysis indicated that at sites that violated both
the 24-hour PM2.5 level and the proposed visibility index 30
dv level, the proposed level of 30 dv would likely be attained if
PM2.5 concentrations were reduced such that the 24-hour
PM2.5 level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ was attained (Kelly et al.,
2012a, p.15).\181\ A key implication of this analysis, therefore, was
that within the range of levels proposed by the EPA for a visibility
index standard (28-30 dv), the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35
[micro]g/m\3\ would be controlling in almost all (at 28 dv) or all (at
30 dv) instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ Kelly et al. (2012a) also noted that ``Regional reductions
in sulfate PM2.5 due to emission controls planned as part
of national rules as well as emission reductions associated with
potential annual standard violations are expected to improve
visibility in this region'' (p. 17).
\181\ The analysis also showed that attaining the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ would result in
achieving a lower PM2.5 visibility index level in certain
areas of the country, largely western areas, than would be achieved
in other areas of the country. This is due to differences in the
composition of ambient PM2.5 and the lower relative
humidity in those areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Other (Non-Visibility) PM-related Welfare Effects
In the 2006 review, the EPA concluded that there was insufficient
information to consider a distinct secondary standard based on PM-
related impacts to ecosystems, materials damage and soiling, and
climatic and radiative processes (71 FR 61144, October 17, 2006).
Specifically, there was a lack of evidence linking various non-
visibility welfare effects to specific levels of ambient PM. In that
review, to provide a level of protection for these welfare-related
effects, the secondary standards were set equal to the revised primary
standards to directionally improve the level of protection afforded
vegetation, ecosystems, and materials (71 FR 61210, October 17, 2006).
This section briefly outlines key conclusions discussed more fully
in section VI.E of the proposal regarding the non-visibility welfare
effects of PM. These conclusions relate to the climate, ecological
(including effects on plants, soil and nutrient cycling, wildlife and
water) and materials damage effects of PM. For all of these effects,
the Policy Assessment concluded that there is insufficient information
at this time to revise the current suite of secondary standards. It is
important to note that the Policy Assessment explicitly excluded
discussion of the effects associated with deposited particulate matter
components of NOX and SOx and their
transformation products which are addressed fully in the joint review
of the secondary NO2 and SO2 NAAQS.
a. Evidence of Other Welfare Effects Related to PM
With regard to the role of PM in climate, the proposal noted that
there is considerable ongoing research focused on understanding aerosol
contributions to changes in global mean temperature and precipitation
patterns. The Integrated Science Assessment concluded ``that a causal
relationship exists between PM and effects on climate, including both
direct effects on radiative forcing and indirect effects that involve
cloud feedbacks that influence precipitation formation and cloud
lifetimes'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.10). These effects are
discussed in more detail in section VI.E.1 of the proposal, which
provides information on the major aerosol components of interest for
climate processes, including black carbon (BC), organic carbon (OC),
sulfates, nitrates, and mineral dusts, and the nature, magnitude, and
direction (e.g., cooling vs. warming) of various aerosol impacts on
climate.\182\ The Policy Assessment concluded that aerosols alter
climate processes directly through radiative forcing and by indirect
effects on cloud brightness, changes in precipitation, and
[[Page 3203]]
possible changes in cloud lifetimes (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-10).
Further, the Policy Assessment noted that the major aerosol components
that contribute to climate processes (i.e. BC, OC, sulfate, nitrate and
mineral dusts) vary in their reflectivity, forcing efficiencies and
even in the direction of climate forcing, though there is an overall
net climate cooling associated with aerosols in the global atmosphere
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.2.10). The Policy Assessment concluded that
the current mass-based PM2.5 and PM10 secondary
standards were not an appropriate or effective means of focusing
protection against PM-associated climate effects due to these
differences in components (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-11). In addition, in
light of the significant uncertainties in current scientific
information and the lack of sufficient data, the Policy Assessment
concluded it is not currently feasible to conduct a quantitative
analysis for the purpose of informing revisions of the current
secondary PM standards based on climate (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-11).
Overall the Policy Assessment concluded that there is insufficient
information at this time to base a national ambient standard on climate
impacts associated with current ambient concentrations of PM or its
constituents (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-11, -12).\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ Atmospheric PM is referred to as aerosols in the remainder
of this section to be consistent with the Integrated Science
Assessment.
\183\ This conclusion would apply for both the secondary
(welfare-based) and the primary (health-based) standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to ecological effects, the proposal noted that several
ecosystem components (e.g., plants, soils and nutrient cycling,
wildlife and water) are impacted by PM air pollution, which may alter
the services provided by affected ecosystems. Ecological effects
include both direct effects due to deposition (e.g., wet, dry or
occult) to vegetation surfaces and indirect effects occurring via
deposition to ecosystem soils or surface waters where the deposited
constituents of PM then interact with biological organisms. Some of the
ecological effects considered in this review include direct effects to
metabolic processes of plant foliage; contribution to total metal
loading resulting in alteration of soil biogeochemistry and
microbiology, and plant and animal growth and reproduction; and
contribution to total organics loading resulting in bioaccumulation and
biomagnification across trophic levels. Section VI.E.2 of the proposal
summarizes key findings related to:
(1) Impacts on plants and the ecosystem services they provide
due to deposition of PM to vegetative surfaces, which alters the
radiation received by the plant, and uptake of deposited PM
components by plants from soil or foliage, which can lead to stress
and decreased photosynthesis;
(2) Impacts on ecosystem support services such as nutrient
cycling, products such as crops and the regulation of flooding and
water quality;
(3) Impacts on wildlife, especially due to biomagnification of
heavy metals (especially Hg) up the food chain and bioconcentration
of POPs and PBDEs; and
(4) Impacts of deposited PM, especially metals and organics, on
the ecosystem services provided by water bodies, including primary
production, provision of fresh water, regulation of climate and
floods, recreational fishing and water purification.
The proposal noted that the Integrated Science Assessment had
concluded that ecological evidence is sufficient to conclude that a
causal relationship is likely to exist between deposition of PM and a
variety of effects on individual organisms and ecosystems (U.S. EPA,
2009a, sections 2.5.3 and 9.4.7), and also noted that vegetation and
other ecosystem components are affected more by particulate chemistry
than size fraction. However, the proposal also pointed to the
Integrated Science Assessment conclusion that it is generally difficult
to characterize the nature and magnitude of effects and to quantify
relationships between ambient concentrations of PM and ecosystem
response due to significant data gaps and uncertainties as well as
considerable variability that exists in the components of PM and their
various ecological effects. There are few studies that link ambient PM
concentrations to observed effect. Most direct ecosystem effects
associated with particulate pollution occur in severely polluted areas
near industrial point sources (quarries, cement kilns, metal smelting)
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 9.4.3 and 9.4.5.7).
Based on the evidence available at this time, the proposal noted
the following key conclusions in the Policy Assessment:
(1) A number of significant environmental effects that either
have already occurred or are currently occurring are linked to
deposition of chemical constituents found in ambient PM.
(2) Ecosystem services can be adversely impacted by PM in the
environment, including supporting, provisioning, regulating and
cultural services.
(3) The lack of sufficient information to relate specific
ambient concentrations of particulate metals and organics to a
degree of impairment of a specific ecological endpoint hinders the
identification of a range of appropriate indicators, levels, forms
and averaging times of a distinct secondary standard to protect
against associated effects.
(4) Data from regionally-based ecological studies can be used to
establish probable local, regional and/or global sources of
deposited PM components and their concurrent effects on ecological
receptors.
The proposal noted that the Policy Assessment had concluded that
the currently available information is insufficient for purposes of
assessing the adequacy of the protection for ecosystems afforded by the
current suite of PM secondary standards or establishing a distinct
national standard for ambient PM based on ecosystem effects of
particulates not addressed in the NOX/SOX
secondary review (e.g., metals, organics) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-24).
Furthermore, the Policy Assessment had concluded that in the absence of
information providing a basis for specific standards in terms of
particle composition, the observations continue to support retaining an
appropriate degree of control on both fine and coarse particles to help
address effects to ecosystems and ecosystem components associated with
PM (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-24).
With regard to materials damage, the proposal discussed effects
associated with deposition of PM, including both physical damage
(materials damage effects) and impaired aesthetic qualities (soiling
effects). As with the other categories of welfare effects discussed
above, the Integrated Science Assessment concluded that evidence is
sufficient to support a causal relationship between PM and effects on
materials (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.5.4 and 9.5.4). The deposition
of PM can physically affect materials, adding to the effects of natural
weathering processes, by potentially promoting or accelerating the
corrosion of metals, by degrading paints and by deteriorating building
materials such as stone, concrete and marble (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.5). In addition, the deposition of ambient PM can reduce the
aesthetic appeal of buildings and objects through soiling. The Policy
Assessment made the following observations:
(1) Materials damage and soiling that occur through natural
weathering processes are enhanced by exposure to atmospheric
pollutants, most notably sulfur dioxide and particulate sulfates.
(2) While ambient particles play a role in the corrosion of
metals and in the weathering of materials, no quantitative
relationships between ambient particle concentrations and rates of
damage have been established.
(3) While soiling associated with fine and course particles can
result in increased cleaning frequency and repainting of surfaces,
no quantitative relationships between particle characteristics and
the frequency of cleaning or repainting have been established.
(4) Limited new data on the role of microbial colonizers in
biodeterioration
[[Page 3204]]
processes and contributions of black crust to soiling are not
sufficient for quantitative analysis.
(5) While several studies in the PM Integrated Science
Assessment and NOX/SOX Integrated Science
Assessment suggest that particles can promote corrosion of metals
there remains insufficient evidence to relate corrosive effects to
specific particulate levels or to establish a quantitative
relationship between ambient PM and metal degradation. With respect
to damage to calcareous stone, numerous studies suggest that wet or
dry deposition of particles and dry deposition of gypsum particles
can enhance natural weathering processes.
The Policy Assessment concluded that none of the new evidence in
this review called into question the adequacy of the current standards
for protecting against material damage effects, that such effects could
play no quantitative role in determining whether revisions to the
secondary PM NAAQS are appropriate at this time, and that observations
continue to support retaining an appropriate degree of control on both
fine and coarse particles to help address materials damage and soiling
associated with PM (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-29).
b. CASAC Advice
In advising the EPA regarding the non-visibility welfare effects,
CASAC stated that it ``concurs with the Policy Assessment's conclusions
that while these effects are important, and should be the focus of
future research efforts, there is not currently a strong technical
basis to support revisions of the current standards to protect against
these other welfare effects'' (Samet, 2010c). More specifically, with
regard to climate impacts, CASAC concluded that while there is
insufficient information on which to base a national standard, the
causal relationship is established and the risk of impacts is high, so
further research on a regional basis is urgently needed (Samet, 2010c,
p. 5). CASAC also noted that reducing certain aerosol components could
lead to increased radiative forcing and regional climate warming while
having a beneficial effect on PM-related visibility. As a consequence,
CASAC noted that a secondary standard directed toward reducing PM-
related visibility impairment has the potential to be accompanied by
regional warming if light scattering aerosols are preferentially
targeted.
With regard to ecological effects, CASAC concluded that the
published literature is insufficient to support a national standard for
PM effects on ecosystem services (Samet, 2010c, p.23). CASAC noted that
the best-established effects are related to particles containing
nitrogen and sulfur, which are being considered in the EPA's ongoing
review of the secondary NAAQS for NOX/SOX. With
regard to PM-related effects on materials, CASAC concluded that the
published literature, including literature published since the last
review, is insufficient either to call into question the current level
of the standard or to support any specific national standard for PM
effects on materials (Samet, 2010c, p.23). Nonetheless, with regard to
both types of effects, CASAC noted the importance of maintaining an
appropriate degree of control of both fine and coarse particles to
address such effects, even in the current absence of sufficient
information to develop a standard.
c. Summary of Proposed Decisions Regarding Other Welfare Effects
Based on the above considerations and the advice of CASAC, at the
time of proposal the Administrator provisionally concluded that it
would not be appropriate to establish any distinct secondary PM
standards to address other non-visibility PM-related welfare effects,
including ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate
impacts. Nonetheless, the Administrator concurred with the conclusions
of the Policy Assessment and CASAC advice that it is important to
maintain an appropriate degree of control of both fine and coarse
particles to address such effects. Noting that there is an absence of
information that would support any different standards, the
Administrator proposed generally to retain the current suite of
secondary PM standards \184\ to address non-visibility welfare effects.
Specifically, the Administrator proposed to retain all aspects of the
current secondary 24-hour PM2.5 and PM10
standards. With regard to the secondary annual PM2.5
standard, the Administrator proposed to retain the level of the current
standard and to revise the form of the standard by removing the option
for spatial averaging consistent with this change to the primary annual
PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ As summarized in section VI.A and Table 1 above, the
current suite of secondary PM standards includes annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards and a 24-hour PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Public Comments on Proposed Decisions Regarding Secondary PM
Standards
The EPA received a large number of comments on its proposed
decisions with regard to secondary PM standards, with the large
majority of those comments focusing on the proposal to set a distinct
standard to protect against visibility impairment, discussed below in
section VI.C.1. Very few commenters addressed the proposal to retain
the existing secondary standards for non-visibility welfare effects,
discussed below in section VI.C.2. As discussed in section VI.D. below,
the Administrator has decided to retain the current suite of secondary
PM standards generally, while revising only the form of the secondary
annual PM2.5 standard to remove the option for spatial
averaging consistent with this change to the primary annual
PM2.5 standard. The Administrator has also decided, contrary
to what was proposed, not to establish a distinct secondary standard to
address PM-related visibility impairment. This section discusses EPA's
responses to the comments EPA received on its proposal, and the
rationale behind the Administrator's final decisions is discussed in
section VI.D. below.
1. Comments on Proposed Secondary Standard for Visibility Protection
a. Overview of Comments
Among those commenting on the proposal to set a distinct secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard, a large majority of
commenters, including more than 25 state and local agencies; regional
organizations such as NACAA, NESCAUM, and WESTAR; and industry
commenters, such as ACC, API, BP, EPRI, NCBA, NEDA-CAP, NMA, NSSGA, and
UARG, opposed setting a distinct secondary standard for visibility at
this time. Many commenters in this group expressed the view that such a
standard was not needed, primarily on the basis that adequate
protection was provided by the existing 24-hour secondary
PM2.5 standard. Some of these commenters also expressed
legal concerns with the nature of the proposed standard. Other
commenters in this group supported a distinct secondary standard for
visibility in concept, but expressed the view that it was premature to
set such a standard pending collection of additional visibility
preference study data and the resolution of a number of key technical
issues. Support for setting such a distinct secondary standard for
visibility at this time came from a second group of commenters,
including the Department of the Interior (National Park Service),
several states, the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU),
the National Tribal Air Association (NTAA), environmental organizations
such as the Appalachian Mountain Club, National Parks Conservation
Association, Earthjustice (AMC, et al.) and the League of Women
[[Page 3205]]
Voters of Texas. These commenters argued that the existing secondary
standards are not sufficiently protective of visual air quality, and
that a distinct secondary standard similar to the proposed visibility
index standard is both necessary and appropriate to ensure adequate
protection of visibility.
Commenters in both groups expressed concerns about various aspects
of the proposed distinct secondary standard, including the indicator,
averaging time, level, and form. In addition, a large number of
commenters, including commenters from both groups, expressed concern
and/or confusion over the relationship between the Regional Haze
Program and the proposed distinct secondary standard for visibility,
raising issues such as analytical differences in methods between the
programs, monitoring issues, and other implementation challenges.
A discussion of the significant comments outlined above, including
EPA's responses to the comments, is presented here, with more detailed
discussion in the Response to Comments document. Comments relating to
the specific elements of the proposed standard--indicator, averaging
time, form and level--are discussed in sections VI.C.1.b-e,
respectively. Comments related to the need for a distinct secondary
standard at this time are discussed in section VI.C.f. Legal issues
raised by commenters opposed to setting a secondary standard based on
the proposed visibility index are discussed in section VI.C.g. Finally,
comments related to the relationship between a distinct secondary
standard and the Regional Haze Program are discussed in section
VI.C.h.\185\ While the EPA concludes in section VI.D below to retain
the current suite of secondary PM2.5 standards, the
appropriateness of the protection that would be provided by the
proposed PM2.5 visibility index standard, and the
relationship between this degree of protection and that provided by the
current secondary 24-hour secondary PM2.5 standard, are key
elements in the Administrator's decision, and are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Comments pertaining to implementation issues, which the
Administrator may not consider in making decisions about setting
national ambient air quality standards, are discussed in the
Response to Comments document, as are comments regarding monitoring
issues related to the proposed distinct visibility index standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Indicator
Numerous commenters, both those supporting a distinct secondary
standard and those opposed to setting such a standard, expressed views
on the suitability of utilizing a PM2.5 calculated light
extinction indicator for the standard as proposed. While these groups
of commenters differed in terms of their views on the appropriateness
of using calculated PM2.5 light extinction as the basis for
the indicator rather than relying on direct measurements of
PM2.5 light extinction, commenters from both groups
expressed concern over specific elements of the proposed method of
calculating PM2.5 light extinction. In particular,
commenters expressed differing views on which IMPROVE algorithm should
be utilized; whether it is appropriate to exclude coarse particles from
the indicator; and whether the proposed protocols for incorporating
data on relative humidity and PM2.5 species are
appropriate.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ Some commenters expressed concern about the omission of
other contributors to visibility impairment from the visibility
index, as discussed in the Response to Comments document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. Comments on Calculated vs. Directly Measured Light Extinction
The majority of commenters in both groups noted the uncertainties
associated with relying on a calculated light extinction indicator and
stated a preference for utilizing direct light extinction measurements.
However, recognizing the limitations on applying direct measurements at
present, commenters supporting the proposal to set a distinct standard
argued that relying on ``calculated light extinction is a reasonable
first approach'' (DOI, p. 2). These commenters pointed to the advice of
CASAC, which had acknowledged that it was not possible for the EPA to
develop an FRM for direct measurement of light extinction within the
time frame of this review and had concluded that relying on a
calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator represented a
reasonable approach that could be implemented sooner than a directly
measured indicator. These commenters generally supported the proposal
to adopt a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator, at
least as an interim approach.
Commenters opposed to setting a distinct standard generally argued
that it was inappropriate to rely on a calculated light extinction
indicator rather than direct measurements. Some of these commenters
argued that the proposed calculated light extinction indictor is ill
suited for a bright line standard because the method uses average
humidity and a reconstructed visibility measurement calculated from
PM2.5 speciation filter analysis, rather than measuring what
is actually observed by individuals. A number of commenters advocated
postponing setting a distinct standard until an approach based on
direct light extinction measurements can be adopted. Many of these
commenters stated that relying on direct light extinction measurements
would enable a standard to be based on a shorter averaging time, either
1-hour or sub-daily (4 to 6 hours), consistent with the more
instantaneous nature of perceptions of visual air quality and the
advice of CASAC in this review.
The EPA generally agrees with commenters that an indicator based on
directly measured light extinction would provide the most direct link
between PM in the ambient air and PM-related light extinction. However,
as noted at the time of proposal and in accordance with the advice of
CASAC, the EPA has concluded that this is not an appropriate option in
this review because a suitable specification of currently available
equipment or performance-based verification procedures could not be
developed in the time frame of this review. Moreover, CASAC concluded
that relying on a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator based on PM2.5 chemical speciation and relative
humidity data represented a reasonable approach. The inputs that are
necessary include measurements that are available through existing
monitoring networks and approved protocols. Thus, the EPA remains
confident that the available evidence demonstrates that a strong
correspondence exists between calculated PM2.5 light
extinction and PM-related visibility impairment. Furthermore, CASAC
agreed, noting that the proposed calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator based on the original IMPROVE algorithm ``appears
to be a reasonable approach for estimating hourly light extinction''
(Samet, 2010d, p. 11) and ``its reliance on procedures that have
already been implemented in the CSN and routinely collected continuous
PM2.5 data suggest that it could be implemented much sooner
than a directly measured indicator'' (Samet, 2010d, p. iii). Thus it
would not be appropriate to postpone setting a distinct secondary
standard until an approach based on direct light extinction
measurements could be adopted.
ii. Comments on Specific Aspects of Calculated Light Extinction
Indicator
Some commenters, even those supporting the adoption of a calculated
light extinction indicator, also expressed concern over specific
aspects of the proposed indicator. First, a
[[Page 3206]]
number of commenters expressed concern over the proposal to use the
original IMPROVE algorithm as the basis for the calculated light
extinction indicator. These commenters noted that the original IMPROVE
algorithm has been shown to have consistent biases at both low and high
levels of light extinction. In particular, these commenters expressed
concern with the algorithm's bias at higher levels of light extinction,
which they pointed out were the conditions that might be encountered on
hazier days in urban areas.
Some commenters supported use of the revised IMPROVE algorithm.
These commenters noted that the revised equation has been through a
peer review which confirmed that it is based on the best science and
corrects the biases inherent in the original algorithm. Commenters also
noted that this revised algorithm has been widely incorporated into
Regional Haze plans, and urged the EPA to use this same equation in the
visibility index for the sake of consistency: ``EPA approved this
approach for regional haze and does not dispute its greater accuracy.
Therefore, a national secondary ambient air quality standard based on
criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge
logically should not revert to the original IMPROVE algorithm''
(Oklahoma DEQ, p. 2). Other commenters noted that both the original and
the revised IMPROVE algorithms were designed in support of the Regional
Haze Program which is focused on largely rural Class I areas, and that
neither algorithm is necessarily suitable for urban areas. Noting that
the EPA has not thoroughly evaluated the applicability of either
IMPROVE algorithm in urban areas, these commenters urged additional
research to evaluate the suitability of either algorithm (or an
alternative approach) in urban areas.
Second, a number of commenters argued that exclusion of coarse PM
from the calculated light extinction indicator was inappropriate. These
commenters noted that coarse particulate matter is an important
contributor to visibility impairment in many areas, particularly in the
western U.S., and that the levels of ``acceptable'' visual air quality
derived from the visibility preference studies reflected total light
extinction due to the full mix of particles (including coarse PM) in
ambient air. A few commenters noted that due to the exclusion of coarse
particles, a ``deciview'' calculated for purposes of the proposed
PM2.5 visibility index is inconsistent with the unit as
conventionally defined under the Regional Haze Program. Other
commenters, however, supported the proposal to exclude coarse PM from
the calculated light extinction indicator, noting the important role
that PM2.5 plays in urban visibility and arguing it would be
more difficult to control the contribution of coarse particle sources
such as wind-blown dust to urban visibility impairment.
Third, some commenters questioned why the EPA was proposing to rely
on monthly average relative humidity (f(RH)) values when hourly
humidity data are widely available, particularly in urban areas. One
commenter argued that the EPA's proposed approach involves ``guessing
relative humidity'' rather than relying on accurate, readily available
measurements (Oklahoma DEQ, p. 1). The commenter stated that since
relative humidity is highly variable and weather dependent, the
proposed approach ``effectively undermines the capacity of the
prescribed monitoring regime to identify periods when PM2.5
adversely affects visibility.'' Other commenters supported this view,
noting that relative humidity can vary substantially even within a 24-
hour period, and that light extinction can be very sensitive to these
changes. These commenters recommended that hourly or daily humidity
measurements should be utilized in place of the proposed monthly
average f(RH) values.
Some commenters also recommended that the EPA should utilize a 90
percent relative humidity screen rather than 95 percent cap for
purposes of eliminating periods in which visibility impairment is due
to rain or fog. These commenters claimed that under a 95 percent cap,
both the average f(RH) values and the PM2.5 visibility index
values could be inflated in locations frequently affected by fog and/or
precipitation. These commenters preferred the approach of excluding
hours with relative humidity above 90 percent on the grounds that this
approach would eliminate foggy/rainy hours irrespective of the
frequency of occurrence.
The EPA does not agree with commenters who advocated using the
revised IMPROVE algorithm. Both the original and the revised IMPROVE
algorithms have been evaluated by comparing the calculated estimates of
light extinction with coincident optical measurements. As discussed
above in section VI.B.1.a.i, the revised algorithm was developed to
address observed biases in the predictions using the original algorithm
under very low and very high light extinction conditions, with further
modifications and additions to better account for differences in
particle composition and aging in remote areas.\187\ However, the EPA
does not believe that these same modifications and additions would
necessarily be appropriate for calculating light extinction in urban
areas. Instead, the EPA considers the original algorithm to be suitable
for purposes of calculating urban light-extinction, although some
adjustments may be appropriate for urban environments as well. The
reasons why the original algorithm is suited to urban environments are
discussed further below, along with adjustments that the EPA believes
are likely appropriate based on the current (limited) state of
knowledge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ Specifically, the revised IMPROVE algorithm incorporates
additional terms to account for particles representing the different
dry extinction and water uptake (f(RH)) from two size modes of
sulfate, nitrate and organic mass, as well as adding a term for
hygroscopic sea salt. There are also adjustments for the calculation
of OM as 1.8*OC compared to 1.4*OC in the original algorithm to
better account for the more aged PM organic components found in
remote areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the EPA considers that the multiplier of 1.8 used to convert
OC to OM in the revised IMPROVE algorithm is too high for urban
environments. The EPA is aware that there has been considerable debate
within the research community about the appropriate multiplier to use
to best represent urban environments. As discussed in Appendix F of the
Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a), the EPA used the SANDWICH mass
closure approach (Frank, 2006) in the Urban Focused Visibility
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010b) for purposes of calculating maximum
daylight hourly PM2.5 light extinction and evaluated which
multiplier would produce 24-hour results most similar to the SANDWICH
approach using 24-hour PM2.5 organic carbon derived from the
new Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) carbon monitoring protocol
established in 2007.\188\ Analyses presented in Appendix F of the
Policy Assessment indicate that a multiplier of 1.6 is most appropriate
for purposes of comparing the hourly PM2.5 light extinction
with calculated 24-hour extinction (see Appendix F, section F.6 for a
full explanation). The EPA also considers this higher multiplier to be
a better approach for urban CSN monitoring sites where the new
measurements of organic carbon tend to be lower than those produced by
the older NIOSH-type monitoring protocol
[[Page 3207]]
(Malm, 2011). A multiplier of 1.6 is now used to calculate OM from OC
measurements at CSN sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ Starting in 2007, the CSN adopted the IMPROVE monitoring
protocol for the measurement of organic and elemental carbon using
the IMPROVE analytical method and an IMPROVE-like sampler. The
transition was completed in 2009. (See ``Modification of Carbon
Procedures in the Speciation Network,'' http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/spec/faqcarbon.pdf.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the time of proposal, the EPA proposed to use the original
IMPROVE algorithm with its 1.4 multiplier for converting OC to OM, but
requested comment on whether this value was appropriate. Comments
received by the Agency generally indicate that the OC-to-OM multiplier
of 1.4 used in the original IMPROVE algorithm is too low for urban
areas. Based on the analyses presented in Appendix F of the Policy
Assessment, the EPA agrees with these commenters. However, the EPA also
believes that it would be inappropriate to use a multiplier as high as
1.8 to convert OC to OM in urban areas. As noted by commenters, the
organic mass contribution to visibility impairment can be large, and
generally OM is significantly larger in urban areas compared to
surrounding rural areas.\189\ Because a large portion of the organic
component of urban PM results from nearby emissions sources, the total
OM mass is generally closer to the measured OC from which it is
derived. This means it is appropriate to use a smaller multiplier to
convert OC to OM in urban areas as compared to the value of 1.8 used in
the revised algorithm, which is tailored to remote areas. The CASAC
noted that urban OM includes fresh emissions and the EPA concluded in
the Visibility Assessment that ``the original version is considered
more representative of urban situations when emissions are still fresh
rather than aged as at remote IMPROVE sites'' (U.S. EPA, 2010b, p. 3-
19). Although the revised algorithm represents the best science of
estimating extinction in remote areas with its aged aerosol, the
commenters did not address how the EPA should modify the revised
algorithm to best represent the more complex and different urban
aerosol, particularly for OM. In light of all of these considerations,
in particular the analyses the EPA conducted for Appendix F of the
Policy Assessment and the fact that the monitoring method for organic
carbon has recently changed in the CSN network, the EPA judges that a
multiplier of 1.6 for urban areas would be most appropriate for
purposes of calculating PM2.5 light extinction in urban
areas.\190\ In formulating this judgment, the EPA recognizes that
neither the original nor the revised IMPROVE algorithm has been tested
for suitability in urban areas and that additional research is
necessary to reduce the uncertainties about the most appropriate value
for the OC to OM multiplier in urban environments. With regard to other
changes between the original and revised IMPROVE algorithms, the EPA
also does not believe that it would be appropriate to include a term
for hygroscopic sea salt for urban light extinction, or to
differentiate between different size modes of sulfate, nitrate, and
organic mass as empirically defined by the revised IMPROVE algorithm.
Unlike in some remote coastal locations, sea salt is not major
contributor to light extinction in urban areas. Moreover, urban sources
of salt include sanding of roads during the winter and those re-
entrained particles are mostly in the coarse size range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ The difference between higher PM2.5 mass in
urban areas compared to surrounding regions, known as the urban
excess, is largely attributed to organic mass (U.S. EPA, 2004b).
\190\ The implications of this shift to a 1.6 multiplier for OC
in urban areas for decisions about averaging time, level, and need
for a distinct secondary standard are discussed further below in
sections VI.C.1.c, VI.C.1.e, and VI.C.1.f, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like in remote areas, small and large size modes of sulfate,
nitrate and organic mass would exist in the urban environment. However,
the apportionment of the total fine particle concentration of each of
the three PM2.5 components into the concentrations of the
small and large size fractions would likely need a different approach
than that used for remote areas. This is because of the closer
proximity of urban sources to their emissions. This is a particular
concern not only for organic mass, which as explained previously has a
large contribution from nearby urban emission sources, but also for
PM2.5 nitrate whose concentrations are also higher in urban
areas compared to the surrounding regions. Thus, a higher portion of
the total urban concentration may be in the small mode compared to
remote areas and thus a different apportionment algorithm would be
needed.
Finally, the EPA does not consider it necessary to employ site-
specific Rayleigh light scattering terms in place of a universal
Rayleigh light scattering value for purposes of calculating light
extinction in urban areas for purposes of calculating the 90th
percentile values. The site-specific Rayleigh value is most important
to accurately estimate extinction on the best visibility days which is
an essential metric for the regional haze program.
For all of these reasons, the EPA considers the original IMPROVE
algorithm better suited to the task of calculating urban light
extinction than the revised IMPROVE algorithm. However, the EPA does
consider it appropriate to make certain adjustments to the original
algorithm for purposes of calculating urban light extinction. As
discussed above, the EPA believes it is appropriate to use a 1.6
multiplier to convert OC to OM in urban areas. In addition, the EPA
believes it is appropriate to exclude the term for coarse particles
from the equation. The EPA does not agree with commenters who suggested
that coarse particles should be included in the calculated light
extinction indicator. As noted in the proposal, PM2.5 is the
component of PM responsible for most of the visibility impairment in
most urban areas. Currently available data suggest that
PM10-2.5 is a minor contributor to visibility impairment
most of the time, although at some locations (U.S. EPA, 2010b, Figure
3-13 for Phoenix) PM10-2.5 can be a major contributor to
urban visibility effects. While it is reasonable to assume that other
urban areas in the desert southwestern region of the country may have
conditions similar to the conditions shown for Phoenix, in fact few
urban areas conduct continuous PM10-2.5 monitoring. This
significantly increases the difficulty of assessing the role of coarse
particles in urban visibility impairment. For example, among the 15
urban areas assessed in this review, only four areas had collocated
continuous PM10 data allowing calculation of hourly
PM10-2.5 data for 2005 to 2007. In addition,
PM10-2.5 is generally less homogenous in urban areas than
PM2.5 in that coarse particle concentrations exhibit greater
temporal variability and a steeper gradient across urban areas than
fine particles (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-72). This makes it more
challenging to select sites that would adequately represent urban
visibility conditions. Thus, while it would be possible to include a
PM10-2.5 light extinction term in a calculated light
extinction indicator, as was done in the Visibility Assessment, there
is insufficient information available at this time to assess the impact
and effectiveness of such a refinement in providing public welfare
protection in areas across the country (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 4-41 to 4-
42). Therefore, the EPA concludes that it is not appropriate to set a
standard based on a calculated light extinction indicator that includes
coarse particles at this time, and the calculated indicator should be
based on PM2.5 light extinction.
With regard to the suggestion by some commenters that the
calculated light extinction indicator should be calculated using hourly
humidity data,
[[Page 3208]]
the EPA disagrees that concurrent humidity measurements should be used.
The use of longer-term averages for each monitoring site adequately
captures the seasonal variability of relative humidity and its effects
of visibility impairment, and this approach focuses more on the
underlying aerosol contributions to visibility impairment and less on
the day-to-day variations in humidity. This provides a more stable
indicator for comparison to the NAAQS and one that is more directly
related to the underlying emissions that contribute to visibility
impairment.
With regard to the comments advocating the use of a 90 percent
humidity screen as opposed to a 95 percent humidity cap, the EPA
believes that relying on monthly average relative humidity values based
on 10 years of climatological data appropriately reduces the effect of
fog and precipitation. Although the approach of using a 95 percent
humidity cap, as in the Regional Haze Program, includes some hours with
relative humidity between 90-95 percent, the general approach of using
a longer-term average for each monitoring site effectively eliminates
the effect of very high humidity conditions on visibility at those
locations.
Therefore, taking all of the above considerations and CASAC advice
into account, the EPA continues to conclude that a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator, similar to that used in
the Regional Haze Program (i.e., using an IMPROVE algorithm as
translated into the deciview scale), would be the most appropriate
indicator to replace the current PM2.5 mass indicator for a
distinct secondary standard. Moreover, the EPA continues to conclude
that this calculated indicator should based on the original IMPROVE
algorithm, adjusted to use a 1.6 OC multiplier and exclude the term for
coarse particles, in conjunction with monthly average relative humidity
data (i.e., f(RH) values) based on long-term climatological means as
used in the Regional Haze Program. A PM2.5 visibility index
defined in this way would appropriately reflect the relationship
between ambient PM and PM-related light extinction, based on the
analyses discussed in the proposal and reflecting the aerosol and
relative humidity contributions to visibility impairment by
incorporation of factors based on measured PM2.5 speciation
concentrations and climatological average relative humidity data. In
addition, this type of indicator would address, in part, the issues
raised in the court's remand of the 2006 PM2.5 standards.
Such a PM2.5 visibility index would afford a relatively high
degree of uniformity of visual air quality protection in areas across
the country by virtue of directly incorporating the effects of
differences in PM2.5 composition and relative humidity
across the country.
c. Averaging Time
Few commenters specifically addressed the issue of averaging time.
Those who did generally expressed the view that an hourly or sub-daily
averaging time would be the most appropriate approach, as supported by
CASAC and the EPA's own analyses in this review. These comments were
generally consistent with the emphasis among all commenters on the
desirability of adopting a directly measured light extinction indicator
that could be measured on an hourly or sub-daily time scale. Some
commenters noted that a standard based on a 4-6 hour averaging time
would better capture peak daily light extinction while allowing stable
signal quality; others urged EPA to adopt a 1-hour averaging time in
conjunction with direct measurements. Commenters pointed to significant
limitations associated with using a 24-hour averaging time, including
the uncertainties in translating hourly or sub-daily visibility index
values into 24-hour equivalent values. Some commenters criticized the
analysis presented in the Policy Assessment comparing the 24-hour
calculated light extinction values to the maximum daylight 4-hour
calculated light extinction values. These commenters stated that the
scatter plots and regressions presented in the Policy Assessment
indicate there is considerable variation in the 24-hour vs. 4-hour
relationship, and interpreted this to mean that 24-hour light
extinction values are a poor surrogate for 4-hour values. For example,
several industry commenters cited an analysis which noted that the
correlation coefficient between the 24-hour and 4-hour values was as
low as r\2\ = 0.42 in Houston, and stated that the EPA was being overly
``optimistic'' in concluding that city-specific and pooled r\2\ values
in the range of 0.6 to 0.8 showed good correlation (UARG, Attachment 2,
p. 27).
In addition, some commenters expressed concern over potential bias
and greater uncertainty introduced by the inclusion of nighttime hours,
noting that because relative humidity tends to be higher at night,
inclusion of these hours could cause areas to ``record NAAQS
exceedances that have no corresponding visibility impairment value''
(UARG, p. 36). Commenters also emphasized the poor fit of a 24-hour
averaging time with the near instantaneous judgments about visibility
impairment reflected in the visibility preference studies. Commenters
also noted that there is greater hourly variation in PM concentrations
and resulting visibility conditions in urban areas than in Class I
areas; thus, while the Regional Haze Program uses 24-hour IMPROVE data,
the commenters stated that a shorter averaging time is needed for an
urban-focused PM2.5 visibility standard. Some commenters
objected to a 24-hour averaging time as unsupported by the record in
this review: ``Because the science the Administrator relies on for the
other elements of the proposed visibility standard is tied to short-
term exposures to visibility impairment, the EPA has no basis for
promulgating a standard that uses a 24-hour averaging time'' (API, p.
43). These commenters claimed that while the EPA may not have the
information or infrastructure in place to allow the Agency to set a
standard based on a 1-hour or other sub-daily averaging time, this does
not justify moving to a 24-hour averaging time.
Among commenters supporting the proposed distinct secondary
standard for visibility, many commenters recognized the limitations on
monitoring methods and currently available data that led to the EPA's
proposal to adopt a standard based on a 24-hour averaging time. Most of
these commenters acknowledged that the lack of reliable hourly
speciation data means that a 24-hour averaging time is the only
workable approach for a standard based on calculated light extinction.
Commenters advocating a distinct secondary standard for visibility
therefore generally supported the proposal to adopt a 24-hour averaging
time, at least as an interim approach until a directly measured light
extinction indicator could be adopted in the future. This approach was
also supported by a few industry commenters who noted that since a
visibility index standard would be based on data from the IMPROVE and
CSN monitors, which operate on a 24-hour basis with 1-in-3 (or 1-in-6)
day sampling, ``it is imperative that EPA retain a 24-hour averaging
time if a secondary visibility standard is promulgated'' (API,
Attachment 2, p. 9).
In response to comments supporting a 1-hour or sub-daily (4- to 6-
hour) averaging time in conjunction with a direct light extinction
measurements, the EPA notes that, as discussed above in the response to
comments on indicator, the Agency has concluded
[[Page 3209]]
that a directly measured light extinction indicator is not an
appropriate option in this review, independent of the decision on
averaging time. Having reached the conclusion that a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator would be most appropriate,
the EPA has next considered what averaging time would be most desirable
for such an indicator. As noted in the proposal, the EPA has recognized
that hourly or sub-daily (4- to 6-hour) averaging times, within
daylight hours and excluding hours with high relative humidity, are
more directly related than a 24-hour averaging time to the short-term
nature of the perception of PM-related visibility impairment and the
relevant exposure periods for segments of the viewing public. Thus, the
Agency agrees with commenters' general point that, as a starting
premise, a sub-daily averaging time would generally be preferable.
However, as noted at the time of proposal and discussed above in
section VI.B.1.c, important data quality uncertainties have recently
been identified in association with currently available instruments
that would be used to provide the hourly PM2.5 mass
measurements that would be needed in conjunction with an averaging time
shorter than 24 hours. As a result, at this time the Agency has strong
technical reservations about a secondary standard that would be defined
in terms of a sub-daily averaging time. The data quality issues which
have been identified, including short-term variability in hourly data
from currently available continuous monitoring methods, effectively
preclude adoption of a 1-hour averaging time in this review, given the
sensitivity of a 1-hour averaging time to these data quality
limitations. Even with regard to multi-hour averaging times, the EPA
continues to conclude that the data quality concerns preclude adoption
of a sub-daily averaging time.
Moreover, analyses conducted for the Policy Assessment indicate
that PM2.5 light extinction calculated on a 24-hour average
basis would be a reasonable and appropriate surrogate for
PM2.5 light extinction calculated on a 4-hour basis. The
scatter plots comparing 24-hour and 4-hour calculated PM2.5
light extinction in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figures G-4
and G-5) do show some scatter around the regression line for each city.
This was to be expected, since the calculated 4-hour light extinction
includes day-specific and hour-specific influences that are not
captured by the simpler 24-hour approach. Overall, however, in the
EPA's view, both the city-specific and pooled 15-city 24-hour vs. 4-
hour comparisons show strong correlation between the two averaging
times. Moreover, the 90th percentile design values calculated for 4-
hour vs. 24-hour light extinction are much more closely correlated than
are the values for individual days in particular urban areas calculated
using these two approaches. Thus, while the EPA agrees with commenters
who pointed out the relatively low correlation between 4- and 24-hour
values in cities such as Houston, the Agency points out that the
correlations of 90th percentile values are much higher, particularly
when one considers the average values across urban areas. In general,
the 90th percentile values line up better and demonstrate closer to a
one-to-one relationship.
The EPA has conducted a reanalysis (Frank et al., 2012b) of the
relationships between estimated 24-hour and 4-hour visibility
impairment based on the variety of metrics discussed in Appendix G of
the Policy Assessment that further supports this finding. The
reanalysis more appropriately considered the uncertainty of the
calculated 4-hour values. It also considered the effect of changing the
OC to OM multiplier used in urban areas with the new CSN monitoring
protocol from 1.4 to 1.6. The revised analysis shows that the 24-hour
values are generally closer to the 4-hour values than originally
estimated.
Since conclusions in the proposal about the relationship between 4-
hour and 24-hour values were drawn not just on the basis of the city-
specific results but also on the more robust 90th percentile values,
the EPA disagrees with commenters who state that the Agency was overly
optimistic in considering 24-hour values an appropriate surrogate for
4-hour values. Also, it is appropriate to focus on the 90th percentile
design value comparison since the design values would determine
attainment status and the degree of improvement in air quality that
could be expected in areas instituting controls to meet the NAAQS.
Therefore the EPA does not agree with commenters who state that a 24-
hour averaging time cannot serve as an appropriate surrogate for sub-
daily periods of visibility impairment. On the contrary, the EPA
continues to conclude, on the basis of this analysis, that
PM2.5 light extinction calculated on a 24-hour basis is a
reasonable and appropriate surrogate for sub-daily PM2.5
light extinction calculated on a 4-hour basis.
The EPA recognizes that the effect of adopting a 24-hour averaging
time may be to smooth out some of the hour-by-hour variability in
visibility index values. (Indeed, this is true if we compare a 4-hour
averaging time to a 1-hour averaging time as well.) Hour-specific
influences which would be evident if an hourly or sub-daily averaging
time were to be used will be masked to some extent when those hours are
averaged together with other hours. This means, in part, that a 24-hour
averaging time may effectively reduce peak values by means of averaging
them together with other hours, which may have lower values. However,
given the well documented variability in hourly visibility conditions,
especially in urban areas, as noted by commenters, it is reasonable to
assume that in some cases peak hours may be significantly influenced by
atypical conditions, making it appropriate to adopt an averaging time
that is sufficiently long to ensure that hour-specific influences are
balanced against more typical conditions. Perhaps even more important
is the concern that many peak hourly measurements may be significantly
influenced by atypical instrument performance; this reinforces the
conclusion that it is appropriate to adopt a longer averaging time, to
ensure that hour-specific uncertainties are balanced against more
robust measurements.
Thus, in agreement with commenters who supported a daily averaging
time, the EPA concludes that a 24-hour averaging time would be
appropriate for a distinct secondary standard based on a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator.
d. Form
The EPA received very few comments with regard to the proposal to
adopt a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3-years, in conjunction
with a PM2.5 visibility index and a 24-hour averaging time.
One commenter stated that it was inappropriate to use a 90th percentile
form, noting that this would result in the exclusion of a minimum of 36
days of data annually. The commenter expressed particular concern that
this proposed approach, in combination with a 24-hour standard based on
an unadjusted CPL, would not capture the worst visibility impairment
and that this would undermine ``the intent of setting a meaningful
secondary visibility standard'' (AMC, et al., p. 2). Another commenter
argued that the EPA had provided no scientific basis for why the 90th
percentile form was suitable, and claimed that the Agency was making
``a somewhat arbitrary judgment that people's welfare would be affected
only if adverse urban visibility were to occur
[[Page 3210]]
more than 10 percent of the time'' (API, Attachment 2, p. 4).
On other hand, a few commenters who appeared to generally support
the proposal to use a 90th percentile form advocated averaging the 90th
percentile values over longer time periods, arguing that averaging over
only 3 years would not provide a stable assessment of visual air
quality in the West because this time period is insufficient to
properly account for western drought and fire cycles. These commenters
pointed to the approach in the Regional Haze Program of averaging
visibility impairment over 5 years, and noted that even within this
longer time period data can be significantly influenced by high
emissions during significant fire years.
The EPA disagrees with all of these comments. With regard to the
comment opposing the 90th percentile form as inappropriately excluding
the worst visibility days, the EPA notes that there is a significant
lack of information on, and a high degree of uncertainty regarding, the
impact on public welfare of the number of days with visibility
impairment over the course of a year. For example, the visibility
preference studies used to derive the range of CPLs considered in this
review offered no information regarding the frequency of time that
visibility levels should be below those values. Based on this
limitation, the EPA concluded in the Policy Assessment that it would
not be appropriate to consider eliminating all exposures above the
level of the standard and that it was reasonable to consider allowing
some number of days with reduced visibility. Recognizing that the
Regional Haze Program focuses attention on the 20 percent worst
visibility days (i.e., those at or above the 80th percentile of
visibility impairment), the EPA continues to believe, as noted in the
proposal, that a percentile well above the 80th percentile would be
appropriate to increase the likelihood that all days in this range
would be improved by control strategies intended to help areas attain
the standard. Focusing on the 90th percentile, which represents the
median of the distribution of the 20 percent worst visibility days,
could be reasonably expected to lead to improvements in visual air
quality on the 20 percent most impaired days. Thus, the EPA has made a
reasoned judgment based on a full consideration of the upper end of the
distribution of visibility impairment conditions and continues to
conclude that it is appropriate to focus on the 90th percentile of
visibility impairment values.
With regard to comments requesting the EPA adopt a longer multi-
year averaging period for the 90th percentile values, the EPA disagrees
that it would be appropriate to average the 90th percentile values over
periods longer than 3 years. The EPA recognizes that a multi-year
percentile form offers greater stability to the air quality management
process by reducing the possibility that statistically unusual
indicator values will lead to transient violations of the standard.
Utilizing a 3-year average form provides stability from the occasional
effects of inter-annual meteorological variability that can result in
unusually high pollution levels for a particular year. The Agency has
adopted this approach in other NAAQS, including the current secondary
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which has a 98th percentile form
averaged over 3 years. However, adopting a multi-year averaging period
longer than 3 years would increase the number of days with visibility
impairment above the target level of protection and would therefore
reduce the protectiveness of the standard. Based on this the EPA does
not believe it would be appropriate to average 90th percentile values
over a period as long as five years. Therefore, the EPA continues to
conclude that a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years, would be
appropriate, in conjunction with a calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator and a 24-hour averaging time.
e. Level
With regard to level, commenters focused on two main themes. First,
a large number of commenters addressed the information available from
the public preference studies with regard to the acceptability of
various levels of visual air quality. These comments, which are
discussed in subsection VI.C.1.e.i below, address the EPA's use of
visibility preference studies as the basis for the selection of a range
of appropriate levels for the Administrator to consider. Many
commenters challenged the use of these studies as the basis for setting
a distinct secondary standard, arguing that limitations in these
studies rendered them an unsuitable and insufficient basis on which to
establish such a standard. Second, commenters expressed different views
as to what level(s) of a distinct secondary standard would be
appropriate, if the EPA were to set such a standard. These comments
reflected consideration of the results of the public preference studies
as well as analyses conducted in the Visibility Assessment and the
Policy Assessment, as discussed in the proposal. Comments addressing
the appropriateness of specific levels are discussed in subsection
VI.C.1.e.ii below.
i. Comments on Visibility Preference Studies
A majority of commenters expressed the view that the existing
preference studies provide an insufficient basis for selection by the
Administrator of an appropriate level of public welfare visibility
protection for a national standard. These commenters highlighted a
number of limitations and uncertainties (enumerated below) associated
with these studies as support for this view. In contrast, other
commenters felt that despite certain limitations, these studies do
provide a sufficient basis on which the Administrator can select an
appropriate level of a standard to provide national public welfare
visibility protection. The remainder of this section organizes and
discusses these comments under four broad topic areas, including: (a)
Limitations and uncertainties associated with the visibility preference
studies; (b) preference study methods and design; (c) use of preference
study results for determining adversity; (d) the appropriateness of
using regionally varying preference study results to select a single
level for a national standard.
(a) Preference Study Limitations and Uncertainties
A large and diverse number of limitations and uncertainties
associated with the visibility preference studies have been identified
and discussed in the public comments. Many of these same limitations
and uncertainties were also identified and discussed by the EPA in the
various documents developed throughout this review. The most important
and fundamental limitations and uncertainties will be discussed here in
the preamble, while more specific, unique or detailed comments will be
addressed in the Response to Comments document.
The primary or most frequent limitation cited by many commenters
relates to the small number of preference studies that are available in
this review. In particular, some commenters note that these preference
studies cover just four locations, only three of which occur in the
U.S., that the two studies conducted in Washington, DC were pilot
studies, not full preference studies, and/or that three of the
preference studies were conducted in the West, while only one was
conducted in the East, providing only limited geographic coverage.
Typically, these same commenters also pointed out that taken together,
these
[[Page 3211]]
limited studies only included a total of 852 participants, which they
claimed was too small a sample size and unrepresentative nationally.
These commenters thus concluded that there is insufficient information,
both geographically and demographically, upon which to select a
national level of a visibility index for purposes of visibility
protection.
In contrast, several commenters stated support for using the
preference studies, concluding they provide an adequate basis, in spite
of their limited nature. In particular, AMC et al. state:
We believe that these studies provide sufficient results to
inform setting a national visibility standard. While the number of
studies is small, they do incorporate spatial variation and, in the
case of Denver and Phoenix, varied populations* * *. EPA should have
confidence, rather than uncertainty, in the fact that these studies
used different methods and respondents and yield a range of 20-24
dv, with one outlier of 29. (AMC, et al., pp. 6-7)
Regarding the first group of commenters, the EPA notes that it is
well aware of the limited nature of the information, which it has
described in great detail in the Integrated Science Assessment,
Visibility Assessment, and Policy Assessment, as well as in section
VI.B.2 of the proposed rule (77 FR 38973). The EPA further notes,
however, that limited information does not preclude the Administrator
from making judgments based on the best available science, taking into
account the existing uncertainties and limitations associated with that
available science. Thus, in reaching judgments based on the science,
the Administrator appropriately weighs the associated uncertainties.
The CASAC supported this view and concluded that the available
information provided a sufficient basis on which the Administrator
could form a judgment about requisite PM-related public welfare
visibility protection. Specifically, CASAC stated ``[t]he 20-30
deciview range of levels chosen by EPA staff as `Candidate Protection
Levels' is adequately supported by the evidence presented'' (Samet,
2010b, p. iii). As discussed in the proposed rule (77 FR 38990), the
Administrator recognized and explicitly took into account the
uncertainties and limitations in the science in determining an
appropriate degree of protection when she proposed a level at the upper
end of the recommended range. As discussed below, the Administrator
continues to be mindful of these uncertainties and limitations in
reaching her final determination regarding what constitutes an
appropriate degree of protection with respect to PM-related visibility
impairment.
With respect to the comments of AMC et al., the EPA agrees that
these studies provide a sufficient basis to inform the Administrator's
judgments regarding an appropriate level of protection from PM-related
visibility impairment, but she recognizes that these studies, which are
the only studies before her, are a limited source of information.
However, the EPA does not agree that the Washington, DC, results
represent an outlier, and thus the EPA believes these results are
appropriately included in the range identified for the Administrator to
consider.
Some commenters made the point that the EPA relied on much of this
same evidence to reach the conclusion in 2006 that the information was
too limited to allow selection of a national standard. For example, API
stated:
[T]he bulk of the VAQ preference studies were available during
the previous PM NAAQS review and were considered by the Agency in
its establishment of the 2006 p.m. secondary NAAQS * * *. The
Proposed Rule does not mention this fact and does not explain why
many of these same studies now compel EPA to propose this new
secondary NAAQS * * *. The Proposed Rule notes in passing that,
since the last review of the PM NAAQS, `limited information that has
become available regarding the characterization of public
preferences in urban areas has provided some new perspectives on the
usefulness of this information in informing the selection of target
levels of urban visibility protection.' 77 Fed. Reg. at 38969/2. It
is a serious oversight that the Proposed Rule makes no attempt to
explain what that information is or how it affects the
interpretation of the VAQ preference studies. This `limited
information' is an apparent reference to information provided by Dr.
Anne Smith. (API, p. 37)
The EPA disagrees with these commenters. First, the EPA disagrees
that it failed to distinguish between studies that were available in
the previous review and the current review. The discussion in section
VI.A.1 of the proposal specifically identifies the studies from Denver,
Phoenix and British Columbia (77 FR 38967/2) as being considered in the
last review. The EPA further disagrees with the implication that it is
being circumspect about identifying the ``limited information that has
become available regarding the characterization of public preferences
in urban areas.'' Beginning in section VI.A.3 of the proposed rule (77
FR 38969), the EPA was clear about what information, both preexisting
and new, it relied upon in this review to inform its views and provide
the basis for its proposal. In section VI.B.2, the EPA elaborates on
the specific information, tools, methods and data which are considered
in relation to the public preference studies, including the new
information available since the last review.
As noted above and in the proposal, in addition to the substantial
PM urban air quality information and analyses new to this review, there
are three other sources of information that have specifically
``provided some new perspectives on the usefulness of'' the preference
studies ``in informing the selection of target levels of urban
visibility protection'' (77 FR 38969). They include: (1) Results from
additional urban visibility preference study experiments conducted for
Washington, DC by Smith and Howell (2009) which added to the preference
data for that location and shed light on the role of location in
preference responses; (2) a review and reanalysis (Stratus Consulting,
2009) of the urban visibility public preference studies from the four
urban areas, including the newly available Smith and Howell (2009)
experiments which examined the similarities and differences between the
studies and evaluated the potential significance of those differences
on the study results; and (3) additional analyses, including most
importantly a logit analysis (Deck and Lawson, 2010, as discussed in
Chapter 2 and Appendix J of the Visibility Assessment), which was
requested and reviewed by CASAC, which showed that each city's
responses represented unique and statistically different curves. Taken
together, these sources contributed to the EPA's current knowledge and
understanding of each survey study's results, the appropriateness of
comparing each study's results to the others, and the key uncertainties
relevant to data interpretation. In addition, in the last review the
decision to not adopt a distinct secondary standard was remanded as
contrary to law and failing to provide a reasoned explanation for the
decision. As such it is not appropriate for purposes of comparison with
the Administrator's judgment and reasoning in this review.
(b) Preference Study Methods and Design
In addition to the limitations and uncertainties noted above, many
comments also asserted the methodologies used in the preference studies
are fundamentally flawed. Many commenters cited some of the same issues
that have already been identified by the EPA as sources of uncertainty
and potential factors in producing the statistically different study
results (see section VI.B.1.b above). As noted above,
[[Page 3212]]
the EPA is well aware of the issues raised regarding the adequacy of
the preference studies to serve as a basis for a secondary NAAQS (see
77 FR 38975) and solicited comment on how these uncertainties should be
considered (see 77 FR 38990). Most of these same commenters also
pointed to an assessment of the preference studies methodology provided
by Smith and Howell (2009) as the basis for their views, as indicated
by the following comments:
Smith and Howell (2009) show that VAQ preference study outcomes
are malleable and depend entirely on the design of the study.
Accordingly, such studies do not identify any meaningful threshold
of acceptable visibility conditions. Despite Smith and Howell's
conclusions, EPA continues to assert that the VAQ preference studies
can be used to identify minimally acceptable visibility conditions
even though the Agency has never provided any valid scientific basis
for discounting the Smith and Howell (2009) results. (API, p. 38)
Well-controlled preference studies discussed by Anne Smith of
Charles River Associates at the March 2010 CASAC meeting
demonstrated that the judgment of panel members was affected by the
order in which photographs were presented and tendency to identify
the middle of the range of visibility degredation as a threshold of
acceptability. This points to a potential flaw in these studies and
that artifacts caused by these tendencies may have influenced study
results. Dismissing these inherent flaws in the existing preference
studies and then using these studies to set a secondary NAAQS is
arbitrary and capricious. (API, Attachment 2, p. 12)
EPA also fails to acknowledge that the only study conducted
since the last review rebuts the validity of the VAQ preference
studies previously conducted. (UARG, Attachment 2, p. 28)
As is explained in a more detailed discussion in the Response to
Comments document, the EPA disagrees that the study conducted by Smith
and Howell (2009) supports the conclusion that the preference study
methodologies were fundamentally flawed; however, the EPA notes that
their experiments do identify areas where additional research would be
useful to further inform our limited understanding of public
preferences in urban areas. The EPA views the Smith and Howell
experiments as increasing the EPA's knowledge and understanding of the
findings of the 2001 Washington, DC focus group pilot study (Abt, 2001)
in several important ways, although this information still remains
limited overall. Specifically, the Smith and Howell results suggest:
(1) The 2001 results, while based on a small sample size of 9, were
consistent with results from a larger sample of the general Washington,
DC population; (2) an individual's preferences for visibility in one
location may not depend on whether they live in that location; and (3)
presentation method (i.e., changing from slide projection to computer
monitor) did not appear to affect the reported preferences.
(c) Preference Study Results and Adversity
A number of comments were received regarding the EPA's use of
preference study results to make the determination that adverse
PM2.5-related visibility effects on the public welfare are
occurring. In this context, several commenters questioned whether the
EPA had made the case that unacceptable levels of visual air quality
based on preference study results alone can be equated with an adverse
public welfare effect. These commenters suggested that unless
preference study information is linked to personal comfort and well-
being or other associated welfare effects, it cannot form the basis of
a determination of adversity. For example, Kennecott Utah Copper LLC
stated that:
Thus, EPA seemingly was building the foundation for a
determination of what constitutes an adverse effect on visibility in
the context of public welfare. However * * * EPA subsequently veered
toward an oversimplified focus on public acceptance of visibility
conditions * * *. EPA's discussion of visibility in the Policy
Assessment and its proposed rule in the Federal Register focuses
entirely on ``acceptable'' and ``unacceptable'' visual air quality
and make no mention of an ``adverse effect'' in the context of
visibility. EPA's reliance on only 3 urban preference studies
represents a paucity of data and a wholesale abandonment of any
effort to seek a scientifically measurable adverse effect.
(Kennecott Utah Copper LLC, p. 26)
In response, the EPA first notes that the definition of effects on
welfare included in section 302(h) of the CAA identifies both
visibility and the broader category of effects on personal comfort and
well-being as effects on welfare. In setting a secondary standard to
address visibility impairment, the EPA considers the effect on the
public from impairment of visibility as a separate and distinct welfare
effect in its own right. The EPA is not required to translate this into
terms of personal comfort and well-being, as visibility impairment is
designated explicitly by Congress as an effect on welfare. While there
may be a large degree of overlap among these different welfare effects,
the EPA properly focuses on evaluating all of the information before
the Agency on the effect visibility impairment has on the public,
whether or not this impairment would also be categorized as having an
adverse effect on personal comfort and well-being. It is in the context
of all of this information that the EPA makes the judgment as to the
appropriate degree of protection from known and anticipated adverse
effects on the public from visibility impairment. The EPA recognizes
that there is uncertainty about the degree of adversity to the public
welfare associated with PM-related visibility impairment. However a
secondary standard is designed to provide protection from ``known or
anticipated'' adverse effects, and a bright line determination of
adversity is not required in judging the requisite degree of protection
under section 109(b)(2). Furthermore, the EPA disagrees that it has
abandoned its consideration of visibility-related impacts on the
welfare effect of personal comfort and well-being, as is made clear in
the following quote:
Research has demonstrated that people are emotionally affected
by low visual air quality, that perception of pollution is
correlated with stress, annoyance, and symptoms of depression, and
that visual air quality is deeply intertwined with a ``sense of
place,'' affecting people's sense of the desirability of a
neighborhood (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.2.4). Though it is not
known to what extent these emotional effects are linked to different
periods of exposure to poor visual air quality, providing additional
protection against short-term exposures to levels of visual air
quality considered unacceptable by subjects in the context of the
preference studies would be expected to provide some degree of
protection against the risk of loss in the public's ``sense of well-
being.'' (77 FR 38973/1, emphasis added)
The approach taken to address such qualitative, but policy-
relevant, information in this review is the same as in other NAAQS
reviews. The review is initiated with a comprehensive assessment of all
possible public health and welfare effects associated with PM in the
Integrated Science Assessment. Then policy-relevant effects for which
there is sufficient quantitative information to allow a determination
of the change in risks associated with incremental changes in air
quality are assessed (in this review, in the Visibility Assessment) and
used to provide a quantitative basis to inform the selection of an
appropriate range of levels for further consideration in the Policy
Assessment. In the Policy Assessment, the EPA considers all important
policy-relevant evidence and information, both quantitative and
qualitative, in making recommendations regarding the range of policy
options appropriate for the Administrator to consider. It is in the
context of all of this information that the Administrator
[[Page 3213]]
makes her final judgment as to the appropriate degree of protection
from known and anticipated adverse effects on the public from
visibility impairment.
Another issue raised in the comments regarding adversity is the
EPA's decision to use the 50 percent acceptability criterion from the
public preference studies in determining candidate protection levels of
visibility impairment for the selection of a national level of
visibility protection. For example, AMC et al. recommended ``a 75%
acceptability criterion as a target that is in line with protecting the
broader public from the negative effects of visibility impairment''
(AMC, et al., p. 9).
In the Visibility Assessment, the EPA noted that the use of the 50
percent acceptance level for urban visibility was first presented in
Ely et al. (1991) (U.S. EPA, 2010b, p. 2-5). Ely discussed the use of
the 50 percent acceptability criterion as a reasonable basis for
setting an urban visibility standard.
The standard was determined based on a 50% acceptability
criterion, that is, the standard was set at the level of extinction
that would divide the slides into two groups: those judged
acceptable and those judged unacceptable by a majority of the people
in the study. The criterion is politically reasonable because it
defines the point where a majority of the study participants begin
to judge slides as representing unacceptable visibility. It is also
consistent with psychological scaling theory which indicates that a
``true score'' exceeds a standard when more than 50% of the
``observed scores'' exceed that standard. (Ely et al., 1991, p. 11)
As Ely described, the 50 percent acceptability criterion and the
preference study conducted by Ely were used as the basis for setting
the level of the Denver Visibility Standard in 1990. That same
criterion was judged appropriate and selected for use in the Phoenix
preference study (BBC research, 2003) and as the basis for setting the
level of the Phoenix Visibility Standard in 2003. Most recently, the 50
percent acceptability criterion has been recommended by the British
Columbia Visibility Coordinating Committee as the basis for the
visibility standard currently under consideration by British Columbia,
Canada. Furthermore, CASAC supported this approach, while recognizing
the uncertainty associated with this issue. Specifically, CASAC agreed
that ``the 50th percentile for the acceptability criteria is logical,
given the noted similarities in methodologies employed in the 4 study
areas. * * * In terms of choosing a specific percentile from the
preference studies, we note that there may not be a ``preferred'' one,
but in assessing preference studies to propose a PM secondary NAAQS,
the 50th percentile is sufficient, as it is the basis for existing
visibility indexes used in the Denver/Colorado Front Range and Phoenix
metropolitan areas'' (Samet, 2009c, pp. 8-9). Therefore, after
considering the information that served as the original basis for its
selection as described in Ely et al., 1991, and given its acceptance
and use in existing visibility programs, the EPA continues to conclude,
consistent with the advice of CASAC, that it is reasonable to use the
50 percent acceptability criterion in determining target levels of
protection from visibility impairment.
(d) Appropriateness of using regionally varying preference study
results to select a single level for a national standard.
A number of commenters raised concerns regarding the bases for and
implications of the differences observed in the preference study
results, concluding that these results were due to regionally varying
factors and thus could not be used to set a national standard. For
example, some commenters asserted that because the confidence intervals
around the four 50 percent acceptability levels do not overlap at all,
and because there are variations in preference study designs and
inherent differences in the visual setting among cities and panels, the
four preference curves and their associated 50 percent dv values are
city-specific and statistically different. The commenters concluded,
therefore, that it was inappropriate to aggregate the 50th percentile
dv values from multiple studies and that they should instead be
evaluated individually.
Other commenters expressed the related view that the preference
study results cannot be used to set a national standard for visibility
impairment because the results show that visibility preferences vary
regionally. For example, API stated that:
The `one-size-fits-all' approach * * * is not viable because it
does not account for regional and city-specific factors that have
been made evident in the disparity of preference study data * * *.
It is well known, for example, that the level of light extinction to
which people in different areas of the country are accustomed, as
well as the urban setting, are the primary factors that affect a
person's visual perception of an urban vista. Thus, the degree to
which extinction threshold can be related to human welfare is
inevitably regionally-dependent. (API, Attachment 2, p. 4)
Some of these commenters argued that because acceptable visual air
quality is regionally dependent, it would be more appropriate to
develop distinct visibility standards at the state or local level.
Others pointed out that areas which lack ``important visibility
vistas'' might not need standards at all, since flat areas without
significant terrain have a limited maximum visual range (NEDA/CAP, p.
3).
Other commenters stated that due to regionally varying factors,
such as relative humidity, it is not possible to select a single level
for a national standard to protect visibility across the United States.
In particular, these commenters pointed to differences between Eastern
and Western areas, arguing that a single national standard could not
offer the appropriate degree of protection in locations with distinct
characteristics. For example:
[T]he proposed method falls short because it is not temporally
or geographically representative enough to have any meaning * * *.
The uncertainty evidenced in these studies and the non-uniformity
between the western and eastern vistas makes it impossible at this
time to set an acceptable light extinction value that would
appropriately address visibility concerns in non-Class I areas. (New
York DOH/DEC, pp. 5-6)
The EPA agrees that the preference curves and the 50 percent dv
levels are separate and distinct data points representing four
different VAQ preference curves for four unique urban scenes. However,
the EPA does not consider the fact that the four curves are distinct as
a weakness of the approach or a reason that the results cannot be
compared. In addition, the EPA does not agree that the study results
necessarily support a conclusion that preferences are regionally
dependent. In particular, the EPA notes that the results of Smith and
Howell (2009) which show that participants in Houston and Washington,
DC did not have significantly different views on acceptable air quality
in Washington, DC, provide limited support for the conclusion that
people's preferences differ less because of where they live and more
because of the scene they are viewing.
On the other hand, the existing literature indicates that people's
preferences for VAQ depend in large part on the characteristics and
sensitivity of the scene being viewed. The EPA understands there is a
wide variety or range of urban scenes within the United States. These
sensitive urban scenes include those with natural vistas such as the
Colorado Rocky Mountains as well as those with iconic man-made urban
structures like the Washington Monument. The EPA believes that the
scenes presented in the four urban areas
[[Page 3214]]
include important types of sensitive valued urban scenes and therefore,
when considered together, can inform the selection of a level of
acceptable urban VAQ at the national scale, taking into account the
variation across the country evidenced in the studies. This is
discussed further in the next section, below.
The EPA does agree with commenters that there are regionally
varying factors that are important to take into account when setting a
national standard for visibility protection. Section VI.A above
regarding the history of the secondary PM NAAQS review discusses the
evolution of the EPA's understanding regarding the regional differences
in PM concentrations, relative humidity and other factors. As a result,
the current review has gone to great lengths to address these factors,
leading to the EPA's proposal to use the IMPROVE algorithm to calculate
light extinction in order to take into account the varying effects of
relative humidity and speciated PM. While this approach does not result
in a uniform level of ambient PM2.5, it does ensure a
nationally uniform level of visibility protection. The EPA refers the
reader to other sections of the final rule, including sections
VI.B.1.a, VI.B.1.c, VI.C.1.b and VI.C.1.f, and the Response to Comments
document for a more detailed response as to how it is taking these
variables into account.
ii. Specific Comments on Level
The EPA received relatively few comments endorsing a specific level
for a distinct secondary standard for visibility. In general,
commenters who opposed setting a distinct secondary standard at this
time did not address the question of what level would be appropriate if
the EPA were to set a distinct secondary standard for visibility;
similarly, commenters who supported adopting a distinct secondary
standard at this time generally did not recommend a specific level.
However, a few commenters did provide comments in support of a specific
level or range of levels, with some commenters advocating standards at
the upper end of the range of proposed levels (i.e., 30 dv), while
others supported levels below the lower end of the proposed range
(i.e., below 28 dv).
As discussed above, a large number of commenters argued that the
currently available data are insufficient to determine what constitutes
a standard that would be neither more nor less protective than
necessary and that no standard should be set at this time. These
commenters pointed to the limitations and uncertainties in the
preference studies discussed above as the basis for this claim. These
commenters pointed to significant variation in the results of the
preference studies in support of their arguments that the studies
should not be used to derive a level for a distinct secondary standard
for visibility. For example, one consultant cited by several industry
commenters argued that the proposed level of 28 or 30 dv did not
reflect the substantial difference in visibility preferences between
the East and the West reflected in the preference studies (UARG,
Attachment 2, p. 11), and that it did not reflect the full range of
preferences (i.e., potential 50 percent acceptability levels) likely to
exist nationwide (UARG, Attachment 2, p. 19). This commenter further
objected to the EPA's proposal for a level of 28 or 30 dv on the
grounds that the EPA had inaccurately adjusted 4-hour values into 24-
hour values. Based on his analysis, the consultant concluded that ``a
range of adjusted values from 28 to 32 dv is needed'' to account for
the majority of the spread between the 4-hour vs. 24-hour equivalent
values at the upper end of the distribution of values.
A number of commenters questioned whether the proposed range of
levels was appropriate. One industry commenter claimed that the EPA had
not explicitly justified why a standard within the proposed range was
requisite, stating that ``EPA makes no attempt to explain how the
proposed level of the standard is neither lower nor higher than
necessary to protect public welfare'' (NSSGA, p. 15). Arizona DEQ noted
that since the proposed calculated light extinction indicator excluded
coarse particles and Rayleigh scattering, the proposed levels of 28 or
30 dv were inconsistent with the visibility preference studies, which
considered total light extinction. Noting these perceived problems with
the proposed range of levels, a few commenters noted that if the EPA
were to set a distinct secondary standard, the level should be set no
lower than 30 dv, ``to account for inconsistent value judgments, a
great deal of spatial and temporal variability, and a very high level
of uncertainty'' (Texas CEQ, p. 7).
In contrast, some commenters supporting the EPA's proposal for a
distinct secondary standard for visibility stated that the proposed
range of levels from 28-30 dv was insufficiently protective based on a
24-hour averaging time, and recommended a lower level for the
visibility index standard. These commenters expressed the view that the
proposed levels of 28 or 30 dv represented neither adequate surrogates
for equivalent 4-hour values, as the EPA claimed, nor sufficiently
protective levels based on recent air quality data. Several commenters
stated that the EPA's own analyses suggested that a standard set at a
level of 28 or 30 dv was insufficiently protective based on a 24-hour
averaging time. One commenter emphasized that the Policy Assessment had
indicated a level between 25-28 dv was appropriate for a standard
calculated on a 24-hour average, and encouraged the EPA to adopt a
standard level of 25 dv. Several environmental groups provided comments
stating that a 24-hour average would underestimate a 4-hour value by
13-42 percent and certain areas of the country--particularly the
Northeast--would be affected disproportionately. These commenters
suggested that a 24-hour PM2.5 visibility index standard
should be set at a level of 18.6-20 dv. The Department of the Interior
pointed to recent air quality data indicating that visibility on the
20% worst days in several large metropolitan areas, including
Birmingham, Fresno, New York City, Phoenix, and Washington, DC was
below 29 dv. While noting that these calculations were based on IMPROVE
calculations which include contributions from coarse PM mass, DOI
expressed the view that the proposed level of 28 to 30 dv would not
provide adequate visibility protection compared to the current 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and recommended that the
standard be set at a level of 25 dv consistent with the results of the
Phoenix visibility preference study.
In contrast, the states of Arizona and Colorado submitted comments
arguing that the visibility preference studies conducted in Phoenix and
Denver, respectively, were designed to address a specific local problem
and that the results of these studies were not an appropriate basis for
selecting the level of a national standard. For example, Arizona DEQ
noted:
The cited studies were conducted considering total light
extinction; including extinction resulting from particulate matter
and Rayleigh scattering. Visibility impairment due to coarse
particulate matter can be an important contributor in Arizona,
specifically in the Phoenix area where ongoing measurements have
been made. Therefore, ADEQ believes that the proposed levels of the
secondary visibility standard are inconsistent with applicable urban
studies. (Arizona DEQ, p. 2)
Similarly, the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment
noted that the Denver visibility standard was designed to address
``brown clouds'', i.e., strong inversions that occur in the Denver
metropolitan area, and that this standard ``is based on a
[[Page 3215]]
specific view of Denver'' associated with particular sight paths and
direct measurement methods. The commenter stated that this standard
``is applicable only to this location,'' and that these limitations
make it potentially unsuitable for application as ``a national
secondary standard, particularly a proposed standard that does not use
a direct measurement method'' (Colorado DPHE, p. 2).
While acknowledging the uncertainties and limitations associated
with the visibility preference studies as discussed above, the EPA
continues to conclude, as did CASAC, that the preference studies are
appropriate to use as the basis for selecting a target level of
protection from visibility impairment. However, the EPA agrees with
commenters who emphasize the high degree of variability in visibility
conditions and the potential variability in visibility preferences
across different parts of the country. In light of the associated
uncertainty, as noted in the proposal, the Administrator judged it
appropriate to establish a target level of protection equivalent to the
upper end of the range of Candidate Protection Levels (CPLs) identified
in the Policy Assessment and generally supported by CASAC. Thus, the
EPA proposed to set a 24-hour visibility index standard that would
provide protection equivalent to the protection afforded by a 4-hour
standard set at a level of 30 dv. In light of the comments received on
the proposal, in particular comments emphasizing the uncertainty and
variability in the results of the public preference studies, the EPA
continues to conclude that this approach is warranted, and that it is
appropriate to set a target level of protection equivalent to the
protection that would be afforded by a 4-hour, 30 dv visibility index
standard.
Moreover, the EPA disagrees with commenters who argued that the
EPA's approach for translating 4-hour CPLs into equivalent 24-hour
values was inappropriate. In adjusting 4-hour values for purposes of
defining an appropriate level for a 24-hour standard, the EPA noted at
the time of proposal that there were multiple approaches for estimating
generally equivalent levels on a city-specific or national basis. While
expressing the view that it was appropriate to consider the two
approaches with the highest r\2\ values (Approaches A and B in Appendix
G of the Policy Assessment),\191\ which used regressions of 90th
percentile light extinction values, the EPA determined it would also be
appropriate to consider the city-specific estimates resulting from
Approaches C and E which showed greater variability than the aggregated
estimates. Approaches C and E generated a range of city-specific
estimates of generally equivalent 24-hour levels that encompassed the
range of levels considered appropriate for 4-hour CPLs, including the
CPL of 30 dv at the upper end of that range. This information provided
support for using the same CPL for a 24-hour standard as for a 4-hour
standard, since no single approach could generate an equivalent 24-hour
standard level in each urban area for each CPL. The EPA continues to
conclude, as it did at the time of proposal, that using an unadjusted
4-hour CPL for purposes of establishing a target level of protection
for a 24-hour standard is appropriate because this approach places more
emphasis on the relatively high degree of spatial and temporal
variability in relative humidity and fine particle composition observed
in urban areas across the country, consistent with EPA's reanalysis
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ In particular, EPA staff expressed a preference for
Approach B in the Policy Assessment. However, in light of the
additional information provided by the other approaches explored in
Appendix G of the Policy Assessment and the reanalysis in Frank, et
al. (2012b), the EPA judges it more appropriate to consider the
range of values resulting from all five analytical approaches for
purposes of informing decisions about the equivalent level of a 24-
hour standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA has conducted a reanalysis (Frank et al., 2012b) of the
relationships between estimated 24-hour and 4-hour visibility
impairment based on the variety of metrics discussed in Appendix G of
the Policy Assessment. The reanalysis has more appropriately considered
the uncertainty of the calculated 4-hour values. The revised analysis
shows that the 24-hour equivalent level is generally closer to the 4-
hour value at the upper end of the range of CPLs than originally
estimated, as can be seen in the results for Approaches B, C, and
D.\192\ For example, the reanalysis indicates that Approach B yields an
adjusted 24-hour CPL of 29 dv\193\ as generally being equivalent to a
4-hour CPL of 30 dv, while Approach C yields a 24-hour equivalent CPL
of 29 dv averaged across cities and a range of city-specific values
from 25-36 dv.194 195 Not only are the 90th percentile and
pooled average values closer to the 4-hour CPL of 30 dv, the range of
city-specific results shows a wider spread that clearly encompasses the
unadjusted 4-hour value of 30 dv near the midpoint of the city-specific
range. This provides support for concluding that the EPA's approach to
translating of 4-hour CPLs into equivalent 24-hour values was
appropriate, and that it is appropriate to use unadjusted 4-hour values
for purposes of selecting a level for a standard based on a 24-hour
averaging time.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ Approach E as presented in the Policy Assessment is based
on the median values for each city; these results are not affected
by the regression analyses. Therefore, Approach E was not included
in the reanalysis, and the results remain unchanged from those
reported in the corrected Table G-6 as reported in Frank, et al.,
2012b.
\193\ In Appendix G of the Policy Assessment, a 24-hour adjusted
CPL of 28 dv was estimated to be equivalent to a 4-hour value of 30
dv under Approach B (annual 90th percentile values regression).
\194\ In Appendix G of the Policy Assessment, under Approach C
(all-days city-specific regression), a 24-hour adjusted CPL of 27 dv
was estimated to be equivalent to a 4-hour CPL of 30 dv when
averaged across cities, while city-specific values were estimated to
range from 24-30 dv.
\195\ In the reanalysis, Approach D (all days pooled regression)
generated results of 28 dv for the 24-hour CPL equivalent to a 4-
hour value of 30 dv as compared to a value of 27 dv in the original
analysis described in Appendix G.
\196\ The analysis in Appendix G of the Policy Assessment used
the 4-hour light extinction value treated as the independent (x-
axis) variable in an ordinary least squares regression. The EPA now
concludes that this regression approach was not the most appropriate
approach because that variable has error and in fact may be more
uncertain than the calculated 24-hour extinction values. The Frank
et al. (2012b) reanalysis uses an orthogonal regression instead of
ordinary least squares regression and results in slopes closer to
the 1:1 line for all the results, particularly for Dallas, TX.
Furthermore, consistent with the EPA's conclusion that a higher
multiplier for converting OC to OM would be appropriate (see section
VI.C.1.b.ii above), the reanalysis substitutes a 1.6 multiplier for
converting OC to OM in the calculation of 24-hour values instead of
the value of 1.4 that was used in calculating 24-hour values for
Appendix G. The higher multiplier is more consistent with the
SANDWICH approach used to calculate the 4-hour values found in
Appendix G. See Frank et al. (2012b) for a more detailed
explanation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the EPA disagrees with commenters who argue that the
currently available evidence is sufficient to justify establishing a
target level of protection at 25 dv or below. The EPA recognizes that
25 dv represents the middle of the range of 50 percent acceptability
levels from the 4 cities studied, and represents the 50 percent
acceptability level from the Phoenix study, which the Agency has
acknowledged as the best of the four studies in terms of having the
least noise in the preference study results and the most representative
selection of participants. The EPA also notes the caveats discussed in
the proposal regarding whether it would be appropriate to interpret
results from the western studies as generally representative of a
broader range of scenic vistas in urban areas across the country. The
Policy Assessment noted significant differences in the
[[Page 3216]]
characteristics of the urban scenes used in each study, with western
urban visibility preference study scenes including mountains in the
background and objects at greater distances, while scenes in the
eastern study did not. Since objects at a greater distance have a
greater sensitivity to perceived visibility changes as light extinction
changes compared to otherwise similar scenes with objects at a shorter
range, this likely explains part of the difference between the results
of the eastern study and results of the western studies. In the
proposal, the EPA noted that the scenic vistas available on a daily
basis in many urban areas across the country generally do not have the
inherent visual interest or the distance between viewer and object of
greatest intrinsic value as in the Denver and Phoenix preference
studies. Also, the Agency takes note of the caution expressed by
Colorado and Arizona about using the results of the Denver and Phoenix
preference studies, which were aimed at addressing specific local
visibility problems, to inform the choice of level for a national
standard. Therefore, the Agency considers it reasonable to conclude,
especially in light of the significant uncertainties, that it is
appropriate to place less weight on the western preference results and
that the high CPL value (30 dv) that is based on the eastern preference
results is likely to be more representative of urban areas that do not
have associated mountains or other valued objects visible in the
distant background. These areas would include the middle of the country
and many areas in the eastern U.S., as well as some western areas. As a
result, the EPA concludes that it is more appropriate to establish a
target level of protection at the upper end of the range of 24-hour
CPLs considered, recognizing that no one level will be ``correct'' for
every urban area in the country.
In considering the upper end of this range, the EPA must identify a
target level of protection that is considered requisite to protect
public welfare from a national perspective, recognizing that the same
target level would apply in all locations. Making this judgment
requires a balancing of the risks to the public welfare and the
substantial uncertainties surrounding appropriate levels of visibility
protection. As acknowledged in the proposal, the EPA recognizes that
setting a target level of protection for a 24-hour standard at 30 dv
would reflect a judgment that the current substantial degrees of
variability and uncertainty inherent in the public preference studies
should be reflected in a higher target protection level than would be
appropriate if the underlying information were more consistent and
certain. Also, a 24-hour visibility index at a level of 30 dv would
reflect recognition that there is considerable spatial and temporal
variability in the key factors that determine the value of the
PM2.5 visibility index in any given urban area, such that
there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty as to the most
appropriate approach to use in selecting a 24-hour standard level that
would be generally equivalent to a specific 4-hour standard level. In
light of these uncertainties, the EPA continues to believe that it is
appropriate to establish a target level of protection for visual air
quality of 30 dv, averaged over 24-hours, with a form as discussed
above.
In reaching this conclusion, the EPA notes that any national
ambient air quality standard for visibility would be designed to work
in conjunction with the Regional Haze Program as a means of achieving
appropriate levels of protection against PM-related visibility
impairment in all areas of the country, including urban, non-urban, and
Federal Class I areas. While the Regional Haze Program is focused on
improving visibility in Federal Class I areas and a secondary
visibility index NAAQS would focus on protecting visual air quality
principally in urban areas, both programs could be expected to provide
benefits in surrounding areas. In addition, the development of local
programs, such as those in Denver and Phoenix, can continue to be an
effective and appropriate approach to provide additional protection,
beyond that afforded by a national standard, for unique scenic
resources in and around certain urban areas that are particularly
highly valued by people living in those areas. With regard to comments
from the Department of Interior noting that many large metropolitan
areas have 24-hour IMPROVE values below 30 dv on the worst 20 percent
of days already, the EPA notes that the purpose of establishing NAAQS
is to ensure adequate protection of public welfare everywhere, not to
mandate continuous improvements in areas that may already be relatively
clean. In fact, the evidence from the IMPROVE program that many urban
areas have total 24-hour PM-related light extinction below 29 dv on the
20 percent worst visibility days suggests that many areas have
relatively good visual air quality already.
f. Need for a Distinct Secondary Standard To Protect Visibility
Numerous commenters questioned whether a distinct secondary
standard for visibility is necessary in light of the analysis described
in section VI.B.1.c.vii above (Kelly et al., 2012a) which indicated
that a 24-hour mass-based PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
would protect against visibility impacts exceeding the range of levels
considered in the proposal (28-30 dv). While this analysis was
conducted in support of proposed implementation requirements for a
distinct secondary standard (specifically, the modeling demonstrations
that would be required under the PSD program), the second prong of the
analysis showed that within the range of levels proposed by the EPA for
the visibility index NAAQS (28-30 dv), the 24-hour PM2.5
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would generally be controlling. Kelly et al.
(2012a) concluded that ``overall, design values based on 2008-2010 data
suggest that counties that attain 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS level
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would attain the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS level of 30 dv and generally attain the level of
28 dv'' (pp. 17-18).
Citing this conclusion, many state and local agencies and industry
commenters argued that a visibility index standard in the range
proposed (28-30 dv) would provide no additional protection beyond that
afforded by the existing secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and
therefore no distinct visibility standard was necessary. These
commenters advocated retaining the current 24-hour PM2.5
mass-based standard to protect against visibility effects. ``Since the
24-hour PM2.5 standard already protects the welfare the 24-
hour PM2.5 visibility standard is designed to protect, the
new standard is duplicative and unnecessary'' (South Dakota DENR, p.
2). Furthermore, a number of state commenters objected to the
additional resource burden associated with implementing a standard
which had, in their view, no practical effect: ``If the 24-hour
PM2.5 mass standard has the same effect as the visibility
standard, crafting complex regulations to implement another standard
seems redundant'' (South Carolina DHEC, p. 3). Other states agreed: ``A
PM2.5-related Visibility Index appears redundant since the
benefits achieved from the current primary and secondary annual and 24-
hour PM2.5 standards already provide reductions that would
improve visibility. Establishing a new PM2.5 secondary
standard for visibility would be an additional complication and burden
to the states that is not warranted'' (Indiana DEM, p. 5).
In addition, several commenters submitted additional analyses
supporting their position that a 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour PM2.5
standard would provide at least equivalent protection to
[[Page 3217]]
a distinct 24-hour visibility standard within the range of levels
proposed (API, Attachment 2, p. 8 and Attachment 3, p. 1).
In responding to these comments stating that a distinct visibility
standard is not needed, the EPA notes as an initial matter that the
Administrator provisionally concluded at the time of proposal that the
current PM standards were not sufficiently protective of visual air
quality, and that consideration should be given to an alternative
secondary standard that would provide additional protection against PM-
related visibility impairment, especially in urban areas. This
provisional conclusion was based on the results of public preference
surveys on the acceptability of varying degrees of visibility
impairment in urban areas, analyses of the number of days on which peak
1-hour or 4-hour light extinction values were estimated to exceed a
range of CPLs under conditions simulated to just meet the current
standards, and the advice of CASAC. The Administrator also noted that
the current indicator of PM2.5 mass, in conjunction with the
current 24-hour and annual averaging times, was not well suited for
purposes of protecting visibility, since it does not incorporate
species composition or relative humidity, both of which play a central
role in determining the impact of ambient PM on visibility. Taking into
account the advice of CASAC and the court's remand of the current
secondary PM2.5 standards, the Administrator provisionally
concluded that the current secondary standards were neither
sufficiently protective nor suitably structured to provide an
appropriate degree of public welfare protection from PM-related
visibility impairment. As a result, the EPA proposed a new, distinct
secondary standard that was designed to address these deficiencies.
The EPA notes that in critiquing the proposed secondary standard,
commenters generally did not advocate that the form of the existing
mass-based PM2.5 standards was better suited scientifically
to the task of protecting against visibility impairment. Rather, the
commenters' position that a distinct secondary standard was not needed
for purposes of protecting visibility was based almost entirely on the
relative degree of protection likely to be afforded by the existing
standards (in particular, the existing 24-hour PM2.5
standard) as compared to the proposed visibility index, along with the
relatively large uncertainties associated with the latter. Thus, for
all the reasons discussed in the proposal with regard to the scientific
appropriateness of an indicator that takes into account both species
composition and relative humidity, the EPA continues to conclude that
the proposed standard based on a visibility index would be appropriate
scientifically to provide targeted protection of visibility, since it
would provide a measure of PM-related light extinction that directly
takes into account the factors (i.e., species composition and relative
humidity) that influence the relationship between PM2.5 in
the ambient air and PM-related visibility impairment.
Furthermore, the EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that
implementation concerns, in particular the additional resource burden
associated with implementing a distinct secondary standard, should
alter the Agency's decision making with regard to a standard to protect
visibility. The EPA may not take the costs of implementation into
account in setting or revising the NAAQS.
However, in light of the results of the Kelly et al. (2012a)
analysis and the views expressed by commenters on the implications of
this analysis for conclusions regarding the adequacy of the current
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the EPA has reconsidered
some of the conclusions drawn at the time of proposal, in particular
with regard to the degree of protection that would be provided by the
current secondary standard. Based on a review of comments related to
indicator, averaging time, form and level, the Agency has concluded
that (as described in sections VI.C.1b-e above) a standard defined in
terms of a PM2.5 visibility index (based on speciated
PM2.5 mass concentrations and relative humidity data to
calculate PM2.5 light extinction), a 24-hour averaging time,
and a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years, and a level of 30
dv, would provide sufficient but not more than necessary protection of
the public welfare with regard to visual air quality. Having identified
this target level of protection, the EPA is now in a position to
compare it specifically to the existing secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ for purposes of determining
whether it would provide more, the same, or less protection from
visibility impairment. The EPA must consider both whether the existing
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ is
sufficient (i.e. not under-protective) and whether it is more stringent
than necessary (i.e. over-protective).
With regard to the degree to which the existing secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard provides sufficient but not more than
necessary protection for visibility, the EPA first notes that the kind
of area-specific analysis conducted in Kelly et al. (2012a) is
essential for addressing the court remand of the 2006 secondary
standards. In the case of the 2006 secondary standards, the EPA had
argued that the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour PM2.5 standard was
requisite because one part of the proposed range for a distinct
secondary standard the Agency had considered would affect the
attainment status of a somewhat fewer counties than the 35 [mu]g/m\3\
24-hour PM2.5 standard. The court rejected this kind of
rough balancing, finding that the EPA's equivalency analysis based on
percentages of counties demonstrated nothing about the relative
protection offered by the different standards. Based on this, an area-
by-area evaluation of the relative degree of protection offered by
different standards should be conducted to the extent air quality data
is available.
Kelly et al. (2012a) performed such an evaluation. Based on 2008-
2010 data, there are no areas that would have exceeded a 30 dv, 24-hour
visibility index standard that would not also have exceeded a 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. Stated another way, all
areas that met the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
would have had visual air quality at least as good as 30 dv (24-hour
average, based on 90th percentile form averaged over 3 years). The
Kelly (2012a) analysis also showed that for some areas, particularly in
the West, areas that would have met a 24-hour PM2.5 standard
of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would have had visual air quality better than 30 dv
for the PM2.5 visibility index standard, and that at sites
that violated both the 24-hour level and the visibility index 30 dv
level, the visibility index level of 30 dv would likely be attained if
PM2.5 concentrations were reduced such that the 24-hour
PM2.5 level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ was attained.
The EPA has conducted a reanalysis (Kelly et al., 2012b) to update
the area-by-area analysis in the original Kelly et al. (2012a) analysis
in three respects. First, noting that the original Kelly at al. (2012a)
analysis used a 1.4 multiplier to convert OC to OM at those monitors
not using the new CSN monitoring protocol, the EPA recalculated the
visibility index design values for 2008-2010 using a higher multiplier
for converting OC to OM at monitors not already using the new CSN
monitoring protocol SANDWICH approach, consistent with the Agency's
view that it is more appropriate to use a multiplier of 1.6 at such
monitors as compared to 1.4, as described in section VI.C.1.a.ii,
[[Page 3218]]
above.\197\ The recomputed visibility design index values for 2008-2010
show the same overall relationship to 24-hour PM2.5 design
values as presented in Kelly et al., 2012a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ Some of the OC measurements were produced with CSN's newer
monitoring protocol and did not require a change in the computed OM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the EPA repeated the calculations comparing visibility
index design values with 24-hour PM2.5 design values using
2009-2011 data, the most recent three years of air quality information
currently available.\198\ Third, the EPA modified the area-by-area
evaluation to ensure consistency with the data completeness criteria of
40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, including the removal of data approved by
EPA as exceptional events, for the current 24-hour PM2.5
standard and the proposed visibility index standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ The 2011 air quality data were not yet available at the
time of proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of this reanalysis, as presented in Kelly et al.
(2012b), show a similar pattern to that described in the original Kelly
memo. Specifically, the analysis indicates that there were no areas
with visibility impairment above 30 dv that did not also exceed the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The updated memo
concludes that the results for 2009-2011 corroborate the findings for
2008-2010.
Based on these analyses (Kelly et al., 2012a; 2012b), the EPA
concludes with a high degree of confidence that having air quality that
meets the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would be
sufficient to ensure areas would not exceed 30 dv. The EPA notes that
this conclusion from Kelly et al. (2012a) is supported by two analyses
submitted by industry commenters (API, Attachments 2 and 3).
At the time of proposal, the EPA had reached a different
conclusion, specifically that the 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour
PM2.5 standard was not sufficiently protective. This
conclusion was based, in part, on the analyses conducted for the
Visibility Assessment and Policy Assessment regarding 1- to 4-hour peak
light extinction values based on 2007-2009 data. For the reasons
outlined above in sections VI.B.1.c and VI.C.1.c, the EPA originally
focused on hourly or sub-daily timeframes for evaluating visibility
conditions. However, data quality concerns effectively precluded
adoption of a 1-hour or sub-daily averaging time in this review, and
ultimately the EPA has concluded that a 24-hour averaging time can
serve as an appropriate surrogate. In reaching this conclusion, the EPA
has recognized that adopting a 24-hour averaging time will likely
smooth out some of the hour-by-hour variability in visibility index
values, and will effectively reduce peak values by averaging them
together with other hours. In concluding it is appropriate to adopt a
24-hour averaging time, which limits the impact of hour-specific
influences, the Agency is now placing less weight on the results of the
1-hour and 4-hour analyses presented in the Visibility Assessment and
the Policy Assessment which focused on identifying the percent of days
with peak hourly light extinction above various CPLs. In light of the
Agency's conclusion that a 24-hour averaging time would be appropriate,
the Agency has determined to place more weight on analyses of
visibility conditions over a 24-hour time period, especially the
results in Kelly et al. (2012a and 2012b). In addition, the EPA notes
that the Kelly et al. analyses reflects updated air quality information
from more recent years of data (2008-2010 for Kelly et al., 2012a;
2009-2011 for Kelly et al. 2012b) as compared to the air quality
information used in the Visibility Assessment and Policy Assessment.
In light of all of these considerations, including the results of
the Kelly et al. (2012a; 2012b) analyses, and the supporting comments
provided by a broad range of public commenters, the EPA now concludes
that the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ provides
sufficient protection in all areas against the effects of visibility
impairment. The EPA concludes that the existing 24-hour
PM2.5 standard would provide at least the target level of
protection for visual air quality defined by a visibility index set at
30 dv, as described above, which the EPA judges appropriate.
However, the EPA also recognizes that it is important to evaluate
whether such a standard would be over-protective (i.e. more stringent
than necessary to protect public welfare). The analyses presented in
Kelly et al. (2012a; 2012b) indicates that the 24-hour PM2.5
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would achieve more than the target level of
protection of visual air quality (30 dv) in some areas. That is, when
meeting a mass-based standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, some areas would have
levels of PM-related visibility impairment far below 30 dv. Thus, when
considered by itself and without consideration of the secondary
standards adopted for purposes of non-visibility welfare effects, the
24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would be over-
protective of visibility in some areas. However, it is important to
note that as long as the current secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ remains in effect, this overprotection for
visibility would occur, regardless of whether a distinct secondary
standard based on a visibility index set at 30 dv were adopted. These
issues are discussed more fully in section VI.D, which outlines the
Administrator's final conclusions on the secondary PM standards, below.
g. Legal Issues
Some commenters opposed the proposal to establish a distinct
secondary standard that would be defined in terms of a PM2.5
visibility index. The proposed standard would use measured
PM2.5 mass concentration, in combination with speciated
PM2.5 mass concentration and relative humidity data, to
calculate PM2.5 light extinction, translated to the deciview
(dv) scale. The standard would also be defined in terms of a specified
averaging time and form, and a level for the PM2.5
visibility index set at one of two options--either 30 dv or 28 dv. The
commenters argued that the entire approach proposed by the EPA is
inconsistent with the requirements of CAA section 109(b). They pointed
to a number of different aspects of the proposal which in their view
made it incompatible with the CAA. For example, the Utility Air
Resources Group (UARG) stated:
In the past, EPA has always used a measure of PM mass as the
indicator for both primary and secondary PM NAAQS. Such a standard
is, as a general matter, consistent with the directive in the CAA
that the NAAQS ``specify a level of air quality'' and targets for
control the listed criteria air pollutant. CAA Sec. 109(b)(2). The
standard contained in EPA's proposed rule does neither of these
things. Instead, it would (1) regulate relative humidity, which is
not a criteria pollutant; (2) fail to ``specify a level of air
quality'' as required by section 109(b)(2) of the CAA; and (3)
result in a standard necessitating nationally variable PM
concentrations instead of a standard establishing a nationally
uniform, minimally acceptable PM concentration. (UARG, p. 22-23)
Other commenters raised similar or related issues, arguing that the
EPA improperly set a visibility standard, and not a PM2.5
standard, and that NAAQS can only be set in terms of a level or
concentration of the air pollutant. Commenters also argued that an
endangerment finding and air quality criteria would be needed before
the EPA could set a standard based on PM components. Each of these
comments is discussed below.
As an initial matter, the commenters argued that the proposed
standard is unlawful because it is ``not a PM2.5 standard at
all, but rather a visibility standard, and visibility is neither an air
pollutant nor a criteria pollutant for which a NAAQS may be
promulgated''
[[Page 3219]]
(NMA/NCBA, p. 21). According to these commenters, the CAA requires that
NAAQS be established as limits on the concentration of an air pollutant
in ambient air, not limits on the ``identifiable effects'' caused by
that air pollutant. These commenters claimed that reduced visibility
due to light extinction is not an air pollutant but instead is an
effect, noting that ``the Act's definition of `air pollutant' speaks in
terms of specific substances or matter in the ambient air'' (NSSGA, p.
8). The commenters pointed to the use of the term ``air pollutant'' in
sections 109(a)(1)(A) and (b)(2) as support for their argument, as
these provisions refer to setting standards for the ``air pollutant''
to address the effects associated with the presence of the air
pollutant in the ambient air. They likewise pointed to section
108(a)(2)'s reference to the presence of the air pollutant in the
ambient air. Since reduced visibility is not an air pollutant, they
argue the EPA cannot set a NAAQS that is a standard for visibility.
They argue that the proposed secondary standard it is not a
PM2.5 standard as it does not limit the concentration of
PM2.5 or any other fraction of particulate matter in the
ambient air and therefore is not an ``ambient air quality standard''
for any pollutant.
One commenter argued that the EPA is required to ``specify a level
of air quality'' under section 109(b)(2), which Congress intended as an
acceptable concentration level of the air pollutant in the ambient air,
noting that specification of acceptable visibility conditions is not
the same as an acceptable air pollution concentration level. Citing
American Farm Bureau v. EPA, 559 F.3d at 516, one commenter claimed
that the court had affirmed that ``the NAAQS--whether primary or
secondary--is a mass-based standard'' (Nevada DEP, p. 5). Commenters
also refer to the legislative history of the 1970 amendments, referring
to NAAQS as setting the ``maximum permissible ambient air level'' for
an air pollutant. The commenters argue that the proposed standard is
improper because it does not limit the concentration of
PM2.5 or any fraction of PM in ambient air, but improperly
sets a limit on visibility effects.
With regard to humidity, these commenters argued that the proposed
standard improperly regulates relative humidity because it is included
in the calculation to determine the value of the visibility index.
According to these commenters, the CAA allows the EPA to control
criteria air pollutants through the NAAQS program, but not other
various substances. The commenters stated that the EPA recognized this
in the last review, treating humidity as a confounding factor and
considering addressing it by measuring PM2.5 mass-based
concentration over the midday hours, when humidity would have the least
effect. This would target the effects caused by PM, and not by
humidity. Referring to American Farm Bureau v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512, 528
(DC Cir. 2009) and 77 FR at 38979 n.153. UARG contested the proposed
calculated visibility index as it does not approach relative humidity
as a confounding factor but instead ``embraces it and treats it as if
it were a PM effect'' (UARG p. 24).
The commenters also stated that the use of a calculated visibility
index, and the failure to exclude the effects of humidity, would result
in acceptable PM concentrations that vary across the nation. These
commenters claimed that such a standard is inconsistent with the
requirements of the CAA because the proposed approach fails to
establish a nationally uniform PM concentration standard. For example,
API argued that the proposed visibility index approach is ``essentially
specifying levels--not a level--of air quality'' (API, p. 29). UARG
agreed, and stated that the Act ``requires that criteria pollutant
concentrations throughout the nation reach, at the least, a single,
specified ambient concentration level'' (UARG, p. 25, emphasis in
original). The commenters argue that a PM2.5 visibility
index standard cannot provide equal protection nationwide due to
geographic variation in key factors such as relative humidity that
affect level of particles allowed in different areas. The commenters
noted that establishing a single national level for the
PM2.5 visibility index would necessarily result in unequal
acceptable PM2.5 levels in different areas of the country,
with lowest allowable PM2.5 levels in urban areas in the
Southeast and highest allowable levels in the arid West. UARG
recognized that under section 108 the air quality criteria are to
``address those variable factors (including atmospheric conditions)
which of themselves or in combination with other factors may alter the
effects on public health or welfare of such air pollutant,'' but stated
that while section 108 ``allows'' this, it has no bearing on this
issue. Instead, the commenter stated that the EPA may take such
information into account in setting a permissible concentration of the
pollutant that is uniform and national (UARG, p. 25).
In addition, some commenters opposed to the proposed distinct
secondary standard argued that in order to base a standard on measured
levels of several speciated substances, the EPA must first make an
endangerment finding and issue air quality criteria for each of the
speciated substances included in the calculation of PM2.5
light extinction. According to these commenters, ``EPA cannot use NAAQS
to indirectly regulate multiple substances which are not criteria
pollutants under the guise of establishing a visibility standard''
(NMA/NCBA, p. 21). Noting that air quality criteria for particulate
matter were issued in 1969, NMA/NCBA argued that the 1969 Criteria
Document ``did not establish air quality criteria for individual
constituents that occur in particle form, instead it established
criteria for particulate matter as a whole'' (p. 27). In light of the
fact that criteria have never been issued for ``individual speciated
components of particulate matter,'' these commenters argued, ``if EPA
wishes to promulgate a rule such as its secondary visibility NAAQS, it
first must make a finding that the speciated components listed in
Appendix N endanger public health or welfare and then issue an air
quality criteria document for those components'' (NMA/NCBA, p. 29).
According to these commenters, the approach the EPA adopted in
promulgating a NAAQS for lead supports this view:
When EPA promulgated a NAAQS for lead, an individual substance
in particle form, it did not assert that an endangerment finding or
criteria document for lead was unnecessary because lead was already
covered by the PM Criteria Document. Instead, EPA complied with the
Section 108 and 109 NAAQS prerequisites for lead, just as it must do
for Appendix N substances if it intends to promulgate a NAAQS for
those substances. * * * [In 1976], EPA listed lead as an air
pollutant that adversely affected public health or welfare, issued
an air quality criteria document for lead, and promulgated a NAAQS
for lead. 43 FR 46246 (Oct. 5, 1976). (NMA/NCBA, p. 29)
Finally, UARG argued that the EPA has in the past recognized that
the secondary NAAQS is an inappropriate vehicle for regulating PM-
related visibility, referring to 62 FR at 38680, including fn 49. UARG
claimed the same situation continues, and the EPA has not provided a
valid basis for changing this conclusion.
The EPA disagrees with the points raised by these commenters. While
the EPA is not adopting the proposed secondary standard, as explained
below, this decision is not based on concern over the EPA's authority
to adopt a secondary standard such as the one proposed.
The proposed distinct secondary standard is a standard for
PM2.5, and is
[[Page 3220]]
not a ``visibility standard.'' The proposed secondary standard is based
on the mass concentration of PM2.5 in the ambient air. The
standard is defined in terms of calculated PM2.5 light
extinction which is based on the measurement of the mass concentration
of ambient PM2.5 over a 24-hour period. The measured mass
concentration is adjusted based on information on the speciated mass
components of the PM2.5 and the relative humidity, resulting
in a calculated visibility index. The level of the visibility index,
combined with the form of the standard and averaging time, identifies
whether a level of ambient mass concentration of PM2.5
achieves the standard or not. Given any specific mass concentration of
ambient PM2.5, combined with information on speciation and
relative humidity, it can be determined whether the specific mass
concentration of ambient PM2.5 achieved the NAAQS. Hence,
the proposed secondary NAAQS specifies acceptable levels of ambient
mass concentration of PM2.5.
The combination of indicator, averaging time, form, and level of
the proposed NAAQS is designed to provide the appropriate degree of
protection from visibility impairment caused by ambient levels of
PM2.5. It does this by calculating the light extinction
associated with ambient concentrations of PM2.5 and
specifying the level of acceptable PM2.5 mass concentration
in terms of this calculation. However this does not change the fact
that the standard is for the air pollutant PM2.5, and
defines acceptable ambient levels of this air pollutant. It does not
transform the standard into a ``visibility standard'' and not a
standard for PM2.5. While the commenters had additional
concerns over the use of relative humidity in the calculation, and the
variation around the country of acceptable mass concentrations, those
issues are separate and do not change the fact that the proposed
standard defined in terms of calculated PM2.5 light
extinction is based on measurement of PM2.5 concentration in
the ambient air, and is a NAAQS for PM2.5.
With regard to the contention that section 109(b) limits the EPA to
setting a standard that is based on the concentration of the pollutant
in the ambient air, we note that the term ``concentration'' typically
means some measure of relative content. For example, this would include
relative measures such as mass per unit of volume or parts per million.
The EPA has often used such metrics to define the NAAQS, largely
because the scientific evidence of health or welfare effects supporting
the NAAQS typically use such metrics in air pollution studies. For
example, the current secondary standards for PM are defined in terms of
the concentration of PM2.5 and PM10 in the
ambient air, measured as the dried mass of the particulate matter per
unit of air. However section 109(b) does not require that a NAAQS be
defined this way.
Sections 109(a) and (b) both use the general term ``air quality''
when discussing the EPA's obligation to set NAAQS. The NAAQS are
clearly national ambient ``air quality'' standards under section
109(b), which specifies that the primary NAAQS ``shall be ambient air
quality standards'' and the secondary NAAQS ``shall specify a level of
air quality.'' Both the primary and secondary NAAQS are to be based on
the ``air quality criteria,'' which are to accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge on the effects on public health and welfare
associated with ``the presence of such air pollutant in the ambient
air, in varying quantities.'' Section 109(b), 108(a)(2). Congress spoke
in broad terms, tasking the EPA with assessing the latest scientific
knowledge about the public health and welfare associated with the
presence of the pollutant in the air, without limiting this to
consideration of only those effects associated with one or more
measures of concentration of the air pollutant. Congress referred to
any and all effects associated with the presence of the pollutant in
the ambient air, not just the effects associated with the concentration
of the pollutant in the ambient air. Based on this knowledge, the EPA
is required to set standards for the quality of the air that will
provide the appropriate degree of protection from these health and
welfare effects, without limitation on how to measure or define air
quality. While concentration in the air has typically been an
appropriate way to set a standard to achieve these requirements, the
more general terms used in section 108(a) and 109(b) do not limit the
EPA to using concentration as the only way to measure air quality for
purposes of setting a NAAQS. The EPA is charged with setting air
quality standards, and has the discretion under section 109(b) to
choose the metric for defining air quality that is appropriate to
address the health or welfare effect at issue.
Congress did refer to ``concentration'' in certain situations. In
section 109(c) Congress required the EPA to set a primary NAAQS for
NO2 concentration over 3 hours. This addressed Congress'
concern over whether the then current NO2 standard, which
used concentration as a metric, provided adequate protection. Congress
also called on CASAC to advise the Administrator on the relative
contribution to ``air pollution concentrations'' of natural and
anthropogenic sources, under section 109(d)(2)(C)(iii). This
information is in addition to the advice CASAC is required to provide
concerning appropriate revisions to the ``air quality criteria'' and to
the NAAQS under section 109(d)(2)(B).\199\ While these provisions refer
to ambient concentrations of pollutants, this reflects the EPA's
standard practice to date in setting NAAQS, and none of them change or
limit the range of discretion provided under section 109(b) in setting
NAAQS. They do not change the fact that the EPA is to set ``air
quality'' standards, and is not limited to ``air concentration''
standards. The reference in the legislative history to a maximum
permissible ambient air level for the pollutant also does not limit the
EPA to a level of air pollutant concentration, as compared to a
different metric for specifying the level of air quality, if that is
judged to be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\199\ In a provision that is not part of the CAA, in 1990
Congress required EPA to request a report from the National Academy
of Sciences on the role of secondary national ambient air quality
standards, including information on the ``effects on welfare and the
environment which are caused by ambient concentrations of
pollutants'' listed under section 108, and the ``ambient
concentrations of each such pollutant which would be adequate to
protect welfare and the environment from such effects.'' Section
817(a) of the CAA Amendments of 1990, Pub. L. 101-549.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text of sections 108 and 109 does not support the limited
interpretation commenters suggest. Instead these provisions provide the
EPA with significant discretion in determining the metric for air
quality that is appropriate to achieve the required degree of
protection of public welfare. The commenters' interpretation would
improperly limit this discretion, interfering with achieving the goals
of section 109(b).
For example, in this review the EPA considered whether it would be
appropriate to base a secondary NAAQS on direct measurement of the
light extinction caused by PM2.5. See 77 FR 38890, 38980-1
(June 29, 2012). There are several instrumental methods that directly
measure PM2.5 light extinction--the amount of light
extinction caused by the presence of PM2.5 in the ambient
air. This is not a measure of the concentration of PM2.5 in
the air, but a measure of the light extinction caused by
PM2.5. This is clearly an effect associated with the
presence of PM2.5 in the ambient air,
[[Page 3221]]
and this atmospheric property is directly related to visibility
effects. Unlike PM2.5 mass concentration, there is a close
scientific relationship between directly measured PM2.5
light extinction and visibility effects.
It would appear straightforward to say that PM2.5 light
extinction is a quality of the ambient air, and a secondary NAAQS that
specified an acceptable level of PM2.5 based on directly
measured PM2.5 light extinction would be an ``ambient air
quality standard'' for the air pollutant that specifies a ``level of
air quality'' designed to provide protection against visibility
impairment. Unlike directly measured PM2.5 light extinction,
the mass concentration of PM2.5 does not have the same
direct relationship to light extinction, and specifying an acceptable
level of mass concentration of PM2.5 would be a more
indirect and less effective way to provide protection from visibility
impairment caused by the presence of PM2.5 in the ambient
air. Under the commenters' interpretation, the EPA would be precluded
from specifying a level of air quality in terms of directly measured
PM2.5 light extinction, the more scientifically appropriate
and direct measure of the effect PM2.5 has on visibility.
Instead the EPA would be limited to the more indirect and less
effective specification of a level of concentration of
PM2.5.
The commenters also objected to the inclusion of relative humidity
as an adjustment factor in the calculation of PM2.5 light
extinction. Contrary to the claims of these commenters, the use of
calculated PM2.5 light extinction does not regulate relative
humidity. The proposed secondary standard would define acceptable
levels of ambient PM2.5, not acceptable levels of relative
humidity. In addition, section 108 explicitly requires that the air
quality criteria include information on the atmospheric conditions that
can alter the effects of the air pollutant on public health or welfare,
and relative humidity certainly has this kind of impact. Section 109(b)
requires that the standard be based on the air quality criteria,
indicating that this information can and should be taken into account
in setting the standard. Including relative humidity as an adjustment
factor in the calculation of PM2.5 light extinction is a
reasonable and straightforward way to use the scientific information in
the air quality criteria in establishing a standard to provide
protection from visibility impairment.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ UARG recognizes these provisions, but argues, as above,
that this is limited by the requirement that the EPA set a NAAQS
based solely on ambient concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters pointed to the EPA's position in the last review,
stating that the EPA properly treated relative humidity as a
confounding factor, and in this review improperly moves away from that
position. See 77 FR at 38979, 71 FR 61144, 61205 (October 17, 2006). In
the last review the EPA considered a distinct PM2.5 mass-
based secondary standard. In that context, limiting the measurement of
PM2.5 mass concentration to the mid-day hours when relative
humidity had the least impact would promote the correlation between
measured PM2.5 mass concentration and light extinction,
which would promote achievement of a relatively consistent degree of
visibility protection across the country. However in this rulemaking
the proposed calculated PM2.5 light extinction standard
achieves a consistent degree of visibility protection by directly
accounting for humidity, in a scientifically defensible manner. The
goal has not changed--achieving the desired degree of protection across
the country. What has changed is that calculated PM2.5 light
extinction is a more direct and scientifically appropriate way to
achieve that result.
Finally, it should be made clear that water is not a separate
compound from PM2.5 that confounds the impact
PM2.5 has on light extinction. As described in the
Integrated Science Assessment, ``PM is the generic term for a broad
class of chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as
discrete particles (liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of
sizes'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 1-4). ``Particles composed of water
soluble inorganic salts (i.e., ammoniated sulfate, ammonium nitrate,
sodium chloride, etc.) are hygroscopic in that they absorb water as a
function of relative humidity to form a liquid solution droplet. Aside
from the chemical consequences of this water growth, the droplets
become larger when relative humidity increases, resulting in increased
light scattering. Hence, the same PM dry concentration produces more
haze'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 9-6). Thus water is not a compound that is
separate and apart from the particle that acts as an extraneous
confounding factor.\201\ The effect of relative humidity occurs after
the water becomes part of the particle. Certain water soluble salts
absorb water and the resulting particle is larger in size and scatters
more light, increasing the visibility impact of the particle. But the
particle is still a PM2.5 particle. The fact that the PM
NAAQS traditionally uses a measurement of the dried mass of the
particles as the metric for the standard does not change the fact that
the particles in the air include liquid droplets and particles that
have increased in size because of absorption of water. These ambient
PM2.5 particles are what is in the air and impacting
visibility, not just the dried mass of PM2.5 that is
measured in the laboratory and is currently used as the indicator for
the PM NAAQS. Thus the commenters improperly claimed that the proposed
secondary standard regulates water or relative humidity, and not
PM2.5, when in fact the proposed secondary standard accounts
in a scientific manner for the fact that some PM2.5
particles are larger in size and have a greater impact on light
extinction when the relative humidity increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ According to the Integrated Science Assessment,
``Confounding is `* * * a confusion of effects. Specifically, the
apparent effect of the exposure of interest is distorted because the
effect of an extraneous factor is mistaken for or mixed with the
actual exposure effect (which may be null) ' (Rothman and Greenland,
1998, 086599)'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 1-16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenters also raised concerns that a standard based on
calculated PM2.5 light extinction, compared to a standard
based on just PM2.5 mass concentration, improperly results
in variable levels of acceptable PM2.5 mass concentrations
across the country. This stems from the adjustments in the calculation
for speciated components of PM2.5 and relative humidity.
According to commenters, this is improper as section 109(b) requires
that the NAAQS set a single, specified ambient concentration that is
nationally uniform across the country.
As discussed above, the text of section 109(b) does not specify
this limitation of a single national acceptable concentration. Instead
the secondary NAAQS is to specify a level of air quality that achieves
the appropriate degree of protection. The proposed secondary standard
would do just that--specify a level of air quality, defined in terms of
calculated PM2.5 light extinction, that would achieve the
desired degree of protection. The fact that this results in varying
allowable levels of PM2.5 mass concentrations is not
inconsistent with the Act. The DC Circuit recently approved such a
result. In the last review of the PM10 primary NAAQS, the
court approved the EPA's choice of an indicator that was designed to
allow varying levels of acceptable coarse PM. The court stated that:
The industry petitioners next argue that the 150 [mu]g/m\3\
standard for PM10 will result in arbitrarily varying
levels of coarse PM, and that the agency should instead have used a
PM10-2.5 indicator. The EPA does not dispute
[[Page 3222]]
that using the PM10 indicator will result in coarse PM
levels that vary within the limit of 150 [mu]g/m\3\. As the EPA
explains: ``Because the PM10 indicator includes both
coarse PM (PM10-2.5) and fine PM (PM2.5), the
concentration of PM10-2.5 allowed by a PM10
standard set at a single level declines as the concentration of
PM2.5 increases. Thus, the level of coarse particles
allowed varies depending on the level of fine particles present.''
Id. at 61,195.
Although the EPA acknowledges that a PM10 indicator
will result in varying coarse PM levels, it does not agree that the
variance will be arbitrary. The EPA agrees with the industry
petitioners that protection from coarse particles should be targeted
at urban areas, where coarse particles have been shown to pose the
greatest danger. Id. at 61,194. But the agency argues that targeting
of urban areas is effectively accomplished by using an indicator
that permits the varying levels that the industry petitioners
challenge. * * * Id. at 61,195-96 (citations omitted). In other
words: ``The varying levels of coarse particles allowed by a
PM10 indicator will therefore target protection in urban
and industrial areas where the evidence of adverse health effects
associated with exposure to coarse particles is strongest.'' Id.
The EPA also offers a further rationale for tying the stringency
of coarse PM regulation to increases in the level of
PM2.5.* * * EPA argues that it is ``logical to allow
lower levels of coarse particles when fine particle concentrations
are high.* * * [I]nclusion of PM2.5 in the
PM10 indicator for purposes of coarse particle protection
would appropriately reflect the contribution that contaminants
emitted in fine particle form can make to the overall health risk
posed by coarse particles.'' Id.
In sum, we find that the EPA has provided a reasonable
explanation for its decision[ ] * * * to utilize a standard that
allows targeted variance in coarse PM levels in an inverse
relationship to the amount of fine PM in the air. American Farm
Bureau v. EPA, 559 F.3d 512, 534-5 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
A similar result applies here. Under the proposed secondary
standard there would be a single level of air quality specified for the
NAAQS. The standard would apply across the nation; it would not be a
regional standard. The proposed standard would be the same standard
everywhere--the acceptable level of mass concentration of
PM2.5 would be defined the same way across the nation, using
the same method of calculating the allowable concentration of
PM2.5. The same degree of protection from visibility
impairment would apply across the country. While the allowable amount
of PM2.5 could vary, this would be a reasoned way to achieve
the desired degree of protection from visibility impairment. The
requirements of section 109(b) would be satisfied.
Commenters also objected that the EPA could not set a NAAQS for the
separate components of PM2.5 without listing the components
of PM2.5 under section 108, based on an endangerment
finding, and issuing air quality criteria for these components. They
argued that the issuance of air quality criteria for particulate matter
starting in 1969 did not provide a lawful basis for a proposed
secondary standard that is based on components of PM, as the 1969 air
quality was for particulate matter ``as a whole,'' defining PM as
particles smaller than 500 micrometers (NMA/NCBA, p. 27). However, as
discussed above, the proposed standard sets the allowable limit on
ambient concentrations of PM2.5. Information on both the
speciated components of PM2.5 and the relative humidity
affect how much light extinction is associated with any specific level
of PM2.5, but the standard is for PM2.5. The D.C.
Circuit has made it clear that PM2.5, just like
PM10 and TSP before that, is an appropriate subset of PM for
the EPA to focus on in setting the NAAQS based on the scientific
evidence before the EPA. This focus of the NAAQS does not make the
subset a new pollutant that requires listing and new air quality
criteria under section 108 before setting a NAAQS. American Trucking
Association et al. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1055 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
Commenters' interpretation would apply to PM2.5 as well as
to components of PM2.5, and is inconsistent with the ATA
decision. In addition, it is clear that the current air quality
criteria do address the scientific basis for calculating
PM2.5 light extinction as the EPA proposed (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
pp. 9-5 to 9-8).
Finally, at least one commenter argued that the EPA has concluded
in prior reviews that the secondary NAAQS program is an inappropriate
vehicle for regulating PM related visibility impairment (UARG, p. 26).
UARG mischaracterized the EPA's past decision-making. In past reviews
the EPA has been clear that the EPA should take into account the
existence of the visibility program under section 169A, the regional
haze program, when considering a secondary NAAQS and should not treat
the secondary NAAQS as the sole mechanism to address visibility
impairment across the country. That is the approach the EPA has taken
in this and prior reviews. See 77 FR at 38990.
h. Relationship With Regional Haze Program
A large number of commenters expressed confusion and concern over
differences between the proposed visibility index standard and the
Regional Haze Program. This included commenters who supported setting a
distinct secondary standard to protect visibility as well as those
opposed to setting such a standard. A number of these commenters noted
that visibility impairment would be assessed differently under the two
approaches due to differences in the way light extinction is
calculated, including different IMPROVE equations and differences in
the inclusion and weighting of specific species and components. The
commenters argued it would be inappropriate to have two different
regimes for managing visibility impairment in the exact same location.
These commenters claimed that since data from the IMPROVE monitoring
network would inform nonattainment designations, as well as an area's
obligations under the Regional Haze Program, there could be
considerable confusion over how to draw nonattainment boundaries and
what requirements would affect large sources in rural areas. These
commenters also noted the resource burden associated with maintaining
two different programs aimed at protecting visibility in the same
geographic area. Some commenters argued that a visibility NAAQS should
not apply to rural areas. The Department of the Interior requested that
the EPA clearly define the geographic area to which the visibility
index standard would be applicable, and suggested that Class I and
Class II areas should generally be excluded from the standard. As
discussed above, commenters questioned the need for a distinct
visibility standard, arguing that the existing primary PM standards
combined with the Regional Haze Program ensured adequate protection of
visibility, even in urban areas.
In response to these comments relating to the overlap between the
Regional Haze program and a distinct secondary standard designed to
protect visibility principally in urban areas, the EPA notes that the
objectives of each program are distinct. While the Regional Haze
program is designed to eliminate man-made impairment of visibility in
Federal Class I areas over the course of several decades, a distinct
secondary standard for PM-related visibility impairment would be
focused on providing a nationally applicable level of protection for
all areas, particularly urban areas which do not receive targeted
protection under the Regional Haze Program. Moreover, the metric used
to assess visibility impairment differs between the two programs
precisely because each program is aimed at a different aspect of the
problem. Recognizing the importance of fresh emissions for urban
visibility, the
[[Page 3223]]
Visibility Assessment focused on visibility impairment as measured by
the original IMPROVE equation because ``the original version is
considered more representative of urban situations when emissions are
still fresh rather than aged as at remote IMPROVE sites'' (U.S. EPA,
2010b, p. 3-19). The Regional Haze Program, on the other hand, has
shifted to a revised IMPROVE algorithm more suited to remote locations.
While this difference is discussed in more detail in section VI.C.1.b
above, the result is that each program would appropriately measure
those aspects of visibility impairment most closely related to the
problem the program is trying to prevent. Since the same data can be
used to calculate both visibility impairment under the Regional Haze
approach and the proposed visibility index, the additional calculation
burden for state and local agencies would be light. Also, to the extent
that there is any difference in terms of the emissions control
obligations the two different programs would impose upon state and
local areas, this is likely appropriate given the extent and nature of
visibility impairment in those areas. The EPA notes that in general,
there is likely to be substantial overlap in the control strategies a
state or local area would pursue under either program. Thus, the EPA
disagrees with commenters who stated that a distinct visibility
standard as proposed would inherently conflict with the Regional Haze
Program or that it would be appropriate to draw geographical
distinctions that would explicitly exclude some areas (e.g., Class I
areas) from the NAAQS. The EPA notes that the CAA requires that NAAQS
be national in scope, and that the specific requirements laid out in
the proposal for the distinct secondary standard would ensure that the
protection it afforded would be appropriately targeted toward urban
areas so that it could work in conjunction with--not be in conflict
with--the Regional Haze Program under sections 169A and 169B of the
CAA.
2. Comments on the Proposed Decision Regarding Non-Visibility Welfare
Effects
Relatively few commenters addressed the proposal to retain the
existing suite of secondary PM standards to address non-visibility
welfare effects. A couple of states, including Mississippi and South
Dakota, offered brief endorsements of the proposal. A few other
commenters offered more extensive comments on the proposal to retain
the existing secondary standards, and these commenters opposed this
aspect of the proposal for one of two reasons. First, some commenters
opposed the proposal to retain the current secondary annual
PM2.5 standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\ in light of the proposal to
revise the level of the primary annual PM2.5 standard to a
level between 12-13 [mu]g/m\3\. Expressing concern over the
implications of this decision for the air quality planning obligations
of states, these commenters argued that the EPA should revise the
secondary PM2.5 standards to be equivalent in all respects
to the primary PM2.5 standards. For example, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
supported ``retaining secondary standards that are consistent with the
primary standards in order to reduce the complexity of the
transportation and air quality planning processes, as well as the
transportation conformity process'' (AASHTO, p. 3). Thus, if the EPA
were to adopt a lower level for the primary annual PM2.5
standard, the commenters recommended that the EPA adopt this same lower
level for the primary secondary PM2.5 standard as well.
In response to these comments, the EPA notes that the Agency lacks
an appropriate scientific basis for revising the level of the secondary
annual PM2.5 standard. As noted above in section VI.B.2,
there is an absence of information that would support any different
secondary standards for PM. Comments related to the implementation
challenges associated with distinct primary and secondary standards are
not relevant to the Administrator's final decisions regarding what
standards are requisite to protect the public welfare. Therefore, the
EPA continues to conclude that it would be appropriate to retain the
current suite of secondary PM standards \202\ to address non-visibility
welfare effects, while revising only the form of the secondary annual
PM2.5 standard to remove the option for spatial averaging
consistent with this change to the primary annual PM2.5
standard, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ As summarized in section VI.A and Table 1 above, the
current suite of secondary PM standards includes annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards and a 24-hour PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters focused on the impacts of particulate matter on
climate. One commenter cited a number of recent studies that considered
mobile source black carbon emissions and associated climate impacts,
and urged the EPA to protect the public welfare by setting ``higher
standards for gasoline quality'' (Urban Air Initiative, p. 4). This
commenter did not, however, advocate specific secondary NAAQS to
address climate impacts of PM. More extensive comments on this same
subject were provided by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD),
which urged the EPA to ``set a separate limit for black carbon within
the overall PM2.5 standard'' to ensure that public welfare
is fully protected ``from the serious climate impacts of black carbon''
(CBD, p. 2). This commenter argued that ``[p]recaution is required for
secondary NAAQS,'' citing American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA,
283 F.3d 355, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2002):
[N]othing in the Clean Air Act requires EPA to wait until it has
perfect information before adopting a protective secondary NAAQS.
Rather, the Act mandates promulgation of secondary standards
requisite to protect public welfare from any ``anticipated adverse
effects associated with'' regulated pollutants, 42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(2)
(emphasis added), suggesting that EPA must act as soon as it has
enough information (even if crude) to ``anticipate[]'' such
effects[.]
The commenter stressed the growing scientific evidence regarding the
impacts of black carbon on climate, and argued that the EPA's proposal
ignores important research studies published within the last five years
which provide improved estimates of the radiative forcing associated
with black carbon, and the effects of black carbon on snow and ice, the
Arctic climate, water availability and climate ``tipping points.'' The
commenter also noted that reductions in cooling aerosol species,
particularly sulfate, due to pollution control programs are leading to
an ``unmasking'' of the true extent of warming due to the accumulation
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The commenter argued that this
unmasking effect can be offset by ensuring ``that sufficient black
carbon reductions accompany reductions in overall aerosol pollution''
(CBD, p. 10). The commenter also argued that the EPA did not consider
the negative impacts of climate change on public health adequately in
the proposal.
The commenter stated that the EPA had an obligation to address the
impacts of black carbon in the PM NAAQS, despite the remaining
uncertainties. The commenter pointed to the EPA's report to Congress on
Black Carbon (U.S. EPA, 2012c), stating that the ``report shows that
EPA is aware of the climate science and public health information that
point to the importance of addressing black carbon pollution. EPA must
use this information in its relevant decisionmaking'' (CBD, p. 13). The
commenter also noted that the U.S. participates in a number of
international forums that have recognized the need to take action on
black carbon, and argued
[[Page 3224]]
that the U.S. has ``an obligation under the Gothenburg Protocol to
address black carbon pollution.'' The commenter challenged the
uncertainties cited by EPA with regard to the climate impacts of
aerosols generally, arguing that they ``do not apply to the regulation
of black carbon'' (CBD, p. 14). Specifically, the commenter stated that
``there are significant anthropogenic sources of black carbon that
contribute a large proportion of total black carbon emissions''; that
``there is enough information related to black carbon's impact to know
that global temperatures will rise due to black carbon emissions'';
that spatial and temporal heterogeneity in black carbon emissions do
not matter for estimating likely climate effects; that ``[b]lack
carbon's negative climate impacts do not depend upon details of cloud
interactions with aerosols''; and that the EPA does not need to be able
to quantify the health or climate benefits precisely to know that it is
appropriate to control black carbon as a specific component of PM under
the CAA (CBD, pp. 14-15).
As a result, the commenter concluded that the current size-based PM
mass standard ``is insufficient to fully protect health and welfare,''
and that the EPA was obligated to establish a specific limit on black
carbon as a component of PM. The commenter argued that ``Black carbon
must be regulated separately and in addition to PM2.5
because absent separate standards sulfates and nitrates may be more
likely to be mitigated than the black carbon component of PM'' (CBD, p.
17). To support this point, the commenter cited the conclusion in the
Policy Assessment that:
The current standards that are defined in terms of aggregate
size mass cannot be expected to appropriately target controls on
components of fine and coarse particles that are related to climate
forcing effects. Thus, the current mass-based PM2.5 and
PM10 secondary standards are not an appropriate or
effective means of focusing protection against PM-associated climate
effects due to these differences in components. (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
5-11)
The commenter also noted that existing regulations on diesel
engines, which are the largest source of black carbon in the United
States, do not affect existing engines and vehicles, and stated that
``The NAAQS program is one of the few opportunities to reduce black
carbon from existing engines, industrial and biofuel sources within the
United States and rapidly reduce emissions from this pollutant'' (CBD,
p. 18).
The EPA agrees with the commenters' assertion that the scientific
information about the impacts of aerosol species on climate is
developing rapidly, and that understanding of the magnitude of aerosol
effects on climate and the contribution of individual aerosol
components to those effects has improved substantially over the past
decade. The EPA also agrees that certain species, in particular black
carbon, play a significant role in multiple aspects of climate. The
Policy Assessment recognized that ``Aerosols can impact glaciers,
snowpack, regional water supplies, precipitation and climate
patterns,'' and may contribute to the melting of ice and snow, a
decrease in surface albedo, and climate impacts in the Arctic and other
locations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-9). The contribution of black carbon
to these effects is discussed in detail in the EPA's recent Report to
Congress on Black Carbon (U.S. EPA, 2012c). In particular, black carbon
plays an important role in heating the lower atmosphere by absorbing
incoming solar radiation and outgoing terrestrial radiation, i.e. via
``direct'' radiative forcing.
However, the EPA disagrees that there is sufficient information
available at this time to establish a NAAQS to protect against the
climate impacts associated with current ambient concentrations of black
carbon or other PM constituents. While the Integrated Science
Assessment concluded that ``a causal relationship exists between PM and
effects on climate, including both direct effects on radiative forcing
and indirect effects that involve cloud feedbacks that influence
precipitation formation and cloud lifetime'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.3.10), it also identified substantial remaining uncertainties with
regard to the contribution of individual aerosol species to these
climate effects. The contribution of individual aerosol components to
total aerosol direct radiative forcing is more uncertain than the
global average (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.6.6), and the indirect
effects of aerosols and aerosol components remain highly uncertain, in
particular with regard to their complex interactions with clouds.
With regard to black carbon, for example, the EPA disagrees with
CBD's claims that ``black carbon's negative climate impacts do not
depend upon details of cloud interactions with aerosols'' and that the
uncertainties associated with climate impacts of aerosols generally do
not apply to black carbon. In fact, the EPA has pointed to cloud
interactions as the area of greatest uncertainty with regard to black
carbon: recognizing that black carbon affects cloud reflectivity
(albedo), lifetime, and stability as well as precipitation, the Report
to Congress on Black Carbon noted that ``few quantitative estimates of
these effects are available, and significant uncertainty remains. Due
to all of the remaining gaps in scientific knowledge, it is difficult
to place quantitative bounds on the forcing attributable to [black
carbon] impacts on clouds at present'' (U.S. EPA, 2012c, p. 4). The
Report acknowledged that ``most estimates of the forcing from aerosol
indirect effects are based on all aerosol species (e.g. total PM) and
are not estimated for individual species (e.g, BC alone)'' (U.S. EPA,
2012c, p. 40). The Report concluded that it remains unclear the extent
to which black carbon contributes to the overall aerosol indirect
effect, and did not assign any central estimate or even a range of
possible values to the role of black carbon in the overall aerosol
indirect effect. With regard to black carbon's net contribution to
climate, therefore, the Report concluded:
The direct and snow/ice albedo effects of BC are widely
understood to lead to climate warming. However, the globally
averaged net climate effect of BC also includes the effects
associated with cloud interactions, which are not well quantified
and may cause either warming or cooling. Therefore, though most
estimates indicate that BC has a net warming influence, a net
cooling effect cannot be ruled out. It is also important to note
that the net radiative effect of all aerosols combined (including
sulfates, nitrates, BC and OC) is widely understood to be negative
(cooling) on a global average basis. (U.S. EPA, 2012c, p. 3)
Given the remaining uncertainties about the impact of aerosols on
climate, there is even greater uncertainty with regard to how aerosol-
induced climate change will affect public health. At this time, it is
not possible to estimate the extent to which aerosols in general, let
alone particular aerosol components, contribute to the occurrence or
exacerbation of adverse health outcomes due to climate change. The EPA
therefore disagrees with CBD's claim that the EPA should pursue black
carbon reductions for purposes of reducing the impacts of climate
change on public health.
The Report to Congress on Black Carbon also stressed the importance
of considering co-emitted PM species, such as SO2 and
NOX, in evaluating the benefits of black carbon mitigation
options. Noting that many of these co-emitted particles and gases have
a cooling influence on climate, the Report noted the difficulty of
estimating the net effect of various mitigation measures on net
radiative forcing or other climate variables. The EPA concluded that
the location and timing of emissions reductions would be critically
important for achieving climate benefits, and that
[[Page 3225]]
``more research is needed on the benefits of individual control
measures in specific locations to support policy decisions made at the
national level'' (U.S. EPA, 2012c, p. 140). Thus, the EPA disagrees
with CBD's claim that spatial and temporal heterogeneity in black
carbon emissions do not matter for estimating likely climate effects,
and continues to believe that being able to quantify the climate
impacts of various aerosol species, alone and in combination, is
essential for informing any possible revisions to the current secondary
PM standards based on climate.
Furthermore, while the EPA agrees with the commenter that a large
percentage of black carbon emissions come from anthropogenic sources,
including diesel engines and vehicles, the EPA notes that existing
regulations on mobile diesel engines are already reducing these
emissions substantially. Between 1990 and 2005, new engine requirements
resulted in a 32 percent reduction in black carbon emissions from
mobile sources, and a further 86 percent reduction from 2005 levels is
projected to occur by 2030 as vehicles and engines meeting existing
regulations are phased into the fleet (U.S. EPA, 2012c, p. 175). Long-
term historic data indicate that there has been a dramatic overall
decline in black carbon emissions over the past century, due to changes
in fuel use, more efficient combustion practices, and implementation of
PM controls. Therefore, the EPA disagrees with CBD's claim that a
distinct black carbon NAAQS is necessary to achieve reductions in black
carbon emissions. Clearly, U.S. emissions of black carbon are already
declining substantially, suggesting that the existing mass-based PM
standards, though not targeting black carbon specifically, have been
effective in achieving black carbon emissions reductions in practice.
As acknowledged in the Report to Congress on Black Carbon, ``While
[black carbon] is not the direct target of existing programs, it has
been reduced through controls aimed at reducing ambient
PM2.5 concentrations and/or direct particle emissions''
(U.S. EPA, 2012c, p. 161). The EPA has acknowledged the need to
encourage PM mitigation strategies that focus on reducing directly
emitted PM2.5 for purposes of reducing black carbon, and
this is reflected in U.S. commitments under the Gothenburg Protocol:
the new provisions in the Protocol pertaining to PM encourage parties
to develop national inventories and projections for black carbon, and
to ``give priority'' to black carbon when implementing measures to
control PM. However, the EPA notes that the U.S. has not yet ratified
the PM amendments to the Gothenburg Protocol, and furthermore, these
amendments do not require action specifically to reduce black carbon,
but rather encourage countries to take such actions voluntarily within
the context of their broader PM reduction strategies. Thus the EPA
disagrees with the commenter that the U.S. has an ``obligation'' to
reduce black carbon under the Gothenburg Protocol, or that it has
``agree[d] to choose mitigation options for particulate matter that
focus on black carbon reductions'' under the Protocol (CBD, p. 13).
In sum, the EPA notes the substantial remaining the uncertainties
and gaps with regard to the climate impacts of PM components, including
black carbon. These include the uncertainties associated with the
spatial and temporal heterogeneity of PM components that contribute to
climate forcing; the uncertainties associated with measurement of
aerosol components; the inadequate consideration of aerosol impacts in
climate modeling; and the currently insufficient data on local and
regional microclimate variations and the heterogeneity of cloud
formations. As a result, the EPA continues to conclude that it is not
currently feasible to conduct a quantitative analysis for the purpose
of informing revisions of the current secondary PM standards based on
climate, and that there is insufficient information at this time to
base a national ambient standard on climate impacts associated with
current ambient concentrations of PM or any of its constituents.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ This conclusion applies for both the secondary (welfare-
based) and the primary (health-based) standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Conclusions on Secondary PM Standards
This section describes the Administrator's conclusions regarding
the secondary PM standards and the rationale leading to the
Administrator's final decision to retain the current suite of secondary
PM standards, including an annual PM2.5 standard of 15
[mu]g/m\3\ a 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and a
24-hour PM10 standard of 150 [mu]g/m\3\, to address PM-
related visibility impairment as well as other PM-related welfare
effects, including ecological effects, effects on materials, and
climate impacts. Specifically, this section explains the
Administrator's decision, consistent with the proposal, to retain the
current suite of secondary PM standards generally, while revising only
the form of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard to remove
the option for spatial averaging consistent with this change to the
primary annual PM2.5 standard. It also explains the
Administrator's decision, contrary to what was proposed, not to
establish a distinct standard to address PM-related visibility
impairment.
In reaching conclusions regarding the need to revise the secondary
PM standards for both visibility and non-visibility welfare effects,
the Administrator has taken into account several key factors,
including: (1) The latest scientific information on both visibility and
non-visibility welfare effects associated with PM, as previously
described; (2) the advice of CASAC; and (3) the comments received
during the public comment period, as discussed above. Based on this
information, the Administrator has reached final conclusions about the
secondary PM standards and made final decisions about those standards,
as outlined below. Because the Administrator's final conclusions with
regard to the need to establish a distinct secondary standard to
protect against visibility impairment reflect, in part, her conclusions
on secondary PM standards for non-visibility welfare effects, section
VI.D.1 first outlines her conclusions regarding secondary PM standards
to address non-visibility welfare effects. This is followed by section
VI.D.2 which outlines her conclusions regarding a secondary PM standard
to address PM-related visibility impairment. Finally, section VI.D.3
summarizes the Administrator's final decisions with regard to the
secondary PM standards for both visibility and non-visibility welfare
effects.
1. Conclusions Regarding Secondary PM Standards To Address Non-
Visibility Welfare Effects
With regard to the secondary PM standards to address non-visibility
welfare effects, the Administrator concludes that it is generally
appropriate to retain the existing secondary standards and that it is
not appropriate to establish any distinct secondary PM standards to
address non-visibility PM-related welfare effects. This conclusion is
based on the considerations discussed above in section VI.B.2,
including the latest scientific information and the advice of CASAC,
and the public comments received on the proposal, as discussed above in
section VI.C.2. The Administrator concurs with the advice of CASAC and
the conclusions expressed at the time of proposal that it is important
to maintain an appropriate
[[Page 3226]]
degree of control of both fine and coarse particles to address non-
visibility welfare effects, including ecological effects, effects on
materials, and climate impacts. In the absence of information that
would support any different standards the Administrator concludes that
it is appropriate to retain the existing suite of secondary standards
to address non-visibility welfare effects, as proposed. More
specifically, the Administrator concludes it is appropriate to retain
all aspects of the current 24-hour PM2.5 and PM10
standards. With regard to the secondary annual PM2.5
standard, the Administrator concludes that it is appropriate to retain
a level of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ for this standard while revising only the
form of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard to remove the
option for spatial averaging consistent with this change to the primary
annual PM2.5 standard. In reaching this conclusion, the
Administrator notes that no areas in the country are currently using
the option for spatial averaging to demonstrate attainment with the
secondary annual PM2.5 standard.
2. Conclusions Regarding Secondary PM Standards for Visibility
Protection
Having reached the conclusion that it is generally appropriate to
retain the existing secondary standards to protect against non-
visibility welfare effects, the Administrator next considered the
target level of protection that would be requisite to protect public
welfare with regard to visual air quality. The Administrator then
determined whether to adopt a distinct secondary standard to achieve
this target level of protection. In making this decision, the
Administrator compared the degree of protection for visibility that
would be provided by such a distinct secondary standard to the degree
of protection provided by the existing secondary standards, focusing
specifically on the secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35
[mu]g/m\3\.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ This focus on the 24-hour PM2.5 standard
reflects the Administrator's judgments that PM-related visibility
impairment is principally related to fine particle concentrations
and that perception of visibility impairment is most directly
related to short-term levels of visual air quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the considerations discussed above in section VI.B and
VI.C, the Administrator first concludes that a target level of
protection for a secondary standard is most appropriately defined in
terms of a PM2.5 visibility index as proposed, since it
would provide a measure of PM-related light extinction that directly
takes into account the factors (i.e., species composition and relative
humidity) that influence the relationship between PM2.5 in
the ambient air and PM-related visibility impairment. Such a
PM2.5 visibility index standard would afford a relatively
high degree of uniformity of visual air quality protection in areas
across the country by virtue of directly incorporating the effects of
differences in PM2.5 composition and relative humidity
across the country.
In defining a target level of protection based on a
PM2.5 visibility index, the Administrator has considered
specific aspects of such an index, including the appropriate indicator,
averaging time, level, and form. First, with regard to indicator, the
Administrator notes the conclusion of CASAC that relying on a
calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator based on
PM2.5 chemical speciation and relative humidity data
represented a reasonable approach. Based on the analyses conducted in
support of this rulemaking, as described above, as well as the advice
of CASAC, the Administrator concludes that a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator that utilizes the original
IMPROVE algorithm, adjusted to use a 1.6 OC multiplier and exclude the
term for coarse particles, in conjunction with monthly average relative
humidity data (i.e., f(RH) values) based on long-term climatological
means would be the most appropriate indicator for a PM2.5
visibility index standard.
With regard to averaging time, the Administrator notes that both
CASAC and EPA staff have concluded that hourly or sub-daily (4- to 6-
hour) averaging times, within daylight hours and excluding hours with
high relative humidity, are more directly related than a 24-hour
averaging time to the short-term nature of the perception of PM-related
visibility impairment and the relevant exposure periods for segments of
the viewing public. However, in light of the important data quality
uncertainties that have recently been identified in association with
currently available instruments that would be used to provide the
hourly PM2.5 mass measurements that would be needed in
conjunction with an averaging time shorter than 24 hours, the
Administrator concludes it would not be appropriate at this time to set
a standard based on a sub-daily averaging time. Moreover, the
Administrator notes that analyses conducted by the EPA during this
review clearly indicate that PM2.5 light extinction
calculated on a 24-hour average basis would be a reasonable and
appropriate surrogate for PM2.5 light extinction calculated
on a 4-hour basis. Thus, the Administrator concludes that a 24-hour
averaging time would be appropriate for a PM2.5 visibility
index. The Administrator recognizes that a 24-hour averaging time would
effectively reduce the influence of peak hours of visibility impairment
on visibility index values, but concludes that in light of the concern
that peak hourly measurements may be significantly influenced by
atypical conditions and/or atypical instrument performance, it is
appropriate to adopt a longer averaging time to ensure that hour-
specific influences and uncertainties are balanced against more robust
measurements.
With regard to form, the Administrator notes that consistent with
the approach taken in other NAAQS, including the current 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, a multi-year percentile form offers greater
stability to the air quality management process by reducing the
possibility that statistically unusual indicator values will lead to
transient violations of the standard. Utilizing a three-year average
form provides stability from the occasional effects of inter-annual
meteorological variability that can result in unusually high pollution
levels for a particular year. Moreover, considering the lack of
information on and the high degree of uncertainty regarding the impact
on public welfare of the number of days with visibility impairment over
the course of a year, the Administrator considers it reasonable to
focus on the 90th percentile, which represents the median of the
distribution of the 20 percent worst visibility days, a key focus of
the Regional Haze program. The Administrator concludes that ensuring
that 90 percent of days have visual air quality that is at or below the
target level of protection could be reasonably expected to lead to
improvements in visual air quality on the 20 percent most impaired
days, and that the limited information available in this review
provides no basis for adopting a different form which would limit the
occurrence of days with peak PM-related light extinction in urban areas
to a greater degree. Therefore, the Administrator concludes that a 90th
percentile form, averaged over 3 years, is appropriate, for purposes of
establishing a target level of protection in terms of a 24-hour
PM2.5 visibility index.
With regard to level, the Administrator concludes that in light of
the uncertainty associated with the high degree of variability in
visibility conditions and the potential variability in visibility
preferences across different parts of the country, it is appropriate to
establish a target level of protection based on the upper end of the
range of Candidate Protection Levels (CPLs)
[[Page 3227]]
identified in the Policy Assessment (i.e., 20-30 dv) and generally
supported by CASAC. Thus, the Administrator concludes that it would be
appropriate to set a target level of protection in terms of a
PM2.5 visibility index with a 24-hour averaging time that
would provide protection equivalent to the protection afforded by a 4-
hour PM2.5 visibility index with a level of 30 dv.
Furthermore, the Administrator notes that the approaches used to
estimate generally equivalent levels for a 24-hour PM2.5
visibility index generated 90th percentile 24-hour values similar to
the 4-hour values and a range of city-specific estimates of generally
equivalent 24-hour levels that encompassed the range of levels
considered appropriate for 4-hour CPLs, including the CPL of 30 dv at
the upper end of that range. The Administrator thus concludes that it
would be appropriate to use an unadjusted 4-hour CPL for purposes of
establishing a target level of protection in terms of a 24-hour
PM2.5 visibility index.
In considering the alternative levels proposed for a 24-hour
standard, either 28 dv or 30 dv, the Administrator concludes that the
current substantial degrees of variability and uncertainty inherent in
the public preference studies should be reflected in a higher target
protection level than would be appropriate if the underlying
information were more consistent and certain. In addition, she
concludes that, in light of the significant uncertainties, it is
appropriate to place less weight on the results of western visibility
preference studies and that the CPL value (30 dv) that is based on the
eastern preference study results is likely to be more representative of
urban areas that do not have associated mountains or other valued
objects visible in the distant background For all of these reasons, the
Administrator concludes that it is appropriate to set a target level of
protection in terms of a 24-hour PM2.5 visibility index at
30 dv.
In summary, in light of all the information available in this
review, the Administrator concludes that the protection provided by a
standard defined in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index (based
on speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations and relative humidity
data to calculate PM2.5 light extinction), a 24-hour
averaging time, and a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years, set
at a level of 30 dv, would be requisite to protect public welfare with
regard to visual air quality.
In reaching this conclusion, the Administrator notes that any
national ambient air quality standard to address PM-related visibility
impairment would be designed to work in conjunction with the Regional
Haze Program as a means of achieving appropriate levels of protection
against PM-related visibility impairment in all areas of the country,
including urban, non-urban, and Federal Class I areas. While the
Regional Haze Program is focused on improving visibility in Federal
Class I areas and a secondary NAAQS to address PM-related visibility
impairment would focus on protecting visual air quality principally in
urban areas, both programs could be expected to provide benefits in
surrounding areas. In addition, the development of local programs, such
as those in Denver and Phoenix, could continue to be an effective and
appropriate approach to provide additional protection, beyond that
afforded by a national standard, for unique scenic resources in and
around certain urban areas that are particularly highly valued by
people living in those areas.
Having concluded that the protection provided by a standard defined
in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index, with a 24-hour
averaging time, and a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years, set
at a level of 30 dv, would be requisite to protect public welfare with
regard to visual air quality, the Administrator next has to determine
whether to adopt such a visibility index as a distinct secondary
standard. This determination requires considering such a secondary
standard not in isolation but in the context of the full suite of
secondary standards. As discussed above, the Administrator has
determined to retain the current suite of secondary PM standards to
address non-visibility welfare effects (except for the form of the
annual standard). A distinct secondary standard to address visibility
impairment is properly considered in a context where there is also a
24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
In this context, the Administrator has considered the degree of
protection from visibility impairment afforded by the existing
secondary PM2.5 standards. The Administrator has considered
both whether the existing 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35
[mu]g/m\3\ is sufficient (i.e. not under-protective) and whether it is
not more stringent than necessary (i.e. not over-protective).
As discussed above in section VI.C.1.f, the results of the Kelly et
al. (2012a; 2012b) analyses indicate that based on 2008-2010 and 2009-
2011 data, all areas meeting the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of
35 [mu]g/m\3\ had visual air quality at least as good as 30 dv (24-hour
average, based on 90th percentile form averaged over 3 years). This
means that it is highly likely that the secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would be controlling
relative to a 24-hour standard based on a PM2.5 visibility
index set at a level of 30 dv, and highly unlikely that areas would
exceed the target level of protection for visibility of 30 dv without
also exceeding the existing secondary 24-hour standard. On the basis of
this evidence, and the supporting public comments, the Administrator
judges that the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
provides sufficient protection in all areas against the effects of
visibility impairment--i.e., that the existing 24-hour PM2.5
standard would provide at least the target level of protection for
visual air quality of 30 dv which the Administrator judges appropriate.
The Administrator also recognizes that the analyses presented in
Kelly et al. (2012a; 2012b) indicate that the 24-hour PM2.5
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ also would likely achieve more than the
target level of protection of visual air quality (30 dv) in some areas.
That is, when meeting a mass-based standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, some
areas would have levels of PM-related visibility impairment below 30
dv. Thus, the 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would
be over-protective in some areas (i.e. more stringent than necessary)
relative to the target level of protection for visibility. This is not
surprising, as the current mass-based standard does not account for
variation in particle species and relative humidity. The 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would provide more than the
necessary protection in the areas where this would be expected, for
example western areas with lower relative humidity.
In light of the Administrator's conclusion that it is appropriate
to retain the current secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard of 35
[mu]g/m\3\ for non-visibility welfare effects, the Administrator notes
that this standard will remain in place regardless of whether she
elects to set a distinct secondary standard in terms of a
PM2.5 visibility index. The issue is not whether to adopt a
PM2.5 visibility index standard when viewed in isolation,
but whether such a distinct secondary standard should be adopted in
addition to the current secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard of
35 [mu]g/m\3\. The EPA notes that adoption of such a distinct secondary
standard is not needed to provide sufficient protection from visibility
impairment with respect to the target level of protection determined
above. In addition, adoption of such a distinct secondary standard
would not change the fact that the current secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would result in over-
protection
[[Page 3228]]
from visibility impairment in certain areas of the country. Such over-
protection will occur whether or not such a distinct secondary standard
is adopted. In effect, adopting such a distinct secondary standard
would have no impact on the degree of protection provided from
visibility impairment. Since sufficient protection from visibility
impairment would be provided for all areas of the country without
adoption of a distinct secondary standard, and adoption of a distinct
secondary standard will not change the degree of over-protection
provided for some areas of the country, the Administrator judges that
adoption of such a distinct secondary standard is not needed to provide
requisite protection for both visibility and non-visibility related
welfare effects.
It is important to note that this conclusion is based on the
specific target level of protection determined above, and the specific
set of current secondary standards. The Administrator's conclusion with
regard to the sufficiency of the protection provided by the current
suite of secondary standards is based on comparing the a 30 dv target
level of protection for a PM2.5 visibility index standard
against the degree of protection provided by the current secondary 24-
hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. It is the combination
of the specific target level of protection and the current suite of
secondary standards that is the basis for the decision not to adopt a
distinct secondary standard in terms of a PM2.5 visibility
index at this time.
The EPA recognizes that, as in the last review, the final decision
is to not adopt a distinct secondary standard to address visibility
impairment. While the DC Circuit remanded the decision on a secondary
standard in the last review, the EPA's decision in this review has
addressed the issues raised in the court's remand. Here the EPA has
clearly identified the target degree of protection (defined in terms of
a PM2.5 visibility index at a level of 30 dv based on a 24-
hour averaging time, and a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years)
that would be requisite to protect public welfare with regard to visual
air quality. The EPA has carefully compared this degree of protection
with that provided by the current secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on an area-specific analysis of recent
air quality data and concluded that the degree of protection from
visibility impairment provided by the current secondary standard is
sufficient to protect public welfare consistent with section 109(b)(2).
This provides a clear basis for judging that the current secondary 24-
hour PM2.5 standard of 35 [mu]g/m\3\ would provide
sufficient protection. The analysis also shows that the current
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard would provide more
protection than is needed in some areas, largely because it does not
take into account variable factors such as relative humidity. However,
the EPA has recognized that adoption of a distinct secondary standard
to address visibility, in addition to retaining the current secondary
standard, would not change this result. The EPA has therefore concluded
that adoption of such a distinct secondary standard, in addition to the
current suite of secondary PM standards, is not needed to provide
requisite protection for both visibility and non-visibility related
welfare effects. Thus the EPA's decision has carefully considered and
accounted for the views of the court in the remand of the 2006 NAAQS.
E. Administrator's Final Decisions on Secondary PM Standards
To address PM-related welfare effects, including ecological
effects, effects on materials, climate impacts, and visibility
impairment, the Administrator is retaining the current suite of
secondary PM standards, except for a change to the form of the annual
standard. Specifically, to address PM-related non-visibility welfare
effects including ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate
impacts, the EPA is retaining the current secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 and PM10 standard and is revising only the
form of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard to remove the
option for spatial averaging consistent with this change to the primary
annual PM2.5 standard. With respect to PM-related visibility
impairment, the Administrator has identified a target degree of
protection, defined in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index
(based on speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations and relative
humidity data to calculate PM2.5 light extinction), a 24-
hour averaging time, and a 90th percentile form, averaged over 3 years,
and a level of 30 deciviews (dv), which she judges to be requisite to
protect public welfare with regard to visual air quality. The EPA's
analysis of monitoring data provides the basis for concluding that the
current secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard would provide
sufficient protection, and in some areas greater protection, relative
to this target protection level. Adding a distinct secondary standard
to address PM-related visibility impairment would not affect this
protection. Since sufficient protection from visibility impairment will
be provided for all areas of the country without adoption of a distinct
secondary standard, and adoption of a distinct secondary standard will
not change the degree of over-protection of visual air quality provided
for some areas of the country by the secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standard, the Administrator judges that adoption of a distinct
secondary standard, in addition to the current suite of secondary
standards, is not needed to provide requisite protection for both
visibility and non-visibility related welfare effects.
VII. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM
This section discusses the EPA Administrator's final decisions on
the revisions proposed to the data handling procedures for the primary
and secondary PM2.5 standards. Appendix N to 40 CFR part 50
describes the computations necessary for determining when the
PM2.5 standards are met and also addresses which measurement
data are appropriate for comparison to the standards; as well, it
specifies associated data reporting protocols, data completeness
criteria, and rounding conventions. The EPA is modifying appendix N to
conform to the revised PM2.5 standards; most notably, the
EPA is amending the appendix N procedures by removing the option for
spatial averaging. In addition to making changes to appendix N that
correspond to the changes in the annual standard form and the revised
primary annual standard level, the EPA is also finalizing additional
proposed revisions to the appendix in order to codify existing
practices currently included in guidance documents or implemented as
EPA standard operating procedures; better align appendix N language and
requirements with changes in PM2.5 ambient monitoring and
reporting requirements; provide greater clarity and transparency in the
provisions; and enhance consistency with data handling protocols
utilized for other pollutants.
A. Revised Amendments to Appendix N: Interpretation of the NAAQS for
PM2.5
As discussed in sections III and VI above, the EPA Administrator
has decided to: (1) Revise the form and level of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard, and retain the current primary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (section III.F) and (2) retain the current
secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and revise the form and
retain the level of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard (for
visibility and non-visibility-related welfare protection) (section
VI.E). Appendix N is being revised to conform to those changes to the
standards. In the proposal, the EPA
[[Page 3229]]
recommended additional data handling procedures to appendix N for the
proposed distinct secondary standard to address PM2.5-
related visibility impairment. However, as discussed in section VI.E,
the Administrator has decided not to establish the proposed distinct
secondary standard to address visibility impairment, and therefore, the
associated proposed data handling procedures related to that proposed
standard are not included in the final revised appendix N.
In addition to the changes to appendix N necessitated by the annual
NAAQS form and level revisions (discussed in depth in sections III and
VI above), the EPA is also finalizing additional revisions to appendix
N in order to: (1) Better align appendix N language and requirements
with changes in the PM2.5 ambient monitoring and reporting
requirements as discussed in section VIII below; (2) enhance
consistency with recently codified changes in data handling procedures
for other criteria pollutants; (3) codify existing practices currently
included in guidance documents or implemented as the EPA standard
operating procedures; and (4) provide enhanced clarity and consistency
in the articulation and application of appendix N provisions. Key
elements of the finalized revisions to appendix N are summarized in
sections VII.A.1 through VII.A.4 below which correspond to the
similarly numbered sections in appendix N. The proposed potential new
fifth section of appendix N dealt with the proposed distinct
PM2.5-related visibility secondary standard that was not
finalized by the Administrator and thus the proposed appendix N section
5 is not included in the final appendix N. Furthermore, proposed
changes to sections 1 through 4 of appendix N that also dealt with the
proposed secondary visibility index standard (e.g., term definitions,
rounding conventions, etc.) are also omitted from the final revised
appendix.
1. General
As proposed, the EPA is finalizing modifications to section 1.0 of
appendix N to provide additional clarity regarding the scope and
interpretation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. This appendix section now
references the finalized revisions of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard (40 CFR 50.18) and the retained secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS. With regard to the appendix N term definitions
which are delineated in this initial section, the EPA has added,
modified, and eliminated term definitions, as appropriate, in
accordance with the final data handling rule revisions such as the
modification of terms that referenced spatial averaging. Additional
term definitions were also added to reference otherwise unchanged
appendix N content in an effort to streamline the appendix text,
enhance clarity and thus improve readability and understanding. In
particular, the definition of data substitution tests was shortened,
and a definition for ``test design value'' (TDV) was added for
completeness and for further clarity. This term was previously part of
the data substitution definition and now it is more explicitly defined.
The EPA notes that there were no substantive public comments received
with regard to this section.
2. Monitoring Considerations; Spatial Averaging
As proposed, the EPA has finalized revisions to section 2.0 of
appendix N consistent with the concurrent modification of the form of
the primary annual PM2.5 standard that removes the option
for spatial averaging. As described in more detail in section III.E.3.a
above, the EPA decided to remove this option as part of the form of the
primary annual PM2.5 standard in light of analysis that
indicates that the existing constraints on spatial averaging, as
modified in 2006, may be inadequate to avoid substantially greater
exposures in some areas, potentially resulting in disproportionate
impacts on susceptible populations (Schmidt 2011a, Analysis A).
With respect to the form of the secondary annual PM2.5
standard, as discussed in section VI.E above, the EPA has decided to
retain the current secondary annual PM2.5 standard to
provide protection for welfare effects. In the proposal, the EPA
believed it would be reasonable and appropriate to align the data
handling procedures for the primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 standards and remove the option for spatial averaging
for the secondary annual PM2.5 standard to be consistent
with the revised form of the primary annual PM2.5 standard
(FR 77 39000, June 29, 2012). The EPA noted that no areas in the
country are currently using the option for spatial averaging to
demonstrate attainment with the secondary annual PM2.5
standard. There were no comments on the proposed change and the EPA has
therefore concluded it appropriate to remove the option for spatial
averaging for the secondary annual PM2.5 standard from
Appendix N.
Consistent with the revised form of the primary and secondary
annual PM2.5 standards, the levels of both standards will be
compared to measurements from each appropriate (i.e., ``eligible'')
monitoring site in an area, as specified in 40 CFR 58.30, with no
allowance for spatial averaging. Thus, for an area with multiple
eligible monitoring sites, the site with the highest design value would
determine the attainment status for that area. As a result of the
decision to eliminate the spatial averaging option for both the primary
and secondary annual standards, the EPA omitted all references to the
spatial averaging option in the finalized version of appendix N. See
section III.E.3.a above for a discussion of EPA's response to received
public comment on the issue of removal of the spatial averaging option.
3. Requirements for Data Use and Reporting for Comparisons With the
NAAQS for PM2.5
In the proposal, the EPA suggested changes to section 3.0 of
appendix N to correspond to the proposed new secondary standard to
address PM-related visibility impairment. Since the EPA is not
finalizing the proposed distinct secondary standard to address
visibility impairment, none of these proposed changes are necessary and
are not being made. The EPA is, however, finalizing proposed changes to
improve consistency with procedures used for other NAAQS as well as to
improve consistency with current standard operating procedures.
Specifically, the EPA proposed revisions to this section regarding: (1)
Clarification of monitoring data appropriate to compare to the
PM2.5 NAAQS; (2) clarification of procedures for combining
monitoring data from collocated instruments into a single ``combined
site'' record; and (3) codification of the current standard operating
procedure whereby the EPA uses data for which the certification
deadline has passed but the monitoring agency has not requested
certification of the data to determine compliance with the
PM2.5 NAAQS provided the data are complete and accurate
(thus making appendix N consistent with data handling appendices for
other criteria pollutants). In the final revision to appendix N, the
EPA is incorporating all the above noted modifications to section 3 of
appendix N. Additional details describing the incorporated
modifications are provided below.
With regard to clarification of which monitoring data are
appropriate for comparison to the PM2.5 NAAQS, the proposal
acknowledged important data quality concerns associated with the
PM2.5 measurements collected by continuous PM2.5
FEMs and referenced a subsequent preamble proposal section that
discussed the issue in more depth and put forward a solution to
mitigate the data quality concerns. The revised
[[Page 3230]]
monitoring rule, promulgated today in conjunction with the PM NAAQS
revision, includes, as proposed, language allowing monitoring agencies
to identify PM2.5 FEMs that are not providing data of
sufficient comparability to the FRM and, with EPA approval, to allow
such data to be deemed ineligible for comparisons with the
PM2.5 NAAQS \205\; see detailed discussion of this decision
in section VIII.A.1 below. Rule language for the definition of
``suitable monitors'' in section 1.0 of the finalized revised appendix
N accommodates and references this monitoring rule revision codified in
40 CFR 58.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ The EPA also allows use of alternative methods where
explicitly stated in the monitoring methodology requirements
(appendix C of 40 CFR part 58), such as PM2.5 Approved
Regional Methods (ARMs) which can be used to determine compliance
with the NAAQS. Monitoring agencies identifying ARMs that are not
providing data of sufficient quality will also be allowed to exclude
these data in making comparisons to the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Currently, there are no designated ARMs for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the procedures for combining monitored data from
collocated instruments into a single ``combined site'' data record, the
EPA proposed to revise the current methodology in situations where an
FRM monitor operating on a non-daily schedule is collocated with a
continuous FEM monitor (that has acceptable comparability with an FRM).
As noted in the proposal, the EPA was not advocating a change to the
actual procedures for constructing a combined site record but rather a
modification to the subsequent evaluation of whether the specific
measurements were considered ``creditable'' or ``extra'' samples.\206\
The language clarification proposed is currently standard operating
procedure in Agency design value computations so the language
modification in appendix N merely proposed to modify actual
practices.\207\ The revised appendix N finalized in today's action
incorporates the modification as proposed. The EPA notes that there
were no substantive public comments received regarding this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ Data for a combined site record originates by default from
the designated ``primary'' monitor at the site location and is then
augmented with data from collocated FRM or FEM monitors whenever
valid data are not generated by the primary monitor. Samples in the
combined site record are deemed ``creditable'' or ``extra''
according to the required sampling frequency for a specific
monitoring site (i.e., ``site-level sampling frequency'') which, by
default, is defined to be the same as the sampling frequency
required of the primary monitor. Samples in the combined site data
record that correspond to scheduled days according to the site-level
sampling frequency are deemed ``creditable'' and, thus, are
considered for determining whether or not a specific monitoring site
meets data completeness requirements. These samples also determine
which daily value in the ranked list of daily values for a year
represents the annual 98th percentile concentration. Samples that
are not deemed ``creditable'' are classified as ``extra'' samples.
These samples do not count towards data completeness requirements
and do not affect which daily values represent the annual 98th
percentile concentration; ``extra'' samples, however, are candidates
for selection as the 98th percentile.
\207\ Before the introduction of continuous FEMs, when two or
more samplers were collocated at the same site, monitoring agencies
typically identified the sampler that operated on the more frequent
sampling schedule as the ``primary'' monitor for developing a single
site record. However, due to concerns regarding the comparability of
FEMs to FRMs operated in some monitoring agency networks, and as
briefly discussed above and in more detail in section VIII.B.3.b.iii
below, many monitoring agencies have kept the FRM as the ``primary''
monitor and delegated the continuous FEM (which samples more
frequently, except in cases where the FRM operates on an ``every
day'' schedule) to be the ``supplemental'' (non-primary) collocated
monitor. In such cases, FEM measurements reported on the FRM ``off''
days were technically considered ``extra.'' In light of this
practice, EPA modified standing operating procedures whereby
supplemental collocated FEM samples reported on the FRM ``off'' days
would be considered ``scheduled'' and ``creditable.'' Thus,
collocated FEM samples would count towards data capture rates
(actually, increasing both the numerator and the denominator in the
capture rate equation), and also would count towards identifying
annual 98th percentile concentrations. Further, if data from a
supplemental collocated FEM are missing on an FRM ``off'' day (and
no unscheduled FRM data are reported that day), the EPA proposed not
to identify these as ``scheduled'' days consistent with current
practice, and thus, reported data generated from the supplemental
collocated continuous FEMs can only help increase data capture rates
(77 FR 39001, June 29, 2012)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Comparisons with the PM2.5 NAAQS
Section 4.0 of appendix N specifies the procedures for comparing
monitored data to the PM2.5 standards. The EPA proposed
revisions to section 4.0 of appendix N to: (1) Provide consistency with
the proposed primary and secondary annual PM2.5 standards;
(2) expand the data completeness assessments to be consistent with
current guidance and standard operating procedures; and (3) simplify
the procedure for calculating annual 98th percentile concentrations
when using an approved seasonal sampling schedule.
Consistent with the proposed decisions to revise the level of the
primary annual PM2.5 standard (section III.E.4.b.iii) and to
retain the current level of the secondary annual PM2.5
standard (section VI.B.1.c.vi), the EPA proposed to modify section
4.1(a) of appendix N to separately list the levels of the primary and
secondary annual PM2.5 standards. The final revised appendix
N incorporates this proposed change; this appendix N section now
references the revised primary annual standard level of 12.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ and the retained secondary annual standard level of 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\. However, as discussed above with respect to the final decision to
not establish a distinct secondary standard to provide protection for
visibility impairment, the final appendix N now explicitly references
all PM2.5 secondary standard protection (that is, protection
from visibility impairment and non-visibility-related welfare effects)
to be provided by the revised annual standard with retained level of
15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ and the retained 24-hour standard with retained
level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\. Consistent with the final decisions to
remove the option for spatial averaging for the primary annual
PM2.5 standard (section III.F), as well as for the secondary
annual PM2.5 standard (section VII.A.2), the EPA amended
section 4.4 of appendix N to remove equations and associated
instructions relating to spatial averaging.
With regard to assessments of data completeness, the EPA proposal
included two additional data substitution tests \208\ (making a total
of three data substitution tests) into appendix N for validating annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 design values otherwise deemed incomplete
(via the 75 percent and 11 creditable sample minimum quarterly data
completeness requirements). The EPA proposed to add these tests in
order to codify existing practices currently included in guidance
documents (U.S. EPA, 1999) and implemented as EPA standard operating
procedures, and further, to make the data handling procedures for
PM2.5 more consistent with the procedures used for other
NAAQS. While the need for data substitution will lessen as more
continuous PM2.5 monitors continue to be deployed in
PM2.5 networks, the EPA believes that these substitution
procedures are important to ensure that available data, if incomplete,
can be confidently used to make comparisons to the NAAQS. As noted in
the EPA proposal, data substitution tests are diagnostic in nature;
that is; they are only used in an illustrative manner to show that the
NAAQS status based on incomplete data is reasonable. As codified in
section 4 of Appendix N, data are substituted for missing data to
produce a ``test design value'' which is compared to the level of the
NAAQS. If the test design value passes the diagnostic test, the
``incomplete'' design value (without the data substitutions) is then
considered a valid design value. If an ``incomplete'' design value does
not pass any data substitution test, then the original
[[Page 3231]]
design value is still considered incomplete (and not valid for NAAQS
comparisons). Previously, section 4.1(c) of appendix N specified only
one data substitution test for validating an otherwise incomplete
design value. That diagnostic test only applied to the primary and
secondary annual PM2.5 standard and only applies in
instances of a violation; this test is referred to as the ``minimum
quarterly value'' test and is used to determine if the NAAQS has not
been met. The two proposed additional data substitution tests were to
be applicable for making comparisons to the primary and secondary
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards, specifically to show
that the NAAQS had been met. One of these proposed tests uses
collocated PM10 data to fill in ``slightly incomplete''
\209\ data records, and the other uses quarter-specific maximum values
to fill in slightly incomplete data records; these two test are
referred to as the ``collocated PM10 test'' and the
``maximum quarterly value test'', respectively. Both tests are designed
to confirm that the PM2.5 design value is valid and is less
than the level of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Data substitution tests are supplemental data completeness
assessments that use estimates of 24-hour average concentrations to
fill in for missing data (i.e., ``data substitution'').
\209\ Slightly incomplete is defined as less than 75 percent but
at least 50 percent quarterly data capture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received several comments on the proposed addition of the
two data substitution tests to determine that the NAAQS was met. The
majority of comments generally supported the proposed addition of data
substitution tests. However, one commenter questioned the general
philosophy of all appendix N data substitution tests (i.e., the
existing ``over NAAQS'' test and the two proposed ``under NAAQS''
tests) by suggesting that there were more appropriate techniques for
filling in for missing data that would result in better estimates of
true design value level. The EPA believes that the data substitution
tests provided in the finalized appendix N are all very conservative
approaches to verify that the NAAQS standards are either met or not
met, and that the test design values are not to be used as the best
estimators of the design value concentration.\210\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ Appendix N states that when the data substitution tests
are satisfied, then the NAAQS design values derived from reported
PM2.5 data which otherwise would be considered to be
incomplete shall be considered valid for comparisons to the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another commenter questioned, and argued against, the use of
collocated PM10 data in PM2.5 data substitution
tests. The commenter stressed that this type of test is not consistent
with those established for other pollutants. The commenter further
argued that while PM10 and PM2.5 are both
measurements of particulate matter, they are essentially different
pollutants with different sources and different dispersion
characteristics, and further, that the ratio of PM2.5 to
PM10 varies spatially and temporally. In general, the
commenter claimed that the EPA had offered no explanation of why
PM10 data were valid for a PM2.5 data
substitution test. At the time of proposal, the EPA believed that
PM10 data would be appropriate for a PM2.5 data
substitution test. After consideration of public comments and
additional air quality analyses, the EPA has decided that a collocated
PM10 test is largely redundant with the maximum quarterly
value test and thus not necessary to include it in Appendix N. The EPA
has analyzed the most recent three years of PM2.5 and
PM10 data (2009-2011) and assessed the separate benefit of
the PM10 substitution routine compared to the maximum
quarterly value test (Schmidt, 2012b). In this assessment of 2009-2011
PM2.5 design values which did not meet the nominal data
completeness requirements, the EPA found that the collocated
PM10 test was almost entirely redundant with the maximum
quarterly value test. It was also very infrequently needed as a
separate test. For the annual NAAQS, the maximum quarter value test in
100 cases resulted in a test design value (TDVmax) less than
or equal to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\. There were only two additional cases
(i.e. 2 percent) when TDVmax was greater than 12.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ but the TDV associated with the collocated PM10 test
was less than 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\. Similarly for the 24-hour NAAQS, the
maximum quarter value test in 116 cases resulted in a test design value
(TDVmax) less than or equal to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ and again
only 2 additional sites (less than 2 percent) passed the collocated
PM10 test but not the maximum quarterly value test.
Furthermore, the maximum quarterly value tests allowed the annual and
24-hour design value to be validated approximately 5 times more often
than through the use of the collocated PM10 test.
Accordingly, the EPA has decided to not include the collocated
PM10 data substitution tests in Appendix N, and thereby
further simplify the data handling procedures for making comparisons to
the annual and daily NAAQS.
With regard to identifying annual 98th percentile concentrations
for comparison to the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standards, the EPA suggested in the proposal to simplify the procedures
used with an approved seasonal sampling schedule. Specifically, the EPA
proposed to eliminate the use of a special formula for calculating
annual 98th percentile concentrations with a seasonal sampling schedule
and thereby proposed to use only one method for calculating annual 98th
percentile concentrations for all sites (77 FR 39002, June 29, 2012).
The proposal explained that with an approved seasonal sampling
schedule, a site is typically required to sample during periods of the
year when the highest concentrations are expected to occur, but less
frequently during periods of the year when lower concentrations are
expected to occur (77 FR 39002, June 29, 2012). This type of sampling
schedule generally leads to an unbalanced data record; that is, a data
record with proportionally more ambient measurements (with respect to
the total number of days in the sampling period) in the ``high'' season
and proportionally fewer ambient measurements in the ``low'' season. In
the last review, the EPA revised section 4.5 of appendix N to include a
special formula for computing annual 98th percentile values when a site
operates on an approved seasonal sampling schedule. This special
formula accounted for an unbalanced data record and was consistent with
guidance documentation (US EPA, 1999), and, where appropriate, with
official OAQPS design value calculations (71 FR 61211, October 17,
2006). In cases where there is a balanced \211\ (or near-balanced) data
record, the special formula yields the same result as the regular
procedure for calculating annual 98th percentile concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ A balanced data record has the same proportion of ambient
measurements (with respect to the total number of days in the
sampling period) in the ``high'' season as in the ``low'' season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To qualify for a seasonal sampling schedule, monitoring agencies
are required to co-locate a continuous PM2.5 instrument with
the seasonal sampling FRM. Since the last review, there has been
considerable deployment of continuous PM2.5 FEM monitors. In
situations where a PM2.5 FRM monitor operating on a non-
daily periodic schedule (such as a 1-day-in-3 or a 1-day-in-6 schedule)
is collocated with a continuous PM2.5 FEM monitor, data are
combined based on procedures stated in section 3.0 of appendix N as
modified, as discussed in section VII.A.3 above. Combining collocated
FRM and FEM data effectively results in a site which samples everyday
and results in a balanced data record. In such a case, if a site used a
seasonal sampling schedule regime for the FRM monitor, these data would
be balanced by the every-day
[[Page 3232]]
FEM data and there would be no need for the special formula for
calculating annual 98th percentile concentrations on the combined site
data.
As EPA noted in the proposal, there are very few PM2.5
FRM monitors that operated on an approved seasonal sampling schedule
(only 15 sites out of approximately 1,000 total sites in 2010) and that
for almost half of those sites, the collocated continuous instrument
was a PM2.5 FEM (77 FR 39002, June 29, 2012). The proposal
stated that for the 3-year period 2008 to 2010, the annual 98th
percentile concentrations calculated with the special formula at those
15 sites were approximately five percent lower than if the regular
procedure was used. The EPA also noted in the proposal that, in the
last review, the Agency modified the monitoring requirements for areas
with an FRM operating on a non-daily schedule such that, when the
design values were within five percent of the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, those areas would be required to increase the frequency of
sampling to every day (40 CFR 58.12(d)(1); 71 FR 61165, October 17,
2006; 71 FR 61249, October 17, 2006). In consideration of these facts,
the EPA proposed to simplify the data handling procedures for sites
operating on a seasonal sampling schedule by eliminating the special
formula and all references to it for the following reasons: (1) The
small difference between 98th percentile concentrations calculated
using the special formula versus the regular procedure and the small
number of sites currently using the special formula; (2) the EPA
requires every day sampling in areas with design values that are within
five percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3) FRMs
operating on an approved seasonal sampling schedule are required to be
collocated with a continuous PM2.5 instrument (and if that
instrument were an FEM, the resulting combined site record would tend
to be balanced over the year and thus the special formula would be
superfluous) (77 FR 39002, June 29, 2012). Thus, the EPA proposal
included only one method for calculating annual 98th percentile
concentrations, the ``regular'' table look-up method specified in
section 4.5(a)(1) of appendix N.
In light of the rationale provided above and because EPA received
no significant negative comments regarding the proposal, the EPA
concludes it is appropriate to eliminate the special seasonal sampling
98th percentile identification procedure from appendix N. The final
revised appendix N specifies only one method for identifying annual
98th percentile concentrations; the table look-up method is now the
only permitted technique for identifying annual 98th percentile
concentrations.
B. Exceptional Events
The EPA is finalizing primary annual PM2.5-specific
deadlines in 40 CFR 50.14 by which air agencies \212\ must flag ambient
air quality data that they believe have been affected by exceptional
events and submit initial descriptions of those events. The EPA is also
finalizing the deadlines by which air agencies must submit detailed
exceptional events documentation to support the exclusion of those data
from the EPA's monitoring-based determinations of attainment or
nonattainment with the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The final exceptional events-related schedule is aligned with the
designations schedule, discussed in greater detail in section IX, and
is promulgated as proposed and as supported by multiple commenters.
Without revisions to 40 CFR 50.14, an air agency may not be able to
flag and submit documentation for some relevant data either because the
generic deadlines may have already passed by the time the new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated or because the generic deadlines require
documentation submission at least 12 months prior to the date that the
EPA must make a regulatory decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ References to ``air agencies'' are meant to include state,
local, and tribal air agencies responsible for implementing the
Exceptional Events Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA acknowledges the concern raised by a few commenters that
numerous wildfires occurred between 2010 and 2012 that air agencies may
determine influenced ambient air quality concentrations potentially
affecting compliance with the revised primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and that air agencies may want to submit detailed exceptional
events documentation associated with multiple wildfires. Commenters
further noted that 1 year to provide documentation of these potential
exceptional events may not be sufficient. The EPA believes that the
promulgated schedules provide sufficient time for air agencies to
submit information related to the annual standard and for the EPA to
fully consider and act on the submitted information during the initial
area designation process. The EPA recently released draft exceptional
events guidance that clarifies key provisions of the 2007 Exceptional
Events Rule, provides examples of best practices, and streamlines the
documentation development process. The guidance provides approaches
that are broadly applicable to all event/pollutant combinations and
would apply to many PM events, including wildfire/PM combinations.
Additionally, the EPA has posted several concurred upon wildfire/PM
exceptional event demonstration packages on its Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm. Considered together, the EPA
believes this guidance will help air agencies submit information in a
timely manner.\213\ The EPA notes that under the promulgated schedule,
except for events that occur in December 2012, air agencies will have
more than 1 year to provide documentation for these potential events.
The EPA intends to work with potentially affected areas to identify,
screen, and prioritize events potentially influencing compliance with
the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and associated area
designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ The EPA released draft exceptional events guidance
documents (U.S. EPA, 2012e) for public comment via a Notice of
Availability in the Federal Register on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39959).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in response to comments, the EPA is clarifying that this
preamble language and the associated promulgated exceptional events
schedules apply only to the NAAQS that the EPA is newly promulgating or
revising in this action, that is, the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The promulgated exceptional event schedule
revisions do not apply to the retained PM standards (i.e., secondary PM
standards, primary 24-hour PM10, primary 24-hour
PM2.5). Further, the revised/extended exceptional event
schedules apply only to those data the EPA will use to establish
initial area designations for the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
The ``Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events; Final
Rule'' (72 FR 13560, March 22, 2007), known as the Exceptional Events
Rule and codified at 40 CFR 50.14, contains generic deadlines for an
air agency to submit to the EPA specified information about exceptional
events and associated air pollutant concentration data. As discussed in
the proposal, without revisions to 40 CFR 50.14, an air agency may not
be able to flag and submit documentation for some relevant data because
the generic deadlines may have already passed by the time the new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated. Similarly, revisions to 40 CFR 50.14 are
needed because air agencies may not be able to flag and submit
documentation for events that occurred in December of 2013 by 1 year
before the designations
[[Page 3233]]
are made in 2014 as is required by the existing generic schedule
requires.
To support appropriate consideration of exceptional event data
influencing ambient air quality concentrations potentially affecting
compliance with the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the
EPA is adopting revisions to 40 CFR 50.14 to change the submission
dates for claimed exceptional events information affecting
PM2.5 data considered during the initial area designations
process under the promulgated revised primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS. As proposed, for air quality data collected in 2010 or 2011, the
EPA is extending to July 1, 2013 the otherwise applicable generic
deadlines of July 1, 2011 and July 1, 2012, respectively, for flagging
data and providing an initial description of an event (40 CFR
50.14(c)(2)(iii)). The EPA is retaining the existing generic deadline
in the Exceptional Events Rule of July 1, 2013 for flagging data and
providing an initial description of events occurring in 2012.
Similarly, the EPA is revising to December 12, 2013, the deadline for
submitting documentation to justify exceptional events occurring in
2010 through 2012 and potentially influencing compliance with the
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes these
revisions/extensions will provide adequate time for air agencies to
review potential PM2.5 exceptional events influencing
compliance with the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS from
2010 to 2012, to notify the EPA by flagging the relevant data and
providing an initial description in AQS, and to submit documentation to
support claims for exceptional events. These schedule revisions will
also allow the EPA to fully consider and act on the submitted
information during the initial area designation process.
If an air agency intends the EPA to consider in the revised primary
annual PM2.5 designations decisions whether PM2.5
data collected during 2013 influence compliance with the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, then the air agency must flag these data by the
generic Exceptional Event Rule deadline of July 1, 2014. The EPA is
finalizing August 1, 2014, as the deadline for submitting documentation
to justify PM2.5-related exceptional events occurring in
2013 and potentially influencing compliance with the revised primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes that these deadlines
provide air agencies with adequate time to review and identify
potential exceptional events that occur in calendar year 2013 and for
the EPA to fully consider and act on the submitted information during
the initial area designation process.
While the EPA will make every effort to designate areas for the
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS on a 2 year schedule, the EPA
recognizes that it may need up to an additional year for the
designations process to ensure that states/tribes and the EPA base
designations decisions on complete and sufficient information. If the
EPA announces at a later date that it is extending the designations
schedule beyond 2 years based on unavailability of data, the EPA will
consider extending the 2013 exceptional event documentation submission
schedule by promulgating additional revisions to 40 CFR 50.14.
Therefore, using the authority provided in CAA section 319(b)(2)
and in the Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.14 (c)(2)(vi), the EPA
is finalizing the schedule for data flagging and submission of
demonstrations for PM2.5 exceptional events data potentially
influencing compliance with the revised primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS considered for initial area designations under the promulgated
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS as presented in Table 3.
Table 3--Revised Schedule for Exceptional Event Flagging and Documentation Submission for Data to be Used in
Initial Area Designations for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality data Event flagging &
NAAQS Pollutant/standard/(level)/ collected for calendar initial description Detailed documentation
promulgation date year deadline submission deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5/Primary Annual Standard 2010 and 2011........... July 1, 2013........... December 12, 2013.
(12.0 [mu]g/m\3\) Promulgated
December 14, 2012.
2012.................... July 1, 2013\a\........ December 12, 2013.
2013.................... July 1, 2014\a\........ August 1, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This date is the same as the general schedule in 40 CFR 50.14.
Note: The table of revised deadlines only applies to data the EPA will use to establish the initial area
designations for the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The general schedule applies for all other purposes,
most notably, for data used by the EPA for redesignations to attainment.
C. Updates for Data Handling Procedures for Reporting the Air Quality
Index
There were no comments regarding the proposed updates for data
handling procedures for reporting the AQI. However, two table footnotes
that were part of the existing rule were inadvertently omitted from the
proposal. The inadvertently dropped footnotes were footnotes 3 and 4 of
Table 2 (``Breakpoints for the AQI'') of appendix G (``Uniform Air
Quality Index (AQI) and Daily Reporting'') to Part 58. Since the
footnotes are still applicable, the EPA has included them in the final
rule. The final rule also codifies all changes identified in the EPA
proposal regarding data handling procedures for the AQI.
VIII. Amendments to Ambient Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
The EPA is finalizing a number of changes to the ambient air
monitoring, reporting, and network design requirements associated with
the PM NAAQS. Ambient PM monitoring data are used to meet a variety of
monitoring objectives including determining whether an area is in
violation of the PM NAAQS. Ambient PM monitoring data are collected by
state, local, and tribal monitoring agencies (``monitoring agencies'')
in accordance with the monitoring requirements contained in 40 CFR
parts 50, 53, and 58. This section discusses the monitoring changes
that the EPA is finalizing to support the revised PM NAAQS summarized
in sections III.F, IV.F, and VI.F above.
The monitoring changes being finalized primarily relate to the
revised primary PM2.5 NAAQS. Several monitoring changes were
proposed specifically in support of a potential distinct secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard; however, as explained in
Section VI, EPA is not finalizing a distinct secondary standard using a
visibility index and therefore is not finalizing the monitoring changes
that would have been necessary to support it. The EPA did not propose
any monitoring changes associated with the
[[Page 3234]]
PM10 NAAQS and is not adopting any in this final rule.
A. Issues Related to 40 CFR Part 53 (Reference and Equivalent Methods)
To be used in a determination of compliance with the PM NAAQS, PM
data are typically collected using samplers or monitors employing an
FRM or FEM. The EPA also allows use of alternative methods where
explicitly stated in the monitoring methodology requirements (appendix
C of 40 CFR part 58), such as PM2.5 ARMs which can be used
to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The EPA prescribes testing and
approval criteria for FRM and FEM methods in 40 CFR part 53.
1. PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 Federal Equivalent Methods
As described in the proposal, the EPA continues to believe that an
effective PM2.5 monitoring strategy includes the use of both
filter-based FRM samplers and well-performing continuous
PM2.5 monitors. Well-performing continuous PM2.5
monitors would include both non-designated continuous PM2.5
monitors and designated Class III \214\ continuous FEMs that meet the
performance criteria described in table C-4 of 40 CFR part 53 when
comparing to a collocated FRM operated by the monitoring agency. Only
designated methods (i.e., FRMs, FEMs, and ARMs) are approved to be used
in comparison to the NAAQS; however, non-designated methods may be
useful to meet other monitoring objectives (e.g., reporting the AQI).
The use of Class III continuous FEMs at SLAMS is described in more
detail in section VIII.B.3.b.ii below. Monitoring agencies are
encouraged to evaluate the quality of data being generated by FEMs and,
where appropriate, to reduce the use of manual, filter-based samplers
to improve operational efficiency and to lower overall operating costs.
To encourage such a strategy, the EPA is working with numerous
stakeholders including the monitoring committee of NACAA, instrument
manufacturers, and monitoring agencies to support national data
analyses of continuous PM2.5 FEM performance, and where such
performance does not meet data quality objectives, to develop and
institute a program of best practices to improve the quality and
consistency of resulting data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ Class III refers to those methods for PM2.5 or
PM10-2.5 that are employed to provide PM2.5 or
PM10-2.5 ambient air measurements representative of one-
hour or less integrated PM2.5 or PM10-2.5
concentrations, as well as 24-hour measurements determined as, or
equivalent to, the mean of 24 one-hour consecutive measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that progress is being made to implement well
performing PM2.5 continuous FEMs across the nation. As noted
in the proposal, the first few steps involved the EPA developing and
approving the testing and performance criteria which were finalized in
2006, followed by instrument companies performing field testing and
submitting applications to the EPA, and the EPA review and approval, as
appropriate, of Class III FEMs. In the current step, monitoring
agencies are testing and assessing the data comparability from
continuous PM2.5 FEMs.
While EPA did not propose any changes to the performance or testing
criteria in 40 CFR part 53 used to approve PM2.5 continuous
FEMs, the EPA did propose an administrative change to part 53.9--
``Conditions of designations.'' See 77 FR 39006. This section describes
a number of conditions that must be met by a manufacturer as a
condition of maintaining designation of an FRM or FEM. Subsection (c)
of this section reads, ``Any analyzer, PM10 sampler,
PM2.5 sampler, or PM10-2.5 sampler offered for
sale as part of a FRM or FEM shall function within the limits of the
performance specifications referred to in 40 CFR 53.20(a), 53.30(a),
53.50, or 53.60, as applicable, for at least 1 year after delivery and
acceptance when maintained and operated in accordance with the manual
referred to in 40 CFR 53.4(b)(3).'' The EPA's intent in this
requirement is to ensure that monitoring methods work within
performance criteria, which includes methods for PM2.5 and
PM10-2.5; however, there was no specific reference to
performance criteria for Class II \215\ and III PM2.5 and
PM10-2.5 methods. The EPA proposed to link the performance
criteria referred to in 40 CFR part 53.35 associated with Class II and
III PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 methods with this
requirement for maintaining designation of approved FEMs. The specific
performance criteria identified in 40 CFR 53.35 for PM2.5
and PM10-2.5 methods are available in table C-4 to subpart C
of 40 CFR part 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ Class II refers to those methods for PM2.5 or
PM10-2.5 in which integrated samples are taken by
filtration and subjected to a subsequent filter conditioning process
followed by a gravimetric mass determination, but which is not a
Class I equivalent methods because of substantial deviations from
the design specification of the sampler specified for reference
methods in appendix L or O (as applicable) of part 50 of the CFR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All comments received on this proposed change were supportive and
EPA is finalizing this change. The implication of this change is that
instrument manufacturers and air agencies operating the equipment will
have a shared responsibility for approved FEMs to meet required
performance criteria for at least the first 12 months of operation,
which is the typical warranty period for an instrument. By having a
shared responsibility for an FEM to meet the performance criteria,
instrument companies and air agencies will both be motivated to ensure
the best practices for installing, operating, and servicing an
instrument are carried out according to the instrument company's
operating manual and other readily available materials \216\ in support
of each method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ At the recent National Air Quality Conference in May of
2012, a training session on ``Best Practices for Operating
PM2.5 Continuous FEMs'' was conducted. Presentations from
this session are publically available on EPA's web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/2012present.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Use of Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) Methods To Support the
Proposed New Secondary PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
The EPA had proposed to use CSN methods to support the proposed new
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS; however, as
explained in Section VI of this final rule, EPA is not finalizing the
new secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS and therefore has
no need to finalize the CSN methods to support such a standard.
Despite our decision not to finalize formal requirements for CSN
methods, this network remains a critical component in our PM monitoring
program. The EPA, monitoring agencies, and external scientists and
policy makers use PM2.5 data from the CSN to support several
important monitoring objectives such as: Development of modeling tools
and the application of source apportionment modeling for control
strategy development to implement the NAAQS; health effects and
exposure research studies; assessment of the effectiveness of emission
reductions strategies through the characterization of air quality; and
development of SIPs. The use of the CSN to support all of these
objectives will continue.
B. Changes to 40 CFR Part 58 (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance)
1. Terminology Changes
The EPA proposed to revise several terms associated with
PM2.5 monitor placement to ensure consistency with other
NAAQS and to conform with long-standing practices in siting of
equipment by monitoring agencies (77 FR 39007).
The EPA proposed to revoke the term ``community-oriented'' and
replace it
[[Page 3235]]
with the term ``area-wide.'' The term ``community-oriented,'' while
used within the description of the design criteria for
PM2.5, is not defined and has not been used in the design
criteria for other NAAQS pollutants. Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58
presents a functional usage of the term where sites at the neighborhood
and urban scale area are considered to be ``community-oriented.'' In
addition, population-oriented, micro-or middle-scale PM2.5
monitoring may also be considered ``community-oriented'' when
determined by the Regional Administrator to represent many such
locations throughout a metropolitan area. The EPA proposed to replace
this usage of ``community-oriented'' with the term ``area-wide'' in the
text of the PM2.5 network design criteria and to define it
in 40 CFR 58.1 to provide a more consistent usage of this concept
throughout appendix D of 40 CFR part 58. Specifically, the EPA proposed
that the terminology would read--``Area-wide means all monitors sited
at neighborhood, urban, and regional scales, as well as those monitors
sited at either micro-or middle-scale that are representative of many
such locations in the same CBSA.''
The EPA proposed to revoke the term ``Community Monitoring Zone''
(CMZ) and to remove references to it in 40 CFR part 58. Community
monitoring zone is currently defined as ``an optional averaging area
with established, well defined boundaries, such as county or census
block, within an MPA \217\ that has relatively uniform concentrations
of annual PM2.5 as defined by appendix N of 40 CFR part 50
of this chapter. Two or more community oriented state and local air
monitoring stations (SLAMS) monitors within a CMZ that meet certain
requirements as set forth in appendix N of 40 CFR part 50 may be
averaged for making comparisons to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.''
The EPA proposed to revoke this term and references to it since, as
discussed in section VII.A.2 above, the EPA proposed to eliminate all
references to the now-revoked spatial averaging option throughout
appendix N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Monitoring Planning Area (MPA) means a contiguous
geographic area with well established, well defined boundaries, such
as a CBSA, county or State, having a common areas that is used for
planning monitoring locations for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The one comment directly addressing the proposed rule changes (from
a state air agency) supported the proposal. A few industry commenters
noted the change in the context of how monitoring data are used to
compare to the NAAQS, but did not address the proposed specific
terminology changes. However, as explained in section III.E.3.a,
several industry commenters did provide comments critical of EPA's
proposal to revoke spatial averaging which is related to revoking the
term ``Community Monitoring Zone''.
For the reasons explained above, the EPA is finalizing its proposed
change to revoke the term ``community-oriented'' and to replace it with
the term ``area-wide.'' The EPA is also finalizing its proposal to
revoke the term ``Community Monitoring Zone'' (CMZ) and references to
it in 40 CFR part 58.
2. Special Considerations for Comparability of PM2.5 Ambient
Air Monitoring Data to the NAAQS
In general, ambient monitors must meet a basic set of requirements
before the resulting data can be used for comparison to the NAAQS.
These requirements include the presence and implementation of an
approved quality assurance project plan; the use of methods that are
reference, equivalent, or other approved method as described in
appendix C to 40 CFR part 58; and compliance with the probe and siting
path criteria as described in appendix E to 40 CFR part 58. While these
40 CFR part 58 requirements apply to any monitor that provides data for
comparison to the NAAQS, there are certain additional restrictions that
apply only to PM2.5 monitoring.\218\ These additional
restrictions provide that sites must be ``population-oriented'' for
comparison to either the 24-hour or annual NAAQS, and specifically for
comparison to the annual NAAQS, sites must be sited to represent area-
wide locations. There is a related provision that provides for
comparing sites at micro- or middle-scales to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS when the site is determined by the Regional
Administrator to represent a larger region of localized high ambient
PM2.5 concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ These are found in 40 CFR 58.30 (Special considerations
for data comparisons to the NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These provisions have been in the monitoring regulations since the
inception of the PM2.5 NAAQS. Nonetheless, these provisions
and the fact that such monitoring requirements are not found in the
requirements for all other criteria pollutants have created areas of
uncertainty for the EPA and state, local, and tribal agencies that base
implementation decisions on monitoring requirements through programs
such as dispersion modeling, SIP planning, and the calculation of
transportation conformity budgets. For example, in developing modeling
guidance to support near-road transportation conformity modeling, the
EPA struggled to determine how the identification of acceptable
PM2.5 receptor locations can be reconciled with the
PM2.5 monitoring regulations that reference potentially
acceptable (or unacceptable) monitoring locations that may, or may not,
be considered unique for purposes of comparing to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to revise these
particular PM2.5 requirements for consistency with long-
standing practices in all other NAAQS pollutant monitoring networks,
and to ensure that interpretation of the monitoring rules does not
cause ambiguity in implementation examples that also include the
treatment of unmonitored areas (see 77 FR 39007-009). Each of these
topics is described below.
a. Eliminating the Term ``Population Oriented'' From Section 58.30
The EPA proposed to remove the term ``population oriented'' from
section 58.30 so that there would no longer be an explicit requirement
that PM2.5 monitoring sites be ``population-oriented'' for
comparison to the PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA noted that this
requirement is not entirely consistent with the definition of
``ambient'' used in the NAAQS. The EPA's definition of ambient air is
specified in 40 CFR 50.1--``Ambient air means that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which the general public has
access.'' The EPA's definition of ``population-oriented'' is provided
in 40 CFR 58.1--``Population-oriented monitoring (or sites) means
residential areas, commercial areas, recreational areas, industrial
areas where workers from more than one company are located, and other
areas where a substantial number of people may spend a significant
fraction of their day.'' The NAAQS are standards for concentrations
``in the ambient air'' \219\--i.e., air to which members of the public
could be exposed-- and all monitors used for NAAQS regulatory purposes
must be representative of ambient air concentrations.\220\ Consistent
with this requirement and the long-standing practice of monitoring
agencies locating ambient monitors, the EPA's experience is that
PM2.5 monitors are placed in areas that are representative
of population exposures. There are no PM2.5 monitors
currently operating as
[[Page 3236]]
``non-population oriented'' and the EPA does not believe that the
requirement for near-road monitoring (discussed in detail further
below) will result in monitors that are not representative of
population exposures. At the same time, the specification that certain
PM2.5 monitors must be ``population-oriented'' in the rules
has created substantial confusion in how to treat potential locations
of exposure for NAAQS-related regulatory requirements other than
monitoring network design, such as in applying modeling as part of a
PSD or SIP exercise.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ See 40 CFR part 50.
\220\ See, e.g., 40 CFR 58.1 (defining ``federal reference
method'' as ``a method for sampling and analyzing the ambient air
for an air pollutant * * *'')
\221\ Examples include dispersion modeling to support NAAQS
attainment planning, associated SIP development, and the calculation
of transportation conformity budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's intention in proposing to remove the term ``population
oriented'' from section 58.30 was to remove a potential source of
inconsistency in the monitoring rules as they apply for all the NAAQS.
As noted earlier, the NAAQS provide protection for the public health
and welfare in areas where the public can be exposed. For all other
criteria pollutants, the monitoring requirements have no such
restriction on the comparability of a monitor. In the case of
PM2.5 however, the additional restriction of monitors being
required to be ``population-oriented'' for comparability to the NAAQS
has existed. The term ``population oriented'' has lacked a quantitative
definition (e.g., the interpretation of ``substantial number'' in the
definition of ``population-oriented''), therefore monitoring agencies
and those stakeholders who based implementation strategies and
decisions on monitoring regulations have been uncertain about which
locations would meet requirements described in Sec. 58.30, which do
not exist for any other NAAQS. Monitoring agencies are also not in a
position to precisely forecast where future residential, commercial, or
recreational development may occur, therefore requiring that
PM2.5 monitors that are to be compared to the NAAQS can only
be located where ``substantial numbers of people'' live, work, or play
(i.e., in the present tense) represents an unwise limitation on the
flexibility of monitoring agencies to revise their PM2.5
networks to account for anticipated changes in demographics or
development as well as a contradiction with the inherent applicability
of the NAAQS in ambient air locations where the public has access
(e.g., in any location outside the perimeter of a industrial facility).
From an operational standpoint, we note that revoking this term would
not change the requirements in the PM2.5 network design
criteria. To the extent that the phrase ``population-oriented'' served
to emphasize the need for micro- or middle-scale monitors to be
representative of locations with population exposure to be comparable
to the annual NAAQS, the definition of ambient air, together with the
requirement in revised section 58.30 that such sites must be ``area-
wide'' to be comparable to the annual NAAQS, adequately serves the same
purpose. By revising the PM2.5 monitoring rules to ensure
consistency with the long-standing definition of ambient air applied to
the other NAAQS pollutants, the EPA will be able to more clearly define
how to treat potential exposure receptors for other NAAQS regulatory
requirements, regardless of whether monitoring exists or not.
Public comments on this issue were supported by air agencies and
public health and environmental groups. Two commenters from state
agencies supported the proposed change, with one noting further that
regardless of a change it is still the air agency's responsibility to
plan a network with sites that are appropriate for comparison to the
NAAQS. Several public health and environmental groups supported
revoking ``population oriented'' as a condition for comparability of
PM2.5 monitoring sites to the NAAQS stating that retaining
such a policy is inconsistent with the text, purpose and intent of the
Clean Air Act. Most industry commenters did not support revoking
``population-oriented'' as a condition for comparison to the NAAQS.
Most of these comments raised concerns with using data from an area
where potentially no one is exposed.
In considering these comments, the EPA agrees that it is
appropriate for individual air agencies to provide a recommendation in
the annual monitoring network plan regarding whether any site may or
may not be appropriate for comparison to the PM2.5 (or any)
NAAQS. The roles of the air agency and the EPA in this process of
identifying whether a site is, or is not, consistent with the network
plan requirements for a NAAQS are specified in the already-established
monitoring requirements of Sec. 58.10. In this approval process, the
air agency initiates the recommendations and the EPA has the
responsibility to approve, as appropriate, any plans that provide for
changes to the network.
EPA disagrees with the industry comments. As noted above, monitors
(including those for PM2.5) must already meet the test of
being representative of ambient air to be compared to the NAAQS, and
thus such monitors meeting this test will be sited in locations where
people are already located, or where they could be exposed, whether or
not the term ``population oriented'' appears in section 58.30.
Moreover, as discussed below, comparisons to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS can be only be from monitors ``that are
representative of area-wide air quality.'' ``Area-wide'' monitors are
those at the neighborhood scale or larger, or at smaller scales if they
are representative of many such locations in the same CBSA. The EPA
anticipates that a monitor that is sited as representative of ambient
air at the neighborhood scale or larger (or of ambient air at many
smaller areas) will be representative of population exposure. This
conclusion is further supported by the fact that all current monitors
used for comparison with the PM2.5 NAAQS are designated as
``population-oriented.'' \222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ The last known non population-oriented site at Sun Metro
in El Paso Texas (AQS ID: 48-141-0053), was shut down in October
2010 and is in the process of being moved to a nearby neighborhood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After consideration of the public comments, the EPA is finalizing
its decision to revoke use of ``population-oriented'' as a condition
for comparability of PM2.5 monitoring sites to the NAAQS.
The EPA concludes that the ``population-oriented'' language is
unnecessary and inconsistent with other monitoring rules, and should
therefore be removed.
b. Applicability of Micro- and Middle-Scale Monitoring Sites to the
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA proposed language in 40 CFR section 58.30 to clarify when
data from PM2.5 monitoring sites at micro- and middle-scale
locations can be compared to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The
EPA's intent was to provide consistency and predictability in the
interpretation of the monitoring regulations. The EPA's current rules
state that ``PM2.5 data that are representative, not of
area-wide but rather, of relatively unique population-oriented micro-
scale, or localized hot spot, or unique population-oriented middle-
scale impact sites are only eligible for comparison to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, if the PM2.5 monitoring
site is adjacent to a unique dominating local PM2.5 source
or can be shown to have average 24-hour concentrations representative
of a smaller than neighborhood spatial scale, then data from a monitor
at the site would only be eligible for comparison to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.'' We proposed clarifying language to
[[Page 3237]]
explicitly state that measuring PM2.5 in micro- and middle-
scale environments near emissions of mobile sources, such as a highway,
does not constitute being impacted by a ``unique'' source and so could
be compared to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. We explained that
mobile sources are rather ubiquitous and there are many locations
throughout an urban area where elevated exposures attributable to such
sources could occur. Therefore, we proposed that in most cases the
potential location for a PM2.5 monitoring site, including
micro- and middle-scale sites near roadways, would be eligible for
comparison to the annual NAAQS. We further noted that the existing
definition of ``middle scale'' in appendix D to part 58 already
indicates that traffic corridors can be middle scale, and hence not
unique, and therefore comparable to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
(as well as to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS) (77 FR 39008).
Air agencies that commented on this part of the proposed rule
offered a variety of positions. One air agency stated that sites at
these smaller scales should not be compared to the annual NAAQS.
Another air agency stated that these sites should be considered for
comparison with the annual PM2.5 NAAQS only when the air
agency initiates a decision that such sites at these smaller scales are
area-wide. A different air agency offered that all micro- and middle-
scale sites should be compared to the annual NAAQS since the wording of
the provision is problematic and will be difficult for agencies to
implement.
Industry commenters were largely against finalizing such a
provision. The major concern raised was that such a provision combined
with other related provisions represented an unwarranted tightening of
the NAAQS. Some industry commenters pointed out that there are examples
of unique locations in near road environments and as such EPA should
not presume that PM2.5 monitors in these locations should be
applicable to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
In considering comments on this part of the rule, the EPA notes
that there are already examples of where the States and EPA have
determined certain micro- and middle-scale locations as applicable to
the annual NAAQS and others where they were determined as not
applicable to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. These cases exist
where a State proposed and the Regional Administrator determined that
either the micro-scale or middle-scale site did or did not represent
many similar areas in a CBSA (40 CFR 58.30 and section 4.7 to Appendix
D, part 58). The EPA also notes that the existing descriptions of the
types of micro- and middle-scale sites which are unique and cited in
Sec. 58.30 are not being amended and that data from these types of
sites would remain as not comparable to the annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, PM2.5 data that are representative, not
of area-wide but rather, of relatively unique population-oriented
microscale, or localized hot spots, or unique middle scale impact sites
will only be eligible for comparison to the 24-hour NAAQS. Our proposal
was to clarify language to explicitly state that measuring
PM2.5 in micro- and middle-scale environments near emissions
of mobile sources, such as a highway, does not constitute being
impacted by a ``unique'' source and so the site could be compared to
the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. However, in light of public comments
pointing out that there are cases where near-road environments can be
considered a unique location; EPA is not finalizing this part of the
rule language. Examples of such locations that are considered unique
and should therefore not be considered applicable to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS are explained later in section VIII.B.3.b.i. As
noted in the preamble to the proposed rule (77 FR 39008-09), air
agencies and the EPA will use the annual monitoring network plan
described in 40 CFR 58.10 for identification and approval of sites that
are suitable and sites that are not suitable for comparison with the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The EPA disagrees with those comments that asserted that the
proposed change would have represented a tightening of the NAAQS. As
explained in section III.E.3.a on the form of the annual NAAQS, the EPA
carefully considered that areas such as traffic corridors were
potential high exposure areas, since a significant fraction of the
population, including at-risk populations, live in proximity to major
roads and should be afforded the degree of protection intended by the
revisions to the form and level of the annual PM2.5 standard
being adopted. Monitoring in such areas as traffic corridors does not
make the annual standard more stringent than intended, but rather
affords the populations of such middle- and micro-scale areas (where
determined to represent area-wide air quality) the requisite level of
protection from long-term exposure to PM2.5.
3. Changes to Monitoring for the National Ambient Air Monitoring System
a. Background
As described in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, the ambient air
monitoring networks must be designed to meet three basic monitoring
objectives:
(a) Provide air pollution data to the general public in a timely
manner. Data can be presented to the public in a number of attractive
ways including through air quality maps, newspapers, Internet sites,
and as part of weather forecasts and public advisories.
(b) Support compliance with ambient air quality standards and
emissions strategy development. Data from FRM, FEM, and ARM monitors
for NAAQS pollutants will be used for comparing an area's air pollution
levels against the NAAQS. Data from monitors of various types can be
used in the development of attainment and maintenance plans. SLAMS, and
especially National Core Monitoring Network (NCore) \223\ station data,
will be used to evaluate the regional air quality models used in
developing emission strategies and to track trends in air pollution
abatement control measures' impact on improving air quality. In
monitoring locations near major air pollution sources, source-oriented
monitoring data can provide insight into how well industrial sources
are controlling their pollutant emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ NCore is a multi-pollutant network that integrates several
advanced measurements for particles, gases and meteorology (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Appendix B, section B.4). Measurements required at NCore
include PM2.5 mass and speciation, PM10-2.5
mass, ozone, CO, SO2, NO, NOy, and basic
meteorology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Support for air pollution research studies. Air pollution data
from the NCore network can be used to supplement data collected by
researchers working on health effects assessments and atmospheric
processes or for monitoring methods development work.
To support the air quality management work indicated in the three
basic air monitoring objectives, a network must be designed with a
variety of types of monitoring sites. Monitoring sites must be capable
of informing managers about many things including the peak air
pollution levels, typical levels in populated areas, air pollution
transported into and outside of a city or region, and air pollution
levels near specific sources. Following is a listing of six general
site types: (a) Sites located to determine the highest concentrations
expected to occur in the area covered by the network (highest
concentration); (b)
[[Page 3238]]
sites located to measure typical concentrations in areas of high
population density (population oriented); (c) sites located to
determine the impact of significant sources or source categories on air
quality (source impact or source oriented); (d) sites located to
determine general background concentration levels (general background);
and (e) sites located to determine the extent of regional pollutant
transport among populated areas (regional transport); and in support of
secondary standards (welfare related impacts).
b. Primary PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA proposed to add a near-road component to the
PM2.5 network design criteria and to clarify the use of
approved PM2.5 continuous FEMs at SLAMS.
ii. Addition of a Near-Road Component to the PM2.5
Monitoring Network
The EPA proposed to add a near-road component to the
PM2.5 monitoring network (77 FR 39009). The EPA explained
that there are gradients in near-roadway PM2.5 that are most
likely to be associated with heavily travelled roads (particularly
those with significant heavy-duty diesel activity), and that the
largest numbers of impacted populations are located in the largest
CBSAs in the country (Ntziachristos et al., 2007; Ross et al., 2007;
Yanosky et al., 2009; Zwack et al., 2011). The EPA further noted that
by adding a modest number of PM2.5 monitoring sites that are
leveraged with measurements of other pollutants in the near-road
environment, a number of key monitoring objectives will be supported,
including collection of NAAQS comparable data in the near-road
environment, support for long-term health studies investigating adverse
effects on people, providing a better understanding of pollutant
gradients impacting neighborhoods that parallel major roads,
availability of data to validate performance of models simulating near-
road dispersion, characterization of areas with potentially elevated
concentrations and/or poor air quality, implementation of a multi-
pollutant paradigm as stated in the NO2 NAAQS proposed rule
(74 FR 34442, July 15, 2009), and monitoring goals consistent with
existing objectives noted in the specific design criteria for
PM2.5 described in appendix D, 4.7.1(b) to 40 CFR part 58.
The monitoring methods that are appropriate for this purpose are an
FRM, FEM, or ARM. The EPA recognized that there are limitations in the
ability of some of these methods to accurately measure PM2.5
mass due to the incomplete retention of semi-volatile material on the
sampling medium (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 3.4.1.1). This limitation is
relevant to the near-road environment as well as to other environments
where PM is expected to have semi-volatile components. The EPA also
recognized that continuous PM2.5 FEMs, which provide mass
concentration data on an hourly basis, are better suited to accomplish
the goals of near-road monitoring as they will complement the time
resolution of the other air quality measurements and traffic data
collected at the same sites. In this regard, particular
PM2.5 FEMs are generally better suited for near-road
monitoring than FRMs. However, filter-based FRMs do offer some
advantages which may be highly desirable for near-road monitoring, such
as readily available filters for later chemical analysis such as for
elemental composition by x-ray fluorescence and black carbon (BC) by
transmissometry. As a result of these tradeoffs, monitoring agencies
are encouraged to select one or more PM2.5 methods for
deployment at near-road monitoring stations that best meet their
agencies monitoring objectives while ensuring that at least one of
those methods is appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS (i.e., a FRM,
FEM, or ARM). The EPA believes that by allowing monitoring agencies to
choose the FRM, FEM, or ARM method(s) that best fits their needs,
whether filter-based or continuous, the data will still be able to meet
the objectives cited above while ensuring maximum flexibility for the
monitoring agencies in the operation of their network.
The EPA believes that requiring a modest network of near-road
compliance PM2.5 monitors is necessary to provide
characterization of concentrations in near-road environments including
for comparison to the NAAQS. These long-term monitors will supplement
shorter-term networks to support the tracking of long-term trends \224\
of near-road PM2.5 mass concentrations and other pollutants
in near-road environments where people are exposed. Therefore, the EPA
proposed to require near-roadway monitoring of PM2.5 at one
location within each CBSA with a population of one million persons or
greater. The EPA believes that this network will be adequate to support
the NAAQS since the largest CBSAs are likely to have greater numbers of
exposed populations, a higher likelihood of elevated near-road
PM2.5 concentrations, and a wide range of diverse situations
with regard to traffic volumes, traffic patterns, roadway designs,
terrain/topography, meteorology, climate, surrounding land use and
population characteristics. Given the latest population data available,
the proposed requirement would result in approximately 52 required
near-road PM2.5 monitors across the country. An indirect
benefit of this network design is that monitoring agencies in these
largest CBSAs are more likely to already have redundant monitors that
could be relocated to the near-road environment, reducing costs for
equipment and ongoing operation.\225\ While only a single near-road
PM2.5 monitor is required within each of the CBSAs, agencies
may elect to add additional PM2.5 monitoring sites in near-
road environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ For example, the emissions used for the PM NAAQS RIA
modeling show that nationwide on-road primary PM2.5
emissions are expected to be reduced by 63% between 2007 and 2020.
Additionally, the elemental carbon portion of the on-road emissions
is expected to drop by 81 percent between 2007 and 2020. Therefore,
we expect that measured near-road PM2.5 gradients will be
much lower in the future as elemental carbon is a large fraction of
the gradient, due to future impacts of existing mobile source
controls.
\225\ EPA Regional Administrator approval would be required
prior to the discontinuation of SLAMS monitors, based on the
criteria described in 40 CFR 58.14(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA recognized that the location of maximum concentration
of PM2.5 exposure from roadway sources might differ from the
maximum location of NO2 or other pollutants, the EPA
proposed to require that near-road PM2.5 monitors be
collocated with the planned NO2 monitors. The NO2
network design considers multiple factors that are also relevant for
PM2.5 concentrations (i.e., average annual daily traffic,
fleet mix, roadway design, congestion patterns, terrain, and
meteorology) and significant thought and review has already gone into
its design, including pilot studies at five locations, and the
development of a technical assistance document in conjunction with the
affected monitoring agencies and the CASAC AAMMS (Russell and Samet,
2010b) to support deployment. Further, this collocation will allow
multiple pollutants to be tracked in the near-road environment. To the
extent that air agencies are still determining the optimum location for
their multi-pollutant \226\ near-road monitoring stations, EPA
encourages consideration of sites that best reflect measurement of
maximum concentrations associated with exposure of people living in
areas
[[Page 3239]]
that parallel major roads, to maximize the value of the data for use
later in health studies. Therefore, while compromises may be necessary
when siting a multi-pollutant near road monitoring station, on balance,
the EPA believes this is the most efficient and beneficial approach for
deployment of this component of the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ NO2, CO, and now PM2.5 measurements
are all expected to be collocated at near-road monitoring stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that the planned 52 near-road monitors represent a
small number of the total approximate 900 operating PM2.5
monitoring stations across the country. The EPA could have proposed
more near-road sites, however, the addition of sites in lower
population CBSAs is not expected to lead to much if any difference in
characterization of air quality since the bump in PM2.5
concentration associated with near-road environments in lower
population CBSAs, which typically have correspondingly less travelled
roads, is expected to be very small. The EPA could also have proposed
multiple sites in larger CBSAs; however, State monitoring programs are
already working towards representative near-road monitoring stations
and there is a synergistic value in ensuring these measurements are
collocated with multiple other measurements to serve the monitoring
objectives noted above. Since EPA has already finalized requirement of
CO monitoring at near-road stations in CBSA's with a population of 1
million or more at sites that are collocated with NO2, there
would be less value in requiring any more than 52 PM2.5
monitors as any more stations will not have CO for use in multi-
pollutant monitoring objectives (e.g., health studies and model
evaluation).
Ideally, near-road sites would be located at the elevation and
distance from the road where maximum PM2.5 levels occur in
this environment, representing locations where populations are exposed;
for example, in apartments and other housing; schools located along
major roadways; industrial parks where workers exposed; and in
recreational areas such as greenways, bikeways, and other park
facilities that are often developed along roads. Specific to probe and
siting criteria for near-road PM2.5 monitors, which is
explained later in this section, EPA did not set additional criteria on
what the elevation and distance requirements should be, beyond what is
already defined for PM2.5 or near-road NO2
monitors for reasons explained above. Also, the EPA did not propose
that the near-road PM2.5 monitors be located within a
specific distance of other area-wide sites; however, monitoring
agencies are encouraged to consider that a near-road site selected in
accordance with monitoring requirements and also located in proximity
to a robust area-wide site, such as an NCore station, would provide
useful information in characterizing the near-road contribution to
multiple pollutants, including PM2.5 and tracking the
decreasing trend that is expected in the PM2.5 near-road
gradient over time, due to future impacts of existing mobile source
controls.
The timeline to implement the near-road PM2.5 monitors
should be as minimally disruptive to on-going operations of monitoring
agency programs as possible recognizing monitoring agency resource
constraints, while still meeting the need to collect for near-road
PM2.5 data in a timely fashion. Since the near-road
PM2.5 monitors were proposed to be collocated with the
emerging near-road NO2 network that was scheduled to be
operational by January 1, 2013,\227\ the EPA believes it is appropriate
to wait until after the near-road NO2 network is established
before implementing the near-road PM2.5 monitors. Therefore,
the EPA proposed that each PM2.5 monitor planned for
collocation with a near-road NO2 monitoring site be
implemented no later than January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ The EPA has proposed a revised timeline for deployment of
the near-road NO2 monitors, where all CBSAs with one
million or more people are to have their first near-road
NO2 station operational by January 1, 2014 (77 FR 64244,
October 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received comments from a number of air agencies, industrial
groups, and environmental and public health organizations on its
proposal to require PM2.5 monitoring in near-road
environments.
Among comments from air agencies, several commenters did not
support the addition of near road monitoring citing the challenges of
siting these stations and the additional cost it would require to
operate the monitors. Several air agencies recognized the value of
adding monitors to provide better characterization of exposures in
near-road environments, but recommended a slower deployment of the
PM2.5 monitors so that it can be phased in over a multi-year
period. Several air agencies recommended that the PM2.5
monitoring in the near-road environment be deployed on a phased-in
schedule with the first such monitors being required no sooner than one
year after deployment of the NO2 sites. These air agencies
stated that phasing in of the PM2.5 monitors in the near
road environment would allow more time to learn and share information
on what worked best in deploying the NO2 monitors at near-
road monitoring stations, since NO2 is the first pollutant
required to be monitored at near-road stations. A few air agencies
identified a need to more clearly support or require the maintenance of
as much of the existing network of neighborhood scale PM2.5
monitoring sites as possible in regulatory text. These neighborhood
scale PM2.5 sites were identified by commenters as the most
broadly representative sites for characterizing CBSA wide exposures
that are supportive of a number of monitoring objectives. A few air
agencies also identified a need for flexibility in the proposed network
design requirement that PM2.5 near-road monitors must be
collocated with the NO2 monitors in the near-road
environment. The commenters suggested allowing flexibility for air
agencies to meet the requirement for PM2.5 in a near-road
environment by siting at a different near-road location where
PM2.5 concentrations are expected to be high.
Most industry commenters did not support the addition of near-road
monitoring for PM2.5, again arguing that using data from
such monitors, for comparison to the NAAQS, combined with other changes
(i.e., elimination of ``population-oriented'' as a criteria for
comparison to the NAAQS and the elimination of spatial averaging) would
represent, in their judgement, a tightening of the PM2.5
NAAQS. A few of these commenters asserted that monitoring in the near-
road environment is not representative of ambient air exposures. A few
industry comments noted that if the EPA required PM2.5
monitoring in the near-road environment, any data collected should not
be used for comparison to the NAAQS. One commenter stated it had no
problem with monitoring in the near-road environment, so long as any
such monitoring used to compare to the PM2.5 annual NAAQS is
population-oriented. One commenter stated that the decision to co-
locate with NO2 monitors was based on convenience and the
intent of the NO2 near-road monitoring is to find the
highest micro-scale concentrations within a few meters of the most
heavily travelled expressways, representing a unique situation.
Environmental and public health groups strongly support the
addition of PM2.5 monitoring to the near-road environment.
Commenters cited the large number of people that live in proximity to
major roadways \228\ in their
[[Page 3240]]
support for adding these monitors, that such protection of people in
these environments is long overdue, and that such data therefore be
used for comparison to the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ One study identified that 45 million Americans live within
300 feet of a major roadway or other source of mobile emissions. The
commenters' information is based on the American Housing Survey,
which is available on the Web at: http://www.census.gov/housing/ahs/data/ahs2009.html. The survey provides an estimate of the county's
housing units in the U.S. that are located with 300 feet of a
highway with four or more lanes, or a railroad, or an airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding comments from air agencies that the near-road monitors
are challenging to site and that there is additional cost in operating
these monitors, the EPA maintains that the major challenges in siting
would already be accomplished by implementing the required
NO2 monitoring stations in near-road environments since the
EPA fully expects that the PM2.5 monitors will be placed at
the NO2 near roadway stations and has revised the
PM2.5 monitoring requirements consistent with that
expectation. The EPA also points out that the requirements for the
minimum number of PM2.5 monitors is unchanged and that in
most cases the addition of near-road PM2.5 monitors can be
accomplished by relocating an existing monitor, with no net increase in
monitors. Thus, while we are requiring a new component of the
PM2.5 monitoring network, the overall size of the network is
expected to remain about the same, and we expect that air agencies can
meet this requirement by relocating existing lower-priority monitors.
In considering comments from air agencies on a schedule for
implementing PM2.5 monitors at near road monitoring
stations, the EPA is persuaded by commenters from air agencies who
stated that a phased deployment of the PM2.5 monitors would
be a better approach as it would allow agencies to learn from the
deployment of the NO2 monitors and a first phase of
PM2.5 monitors. Phasing in the deployment of monitors is
also consistent with previous CASAC advice (Russell and Samet, 2010b)
on a schedule for deployment of near-road NO2 monitors.
Regarding comments from air agencies on maintaining the
neighborhood scale monitoring stations as the largest part of the
network as these sites are the most broadly representative of exposures
across CBSAs, the EPA supports such a goal. Neighborhood scale
monitoring sites remain the backbone of the PM2.5 monitoring
network and they will continue to represent over two thirds of the
operating network following the deployment of the near-road monitors.
The EPA expects that each CBSA required to monitor for PM2.5
will maintain its existing highest concentration area-wide monitoring
site (referred to as the design value site) and not attempt to move
such sites to near-road environments. Maintaining the area-wide and
largely neighborhood scale design value sites is critical to the long-
standing goal of using data to support a variety of monitoring
objectives. The EPA also recognizes that while every PM2.5
monitor has value in some capacity at its current location, air
agencies are expected to recommend relocation of monitors that are
relatively low in priority to meet the near-road requirement.
Regarding comments from air agencies on the need for flexibility in
the network design requirement that PM2.5 near-road monitors
must be collocated with the NO2 monitors in the near-road
environment, the EPA points out that it prefers to maintain this
requirement so that the multi-pollutant data are available to support
the monitoring objectives cited above. However, the EPA also recognizes
there may be cases where an air agency recommends siting their near-
road PM2.5 monitor in another high concentration near-road
environment. The EPA believes such cases will be very limited, but that
these situations can be supported in one of two ways. First, EPA and
the air agency can use their discretion to site two near-road
PM2.5 monitors in the area. Second, the EPA can use its
discretion in approving a deviation from the PM2.5
monitoring requirements as already exists in the network design
criteria. Such deviations are to be approved by the Regional
Administrator as described in section 4.7.1 of Appendix D to part 58.
Regarding the comment that PM2.5 monitors in near-road
environments were sited for convenience, which due to siting with
NO2 monitors a few meters from the road presents a unique
situation, the EPA disagrees that these monitors were sited solely for
convenience or that they would represent a unique situation within an
urban area. On the initial point, the EPA believes that the
characterization of representative maximum PM2.5
concentrations due to on-road mobile sources and the appropriate
location of such PM2.5 monitors will be the same approximate
locations that are the focus of the near-road NO2 network.
This is due to the fact that PM2.5, like NOX, is
disproportionately influenced by heavy duty (HD) vehicles which are
predominantly diesel fueled, when compared to light duty (LD) vehicles
which are primarily gasoline fueled. Specifically, for both
PM2.5 and NOX, HD vehicles emit more of these two
pollutants and their precursors on a per vehicle basis than LD
vehicles. The EPA recognized this fact in the near-road NO2
network by requiring states to consider the fleet mix of candidate road
segments where near-road monitoring might occur. In the design of the
NO2 near-road network where the PM2.5 monitors
will be installed, states were instructed to place a higher priority on
those highly trafficked roads which have more diesel fueled vehicles
using a metric called the fleet equivalent average annual daily
traffic.\229\ As such, the Agency believes it is appropriate that
required near-road PM2.5 monitors would be located with
near-road NO2 monitors as they are similarly influenced not
only by fleet mix but also by total traffic count, congestion patterns,
roadway design, terrain, and meteorology. On the second point with
regard to such sites representing a unique situation within an urban
area, EPA points out that the determination of a near-road micro- or
middle-scale site being considered to represent ``area-wide'' air
quality or ``unique'' will be made on a case by case basis with the
monitoring agency providing such recommendations in their annual
monitoring network plans described in Sec. 58.10. Examples of such
``unique'' micro- and middle-scale locations are provided later in this
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\229\ See the Near-road NO2 Monitoring Technical
Assistance Document at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/nearroad/NearRoadTAD.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not accept the comment that siting some monitors in near
roadway environments makes the standard impermissibly more stringent. A
significant fraction of the population lives in proximity to major
roads. These exposures occur in locations that represent ambient air
for which the agency has a responsibility to ensure the public is
protected with an adequate margin of safety. Ignoring monitoring
results from such areas (or not monitoring at all) would abdicate this
responsibility. Put another way, monitoring in such areas does not make
the standard more stringent, but rather affords requisite protection to
the populations, among them at-risk populations, exposed to fine
particulate in these areas. Thus, the EPA has made a determination to
protect all area-wide locations, including those locations with
populations living near major roads that are representative of many
such locations throughout an area. As discussed above, EPA concludes
that the requirement to locate monitors to represent ambient air, along
with other siting requirements, will ensure that monitors represent
PM2.5 concentrations in areas of potential public exposure.
[[Page 3241]]
We do recognize, however, the possibility that some near-road
monitoring stations may be representative of relatively unique
locations versus the more representative area-wide situation mentioned
above. This could occur because an air agency made a siting decision
based on NO2 criteria that resulted in the characterization
of a microscale environment that is not considered area-wide for
PM2.5; for example, due to proximity to a unique source like
a tunnel entrance, nearby major point source, or other relatively
unique microscale hot spot. In these types of scenarios, air agencies
would identify the site as a unique monitor comparable only to the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS per the language in section 58.30, and not
comparable to the annual NAAQS, through the Annual Monitoring Network
Plan process described earlier. Although EPA expects most near-road
PM2.5 monitors to be sited to represent area-wide
conditions, since a vast majority of the near-road stations have yet to
be installed, we believe that providing such clarity and flexibility in
siting and NAAQS comparability is warranted.
After careful consideration of the public comments, the EPA is
finalizing its decision to add PM2.5 monitors to the near-
road monitoring stations. The EPA is finalizing this decision as the
near-road environment is an area where significant public exposure can
occur, recognizing that this is a gap in the current PM2.5
monitoring networks, and because these PM2.5 monitors will
be collocated with NO2 monitors in the near-road
environment, there will not be a significant additional burden on the
air agencies.\230\ However, in recognition of the comments from air
agencies above, EPA is finalizing a revised and phased schedule for
deployment of the PM2.5 monitors at near-road stations. A
minimum of one PM2.5 monitor in each CBSA with a population
greater than or equal to 2.5 million is to be collocated at a near-road
NO2 monitoring station and must to be operational by January
1, 2015. The remaining CBSAs (i.e., those CBSAs with populations
greater than or equal to 1M, but less than 2.5M) must be operational by
January 1, 2017. This schedule will ensure that air agencies have
sufficient time to learn from deployment of the NO2 monitors
in near-road environments, that the highest population CBSAs begin
operating their PM2.5 monitors in near-road environments
first, and that the remaining PM2.5 monitors are deployed on
the same schedule as the CO monitors (also, required by January 1,
2017).\231\ In consideration of the comments regarding maintaining
neighborhood scale monitoring sites as the largest portion of the
network, the EPA is revising the wording of a requirement that requires
at least one site to be in an area-wide location of expected maximum
concentration, to wording that states that such sites must be in an
area-wide location of expected maximum concentration while also being
at the neighborhood or larger scale of representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ The incremental one-time cost of moving the 52 monitors
required to be located in the near-road environment is described in
section X.B--Paperwork Reduction Act.
\231\ 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Use of PM2.5 Continuous FEMs at SLAMS
The EPA proposed that each agency specify its intention and
rationale to use or not use data from continuous PM2.5 FEMs
that are eligible for comparison to the NAAQS as part of its annual
monitoring network plan due to the applicable EPA Region Office by July
1 each year. The proposal also provided that the EPA Regional
Administrator would be responsible for approving annual monitoring
network plans where agencies have provided a recommendation that
certain PM2.5 FEMs be considered ineligible for comparison
to the NAAQS.
In 2006, the EPA finalized new performance criteria for approval of
continuous PM2.5 monitors as either Class III FEMs or ARMs.
At the time of proposal, the EPA had already approved six
PM2.5 continuous FEMs \232\ and there are nearly 200 of
these monitors already operating in State, local, and Tribal networks.
Monitoring agencies have been deploying and field-testing these units
over the last couple of years and the EPA recently compiled an
assessment of the FEM data in relationship to collocated FRMs (Hanley
and Reff, 2011; U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 4-50 to 4-51). As described in the
proposal (FR 38983), the EPA found that some sites with continuous
PM2.5 FEMs have an acceptable degree of comparability with
collocated FRMs, while others had poor data comparability that would
not meet the performance criteria used to approve the FEMs (71 FR
61285-61286, Table C-4, October 17, 2006). The EPA is encouraging use
of the FEM data from those sites with acceptable data comparability
including for purposes of comparison to the NAAQS. For sites with
unacceptable data comparability, the EPA is working closely with the
monitoring committee of the NACAA, instrument manufacturers, and
monitoring agencies to document best practices on these methods to
improve the comparability and consistency of resulting data wherever
possible. The EPA believes that the performance of many of these
continuous PM2.5 FEMs at locations with poor data
comparability can be improved to a point where the acceptance criteria
noted above can be met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\232\ The EPA maintains a list of approved Reference and
Equivalent Methods on its Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the varying data comparability of continuous PM2.5
FEMs noted above, we believe that a need exists for flexibility in the
approaches for how such data are used, particularly for the objective
of determining NAAQS compliance. Accordingly, we proposed that
monitoring agencies address the use of data from PM2.5
continuous FEMs in their annual monitoring network plans due to the
applicable EPA Regional Office by July 1 of each year for any cases
where the agency believes that the data generated by PM2.5
continuous FEMs in their network should not to be compared to the
NAAQS. The annual network plans would include assessments such as
comparisons of continuous FEMs to collocated FRMs, and analyses of
whether the resulting statistical performance would meet the
established approval criteria. Based on these quantitative analyses,
monitoring agencies would have the option of requesting that data from
continuous FEMs be excluded from NAAQS comparison subject to EPA
approval; however, these data could still be utilized for other
objectives such as AQI reporting.
The issue exists of whether such data use provisions should be
prospective only (i.e., future NAAQS comparability excluded based on an
analysis of recent past performance) or a combination of retrospective
and prospective (i.e., the implications of unacceptable FEM performance
impacting usage of previously collected data as well as future data).
In the proposal, the EPA stated that in most cases, monitoring agencies
should be restricted to addressing prospective data issues to provide
stability and predictability in the long-term PM2.5 data
sets used for supporting attainment decisions. However, in the first
year after this proposed option would become effective, we indicated it
would be appropriate to provide monitoring agencies with a one-time
opportunity to review already reported continuous PM2.5 FEM
data and request that data with unacceptable performance be restricted
(retrospectively) from NAAQS
[[Page 3242]]
comparability. Accordingly, in the first year after this rule becomes
effective, we proposed that monitoring agencies have the option of
requesting in their annual monitoring network plans that a portion or
all of the existing continuous PM2.5 FEM data, as
applicable, as well as future data, be restricted from NAAQS
comparability for the period of time that the plan covers.\233\ In the
proposal we stated that annual monitoring network plans in subsequent
years would only need to cover new data for the period of time that the
plan covers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ Data from any PM2.5 monitor being used to meet
minimum monitoring requirements could not be restricted from NAAQS
comparability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, in cases where an agency is operating a
PM2.5 continuous FEM that is not meeting the expected
performance criteria used to approve the FEMs (71 FR 61285 to 61286,
Table C-4, October 17, 2006) when compared to their collocated FRMs, an
agency can recommend that the data not be used for comparison to the
NAAQS. However, all required SLAMS would still be required to have an
operating FRM (or other well performing FEM) to ensure a data record is
available for comparison to the NAAQS. In cases where a
PM2.5 continuous FEM was not meeting the expected
performance criteria, and the Regional Administrator has approved a
recommendation that the FEM data not be considered eligible for
comparison to the NAAQS, the data would still be required to be loaded
to AQS; however, these data would be identified distinctly from data
used for comparison to the NAAQS.
The goal of proposing to allow monitoring agencies the opportunity
to recommend not having data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs as
comparable to the NAAQS is to ensure that only high quality data (i.e.,
data from FRMs which are already well established and new continuous
FEMs that meet the performance criteria used to approve FEMs when
compared to collocated FRMs operated in each agencies network) are used
when comparing data to the PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the current
monitoring regulations, a monitoring agency can identify a
PM2.5 continuous FEM as an SPM, which allows the monitor to
be operated for up to 24 months without its data being used in
comparison to the NAAQS. While 24 months should be sufficient time to
operate the monitor across all seasons, assess the data quality, and in
some cases resolve operational issues with the instrument, it may still
leave some agencies with monitors whose data are not sufficiently
comparable to data from their FRMs. In these cases there may be a
disincentive to continue operating the PM2.5 continuous FEM,
especially in networks where the monitoring data are near the level of
the NAAQS. With the proposed provision, where a monitoring agency can
recommend not having data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs be
comparable to the NAAQS, a monitoring agency can continue to operate
their PM2.5 continuous FEM to support other monitoring
objectives (e.g., diurnal characterization of PM2.5, AQI
forecasting and reporting), while working through options for improved
data comparability while still providing data for comparison to the
NAAQS from an FRM.
The EPA believes that an assessment of FEM performance should
include several elements based on the original performance criteria.
The Agency also believes that certain modifications to the performance
criteria are appropriate in recognition of the differences between how
monitoring agencies operate routine monitors and how instrument
manufacturers conduct required FRM and FEM testing protocols. The
details below summarize these issues.
The EPA proposed to use the performance criteria used to approve
the FEMs (71 FR 61285 to 61286, Table C-4, October 17, 2006) for those
agencies that recommend not having data from PM2.5
continuous FEMs be comparable to the NAAQS. To accommodate how routine
monitoring networks operate, the EPA proposed that agencies seeking to
demonstrate insufficient data comparability base their assessment
mainly on collocated data from FRMs and continuous FEMs at monitoring
stations in their network. The EPA does not believe it is practical to
utilize the requirement in table C-4 of 40 CFR part 53 for having
multiple FRMs and FEMs at each site since such arrangements are not
typically found in monitoring agency networks. Accordingly, the
requirement for assessing intra-method replicate precision would be
inapplicable. Another consideration is the range of 24-hour data
concentrations, for instance, the performance criteria in table C-4 of
40 CFR part 53, provides for an acceptable concentration range of 3 to
200 [micro]g/m\3\. However, the EPA notes that during an evaluation of
data quality from two FEMs (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-50), the Agency found
that including low concentration data was helpful for understanding
whether an intercept or slope was driving a potential bias in an
instrument. Therefore, the EPA proposed that agencies may include low
concentration data (i.e., below 3 [micro]g/m\3\) for purposes of
evaluating the data comparability of continuous FEMs. With regard to
the minimum number of samples needed for the assessment, the EPA notes
that a minimum of 23 sample pairs are specified for each season in
table C-4 of 40 CFR part 53. Having 23 sample pairs per season should
be easily obtainable within one year for sites with a FRM operating on
at least a 1 in 3 day sample frequency and we proposed that this
requirement be applicable to the assessments being discussed here. For
sites on a one in 6 day sampling frequency, two years of data may be
necessary to meet this requirement. The EPA recognizes that it would be
best to assess the data based on the most recently available
information; however, having data across all seasons in multiple years
will provide a more robust data set for use in the data comparability
assessment; therefore, the EPA proposed that data quality assessments
be permitted to utilize up to the last three years of data for purposes
of recommending not having data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs
be comparable to the NAAQS.
The EPA recognizes that only a portion of continuous
PM2.5 FEMs will be collocated with FRMs, and it would be
impractical to restrict the applicability of data comparability
assessments to only those sites that had collocated FRM and FEM
monitors. In these cases, the monitoring agency will be permitted to
group the sites that are not collocated with an FRM with another
similar site that is collocated with an FRM for purposes of
recommending that the data are not eligible for use in comparison to
the NAAQS. Monitoring agencies may recommend having PM2.5
continuous FEM data eligible for comparison to the NAAQS from locations
where the method has been demonstrated to provide acceptable data
comparability, while also recommending not having it eligible in other
types of areas where the method has not been demonstrated to meet data
comparability criteria. For example, a rural site may be more closely
associated with aged particles where volatilization issues are
minimized resulting in acceptable data comparability between filter-
based and continuous methods, while a highly populated urban site with
fresh emissions with higher volatility may result in higher readings on
the PM2.5 continuous FEM that would not meet the expected
performance criteria as compared to a collocated FRM. In all cases
where a monitoring agency chose to group sites for purposes of
identifying a subset of PM2.5 continuous FEMs that would not
be comparable to the
[[Page 3243]]
NAAQS, the assessment submitted with the annual monitoring network plan
would have to provide sufficient detail to support the identification
of which combinations of method and sites would, and would not, be
comparable to the NAAQS, as well as the rationale and quantitative
basis for the grouping and recommendation.
Most comments received on this issue were from air agencies. All
air agencies either supported the proposal or supported it with a
recommendation to continue to allow for retrospective assessments to be
used such that data would not be compared to the NAAQS, if such an
assessment showed that the data were not of sufficient comparability to
a collocated FRM such that the continuous FEM should not be compared to
the NAAQS. One air agency supported the proposal, except though it had
reservations about how to best group sites together when a particular
PM2.5 continuous FEM is not collocated with a FRM.
The EPA notes the support by air agencies to finalize this
provision. EPA also notes that all commenters who offered input on the
retrospective use of assessments were supportive of allowing continued
retrospective assessments in annual monitoring networks plans so that
data may be recommended as excluded from comparison to the NAAQS under
certain provisions. However, the EPA has some reservations about how
and under what circumstances such an allowance should be made. The EPA
notes the concern expressed from one agency about how to best group
sites together when considering an assessment.
On the issue of whether to allow data collected to be
retrospectively excluded from comparison to the NAAQS, the EPA notes
there are a number of considerations, including that several air
agencies support such a policy. The EPA has evaluated how this issue
can be achieved and believes that some consideration should be allowed,
but also wants to ensure there is a consistent and easily recognizable
interpretation of such cases where air agencies recommend excluding
already collected and reported data. To help illustrate the possible
outcomes of how this could work consider the following examples.
Example 1: An agency finds that the bias between a collocated
PM2.5 continuous FEM and FRM are acceptable, but near the
limit of that acceptability and then finds a year later that the
assessment indicates that the bias is just outside the limit of that
acceptability. Such relatively small changes where an assessment
indicates flipping in or out of the acceptable bias are in themselves
acceptable since the overall Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) can still
be met. The overall DQOs can still be met since there are a number of
other factors that feed into the DQOs such as precision, data
completeness, and especially sample frequency, which when operating a
continuous FEM is a daily sample. Daily sampling provides less
uncertainty than sampling at the one-in-three day or one-in-six day
sampling frequencies, which are routinely employed by filter-based FRM
samplers. Therefore, in this example the existing data should still be
compared to the NAAQS, but the air agency should thoughtfully consider
whether to recommend \234\ and the EPA will consider whether to approve
that any new data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs are used in
comparison to the NAAQS. If an air agency recommends to not use a
PM2.5 continuous FEM for comparison to the NAAQS, it would
need to ensure another approved method (i.e., a filter-based FRM/FEM or
other continuous FEM which is performing within acceptable performance
criteria) is operating at the site or sites of interest. This would be
expected for all SLAMS, but at a minimum the design value monitoring
station for the area of interest would be required to have another
approved PM2.5 method (i.e., an FRM, other filter-based FEM,
or other continuous FEM or ARM with acceptable data comparability)
operating on the required sample frequency or more often for that
location. Example 2: A PM2.5 continuous FEM operated by an
air agency is found to have a significant bias compared to a collocated
FRM. If the air agency finds cause to invalidate the data (e.g., a flow
sensor is found to be outside of acceptable limits), then it should
invalidate the relevant data (i.e., data from the period going back to
the last successful flow check or audit or other information that
points to a cause that the flow sensor is not meeting its performance
criteria) for all data uses and there is no follow-up issue of
retrospective analysis. A case of finding cause to invalidate data
would be based on validation criteria found in an air agencies approved
quality assurance project plan (QAPP). Example 3: A PM2.5
continuous FEM operated by an air agency and previously identified as
appropriate to compare to the NAAQS, is found to have a significant and
unacceptable bias compared to a collocated FRM and there is no other
reason to invalidate the data. That is, all other information points to
the data being valid; however, there has been a significant shift in
the comparability of the PM2.5 continuous FEM compared to a
collocated FRM (which itself is found to be operating correctly and
data are valid). A significant shift in the comparability would be
noticeable by comparing assessments for a site from one year to the
next and seeing a significant and unacceptable change in one of the key
statistical metrics used in the evaluation (i.e., additive or
multiplicative bias). Such a case of retrospectively recommending not
using PM2.5 continuous FEM data should also take into
account all other available information that can help inform approving
such a recommendation as part of an annual monitoring network plan. For
example, do data from the PM2.5 performance evaluation
program data also suggest an unacceptable bias for a specific period of
interest with this method as used in the air agencies network? Note:
This type of assessment is often limited by the small number of samples
taken in the PEP program relative to the large number of collocated
samples expected when an FRM and PM2.5 continuous FEM are
collocated. In this type of example, the air agency might want to
recommend not using the continuous FEM data for comparison to the
NAAQS; however, the continuous FEM data could be appropriate for use in
reporting the Air Quality Index (AQI) or other data uses either as is
or if statistically correlated \235\ and corrected back to the
collocated FRM. So in this last example, the PM2.5
continuous FEM data would be stored separately in the EPA's data system
so that they are eligible for use in AQI calculations, but not used in
comparison to the NAAQS, if approved by the EPA. Again, the air agency
should thoughtfully consider and state its position and rationale in
the annual monitoring network plan on whether any future data should be
compared to the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\234\ Through the annual monitoring network plan explained in
Sec. 58.10.
\235\ The EPA has had a long-standing policy of allowing
PM2.5 continuous data to be statistically correlated and
corrected to use in AQI reporting. A report is available on this:
See ``Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for Relating Federal Reference
Method (FRM) and Continuous PM2.5 Measurements to Report
an Air Quality Index (AQI), EPA-454/B-02-002, November 2002''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another issue to consider is the transparent and consistent use of
PM2.5 continuous FEM data from a method where one air agency
recommends using the data for comparison to the NAAQS and another
specifically recommends to not use it for comparison to the NAAQS. The
use of the annual monitoring plans ensures that the process is
transparent; however, it may not ensure a consistent
[[Page 3244]]
approach if one agency recommends exclusion of data and another agency
does not. For example, consider two adjacent air agencies operating the
same make and model of a PM2.5 continuous FEM, where one air
agency recommends using data and the other air agency recommends not
using it for comparison to the NAAQS. While on its face it may seem
straightforward that a method with acceptable comparability to a
collocated FRM should perform similarly in other air agency networks
where they have similar aerosol composition and climate, in practice
there are a number of other variables that affect data comparability.
Such factors that lead to differences in comparability might include
differences in installation, training, development of SOPs, control of
shelter conditions, maintenance of the continuous FEM, and performance
of the FRMs which are being used as the basis of comparison to the
continuous FEM. Also, there may be cases where the concentration levels
are so far away from the level of the NAAQS (either substantially
higher or lower) that it would not matter if the data are excluded or
not, the same NAAQS determination would result. The EPA has considered
these issues and in general believes that it would still be acceptable
for one agency to use data for comparison to the NAAQS, while another
agency does not, even if it's the same method used in adjacent air
agency networks.
On the issue of grouping sites for purposes of allowing monitors
that are not collocated to be included when recommending a method
should not be compared to the NAAQS, the EPA believes that it is not
necessary to provide specific details on what criteria are necessary to
group sites as air agencies are in the best position to determine a
recommendation of when such sites should or should not be grouped.
However, to illustrate examples of possible ways to group sites, the
air agency could take into account factors such as whether the sites
are all in either a rural or urban location, since urban locations tend
to be impacted more directly by fresh emissions which are known to be
more volatile, or whether there is consistency in the climate for the
sites of interest as might be the case for sites near a large water
body or at a high altitude. The EPA will consider these issues when
evaluating air agency requests for approval.
The EPA is finalizing its proposal to allow each air agency to
specify its intention to use or not use data from continuous
PM2.5 FEMs that are eligible for comparison to the NAAQS as
part of their annual monitoring network plan due to the applicable EPA
Region Office by July 1 each year where adequate FRM data are
available. The EPA's approval of an annual monitoring network plan
\236\ as a whole, or in part, will constitute concurrence with an air
agency's recommendation to use or not use data from continuous
PM2.5 FEMs as eligible for comparison to the NAAQS, unless
otherwise noted in the approval of the plan. The absence of an air
agency statement specifying a position on use of data from a continuous
PM2.5 FEM for comparison to the NAAQS will be interpreted as
meaning that all such data are applicable for comparison to the NAAQS
following the provisions in Part 50, Appendix N on data handling and
Part 58 on the monitoring requirements. In finalizing this decision the
EPA will ensure, as proposed, that air agencies can identify already
collected data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs that should not be
used for comparison to the NAAQS. After considering comments in support
of allowing additional retrospective assessments, the EPA is also
finalizing an approach of allowing for the continued use of
retrospective assessments to inform when already collected data should
not be compared to the NAAQS, if there has been a significant change in
the assessment of that data from previous years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ Approval of an annual monitoring network plan is subject
to approval of the EPA Regional Administrator as provided for in
Sec. 58.10(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Revoking PM10-2.5 Speciation Requirements at NCore Sites
The EPA proposed to revoke the requirement for PM10-2.5
speciation monitoring as part of the current suite of NCore monitoring
requirements. The requirement to monitor for PM10-2.5 mass
(total) at all NCore multi-pollutant sites remains. PM10-2.5
mass monitoring commenced on January 1, 2011 as part of the nationwide
startup of the NCore network (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 1-15).
As part of the process to further define appropriate techniques for
PM10-2.5 speciation monitoring, a public consultation with
the CASAC AAMMS on monitoring issues related to PM10-2.5
speciation was held in February 2009 (74 FR 4196, January 23, 2009).
The subcommittee noted the lack of consensus on appropriate sampling
and analytical methods for PM10-2.5 speciation and expressed
concern that the Agency's commitment to launch the PM10-2.5
monitoring network without sufficient time to analyze the data from a
planned pilot project was premature (Russell, 2009). Based on the noted
lack of consensus on PM10-2.5 speciation monitoring
techniques, the Agency did implement a small pilot monitoring project
to evaluate the available monitoring and analytical technologies.
The EPA pilot monitoring project was completed in 2011, with plans
to analyze the data and prepare a final report on findings and
recommendations in 2013. At that time, the EPA will consider what
PM10-2.5 speciation sampling techniques, analytical
methodologies, and monitoring design strategies would be most
appropriate as part of a potential nation-wide monitoring deployment.
Such a deployment could be based on the NCore multi-pollutant framework
or some other strategy that allows flexibility and targets measurements
in areas with higher levels of coarse particles.
All comments received from air agencies and multi-state
organizations were supportive of the removal of the PM10-2.5
speciation requirement.
A few industry commenters raised concerns about the availability of
PM10-2.5 speciation data for research purposes. One
environmental group opposed revoking the PM10-2.5 speciation
requirement and expressed the need for PM10-2.5 data to
support health effects research and future regulatory efforts.
The EPA has considered the comments from air agencies that were all
supportive of revoking the requirement, as well as the industry and
environmental groups concerns that PM10-2.5 speciation data
will not be available for research. In considering these comments, the
EPA recognizes the importance of efforts to develop and evaluate
speciation monitoring approaches for PM10-2.5 given that
there is relatively little information available on the chemical and
biological composition of PM10-2.5 and on the health effects
associated with the various components (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
2.3.4). Without more information on the chemical speciation of
PM10-2.5, the apparent variability in associations with
health effects across locations is difficult to characterize (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 6.5.2.3). However, the EPA believes that until a final
report on the findings from the pilot study is completed in 2013 and
the results of the study can be considered, PM10-2.5
speciation is not ready for nationwide deployment. Therefore, the EPA
is finalizing its decision to revoke the PM10-2.5 speciation
requirement at NCore stations. Given the continued importance of
characterizing PM10-2.5 species, and given that ongoing and
future research will likely further
[[Page 3245]]
inform the development of speciation methods, the appropriateness of
requiring speciation monitoring for PM10-2.5 will be
revisited in future reviews.
d. Measurements for the Proposed New PM2.5 Visibility Index
NAAQS
The EPA proposed requirements for sampling of PM2.5
chemical speciation in states with large CBSAs. However, as explained
in section VI, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS and therefore is not finalizing
the proposed monitoring changes associated with that standard.
4. Revisions to the Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs, and
PSD
a. Quality Assurance Weight of Evidence
The EPA proposed to use a weight-of-evidence approach for
determining whether the quality of data is appropriate for regulatory
decision-making purposes. While the EPA believes that it is essential
to require a minimum set of checks and procedures in appendix A to
support the successful implementation of a quality system, the success
or failure of any one check or series of checks should not preclude the
EPA from determining that data are of acceptable quality to be used for
regulatory decision-making purposes. Accordingly, the EPA proposed to
include additional wording in appendix A to clarify the role that
appendix A generated data quality indicators have in the overall
quality system that supports ambient air monitoring activities.
The EPA received eight comments on the weight of evidence approach
with the majority of commenters endorsing the approach. One commenter
felt that the ``paragraph, as written, undermines the importance of the
quality control/quality assurance system dictated in Part 58.'' Some
that supported the approach also provided a word of caution that
``while a common sense approach to the assessment of quality data is
important, minimum requirements are necessary to ensure scientifically-
defensible data is being used in decision making''. The EPA agrees with
the commenter's points that data should be subject to a minimum set of
requirements for data collection, reporting and quality. In developing
the weight of evidence approach, the EPA is not attempting to diminish
the requirements of appendix A but rather ensure that other elements of
a quality system that air agencies implement and are documented in
their QAPP can also be used when judging whether data are valid for a
particular monitoring objective. While the EPA considers the appendix A
requirements the minimum for reporting, it is not the only data that
the EPA and the air agencies use to judge quality. Therefore, if an
appendix A requirement for some reason is not complete, the EPA
concludes that it should not necessarily be the sole reason to declare
the data invalid or unusable. One commenter who felt that the approach
may be appropriate also suggested that the language of the proposal was
vague and may weaken the ability of air monitoring agencies to validate
their own data and instead allows the EPA to make decisions regarding
data validity. In the majority of cases when the quality of ambient air
data is called into question, the EPA Regions and air agencies work
together and reach consensus on data usability. The EPA agrees that the
air agencies know more about their data and it is the air agencies
responsibility to certify the data as valid. In most cases, the EPA and
the air agencies will be in agreement on the validity and usability of
this data. However, since the EPA is responsible for making final
regulatory decisions concerning the NAAQS, in rare cases it may
ultimately have to make a validity decision that the air agencies may
not agree with. After consideration of the general support received,
the EPA will finalize the language as proposed. For the reasons
explained above, the EPA concludes that this will not undermine the
quality assurance system, but rather strengthen it.
A few commenters, although supporting the weight of evidence
approach, also commented that appendix A minimum requirements should
not only apply to all air quality data collected by state, local, and
tribal agencies, but also to ``secondary'' data collected by other
monitoring efforts. The EPA understands that this term is used by these
commenters to either represent the Chemical Speciation and IMPROVE
Network data being used to calculate light extinction for the secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, or for criteria pollutant data
collected by entities other than the state, local or tribal monitoring
organizations. The EPA agrees with the comments that the appendix A
requirements must apply to the CSN and IMPROVE data, if the data were
being used for comparison to the secondary NAAQS, and included the term
``PM2.5 CSN'' to refer to both networks. However, since as
explained in Section VI, the secondary PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS is not being finalized, the EPA will be removing any text
related to the CSN and IMPROVE requirements from appendix A. If the
term is being used by commenters to refer to criteria pollutant data
collected by entities other than the state, local or tribal monitoring
organizations then the appendix A requirements, as has always been the
case, apply to those monitors.
b. Quality Assurance Requirements for the Chemical Speciation Network
The EPA proposed to include requirements for flow rate
verifications and flow rate audits for the PM2.5 CSN. Air
agencies currently perform these audits even though they are not
currently required. Thus, although they would be considered a new
requirement, they are not new implementation activities. In addition,
the CSN already includes six collocated sites which the EPA proposes to
include in the 40 CFR part 58 appendix A requirements. The EPA proposed
that PSD sites would not be required to collocate a second set of
instruments for speciated PM2.5 mass monitoring.
There were no comments that specifically addressed the addition of
collocation and flow rate requirements in appendix A for the chemical
speciation network (CSN). Since these flow rates have historically been
included in the Agencies' CSN Network Quality Assurance Project Plan
and implemented for many years, air agencies may not have considered
them any additional burden on the program. However, as explained in
Section VI, the secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS is
not being finalized; therefore, the EPA will not include these QA
requirements into appendix A since the networks will not produce data
to be used for NAAQS decisions.
c. Waivers for Maximum Allowable Separation of Collocated
PM2.5 Samplers and Monitors
The EPA proposed to allow waivers, when approved by the EPA
Regional Administrator, for collocation of PM2.5 samplers
and monitors of up to 10 meters so long as the site is at a
neighborhood scale or larger. The EPA proposed to allow waivers for the
maximum allowable distance associated with collocated PM2.5
samplers and monitors. Ensuring PM2.5 continuous FEMs and
PM2.5 FRMs meet collocation requirements (i.e., 1 to 4
meters for PM2.5 samplers with flow rates of less than 200
liters/minute) can be challenging, since in some cases multiple
instruments, FEMs installed in the shelter and FRMs installed on a
platform, are being sited at the same station. The EPA believes that
[[Page 3246]]
instruments spaced farther apart could be maintained within the
operational precision of the instruments, especially at sites located
at larger scales of representation (e.g., neighborhood scale and
larger).
All comments received responded in support of the requirement
allowing up to 10 meter horizontal spacing for sites at a neighborhood
or larger scale of representation. The EPA received no negative
comments on this part of the proposal. During stakeholder presentations
of the proposal, the EPA received a verbal comment that air agencies
were also having difficulty meeting the one meter vertical criteria
since PM2.5 FEMs are typically housed in shelters with
inlets extending through shelter roofs while the collocated FRM
monitors are placed outside, usually on platforms somewhat lower to the
ground. After considering this comment, and further discussion with EPA
Office of Research and Development on spacing requirements, the agency
will amend the appendix A requirements to allow for a 1-3 meter
vertical spacing which may be approved by the Regional Administrator
for sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. In
addition, the language will be amended to allow for waiver approvals
during annual network plan approval processes. Alternatively, the
existing waiver provision outlined in paragraph 10 of Appendix E may be
used.
5. Revisions to Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
a. Near-Road Component to the PM2.5 Monitoring Network
The EPA proposed that the probe and siting criteria for the near-
road component of the PM2.5 monitoring network design follow
the same probe and siting criteria as the NO2 near-road
monitoring sites. These requirements would provide that the monitoring
probe be sited ``* * * as near as practicable to the outside nearest
edge of the traffic lanes of the target road segments; but shall not be
located at a distance greater than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from
the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the target road
segment'' (section 6.4 of appendix E to 40 CFR part 58).
The EPA received comments from several stakeholders on the probe
and siting criteria for PM2.5 monitors in the near-road
environment. One public health group offered detailed comments on the
probe and siting criteria for PM2.5 monitors in near-road
environments. While the commenter offered support for collocating the
PM2.5 monitors with NO2 monitors in the near-road
environment, there was concern expressed regarding allowing monitors at
sites of more than 15 meters from the traffic corridor which is the
source of the air quality concern. The commenter points out that the
EPA's existing rules for siting localized hot spot sites in areas of
highest concentration require sites at microscale locations which
provide for a distance of no more than 15 meters from a major roadway.
Several air agencies offered consistent comments that the inlet of the
PM2.5 monitors should be the same as that of the near-
roadway NO2 monitors; however, one of the commenters
suggested that the requirements for distance to the nearest vertical
wall or obstruction should match the requirements for current micro and
middle scale installations of PM2.5 monitors. The concern
expressed is that a wall or obstruction may disrupt the normal downwind
flow across a roadway.
In reviewing comments on probe and monitoring path criteria for
PM2.5 monitors in near road environments, and whether to
make any changes, the EPA has several issues to consider. One of the
most important things to consider is what the intended network design
of these monitors should be. As stated in the proposal our goal is to
``better understand the health impacts of these (near-road
PM2.5) exposures,'' that a number of monitoring objectives
can be supported by having near-road PM2.5 monitors, and
that while it might be that the location of maximum concentration of
PM2.5 exposure from near-roadway sources might differ from
the maximum location of NO2 or other pollutants, we proposed
to require that the near-road PM2.5 monitors be collocated
with the planned NO2 monitors. The EPA did not propose to
change the distance from obstructions for PM2.5 monitors in
its proposal.
As we stated in the proposal, the planned NO2 monitors
are using several relevant factors that are also relevant for siting of
PM2.5 (e.g., average annual daily traffic and fleet mix
[accounting for heavy duty vehicles] by road segment) and that
significant thought and review are going into the design of the near-
road stations. Therefore, the EPA is not persuaded that we should
provide any additional constraints to the siting of the station (i.e.,
the distance from the roadway) than is already provided for in the
NO2 near-road monitor probe and monitoring path siting
criteria. The EPA is concerned that additional constraints (i.e., to
require sites within 15 meters of the road), might have some
advantages, but also might unnecessarily eliminate otherwise useful
near-road locations that on balance might be a better candidate
location.
The EPA recognizes that there may be cases where the physical
location of a near-road monitoring station is farther than 15 meters,
but no greater than 50 meters from the roadway, but such cases are
presumed to still be the most useful location for the siting of the
NO2 monitors, which we then proposed to collocate with
PM2.5. Regardless of the actual distance of the inlet for
the PM2.5 monitor at the near-road monitoring station, so
long as it is collocated with the approved near-road station for
NO2 and meets existing criteria, the EPA will consider this
site to be appropriate as a near-road PM2.5 monitoring
station. As explained in the proposal, there are a number of reasons to
collect multi-pollutant data in the near-road environment. The EPA
believes that these sites will be sufficient as representative maximum
concentration sites for NO2 and PM2.5 in the
near-road environment. As noted above, where an air agency believes a
different location is a more appropriate site for a near-road
PM2.5 monitor, the EPA can use its discretion in approving a
deviation from the PM2.5 monitoring requirements as already
exists in the network design criteria. A deviation would be appropriate
for consideration where, for example, a state provides quantitative
evidence demonstrating that peak ambient PM2.5
concentrations would occur in a near-road location which meets siting
criteria but is not a near-road NO2 monitoring site. Such
deviations are to be approved by the Regional Administrator as
described in section 4.7.1 of Appendix D to part 58.
While it is still desirable for the near-road stations to be as
close to the road as practical, there may be differences in the scale
of representation of the near-road PM2.5 monitor from one
location to another, while the NO2 near-road monitors are at
the same scale of representation (i.e., micro-scale) in different
locations. This is a result of the scale of representation being based
on the pollutant at a location and not the location alone. Therefore,
in cases where the station is 20 meters from a major road, the
NO2 measurement may still be micro-scale, while the
PM2.5 measurement would be middle-scale if the average daily
traffic count were sufficiently large enough.\237\ If a site with both
measurements were 10 meters
[[Page 3247]]
from a major road they would both be expected to be micro-scale sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\237\ See Table E-1 in Appendix E to Part 58 for defining the
scale of representation of a PM sampler based on its distance to the
nearest traffic lane and average daily traffic count.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the comment on distance from obstructions, the EPA
notes that a monitoring station with multiple measurements is
effectively considered collocated for those measurements, even though
the actual location of the inlets is slightly different from each other
within the station. For example, a gas monitor (e.g., for carbon
monoxide) may be pulling ambient air from a manifold with an inlet
located on one part of a station roof, while a PM monitor is pulling
air directly from its inlet located a few meters away on the same roof.
The EPA believes it is appropriate and consistent with the public
comment above on distance from obstructions to maintain the existing
requirements for distance from obstructions on a pollutant by pollutant
basis, even if they are different for PM2.5 and
NO2 monitors that will be at the same station. Air agencies
will need to consider these distances from obstructions for each
pollutant inlet probe (i.e., >1 meter for NO2 monitors and
>2 meters for PM2.5 monitors) in locating monitors at the
station.
The EPA is maintaining the existing probe and siting criteria for
PM2.5 monitors; however, we are finalizing the provision
that the required near-road component of the PM2.5
monitoring network design shall be collocated with a required
NO2 monitor at near-road monitoring station. These near-road
NO2 monitoring stations are to be sited ``* * * as near as
practicable to the outside nearest edge of the traffic lanes of the
target road segments; but shall not be located at a distance greater
than 50 meters, in the horizontal, from the outside nearest edge of the
traffic lanes of the target road segment'' (section 6.4 of appendix E
to 40 CFR part 58). The EPA is retaining the existing requirement that
PM2.5 inlets, including those at near road stations, must be
>2 meters from obstructions.
b. CSN Network
As explained in Section VI, the EPA is not finalizing the proposed
secondary standard based on a PM2.5 visibility index and
therefore will not be finalizing probe and siting criteria associated
with the use of CSN measurements.
c. Reinsertion of Table E-1 to Appendix E
The EPA proposed to reinsert table E-1 to appendix E of 40 CFR part
58. This table presents the minimum separation distance between
roadways and probes or monitoring paths for monitoring neighborhood and
urban scale ozone (O3) and oxides of nitrogen (NO,
NO2, NOX, NOy). This table was
inadvertently removed during a previous CFR revision process.
The only comments received on this topic were supportive of the
reinsertion of table E-1; therefore, the EPA is finalizing the
reinsertion of this table, unchanged from its prior iteration, back
into the CFR.
6. Additional Ambient Air Monitoring Topics
a. Annual Monitoring Network Plan and Periodic Assessment
In October of 2006, the EPA finalized new requirements for each
state, or where applicable, local agency to perform and submit to their
EPA Regional Offices an Assessment of the Air Quality Surveillance
System (40 CFR 58.10). This assessment is required every five years.
The first required five year assessments were due to EPA Regional
Offices by July 1, 2010. The assessments are intended to provide a
comprehensive look at each monitoring agency's ambient air monitoring
network to ensure that the network is meeting the minimum monitoring
objectives defined in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, whether new sites
are needed, whether existing sites are no longer needed and can be
terminated, and whether new technologies are appropriate for
incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ The EPA provides a link to these assessments on EPA's Web
site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/plans.html. A detailed
description of the requirements for the assessments is described in
40 CFR 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since each agency has completed its first required five-year
assessment, and several monitoring rule requirements have either been
added or changed since this requirement was added in 2006, the EPA
thought it was appropriate to review this requirement and solicit
comment on any possible changes the EPA should consider that may
improve the usefulness of the assessments. Specifically, the EPA
solicited comment on ways to either streamline or add additional
criteria for future assessments.
The EPA also proposed to remove references to ``community
monitoring zones'' and ``spatial averaging'' in the annual monitoring
network plans due to EPA Regional Offices by July 1 of each year. The
Agency proposed to remove these references since, as discussed in
section VII.A.2 above, the EPA proposed to remove all references to the
spatial averaging option throughout 40 CFR part 50 appendix N.
Consistent with these changes, the EPA also proposed to remove
references to community monitoring zones under the annual monitoring
network plans described in 40 CFR 58.10.
The EPA received comments from several air agencies on the five
year assessments. Most comments on the five year assessments focused on
the type and usefulness of assessment tools made available to air
agencies during the last review. Of specific note were concerns that
assessment tools used to evaluate networks on a regional or national
basis do not provide the spatial resolution necessary to adequately
assess state networks on a scale most useful to air agencies. This is
especially true when attempting to evaluate smaller scale monitoring or
pollutant gradients associated with near-road and source oriented
monitoring. Suggestions for improvement identified the need for the EPA
to work closely with air agencies early in the next cycle of
assessments (due in 2015) so that any tools developed can be of benefit
to the questions air agencies need to address for their programs. The
EPA did not receive any comments on removing references to community
monitoring zones specifically as it pertains to their listing in the
annual monitoring network plans described in 40 CFR 58.10.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ Comments on the substantive question of whether to revoke
references to community monitoring zones were addressed in section
VIII.B.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA took comment on potential improvements to the five year
assessments. All the recommendations received focused on the types of
assessments to perform and ensuring that the EPA works closely with air
agencies so that assessments will be of benefit to the air agencies. No
specific recommendations were made to add or remove any of the
requirements of the five year assessments and consequently the EPA is
not making any changes. The EPA intends to work with air agencies to
ensure future tools are as helpful as practicable.
Consistent with the decision to end the practice of spatial
averaging, the EPA is finalizing the removal of language that
references ``community monitoring zones'' and ``spatial averaging'' in
the annual monitoring network plans due to EPA Regional Offices by July
1 of each year.
b. Operating Schedules
The EPA generally requires PM2.5 SLAMS to operate on at
least a 1-day-in-3 sampling schedule, unless a reduced sampling
frequency is approved such as might be the case with
[[Page 3248]]
a site that has a collocated continuous operating PM2.5
monitor.\240\ However, in the 2006 monitoring rule amendments, the EPA
finalized a new requirement for the operating schedule of
PM2.5 SLAMS sites (40 CFR 58.12). The new requirement stated
that sites with a design value within plus or minus five percent of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or FEM operating on a
daily sampling schedule. This requirement was included to minimize any
statistical error associated with the form of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., the 98th percentile). In section III.F,
the Administrator is finalizing revisions to the level of the primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, possible changes to
sampling frequency requirements were also considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ All NCore stations must operate on at least a one-in-three
day sample frequency for filter-based PM sampling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA had previously considered how sample frequency affects the
Data Quality Objectives in a consultation with the CASAC AAMMS in
September of 2005 (70 FR 51353 to 51354, August 30, 2005). As a result
of that consultation, the EPA proposed (71 FR 2710 to 2808, January 17,
2006) and finalized (71 FR 61236 to 61328, October 17, 2006) changes to
the sample frequency requirements as part of the monitoring rule
changes in 2006. In that work, the EPA demonstrated that having a
higher sample count is generally more useful to minimize uncertainty
for a percentile standard than an annual average. Given the decision to
strengthen the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the known
burden of performing daily sampling using the filter-based samplers
that are still a mainstay in monitoring agency networks, the issue of
needing daily sampling for sites that have design values close to the
level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard was reconsidered if the
site already has a design value above the level of the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
In a related issue, since the EPA finalized the requirement for
daily sampling at sites within 5 percent of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006, there has been confusion over the
procedures for adjusting sample frequencies, where necessary, to
account for variations in year-to-year design values. Therefore, the
EPA proposed to revise this requirement in the following ways: (1) The
EPA proposed that monitors would only be required to operate on a daily
schedule if their 24-hour design values were within five percent of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the site had a design value that was
not above the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. (2) The EPA
proposed that review of data for purposes of determining applicability
of this requirement at a minimum be included in each agency's annual
monitoring network plan described in 40 CFR 58.10 based on the three
most recent years of ambient data that were certified as of the May 1
annual deadline. However, monitoring agencies may request changes to
sample frequency at any time of the year by submitting such a request
to their applicable EPA Regional Office. Changes in sampling frequency
are expected to take place by January 1 of the following year.
Increased sampling is expected to be conducted for at least three
years, unless a reduction in sampling frequency has been approved in a
subsequent annual monitoring network plan or otherwise approved by the
Regional Administrator.
Comments received on the sample frequency requirements for
PM2.5 were from air agencies, who were generally supportive
of the EPA's proposed approach.
The EPA is finalizing its proposal to modify the sample frequency
requirements for triggering daily sampling so that only those areas
with 24-hour design values within five percent of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and where the design value site is not above the
level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS would be required to operate
on a daily sample frequency. The EPA is also finalizing all other
aspects of this part of the proposal.
c. Data Reporting and Certification for CSN and IMPROVE Data
The EPA is not finalizing its proposal on minor changes to
reporting and certification of data associated with CSN and IMPROVE
networks since as explained in Section VI, EPA is not finalizing a
secondary standard to support visibility impairment that would have
used CSN and IMPROVE data.
d. Requirements for Archiving Filters
The EPA proposed to extend the requirement for archival of
PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 filters from
manual low-volume samplers (samplers with a flow rate of less than 200
liters/minute) at SLAMS from one year after data collection to five
years after data collection. The archive of low-volume PM filters is an
important resource for on-going research and development of emission
control strategies and for use in health and epidemiology research.
During a workshop on Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Health Research
in 2008, retaining filters for laboratory analysis was identified as a
key recommendation to provide daily measurements of metals and elements
(U.S. EPA, 2008d, pp. 17 to 21). The EPA's previous requirement of one-
year is not sufficiently long for retrospective analysis of important
episodes and for use in long-term epidemiology research. Since
initially requiring filter archival of low-volume PM filters in 1997,
the EPA has always recommended longer archiving of filters and most
agencies are already doing so. However, a small number of agencies have
reported discarding older filters, despite the minimal cost of storing
these filters. Since cold storage of a large number of filters may be
cost prohibitive and of little benefit in retaining key aerosol species
in the x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyses, the EPA proposed to minimize
the costs of retaining filters by only requiring cold storage during
the first year after sample collection.
All comments received on this issue were from air agencies, which
were largely supportive of such a change to this requirement. One air
agency did report that it would present a hardship to store filters for
such a long period of time as they did not have the room to support
such a requirement.
The EPA is finalizing the requirement for archival of
PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 filters from
manual low-volume samplers (samplers with a flow rate of less than 200
liters/minute) at SLAMS for a minimum of five years after data
collection, with cold storage only required for the first 12 months of
archiving. The EPA will work closely with air agencies through its EPA
Regional Offices and laboratories to support any air agency unable to
store filters for the new five year requirement.
IX. Clean Air Act Implementation Requirements for the PM NAAQS
This section of the preamble discusses the general approach for air
agencies \241\ to meet certain CAA requirements for implementing the
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS as part of the revised
suite of NAAQS for PM. In accordance with CAA section 107(d), the PM
NAAQS revisions trigger a process under which states must and tribes
may make recommendations to the Administrator regarding area
designations, and the EPA will take final action on those designations.
Under section 110 of the CAA and related provisions, states are also
required to submit, for the EPA's
[[Page 3249]]
approval, SIPs that provide for the attainment and maintenance of the
revised NAAQS through control programs directed at sources of direct
PM2.5 and precursor emissions. If a state fails to adopt and
implement the required SIPs by the time periods provided in the CAA,
the EPA has responsibility under the CAA to adopt a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to assure that areas attain the NAAQS in an
expeditious manner. Additionally, emissions sources and air agencies
must address the revised PM NAAQS in the context of preconstruction air
permitting requirements and the transportation conformity and general
conformity processes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\241\ This and all subsequent references to ``air agency'' are
meant to include state, local and tribal agencies responsible for
the implementation of a PM2.5 control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to today's revisions to the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA is taking final action on a PSD
implementation provision. To facilitate timely implementation of the
PSD requirements resulting from the revised NAAQS, which would
otherwise become applicable to all PSD permit applications upon the
effective date of this final PM NAAQS rule, the EPA is finalizing a
grandfathering provision for pending permit applications. This final
rule incorporates revisions to the PSD regulations that provide for
grandfathering of PSD permit applications that have been determined to
be complete on or before December 14, 2012 or for which public notice
of a draft permit or preliminary determination has been published as of
the effective date of today's revised PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, for projects eligible under the grandfathering provision,
sources must meet the requirements associated with the prior primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS rather than the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
The EPA also proposed to implement a surrogacy approach for
addressing PSD requirements associated with the proposed distinct
secondary visibility index NAAQS. As described in section VI, the EPA
is not finalizing a distinct secondary visibility index standard at
this time and therefore the proposed surrogacy approach for
implementing such a standard under the PSD program is unnecessary.
Additionally, as discussed in section IV, today's final rule does not
include any changes to the existing PM10 NAAQS. Accordingly,
this section of the preamble does not include any discussion of
implementation specifically related to the PM10 NAAQS.
Under the schedule in section 107(d)(1) of the CAA, as confirmed in
this action, state Governors and tribes, if they choose, are required
to submit their initial designation recommendations for the revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA no later than 1 year
following promulgation of the revised NAAQS (i.e., by December 13,
2013). The EPA will provide designation guidance to air agencies
shortly after today's final NAAQS rule to assist them in formulating
their designation recommendations. The EPA intends to complete initial
designations for the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS by
December 12, 2014 using available air quality data from the current
PM2.5 monitoring networks.
In addition to describing the PSD grandfathering provision being
finalized in today's rule and responding to associated public comments,
this section of the preamble describes the EPA's future plans for
addressing the remaining aspects of implementation, such as
infrastructure SIP submittals and nonattainment area planning. In the
proposed rule, the EPA solicited preliminary comment on some of the
issues that the Agency anticipates will need to be addressed in future
guidance or regulatory actions related to implementation of the revised
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA received comments on a few of these
issues and, as explained in greater detail later in this section, the
EPA either has considered or will consider, as appropriate, all
substantive comments received as future guidance and proposed rules are
developed.
A. Designation of Areas
1. Overview of Clean Air Act Designations Requirements
After the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA and states to take steps to ensure that the new or revised NAAQS is
met. The first step, known as the initial area designations, involves
identifying areas of the country that either meet or do not meet the
new or revised NAAQS along with the nearby areas contributing to
violations. Section 107(d)(1) of the CAA states that, ``By such date as
the Administrator may reasonably require, but not later than 1 year
after promulgation of a new or revised national ambient air quality
standard for any pollutant under section 109, the Governor of each
state shall * * * submit to the Administrator a list of all areas (or
portions thereof) in the State'' that designates those areas as
nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable.\242\ Section
107(d)(1)(B)(i) further provides, ``Upon promulgation or revision of a
NAAQS, the Administrator shall promulgate the designations of all areas
(or portions thereof) * * * as expeditiously as practicable, but in no
case later than 2 years from the date of promulgation. Such period may
be extended for up to one year in the event the Administrator has
insufficient information to promulgate the designations.'' The term
``promulgation'' has been interpreted by the courts with respect to the
NAAQS to be signature and widespread dissemination of a rule. By no
later than 120 days prior to promulgating designations, the EPA is
required to notify states of any intended modifications to their
recommendations, including area boundaries, that the EPA may deem
necessary. States then have an opportunity to demonstrate why the EPA's
intended modification is inappropriate. Whether or not a state provides
a recommendation, the EPA must timely promulgate the designation that
it deems appropriate. While section 107 of the CAA specifically
addresses states, the EPA intends to follow the same process for tribes
that choose to make a recommendation to the extent practicable,
pursuant to section 301(d) of the CAA regarding tribal authority, and
the Tribal Authority Rule (63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998). To provide
clarity and consistency in doing so, the EPA issued a 2011 guidance
memorandum on working with tribes during the designations process
(Page, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\242\ While the CAA says ``designating'' with respect to the
Governor's list, in the full context of the CAA section it is clear
that the Governor actually makes a recommendation to which the EPA
must respond via a specified process if the EPA does not accept it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Proposed Designations Schedules
When the EPA proposed the new and revised PM NAAQS on June 29,
2012, the EPA indicated an intention to follow the standard 2-year
schedule for initial area designations for both the revised primary
annual PM2.5 standard and the proposed secondary PM
visibility index standard, noting that promulgating initial area
designations for these standards on the same schedule would provide
early regulatory certainty for states. Under this approach, the EPA
intended to complete initial designations for both the revised primary
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the secondary PM visibility index
NAAQS by December 2014 using available air quality data from the
current PM2.5 and speciation monitoring networks using the
most recent 3 consecutive years of certified air quality monitoring
data (i.e., most likely data from 2011-2013).
[[Page 3250]]
The EPA's June 29, 2012 notice proposed new requirements for
establishing near-road PM2.5 monitors in certain cities
(section VIII.B.3.b.i of the proposal) and new requirements for each
state with a CBSA over 1 million in population to add or relocate an
existing CSN (or IMPROVE) monitoring site in at least one of its CBSAs
to collect speciated PM2.5 data to support implementation of
the proposed secondary standard to address visibility impairment
(section VIII.A.2 of the proposal). The EPA anticipated that 3
consecutive years of air quality data from any near-road monitoring
sites or newly placed CSN (or IMPROVE) PM2.5 speciated
monitoring site would not be available until 2018. The timing for both
of these proposed monitoring changes would preclude the use of the
collected data in initial area designations, and therefore, the EPA
stated in the proposal that initial area designations would not take
into account monitoring data from any newly established near-road
monitoring sites, nor from newly established speciation monitoring
sites.
3. Comments and Responses
The EPA received numerous comments on the proposed designations
schedules from states, state organizations, local air pollution control
agencies, regional organizations, industry, environmental
organizations, and health-related organizations. Most commenters
expressed support for a standard 2-year schedule for initial area
designations for the primary annual standard. Several commenters also
encouraged the EPA to consider an additional year for initial area
designations associated with the proposed secondary PM visibility index
standard due to the lag in obtaining data from speciation monitoring
networks, the variability in monitored relative humidity data, and the
``unique'' nature of the proposed secondary standard. For the reasons
stated in section VI.D.2, the Administrator has decided not to
establish the proposed distinct secondary standard to address
visibility impairment, and therefore, the EPA will not promulgate
initial area designations for a secondary PM visibility index standard.
Because data are currently available from numerous existing
PM2.5 mass monitoring sites to determine compliance with the
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA believes it is
appropriate to pursue a standard 2-year schedule for initial area
designations for the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
The EPA also received numerous comments related to the use of data
from the proposed new near-road monitors in the designations process.
Several commenters asked the EPA to clarify whether these data will be
used if available for initial area designations. Others asked the EPA
to provide guidance related to establishing boundaries for areas
containing violating near-road monitors. One commenter suggested that
the EPA conduct dispersion modeling around transportation facilities in
accordance with the EPA's transportation conformity hotspot modeling
guidance and use concentrations to determine attainment status for
designations process. This same commenter also supported using modeling
for unmonitored areas, e.g., communities near roadways.
As previously stated, the EPA does not believe that data from the
new near-road monitors will be available for the EPA to consider within
the timeframe for initial area designation provided by the CAA. Section
107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to designate areas no later
than 2 years following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, or by
December 2014. (The CAA provides the Agency an additional third year
from promulgation should there be insufficient information on which to
make compliance determinations). For initial area designations for the
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA relies exclusively on
monitoring data to identify areas to be designated nonattainment due to
violations of the standards and then uses other information to identify
areas contributing to violations in those areas. See Catawba County v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 12-13 (D.C. Cir. 2009). As indicated in the proposal, the
initial set of near-roadway PM2.5 monitors will be fully
deployed by January 2015, with the requisite 3 years of air quality
data available in 2018.\243\ The EPA intends to proceed with initial
area designations using 3 years of consecutive air quality data from
the existing, area-wide FRM/FEM/ARM PM2.5 monitoring sites
to complete designations by December 2014. Consistent with previous
area designations processes used in informing boundary decisions, the
EPA would then analyze a variety of area-specific information \244\ in
determining which nearby areas contribute to a violation. As previously
indicated, the EPA relies on monitoring data to identify areas to be
designated nonattainment due to violations of the standards and does
not intend to conduct or use dispersion modeling around transportation
facilities or in unmonitored areas to determine whether an area is
violating the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS for purposes of
establishing nonattainment areas as this is not required by the
statute. See Catawba County v. EPA, 571 F.3d 12-13 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
The EPA intends to address the use of area-specific information and the
boundary setting process, including the presumptive starting area
boundary, in the designation guidance to the states, expected to be
available shortly after promulgation of the PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\243\ The remainder of the near-road monitors in CBSAs with
populations between 1 million but less than 2.5 million will be
deployed by January 1, 2017.
\244\ The EPA has used area-specific information to support
boundary determinations by evaluating factors such as air quality
data, emissions and emissions-related data, meteorology, geography/
topography, and existing jurisdictional boundaries. This may
include, as appropriate, information from non-FRM/FEM/ARM monitors
and air quality modeling, where available, to help define an
appropriate boundary for areas contributing to FRM/FEM/ARM-based
monitored violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Intended Designations Schedules
In this final rule, the EPA is setting a revised, more protective
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. After considering the public
comments and for the reasons discussed above, the EPA intends to
designate areas for the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS on a 2-
year schedule from signature of this final PM NAAQS rule, as prescribed
in CAA section 107.\245\ Under the schedule in section 107(d)(1) of the
CAA, as confirmed in this action, state Governors and tribes, if they
choose, are required to submit their initial designation
recommendations for the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS
to the EPA no later than 1 year following promulgation of the revised
NAAQS (i.e., by December 13, 2013). These recommendations should be
based on air quality data from the years 2010 to 2012. If the EPA
intends to make any modifications to a state's or tribe's
recommendations, the EPA is required to notify the state or tribe no
later than 120 days prior to finalizing the designation; this would be
no later than August 14, 2014. States and tribes will then have an
opportunity to demonstrate why the EPA's intended modification is
inappropriate before the EPA makes the final designation decisions.
Prior to the EPA's signing a final rule by December 12, 2014,
promulgating the initial area
[[Page 3251]]
designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, data
from 2013 may be available. If so, the EPA's designations decisions
will be based on air quality data from the years 2011 to 2013. States
and tribes may update their recommendations when these new data become
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\245\ While the EPA intends to make every effort to designate
areas for the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS on a 2-year
schedule, the EPA recognizes that new information may later arise
that justifies the need for additional time, up to 1 additional year
available based on insufficiency of data, to complete the process.
Any subsequent change to the designations schedule would be
announced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the proposal, the EPA stated its intention to provide technical
information and guidance to states shortly after promulgation of the
NAAQS to assist states and tribes in the development of their
designation recommendations. The EPA understands that developing
recommendations on appropriate nonattainment area boundaries is a
significant effort for states, especially for states with little or no
experience in PM2.5 air quality planning. Therefore, the EPA
plans to assist states throughout the designations process on technical
and policy-related issues through outreach efforts that will provide
information and data sources relevant to making designations decisions.
The EPA will include such information for the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS on the general PM2.5 designations Web
site at http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations. The EPA also encourages
states and tribes to consult with their EPA regional office as they
develop their area recommendations.
B. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP Requirements
The proposal described the CAA requirements for air quality
management infrastructure SIPs that states must submit to the EPA
within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised primary standard.
As discussed in the proposal, while the CAA allows the EPA to set a
shorter time for submission of these SIPs, the EPA does not currently
intend to do so. In the proposal, the EPA solicited comment on
infrastructure SIP submittal timing, in addition to ``all aspects'' of
infrastructure SIPs, for the Agency to consider in developing future
guidance. The EPA received comments recommending that the EPA provide
states an additional 18 months to submit SIPs for any revised secondary
standard, but because the Agency is not revising the secondary NAAQS in
this rule, the issue of whether or not to allow states extra time to
submit infrastructure SIPs for the secondary NAAQS is now moot. The EPA
received several comments on other aspects of infrastructure SIPs,
which are being considered in the development of a forthcoming guidance
document on section 110 infrastructure SIP requirements that will apply
to all NAAQS, including the revised PM2.5 NAAQS. In
addition, the EPA may issue supplemental infrastructure SIP guidance
specific to the revised PM2.5 NAAQS if needed.
C. Implementing the Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
Nonattainment Areas
In the proposal, the EPA described the basic CAA requirements that
govern SIP submittals for nonattainment areas (77 FR 38890, June 29,
2012 at 39019-21). The Agency did not propose any particular approach
for implementing any revised PM2.5 standards, but rather
indicated its intent to carry out a notice-and-comment rulemaking to
propose and issue a final implementation rule that would spell out the
implementation requirements for the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the revised monitoring regulations. The EPA
acknowledges that several states and industry groups commented on the
need for the EPA to issue an implementation rule, either in proposed or
final form, simultaneous with this final PM NAAQS rule. Other
commenters commented that the EPA should consult with states and local
air agencies to develop the future implementation rule and to do so
expeditiously, while another state commenter requested that the EPA
commit to firm deadlines for issuing the future implementation rule and
guidance related to infrastructure SIPs, among other things.
The EPA acknowledges states' need for timely guidance on how to
implement the revised NAAQS. However, due to the number of unique and
complex issues associated with the PM NAAQS proposal and uncertainty
about the outcome of the final NAAQS, the EPA is not able to propose an
implementation rule or finalize any aspect of the implementation
program beyond the PSD grandfathering provision discussed later in this
section at this time. Because we agree that it is beneficial to engage
with air agencies early in the rule development process, however, we
have initiated such discussions to inform the upcoming proposed rule.
The EPA intends to finalize the implementation rule around the time the
initial area designations process is finalized.
One particular implementation-related issue that the EPA sought
preliminary comment on in the proposal was the concept of a transition
period during which any changes in monitoring requirements would not
affect attainment plans and maintenance plans for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA received a range of comments both in
support of and in opposition to such a concept. Upon further analysis
of the potential effect of monitoring requirement changes, and in
consideration of comments received, we believe that it will not be
necessary to provide for such a transition period in the future
implementation rule because the changes in monitoring requirements
included in this final rule would not automatically affect attainment
plans and maintenance plans for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Specifically, there are currently approximately ten
PM2.5 air quality monitors that have been identified as not
comparable to the annual standards as part of the annual state
monitoring plan revision process. If a state chooses to revise the
status of one of these monitors in order to make it comparable to the
annual standards because it is determined to be representative of many
other similar locations, it would propose a change in status for that
monitor in the next revision of the state PM2.5 monitoring
plan (state revisions are due in June of each year). The EPA would then
review and take action on the state's proposed change. The EPA believes
that the monitoring plan revision process provides adequate procedural
steps for identifying which monitors are to be comparable to the annual
PM2.5 standards. Thus for this reason, there is no need to
include any ``transition period'' in a future rule.
The EPA appreciates the input received from commenters on
implementation issues and will take it into consideration as we
continue to work with air agencies to develop our proposed
implementation rule. In developing the future implementation rule
proposal, the EPA also plans to address any potential impact of the
monitoring requirement changes being finalized in this rule,
particularly on attainment planning and development of attainment
demonstrations by states, and in doing so, we will consider the
preliminary comments received on this topic.
D. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review Programs for the Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
The CAA requires states to include SIP provisions that address the
preconstruction review of new stationary sources and the modification
of existing sources. The preconstruction review of each new and
modified source generally applies on a pollutant-specific basis and the
requirements for each pollutant vary depending on whether the area is
designated attainment (or unclassifiable) or nonattainment for that
pollutant. Parts C and D of title I of the CAA contain specific
requirements for
[[Page 3252]]
the preconstruction review and permitting of new major stationary
sources and major modifications, referred to as the PSD program and the
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program, respectively.
Collectively, those permit requirements are commonly referred to as the
``major NSR program'' because of their applicability to new major
stationary sources and major modifications.
Today's final rule revising the primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS will affect PSD permitting requirements as of the effective date
of today's final rule, March 18, 2013, which is also the effective date
of the revised PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, certain NNSR
permitting requirements related to the revised PM2.5 NAAQS
will take effect on and after the effective date of any nonattainment
area designation for PM2.5. In order to minimize potential
delays for pending PSD permit applications and to provide a reasonable
transition, the EPA is finalizing a grandfathering provision for PSD
permit applications that have reached a specified milestone in the
permitting process. This final rule incorporates revisions to the PSD
regulations that provide for grandfathering of PSD permit applications
for which the reviewing authority has determined the application to be
complete on or before December 14, 2012 or for which the reviewing
authority has first published public notice that a draft permit or
preliminary determination for the permit has been issued prior to the
effective date of today's revised PM NAAQS. Accordingly, projects
eligible under the grandfathering provision must meet the requirements
associated with the prior primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS rather
than the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed in
more detail in the following sections, the EPA is not now making any
changes to the PM2.5 increments, nor are we revising any of
the screening tools that are now used to implement the major NSR
program for PM2.5. These screening tools include the
significant emission rate (``SER''), used as a threshold for
determining whether a given project is subject to major NSR permitting
requirements under both PSD and NNSR; the significant impact levels
(``SILs''), used to determine the scope of the required air quality
analysis that must be carried out in order to demonstrate that the
source's emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS or increment under the PSD program; and the significant
monitoring concentration (``SMC''), a screening tool used to determine
whether it may be appropriate to exempt a proposed source from the
requirement to collect preconstruction ambient monitoring data as part
of the required air quality analysis.
1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
The PSD requirements set forth under part C (sections 160 through
169) of the CAA apply to new major stationary sources and major
modifications locating in areas designated as ``attainment'' or
``unclassifiable'' with respect to the NAAQS for a particular
pollutant. The EPA regulations addressing the statutory requirements
under part C for a PSD permit program can be found at 40 CFR 51.166
(containing the PSD requirements for an approved SIP) and 40 CFR 52.21
(the federal PSD permit program). For PSD, a ``major stationary
source'' is one with the potential to emit 250 tons per year (tpy) or
more of any air pollutant, unless the source or modification is
classified under a list of 28 source categories contained in the
statutory definition of ``major emitting facility'' in section 169(1)
of the CAA. For those 28 listed source categories, a ``major stationary
source'' is one with the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of any air
pollutant. A ``major modification'' is a physical change or a change in
the method of operation of an existing major stationary source that
results in a significant emissions increase and a significant net
emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant. Under PSD, new major
sources and major modifications must apply best available control
technology (BACT) for each applicable pollutant and conduct an air
quality analysis to demonstrate that the proposed source or project
will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or PSD
increments (see CAA section 165(a)(3); 40 CFR 51.166(k); 40 CFR
52.21(k)). PSD requirements also include in appropriate cases an
analysis of potential adverse impacts on Class I areas (see sections
162 and 165 of the CAA).
PSD permitting requirements generally first became applicable to
PM2.5 in 1997, on the effective date of the NAAQS for
PM2.5 (Seitz, 1997). The EPA's regulations define the term
``regulated NSR pollutant'' to include any pollutant for which a NAAQS
has been promulgated or that is otherwise identified as a constituent
or precursor to a NAAQS pollutant (40 CFR 51.166(b)(49); 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)).\246\ In addition, on May 16, 2008, the EPA amended its
regulations to identify certain PM2.5 precursors
(SO2 and NOX) as regulated NSR pollutants and
adopt other provisions, such as a significant emissions rate for
PM2.5, to facilitate implementation of PSD and NNSR program
requirements for PM2.5 (73 FR 28321).\247\ Air agencies were
required to revise their SIPs by May 16, 2011, to incorporate the
required elements of the 2008 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\246\ Under various provisions of the CAA, PSD requirements are
applicable to each pollutant subject to regulation under the CAA,
excluding hazardous air pollutants. The definition of ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' also includes pollutants subject to any standard
under section 111 of the CAA or any Class I or II substance subject
to title VI of the CAA.
\247\ It should be noted that on October 25, 2012, the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' was revised to remove the
requirement that condensable PM be included when considering
``particulate matter emissions.'' Accordingly, the definition now
requires condensable PM to be counted for PM10 emissions
and PM2.5 emissions, and for ``particulate matter
emissions'' only when required by the applicable New Source
Performance Standard or SIP. (See 77 FR 65107.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 20, 2010, the EPA again amended the PSD regulations at
40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21 to add PSD increments as well as two screening
tools for PM2.5--SILs and SMC (75 FR 64864). The October
2010 final rule became effective on December 20, 2010. The EPA
indicated that the SILs and SMC for PM2.5, while useful
tools for program implementation, are not considered mandatory elements
of an approvable SIP; thus, no schedule was imposed on states for
addressing those screening tools in their PSD rules. For the portions
of the rule that addressed the PSD increments for PM2.5,
states were required to submit the necessary SIP revisions (at least as
stringent as the PSD requirements at 40 CFR 51.166) to the EPA for
approval within 21 months from the date on which the EPA promulgated
the new PM2.5 increments--by July 20, 2012. The schedule for
developing and submitting the revisions specifically for the adoption
of new PSD increments in state PSD programs is prescribed by the CAA
section 166(b). As of October 20, 2011, sources for which PSD permits
have been issued pursuant to the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21
have been required, where applicable, to determine their impact on the
PM2.5 increments.
The PSD program currently regulates emissions of PM using several
indicators of particles, including ``particulate matter emissions'' (as
regulated under various new source performance standards under 40 CFR
part 60), ``PM10 emissions,'' and ``PM2.5
emissions.'' The latter two emission indicators are designed to be
consistent
[[Page 3253]]
with the ambient air indicators for PM that the EPA currently uses to
define the PM NAAQS. As already noted, the PSD program also limits
PM2.5 concentrations by regulating emissions of gaseous
pollutants that result in the secondary formation of particulate
matter. Those pollutants, known as PM2.5 precursors,
generally include SO2 and NOX.
In addition to the NAAQS revisions contained in today's final rule,
the EPA is finalizing certain clarifications to the existing monitoring
regulations codified at 40 CFR 58.30 (Special considerations for data
comparisons to the NAAQS). These clarifications are presented in detail
in section VIII.B.2 of this preamble. The monitoring regulations
provide a basis for determining whether specific monitoring sites are
comparable to specific NAAQS. By extension, the EPA has also used the
principles for making these determinations for monitoring sites to
guide permitting authorities in assessing the comparability of specific
receptor locations involved in PSD air quality analyses. Receptors are
used in PSD modeling analyses to predict potential air quality impacts
in the vicinity of the proposed new or modified facility and in some
cases also at more distant Class I areas. Since the EPA interprets the
regulation at 40 CFR 58.30 to apply in this context, the EPA will
continue to use the principles in the revised regulations in guiding
PSD modeling analysis design. Accordingly, the EPA recommends that
specific receptor locations used in PSD air quality analyses are
evaluated consistent with the final monitoring regulations, as amended
by today's rule.
a. Transition Provision (Grandfathering)
i. Proposal
As discussed previously in this preamble, today's final rule
establishes a revised level of the primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS.\248\ Longstanding EPA policy interprets the CAA and 40 CFR
52.21(k)(1) and 51.166(k)(1) to generally require that PSD permit
applications include a demonstration that new major stationary sources
and major modifications will not cause or contribute to a violation of
any NAAQS that is in effect as of the date the PSD permit is issued
(Page, 2010a; Seitz, 1997). Thus, as a result of today's final rule,
any proposed major new and modified sources with permits pending at the
time the PM2.5 NAAQS changes take effect would be expected
to demonstrate compliance with the revised standard, absent some type
of transition provision exempting such applications from the new
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\248\ The EPA is also revising the form of the annual primary
standard by removing the option for spatial averaging. However, this
provision has played no role in PSD so its removal has no
implications for PSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to provide for a reasonable transition into the new PSD
permitting requirements that will result from the revision of the
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS (primarily the requirement to
demonstrate that emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation
of the revised NAAQS) and the changes to the monitoring requirements
discussed earlier, the EPA proposed to add a grandfathering provision
to the federal PSD program codified at 40 CFR 52.21 that would apply to
certain PSD permit applications that are pending on the effective date
of the revised PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA proposed
to amend the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 to grandfather
pending permit applications for which the Administrator or delegated
air agency has published a public notice on the draft permit prior to
the effective date of the revised PM2.5 NAAQS. Qualifying
applications could continue being processed in accordance with the PSD
requirements applicable to the pre-existing suite of PM NAAQS at the
time the public notice on the draft permit was first published. The EPA
also proposed that air agencies that issue PSD permits under their own
SIP-approved PSD permit program should have the discretion to
``grandfather'' proposed PSD permits in the same manner under these
same circumstances. Thus, the EPA also proposed to revise section 40
CFR 51.166 to provide a comparable exemption applicable to SIP-approved
PSD programs.
In the preamble to the proposal, the EPA provided a detailed
rationale and legal basis for the proposed grandfathering provision,
also citing examples in which the EPA previously recognized that the
CAA provides discretion for the EPA to grandfather PSD permit
applications from requirements that become applicable while the
application is pending (45 FR 52683, Aug. 7, 1980; 52 FR 24672, July 1,
1987; U.S. EPA, 2011c, pp. 54 to 61). In summary, when read in
combination, sections 165(a)(3), 165(c) and 301 \249\ of the CAA
provide the EPA with the discretion to promulgate regulations to
grandfather pending permit applications from having to address a
revised NAAQS where necessary to achieve a balance between the CAA
objectives in order to protect the NAAQS on the one hand, and to avoid
delays in processing PSD permit applications on the other. The EPA has
also construed section 160(3) of the CAA, which states that a purpose
of the PSD program is to ``insure that economic growth will occur in a
manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air
resources,'' to call for a balancing of economic growth and protection
of air quality (70 FR 59582, Oct. 12, 2005 at 59587 to 59588). The
reasoning of those prior EPA actions is also applicable to the
promulgation of revised PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ Section 165(a)(3) of the CAA generally requires that no
major emitting facility may be constructed unless the owner or
operator demonstrates that emissions from construction or operation
of such facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of any
NAAQS or PSD increment. Section 165(c) of the CAA requires that the
EPA grant or deny any completed permit application not later than
one year after the date of filing of such complete application.
Section 301 of the CAA authorizes the EPA to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out the functions under the
CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing the proposed grandfathering provision, the EPA
considered whether such a provision should include a sunset clause. A
sunset clause would add a time limit beyond which an otherwise eligible
permit application would no longer be grandfathered from specified new
PSD permitting requirements. Consistent with past grandfathering
actions described above, the EPA did not propose to include a sunset
clause for the proposed grandfathering provision.
ii. Comments and Responses
The majority of commenters, including all industry and state agency
representatives, supported the EPA's proposal to adopt a grandfathering
provision based on the purpose and rationale described in the preamble
to the proposal. These commenters agreed that grandfathering certain
pending PSD permit applications was reasonable to balance the CAA
objectives to protect the NAAQS on one hand, and to avoid delays in
processing PSD permit applications on the other. They also agreed
grandfathering provides a reasonable transition into the PSD
requirements associated with the revised NAAQS. Industry commenters
also indicated that such a provision was important to economic growth
and recovery, and was consistent with the purposes of the PSD program,
i.e., to ensure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent
with preservation of air quality. Several state commenters pointed out
that finalizing the revised PM2.5 NAAQS without a
grandfathering provision would result
[[Page 3254]]
in a significant additional resource burden on both permit applicants
and air agencies, which would have to reopen pending permit
applications that have reached advanced stages in processing to address
the revised standard. The commenters further noted that there would
likely be little if any environmental benefit afforded by such a
process. One state agency commenter performed a preliminary review of
recent PSD permitting actions and determined that in all cases, the
proposed primary annual PM2.5 standard would not have led to
tighter permit restrictions or reduced emissions, and that a re-
noticing of the preliminary permit decisions would accomplish nothing
more than to change the margins of compliance. In other words, re-
noticing would have led to project delays with no reduction in
PM2.5 impacts.
Four environmental group commenters (one representing a coalition
of a health advocacy group and several environmental groups) opposed
the proposed grandfathering provision based either on concerns about
further delay in implementation of the revised PM NAAQS or on a
position that the proposed grandfathering provision exceeds the EPA's
statutory authority and is unlawful. Commenters challenging the EPA's
legal authority to implement the proposed grandfathering provision
contended that CAA sections 165 and 301 do not confer any authority on
the EPA to grandfather PSD permit applications. The commenters asserted
that CAA section 165(a) forecloses the EPA's proposed approach,
specifically citing CAA section 165(a)(3)(B) which provides that no
major emitting facility ``may be constructed'' unless the facility's
owner or operator demonstrates emissions from the facility will not
cause or contribute to the violation of ``any * * * national ambient
air quality standard in any air quality control region.'' These
commenters further claimed that because Congress limited the
applicability of the new PSD requirements in several ways, including
specific grandfathering relief for sources constructed before the
enactment of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, the EPA is not authorized
to waive otherwise applicable statutory requirements (citing Andrus v.
Glover Constr. Co., 446 U.S 608, 616-17 (1980)).
A subset of commenters also stated that the EPA's proposed
grandfathering approach undermines the policy choices made by Congress
in adopting the PSD program that (1) it is preferable to prevent air
pollution from becoming a problem in the first place, and (2) controls
should be installed when new sources are being constructed rather than
as retrofits on existing sources.
One commenter asserted that there is no conflict between CAA
sections 165(a) and 165(c) as the EPA had implied; therefore, there is
no need for the EPA to invoke the regulatory authority of CAA section
301. This commenter also concluded that the EPA's rationale of
balancing of economic growth and the protection of air quality pursuant
to CAA section 160(3) was unlawful, and that the EPA had not adequately
explained the considerations it sought to balance and how the proposal
would achieve its goals. The same commenter questioned the EPA's
authority to leverage principles of equity and fairness in proposing
the grandfathering provision. The commenter also objected to the EPA's
rationale for choosing the public notice date of a draft permit as the
milestone triggering the grandfathering provision, stating that the
approach was contrary to statute because it would deprive interested
persons of their statutory right to comment on elements of the
application related to the current NAAQS.
The EPA does not agree with the interpretations of the CAA offered
by the commenters opposing the proposed grandfathering provision. The
EPA has previously exercised this discretion to establish
grandfathering provisions in regulations. Indeed, the EPA has done so
where provisions of the CAA contradict each other, citing the authority
under section 301(a)(1) ``to set transitional rules which accommodate
reasonably the purpose and concerns behind the two contradictory
provisions'' (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980 at 52683). Furthermore, the
EPA has noted and continues to recognize that even in the absence of a
conflict between sections of the Act, ``EPA would have the authority
under section 301(a)(1) to exempt those projects in order to phase-in
new requirements on a reasonable schedule.'' Id. at 52683 n. 5.
There is a conflict or tension between certain provisions of the
CAA that the EPA must reconcile in situations where the ability of air
agencies to complete action on a permit application within the
statutory one-year deadline is likely to be impeded if a new or revised
NAAQS becomes applicable during the permit application review process.
We do not agree with the commenters' arguments to the contrary. The CAA
does not provide clear direction concerning how the EPA should apply
section 165(a)(3) of the Act to NAAQS that become effective in
circumstances where efforts to update a permit application to address
the new or revised NAAQS would be time consuming and impede compliance
with the CAA obligation to take action on the application within one
year after the completeness determination. Since Congress has not
precisely spoken to this issue, the EPA has the discretion to apply a
permissible interpretation of the Act that balances the requirements in
the Act to make a decision on a permit application within one year and
to ensure that new and modified sources will only be authorized to
construct after showing they can meet the substantive permitting
criteria. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467
U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).
Targeted grandfathering applicable to a specific NAAQS does not
waive the statutory requirements in section 165(a)(3), as some
commenters assert. Rather, the grandfathering provision makes clear
which NAAQS are covered by this provision of the Act when it is applied
to a permit application that has reached a specific stage in the review
process (i.e., the date the application is determined to be complete or
the first date of publication of a public notice on the draft permit or
preliminary determination) before a specified date. Grandfathering
resolves the question of how the EPA and other permitting authorities
should interpret and apply section 165(a)(3) of the Act in the case of
today's PM NAAQS revisions considering the requirement of section
165(c) of the Act that reviewing authorities make a decision on a
permit application within one year of the date the application was
determined complete. This is not a question of whether section
165(a)(3) applies; it is a question of which NAAQS this requirement
should cover in the case of a pending PSD permit.
The EPA agrees that as a general rule, section 165(a)(3) applies to
``any NAAQS'' that is effective as of the date a final PSD permit is
initially issued (before any administrative appeal proceeding
commences). However, these provisions cannot be read in isolation and
should be construed in the context of other provisions in section 165
of the Act, such as section 165(c). Since the EPA is required to give
effect to all provisions of the Act, in those circumstances where a
strict reading of sections 165(a)(3) would frustrate congressional
intent that the EPA and other implementing air agencies act in a timely
manner, the Agency has the discretion to interpret the reach of section
165(a)(3) to be limited to particular NAAQS that were proposed or
effective prior to significant milestones in the permitting process.
[[Page 3255]]
Thus, the EPA does not agree with the view expressed by some
commenters that section 165(a)(3) must be read strictly in all
circumstances to apply to all NAAQS in effect on the date the EPA
issues a final permit decision, regardless of other circumstances or
other requirements of the CAA. Such a reading fails to acknowledge or
give meaning to section 165(c) of the Act. Legislative history
illustrates congressional intent to avoid delays in permit processing.
S. Rep. No. 94-717, at 26 (1976) (``nothing could be more detrimental
to the intent of this section and the integrity of this Act than to
have the process encumbered by bureaucratic delay'').
The EPA is also not persuaded that the presence of a grandfathering
provision in section 168(b) precludes the EPA from establishing
grandfathering exemptions in other circumstances. The commenter's
reference to the Supreme Court's observation that when ``Congress
expressly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition,
additional exceptions are not to be implied in the absence of evidence
of a contrary legislative intent,'' Andrus, 446 U.S. at 616-17, is not
persuasive here. The Court applied this principle in a circumstance
where there was a provision of law ``expressly relating to contracts of
the sort at issue here.'' Id. These are not the circumstances here.
Section 168(b) of the Act does not expressly relate to the application
of PSD permitting requirements to an application pending at the time of
the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 168(b) exempted
facilities that were subject to permitting requirements under an
earlier version of the PSD program created solely by the EPA regulation
prior to the enactment of section 165 of the CAA and other provisions
that expressly authorized and established the requirements of the PSD
permitting program applicable today. This exemption operated to
continue existing requirements for certain sources after a fundamental
change in the statutory and regulatory regime under which such sources
were required to obtain authorization to construct or modify major
stationary sources of air pollutants. Such an exemption does not
expressly relate to the incorporation of a new requirement into the PSD
program, under existing statutory authority, when the EPA promulgates a
regulation that creates such a requirement. In this case, the EPA is
not grandfathering permit applications from the general prohibition in
section 165(a) against commencing construction in the absence of a
permit issued ``in accordance with the requirements of this part.'' The
CAA does not contain any express exemptions to the phrase ``the
requirements of this part'' or from section 165(a)(3) of the Act that
apply when the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS. Furthermore,
section 168(b) applied to sources that had commenced construction
before new provisions of the CAA were enacted, whereas the
grandfathering that the EPA proposed for purposes of the revised PM
NAAQS is applicable to changes in regulatory requirements prior to the
issuance of a permit. Thus, the adoption of a one-time grandfather
provision upon enactment of the statutory PSD program is clearly
different from grandfathering when the EPA promulgates a new or revised
NAAQS, which the Act does not address. The fact that Congress expressly
enumerated an exemption in section 168 intended to ease transition upon
enactment of the PSD provisions in the Act does not constrain the
Agency with respect to offering reasonable transitional exemption
provisions when EPA regulations create new PSD program requirements
under those statutory provisions.
The EPA agrees that the PSD program is based on the goals of
preventing air pollution and installing controls when new sources are
being constructed, but section 160(3) of the Act also states that a
purpose of the PSD program is to ``insure that economic growth will
occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean
air resources.'' The EPA continues to construe this provision to call
for a balancing of economic growth and protection of air quality. See
70 FR 59582, October 12, 2005 at 59587-88. Legislative history
illustrates Congressional intent to avoid a moratorium on construction
and delays in permit processing. The House Committee report describes
how ``the committee went to extraordinary lengths to assure that this
legislation and the time needed to develop and implement regulations
would not cause current construction to be halted or clamp even a
temporary moratorium on planned industrial and economic development.''
H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., at 171 (1977). As an
illustration of the lengths to which the committee went, the report
lists five elements of the legislation, including the following
statement: ``To prevent disruption of present or planned sources, the
committee has authorized extensive `grandfathering' of both existing
and planned sources.'' Id. Furthermore, the Senate Committee report
specifically discusses concerns about delays in program implementation.
S. Rep. No. 94-717, at 26 (1976) (``nothing could be more detrimental
to the intent of this section and the integrity of this Act than to
have the process encumbered by bureaucratic delay'').
In the 1980 PSD regulation, the EPA sought to strike a balance
between competing goals of the CAA (45 FR 52683). The EPA explained
that delaying certain construction ``by imposing new PSD requirements
could frustrate economic development'' and noted that the grandfathered
projects ``have a relatively minor effect on air quality.'' Id. As a
result, the EPA adopted a grandfathering provision that ``would strike
a rough balance between the benefits and costs of applying PSD to those
projects.'' Id. Although the EPA used issuance of permits previously
required under the SIP in that case to determine eligibility for
grandfathering, this precedent does not preclude the EPA from using
another milestone in the permit process to determine eligibility in
order to strike the appropriate balance in a different situation. The
interests behind section 165 include both protection of air quality and
timely decision-making on pending permit applications. The EPA is
seeking here to balance the requirements in the Act to make a decision
on a permit application within one year and to ensure that new and
modified sources will only be authorized to construct after showing
they can meet the substantive permitting criteria.
Moreover, this action is not based on an assertion of equitable
power to disregard or override law, but rather on an interpretation of
our statutory authority. In so doing, the EPA has in this case
determined which regulatory requirements are covered by the statutory
requirements that apply to an application that has reached a specified
milestone when the regulatory requirement was established. The EPA does
not dispute that administrative agencies only have the powers conferred
by statute. However, the EPA may interpret the statutory requirements
consistent with Congressional intent and exercise its discretion in a
thoughtful way in doing so. Thus, while an administrative agency in the
executive branch does not have the equitable powers of a court, this
does not necessarily mean an administrative agency cannot interpret its
statutory authority to achieve equitable outcomes consistent with
Congressional intent.
[[Page 3256]]
Based on the foregoing, the EPA believes it has adequately
explained its consideration of the CAA requirements related to both
NAAQS protection and timely decision-making on permit applications in
designing the proposed grandfathering provision. As described below,
the EPA is finalizing a grandfathering provision that applies to two
categories of PSD permit applications: (1) Those that the reviewing
authority has determined to be complete on or before December 14, 2012,
or (2) those for which the reviewing authority has first published a
public notice that a draft permit or preliminary determination had been
prepared prior to the effective date of the revised PM NAAQS. In the
proposal, the EPA proposed to grandfather only the latter category,
based on publication of a public notice on a draft permit or
preliminary determination by the effective date of the final PM NAAQS.
However, as described later in this section, based on consideration of
public comments received on the proposal, the EPA decided to augment
the grandfathering provision to include applications that had been
determined to be complete on or before December 14, 2012, the date of
signature of the final rule. Permit applications qualifying under the
final grandfathering provision must demonstrate that a qualifying new
or modified source will not cause or contribute to a violation of the
PM2.5 NAAQS and increments in effect as of the date the
permit application is determined to be complete by the reviewing
authority or as of the date the reviewing authority first publishes
public notice of the draft permit or preliminary determination,
depending on which prong of the grandfathering provision is applicable.
The grandfathering provision does not apply to any other applicable
PSD requirements related to PM2.5. Sources with projects
qualifying under the grandfathering provision will be required to
install BACT for PM2.5 emissions, demonstrate that project
emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of the PSD
increments for PM2.5 or the PM2.5 NAAQS in effect
at the time the permit application is determined to be complete or the
public notice is first published on the draft permit or preliminary
determination, and address Class I and additional impacts in accordance
with the PSD regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the EPA does not
expect that the grandfathering provision being finalized in today's
rule will result in significantly different air quality impacts than
would occur absent any type of grandfathering or transition provision.
One commenter has submitted an analysis to support this conclusion.
As described in the proposal and some of the comments received from
state agencies, if the EPA and other reviewing authorities were to
require permit applicants to demonstrate that they will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the revised PM NAAQS after the public
comment period has begun, this would unduly delay the processing of the
permit application by potentially requiring an additional public
comment period and increased demand on the limited resources of the
reviewing authority. The EPA disagrees with commenters who contend that
grandfathering is contrary to statute because it would preclude public
comment on elements of the application related to the current NAAQS.
With respect to an application grandfathered under the new provisions
provided by today's rule, interested persons will have the opportunity
to comment on all aspects of PSD review for PM2.5, including
the air quality impacts associated with the revised NAAQS that became
effective after the application was determined to be complete or after
a public notice was published on the draft permit or preliminary
determination, depending on which prong of the grandfathering provision
applies. Section 165(a)(2) of the CAA and section 51.166(q)(2)(v)
require an opportunity for the public to comment on ``the air quality
impact of the source'' and ``other appropriate considerations.'' The
grandfathering provision does not necessarily take away the ability of
the public to comment on the impact the source may have on the revised
NAAQS (including the standard proposed several months earlier) or the
discretion of the permitting authority to consider these comments.
However, as provided by the grandfathering provision established today
in the EPA's PSD regulations, a permit applicant is not required to
complete an analysis after the date of the applicable grandfathering
milestone to demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to a
violation of the NAAQS that became effective after that date to obtain
a permit. Thus, consistent with CAA section 165(a)(2), ``the required
analysis'' will have ``been conducted in accordance with regulation
promulgated by the Administrator'' and made available for public
comment.
Several of the commenters supporting the proposed grandfathering
provision in general recommended that the EPA establish the
grandfathering milestone as the date that a complete permit application
is submitted (or that a submitted permit application is deemed complete
by the reviewing agency) rather than the publication date of public
notice for a draft permit or preliminary determination as proposed.
These commenters pointed out the significant level of effort, resources
and time involved in preparing all of the information necessary for a
complete permit application, including a BACT analysis, air quality
analysis, additional impacts analyses, and a Class I area impact
analysis. They claimed that it would be unfair to establish a
grandfathering milestone past the complete application date because the
processes and timeframes involved in generating the draft permit or
preliminary determination materials and publishing the public notice
are largely out of the control of the permit applicant and vary from
agency to agency. They further stated that requiring reevaluation of a
proposed project to assess impacts with respect to the revised NAAQS
after a permit application has been deemed complete would result in
significant additional cost and delay. One industry commenter pointed
out that the EPA's proposed grandfathering approach could place
considerable pressure on permit authorities to expedite review of
publication of draft permits or decisions before adequate internal
review was completed, which could result in subsequent withdrawal of
the permit. Several commenters cited prior EPA grandfathering
provisions that relied upon that milestone, including the 1987
PM10 NAAQS (52 FR 24672, July 1, 1987) and the 1988
NO2 increments (53 FR 40656, October 17, 1998), and
contended that the EPA had not justified the use of an alternative date
for purposes of the proposed revisions to the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Some state commenters also indicated that the proposed draft permit
public notice date milestone could result in additional resource burden
on the agency to expedite completion of draft permit packages and
process public notices. Other state commenters supported the EPA's
proposed draft permit or preliminary determination public notice date
as the appropriate grandfathering eligibility milestone, indicating
that this approach would provide states and industry certainty on the
NAAQS demonstration required during the PM2.5 NAAQS
transition period.
The EPA acknowledges the comments raising concerns about an
approach based solely on the public notice milestone date, and agrees
that they
[[Page 3257]]
warrant consideration of a different milestone date. Further, we agree
that an alternate milestone for grandfathering based on the date a
permit application is determined complete would address many of these
concerns. Therefore, the EPA has modified its proposed approach to
address these concerns. In particular, the EPA agrees with commenters
that a substantial portion of the level of effort, resource investment,
and time involved in the PSD permit process occurs during the process
of preparing a PSD permit application and obtaining a completeness
determination from the reviewing authority. Of particular importance is
the issue of the time delay and the effect on permitting authorities to
meet permit issuance deadlines, as previously noted. Commenters have
persuaded the EPA that reevaluation of a proposed project to assess
impacts with respect to the revised NAAQS after a permit application
has been deemed complete would result in significant additional delay,
thus frustrating the statutory requirement to complete action on a
permit application within one year of the completeness date.
We also agree with commenters that after the permit application
completeness determination stage in the permitting process, the
applicant must have completed all of the required technical
demonstrations (including a BACT analysis, air quality analysis,
additional impacts analyses, and Class I area impact analyses), and
that the final stages of the permitting process prior to public notice
(i.e., developing the draft permit or preliminary determination,
developing supporting materials and publishing the public notice) are
under the control of the permitting authority. Given the variable
practices and timelines of permitting authorities in processing these
final steps between permit application completeness and publication of
a public notice on the draft permit or preliminary determination
pointed out by commenters, we agree that the proposed grandfathering
approach could result in inequitable and burdensome outcomes in some
circumstances.
The EPA has therefore concluded based on public comments that it
should add an additional grandfathering milestone to avoid substantial
additional burden and delay for permit applications that have reached a
stage in the review process by which significant resources have been
expended to complete fundamental PSD analyses and demonstrations that
would have to be redone. After a PSD permit application has been
determined complete, it may be time consuming for the applicant to
amend its permit application to address new or revised NAAQS
promulgated after that date. The time required to both amend the
application and review the amended application would impose
unreasonable additional burden and delay upon the applicant and the
reviewing authority. As a result, if the EPA and other reviewing
authorities were to require permit applicants to demonstrate that they
will not cause or contribute to a violation of the revised PM NAAQS
after the permit application is determined to be complete, or any later
stage in the permitting process, this would unduly delay the processing
of the permit application and place increased demand on the limited
resources of the reviewing authority at a time when it should be
focused on preparing the draft permit and supporting materials,
preparing a public notice, considering public comments and preparing a
final permit decision in order to conclude its review of a permit
application in a timely manner.
The EPA also agrees with commenters' concerns that the proposed
grandfathering approach, based solely on the date of publication of a
public notice on a draft permit or preliminary determination, could in
some cases result in pressure on permitting authorities to expedite
review of publication of draft permits, resulting in additional burden
on such permitting authorities and other potential adverse
consequences. We note that expediting review is consistent with the
requirement of section 165(c) of the CAA to process permit applications
in a timely manner. We also observe that using the milestone of a
completeness determination to determine eligibility for grandfathering
could simply shift this pressure back to the stage in which a
permitting authority is reviewing an application to determine if it is
complete. A significant distinction, however, is that the one-year
deadline for completing action on a permit does not begin to run until
the date that a permit application is determined complete.
Based on the comments received and the EPA's consideration of those
comments described above, the EPA has decided to modify the proposed
grandfathering approach by adding a second category of applications to
the proposed qualifying criteria. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing a
grandfathering provision that extends grandfathering to permit
applications that the reviewing authority has determined, on or before
December 14, 2012 (the signature date of the final rule), to be
complete. We are adding this category to our originally proposed
category: Permit applications for which the permitting authority has
first published a public notice that the draft permit or preliminary
determination has been prepared prior to the effective date of the
revised PM NAAQS.
We are adding eligibility criteria rather than wholly replacing
what we proposed for two reasons. First, the EPA understands that there
may be some permitting authorities that do not issue formal
determinations that an application is complete. Applications in these
jurisdictions that may in fact have been complete and far enough along
in the review process that a public notice could be issued before the
effective date of the revised NAAQS could be significantly delayed if
the EPA removed the eligibility criteria based on the publication of
the public notice. Second, given that the EPA proposed to establish
eligibility for grandfathering based on the timing of the public
notice, some permitting authorities and applicants may have anticipated
that they had more time to take action to qualify for grandfathering
and may have not acted as promptly as they could have to submit
additional information or make a completeness determination. Retaining
the proposed eligibility criteria avoids prejudice to parties that may
have relied on the proposed rule in such a manner.
For the second eligibility criterion added in this final rule, the
EPA chose to use the date an application is determined complete, as
requested by several commenters. In several existing provisions in
sections 51.166(i) and 52.21(i) of the EPA's regulations, a pending
application was able to quality for grandfathering if it was submitted
before the applicable date but subsequently determined complete after
that date. However, this historic approach can be cumbersome to
implement and can lead to inconsistent implementation and potential
abuse. These concerns stem from the fact that there is a time lag
between submittal and the completeness determination during which there
are typically additional data requests by the permitting authority and
supplemental application material submittals by the applicant.
Therefore, it can be difficult to determine the specific date that the
submitted application actually became complete; since this date could
range from the initial submittal date, through a number of supplemental
submittal dates, to the date the permitting authority formally
determines the application to be complete. The EPA has chosen to use
the date an application is determined complete because this date
[[Page 3258]]
is easier to identify and apply. For PSD permits issued under 40 CFR
52.21, the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR part 124 define the effective
date of an application as the date the permitting authority notifies
the applicant that the application is complete. 40 CFR 124.3(f).
The EPA chose to base the second eligibility criterion on the date
this rule has been signed by the Administrator to avoid creating
pressure on permitting authorities to determine applications complete.
Such pressure could lead to premature findings of completeness and
grandfathering of a larger number of applications than is warranted to
avoid undue delays, thus increasing the air quality impact of the
grandfathering provision. Notably, the one-year deadline for completing
action on a permit does not begin to run until the date that a permit
application is determined complete. While Congress desired timely
action on a permit application, the statute gives permitting
authorities leeway to ensure they have all the necessary information to
proceed expeditiously on a permit application before the clock starts
running. The goal of protecting air quality can thus be fulfilled
without compromising Congressional intent for timely action by
conducting a careful review of an application to determine that it is
complete. Applications that have not yet been determined complete may
be supplemented to ensure the proposed source does not cause or
contribute to a violation of the revised NAAQS without compromising
compliance with the one-year deadline in section 165(c). The EPA thus
selected the signature date of the final rule to ensure the integrity
of completeness determinations issued after the rule is signed and to
limit the number of additional sources eligible for grandfathering.
The final grandfathering provision appropriately balances the
objectives of CAA section 165 to protect air quality and ensure timely
decision-making on permit applications, while also addressing concerns
about resource burdens raised by commenters. In addition, as pointed
out by commenters, the final grandfathering provision also provides an
approach that is more consistent with prior EPA grandfathering actions,
e.g., in the 1987 PM10 NAAQS, wherein the EPA selected the
date of application completeness for grandfathering projects from
requirements associated with the new NAAQS.
Regarding the need for a sunset clause for the grandfathering
provision, the majority of commenters supported, as proposed, not
including such a clause, and no commenters specifically recommended
that a sunset clause be established. Commenters pointed out that permit
applicants and reviewing authorities already have strong incentives to
issue final permits in a timely manner following the public notice
stage, and that a sunset clause would not add any meaningful incentive
to expedite the permitting process, rather potentially causing
additional delays. One commenter stated that permitting authorities
have ample discretion, which they routinely use, to refuse to issue a
draft permit if additional information is requested during a comment
period or the agency itself wants additional information following
publication of a draft permit or preliminary determination. The same
commenter indicated that permitting authorities also have sufficient
discretion to reopen permit proceedings if they consider information in
an application to be stale.
The EPA agrees with commenters that the addition of a sunset clause
to the proposed grandfathering provision would not add meaningful
additional incentive for sources or permitting authorities to expedite
permitting processes. The EPA also agrees that a sunset clause could in
fact result in further delays for permit actions that qualify for the
proposed grandfathering provision in circumstances where unrelated and
not reasonably avoidable factors cause final permit issuance to lapse
beyond the sunset date. In such cases, the already delayed permit
action would necessarily be further delayed to address PSD permitting
requirements associated with the revised PM2.5 NAAQS,
potentially triggering a domino effect of newly applicable
requirements. As such, the EPA believes a sunset clause would diminish
the value of the grandfathering provision and likely introduce
additional complexities in relation to specific permit actions.
A few industry commenters suggested, as an alternative to our
proposed approach, that the EPA should effectively grandfather PSD
permit actions from meeting requirements associated with the revised PM
NAAQS by extending the effective date of the NAAQS by one year. These
commenters argued that such an approach is preferable because it would
address potential concerns about the inability of state agencies to
implement the proposed grandfathering provision prior to rule adoption
and SIP approval. Several industry groups and representatives also
commented that the EPA should not eliminate state discretion to
grandfather individual permits even without an express exemption.
The EPA disagrees with extending the effective date of the revised
PM NAAQS by one year because this approach would entirely defer the
important health benefits associated with the revised PM NAAQS.
Further, as discussed in the proposal, the EPA does not anticipate any
issues related to implementation of the grandfathering provision in SIP
approved state/local jurisdictions. The EPA proposed and is finalizing
a revision to 40 CFR 51.166 to provide a comparable exemption
applicable to SIP-approved PSD programs, and air agencies that issue
PSD permits under an EPA-approved PSD permit program should have the
discretion to ``grandfather'' proposed PSD permits consistent with
these final rule provisions. Even absent an express grandfathering
provision in state rules, states have the discretion to permit
grandfathering consistent with the federal regulations if the
particular state's laws and regulations may be interpreted to provide
such discretion.\250\ However, state SIPs may not be less stringent
than federal requirements. Accordingly, the EPA believes that such
discretion must be limited to applying grandfathering consistent with
the federal rule provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\250\ In one extraordinary case where the EPA had not previously
adopted a grandfathering provision in regulations and had
significantly exceeded the deadline in section 165(c) of the CAA,
the EPA has taken the position that it may grandfather a specific
source through adjudication, thus interpreting its regulations, as
well as other authorities, to allow grandfathering in that
extraordinary circumstance (U.S. EPA, 2011c, pp. 67 to 71). Although
grandfathering without a specific exemption in regulations was
justified based on the particular facts in that specific instance,
the preferred approach is to enable grandfathering through express
regulatory exemptions of the type being finalized in this action
(U.S. EPA, 2011c, p. 68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Final Action
For the reasons articulated above, the EPA is finalizing a
grandfathering provision under the PSD regulations that provides that
qualifying sources and modifications shall not be required to
demonstrate that their proposed emissions will not cause or contribute
to a violation of the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS but
instead shall demonstrate that such emissions will not cause or
contribute to the PM2.5 NAAQS in effect on the date the
reviewing authority determines the permit application to be complete or
the date the public notice on the draft permit or preliminary
determination is first published, depending on which prong of the
grandfathering provision is applicable. Under the final
[[Page 3259]]
grandfathering provision, qualifying sources and modifications are
those for which the reviewing authority has determined that the permit
application is complete on or before December 14, 2012 or the
permitting authority has first published a public notice that a draft
permit or preliminary determination has been prepared prior to the
effective date of today's final revisions to the PM NAAQS.\251\ The
relevant public notice requirements for EPA and delegated agency issued
permits are those in 40 CFR 124.10(c)(2), and the corresponding
provisions for implementation-plan approved agency permits are those in
40 CFR 51.166(q)(2)(iii). The grandfathering provision is being
incorporated into the regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 and 51.166 to provide
the same transition for the EPA, delegated jurisdictions, and
implementation plan-approved jurisdictions. The EPA is not establishing
a sunset date for this grandfathering provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\251\ There may be application completeness determinations or
draft permits/preliminary determinations for which a public notice
was issued prior to October 20, 2011, which is the date that
PM2.5 increments became applicable requirements for any
newly issued federal PSD permits under 40 CFR 52.21. It is not the
EPA's intention that the final grandfathering provision should
relieve such a permit from the requirement to demonstrate compliance
with those new PM2.5 increments, for which the EPA did
not adopt any grandfathering provisions but deferred implementation
in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Modeling Tools and Guidance Applicable to the Revised Primary Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS
Today's final rule revising the level of the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\
generally will require proposed new major stationary sources and
modifications to take these changes into account as part of the
required air quality analysis to demonstrate that the proposed
emissions increase will not cause or contribute to a violation of the
PM NAAQS. Upon the effective date of today's final revisions to the PM
NAAQS, proposed new major stationary sources and major modifications
that are not grandfathered from the new requirements (as described in
section IX.D.1.a) will be required to demonstrate compliance with the
suite of PM NAAQS, including the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
PSD applicants are currently required to demonstrate compliance
with the existing primary and secondary annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and will need to consider the impact of their
proposed emissions increases on the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. To assist sources and permitting authorities in
carrying out the required air quality analysis for PM2.5
under the existing standards, the EPA issued, on March 23, 2010, a
guidance memorandum that recommends certain interim procedures to
address the fact that compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS is based on a particular statistical form, and that there are
technical complications associated with the ability of existing models
to estimate the impacts of secondarily formed PM2.5
resulting from emissions of PM2.5 precursors (Page, 2010b).
For the latter issue, the EPA recommended that special attention be
given to the evaluation of monitored background air quality data, since
such data readily account for the contribution of both primary and
secondarily formed PM2.5 from existing sources affecting the
area.
To provide more detail and to address potential issues associated
with the modeling of direct and precursor emissions of
PM2.5, the EPA is now developing additional permit modeling
guidance that will recommend appropriate technical approaches for
conducting a PM2.5 NAAQS compliance demonstration, which
includes more adequate accounting for contributions from secondary
formation of ambient PM2.5 resulting from a proposed new or
modified source's precursor emissions. To this end, the EPA discussed
this draft guidance in March 2012 at the EPA's 10th Modeling
Conference.\252\ Based on its review of comments received through the
conference and further technical analyses, the EPA intends to issue
final guidance by the end of calendar year 2012, prior to the effective
date of today's final PM NAAQS revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ The presentation on this draft guidance was posted on the
EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/10thmodconf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also received a number of industry and state comments on
the PM2.5 NAAQS proposal related to PM2.5 air
quality impact analyses and associated existing modeling tools and
procedures. In general, commenters identified the lack of approved air
quality modeling tools and procedures to predict the impacts of single
source emissions on PM2.5 concentration in ambient air as
well as limitations associated with existing PM2.5 modeling
tools and guidance. Commenters recommended the EPA address these
existing issues and provide updated guidance through an open
stakeholder process and preferably through notice-and-comment
rulemaking. As described above, the EPA intends to issue revised
PM2.5 modeling guidance prior to the effective date of
today's revised PM NAAQS to assist permit applicants and reviewing
authorities in performing required air quality impact analyses. The EPA
expects that this revised guidance will address all or most of the
remaining issues related to PM2.5 air quality impact
demonstrations under the PSD program, at least on an interim basis,
until the EPA takes additional steps to improve existing regulatory
models and procedures. To that end, the EPA is also pursuing regulatory
updates to the Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 Appendix
W) to formalize new models and techniques as appropriate. The EPA
recently granted a petition for rulemaking to specifically evaluate
whether to incorporate into the Guideline new analytical techniques or
models for secondary PM2.5 (McCarthy, 2012). The EPA
anticipates that this rulemaking will be proposed by the end of
calendar year 2014 or early in calendar year 2015.
c. PSD Screening Tools: Significant Emissions Rates, Significant Impact
Levels, and Significant Monitoring Concentration
The EPA has historically allowed the use of screening tools to help
facilitate the implementation of the NSR program by reducing the permit
applicant's burden and streamlining the permitting process for
circumstances where emissions or concentrations could be considered de
minimis. These screening tools, which all provide de minimis thresholds
of some kind, include SERs, SILs, and a SMC. The EPA promulgated a SER
for PM2.5 in the 2008 final rule on NSR implementation as
part of the first phase of NSR amendments to address PM2.5
(74 FR 28333, May 16, 2008). The PM2.5 SER is used to
determine whether any proposed major stationary source or major
modification will emit sufficient amounts of PM2.5 to
require review under the PSD program.\253\ Under the terms of the
existing EPA regulations, the applicable SER for PM2.5 is 10
tpy of direct PM2.5 emissions (including condensable PM)
and, for precursors, 40 tpy of SO2 and 40 tpy of
NOX emissions. 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23).
This SER applies to permitting requirements based on both the annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The SERs are pollutant-specific but
not specific to the averaging
[[Page 3260]]
time of any NAAQS for a particular pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ The PSD rules provide that a source that would emit major
amounts of any regulated NSR pollutant must undergo review for that
pollutant as well as any other regulated NSR pollutant that the
source would emit in significant amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once it is determined that emissions resulting from the proposed
new source or modification are significant for PM2.5, the
permit applicant must complete an air quality analysis. 40 CFR
51.166(m)(1)(i); 40 CFR 52.21(m)(1)(i). The SIL helps to determine the
scope of the required air quality analysis that must be carried out in
order to demonstrate that the source's emissions will not cause or
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS or increment. The EPA
promulgated SILs for PM2.5 in 2010 under a final rule that
established increments, SILs, and a SMC for PM2.5 (75 FR
64864, October 20, 2010 at 64890 to 64894).
Historically, the EPA and other permitting authorities have allowed
permit applicants to determine the scope of analysis required to
satisfy section 165(a)(3) of the CAA by modeling their proposed
emissions increase to predict ambient air quality impacts associated
with that emissions increase, and by comparing this predicted increase
in ambient concentration of PM2.5 to the applicable SIL,
which is also expressed as an ambient PM2.5 concentration
over a prescribed averaging time consistent with the NAAQS and
increments. The EPA notes that the current PM2.5 SILs are
the subject of a petition that challenges the EPA's legal authority
under the CAA to develop and implement those SILs, and also alleges
that the PM2.5 SILs established by the EPA have not been
adequately demonstrated to represent de minimis values. Sierra Club v.
EPA, No. 10-1413 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2010). In the course of this
litigation, the EPA has recognized the need to correct the text
addressing the use of the PM2.5 SILs in the PSD regulations
(40 CFR 51.166(k)(2); 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2)), and the EPA has asked the
court to vacate and remand those provisions so that the EPA may correct
them. However, the EPA does not believe this corrective action would
preclude appropriate use of the PM2.5 SILs in the interim.
The EPA has not asked the court to vacate the SILs in section 51.165(b)
of its regulations. Furthermore, SILs that are not reflected in rules
may be used if the permitting record provides adequate support that the
values reflect a de minimis impact on air quality, consistent with the
principles described in EPA memoranda establishing interim SILs for the
one-hour SO2 and NO2 NAAQS.\254\ The revisions to
the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS do not affect the continued
used of the PM2.5 SILs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ Page, 2010c; Page, 2010d. The EPA provided similar advice
before it finalized the proposed PM2.5 SILs (Page,
2010b). See also, In re Mississippi Lime Co., PSD Permit Appeal 11-
01, Slip. Op. at 34-41 (EAB August 9, 2011) and U.S. EPA, 2012d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the SMC, also measured as an ambient pollutant
concentration ([mu]g/m\3\), is a screening tool used to determine
whether it may be appropriate to exempt a proposed source from the
requirement to collect pre-construction ambient monitoring data as part
of the required air quality analysis for a particular pollutant. The
EPA promulgated the existing SMC for PM2.5 in 2010 on the
basis of the defined minimum detection limit for PM2.5 and
the current information at that time concerning the physical
capabilities of the PM2.5 FRM samplers. In that rulemaking,
the EPA addressed uncertainties introduced into the measurement of
PM2.5 due to variability in the mechanical performance of
the PM2.5 samplers and micro-gravimetric analytical balances
that weigh filter samples. Like the PM2.5 SILs, the SMC was
challenged by the Sierra Club in the same petition, and is currently
under review by the Court.
In the proposal, the EPA did not propose any changes to the
existing PM2.5 SERs, SILs and SMC, but solicited preliminary
comment on whether any such changes would be appropriate. The EPA also
indicated that any changes to the PM2.5 screening values
would be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking that would specifically
address various PSD implementation issues.
The EPA received several comments from industry and state agencies
regarding the existing PSD screening tools and the potential need to
adjust associated values based on the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The majority of these commenters supported
retaining the existing SERs, SILs and SMC for PM2.5 (and
PM2.5 precursors in the case of the SERs), indicating that
there was no compelling technical reason for revision based on the
proposed revision to the primary PM2.5 NAAQS. One industry
commenter indicated that there might be a need to revise the annual
PM2.5 SILs based on the approach used in establishing the
current value. However, this commenter and others recommended that any
revisions to the PSD screening levels for PM2.5 be
accomplished through a separate notice-and-comment rulemaking. Several
state commenters that supported retention of the current
PM2.5 SILs also urged the EPA to provide guidance on the use
of those existing SILs.
One set of collaborative comments from health and environmental
advocacy groups stated that the EPA's proposal to leave in place the
PSD screening tools adopted with the previous PM NAAQS had no rational
basis and was contrary to statutory requirements. These commenters
claimed that the EPA has no statutory authority to establish SILs and
SMC for PM2.5, which is the subject of current litigation in
Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 17, 2010). The
EPA's argument in support of the existing PSD screening tools is
contained in a brief filed in that case, which is included in the
docket for the final rule. Id., Brief of Respondent at 26-56 (June 26,
2012). These same commenters and one additional collaborative comment
letter from academic researchers also stated that the EPA should revise
the current PM2.5 SERs, SILs and SMC to reflect the revised
NAAQS and true de minimis levels.
The EPA did not propose to make and is not finalizing any changes
to the existing PM2.5 SERs, SILs and SMC as part of this
final rule. The EPA intends to consider the need for any future changes
to these values in light of today's revision of the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and considering public comments received. The
EPA will address any changes to the PM2.5 SERs, SILs and SMC
in a subsequent PSD implementation rulemaking if deemed necessary or
appropriate. The EPA will determine the need for, and develop such
rulemaking expeditiously, and any such forthcoming rulemaking will
provide an additional opportunity for public comment on specific
proposed revisions to the PSD screening tool values for
PM2.5. Until any rulemaking to amend existing regulations is
completed, permitting decisions should continue to be based on the SERs
for PM2.5 (and its precursors) and the SILs and SMC for
PM2.5 in existing regulations.
d. PSD Increments
Section 166(a) of the CAA requires the EPA to promulgate
``regulations to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality''
for pollutants covered by the NAAQS. Among other things, the EPA has
implemented this requirement through promulgation of PSD increments.
The EPA promulgated PM2.5 increments in 2010 to prevent
significant air quality deterioration with regard to the primary and
secondary annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010). The revision to the primary annual PM2.5
NAAQS raises the question of whether
[[Page 3261]]
the EPA should consider revising the annual PM2.5
increments. The EPA does not interpret section 166(a) of the Act to
require that the EPA revise existing increments whenever the EPA
revises a NAAQS for the same pollutant and averaging time,\255\ but the
Agency interprets the Act to afford the EPA the discretion to do so. In
the proposal, the EPA did not propose to revise the PM2.5
increments. In the meantime, the current PM2.5 increments
remain in effect, and PSD permitting should continue pursuant to the
current increments, with a minimum of disruption to the permitting
process when the revised NAAQS take effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ A United States District Court has upheld the EPA's
interpretation. See Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Mandatory Duty Claim, Wildearth Guardians v. Jackson, Case No. 11-
cv-5651-YGR (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2012). An appeal of this decision is
now pending with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA received few comments on whether there was any need or
justification to revise the existing PSD increments for
PM2.5. Industry and state agency commenters generally
supported retaining the existing increments. Commenters again
recommended that any revisions to the PSD increments for
PM2.5 be accomplished through a separate notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
The EPA did not propose to make and is not finalizing any changes
to the existing PSD increments for PM2.5 as part of this
final rule. The EPA will consider whether it is appropriate to propose
any revised PSD increments for PM2.5 in the future. Any such
forthcoming rulemaking will provide an additional opportunity for
public comment on specific proposed revisions to the PSD increments for
PM2.5. Until any rulemaking to amend existing regulations is
completed, permitting decisions should continue to be based on the PSD
increments for PM2.5 in existing regulations.
e. Other PSD Transition Issues
Several industry commenters expressed concern that a permitting
problem would result from the fact that, upon promulgation of the
revised PM2.5 NAAQS, ambient air quality monitoring data
would show that for some areas, PM2.5 concentrations exceed
the revised NAAQS, although those areas would not be formally
designated as ``nonattainment'' until a later date pursuant to the
designation process provided by the CAA. The commenters noted that
sources locating in such areas would be required to obtain a PSD permit
in order to construct or modify, but could not do so because the
requirement that the new or modified source must demonstrate that it
will not cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation, even though the area
would technically already be in nonattainment. The commenters further
noted that once the nonattainment designation is made, section 173 of
the Act provides a nonattainment area permit program that specifies
conditions under which a permit will be issued, including obtaining
offsetting reductions in emissions rather than demonstrating through
modeling or other analysis that the source will not cause or contribute
to a violation of the NAAQS as required in PSD. Thus, the commenters
urged the EPA to offer an interim approach that would avoid the
imposition of an effective construction ban on such areas until such
time as the nonattainment area designations and the nonattainment NSR
offset requirements are in place instead of the PSD requirements. Some
of the commenters specifically requested that the EPA provide either a
surrogacy approach based on showing compliance with the pre-existing
annual PM2.5 NAAQS or a PSD offset approach to avoid a
construction moratorium in such areas.
The commenters are correct in that areas already in violation of
the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS upon the effective date of
such NAAQS may not be formally designated nonattainment for two years
or potentially longer in accordance with the statutory procedures for
promulgating such area designations. In addition, it is the EPA's
longstanding policy that new and revised NAAQS must be implemented
through the permitting process as of the NAAQS effective date (except
for earlier projects that would qualify for any EPA-authorized
grandfathering). Accordingly, new major stationary sources and major
modifications for which permits will be issued on or after the
effective date of the revised annual PM2.5 NAAQS must comply
with the PSD requirement to demonstrate compliance with that and any
other applicable NAAQS.
We disagree, however, with the commenters' conclusion that such
circumstances will result in ``the imposition of an effective
construction ban on such areas.'' First, as already described, the EPA
is promulgating a grandfathering provision that allows certain proposed
new and modified sources to proceed with the permit process based on
the requirements that were in effect previously, provided the
permitting authority either has determined on or before December 14,
2012 that the permit application is complete or has proposed the permit
(i.e., the draft permit or preliminary determination has been noticed
for public comment) prior to the date the revised PM standards become
effective, which is 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
The grandfathering provision thus will enable some sources to avoid
issues associated with potential violations of the revised annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Second, for those sources that are not eligible to be grandfathered
under the new provision, permitting authorities have the discretion to
consider offsetting emissions reductions at other sources as part of a
demonstration that an individual source seeking a permit will not cause
or contribute to violation of the NAAQS. See, Page (2010c). The EPA has
historically recognized in regulations and through other actions that
sources applying for PSD permits may utilize offsets as part of the
required PSD demonstration, even though the PSD provisions of the Clean
Air Act do not expressly reference offsets in the same manner as the
nonattainment NSR provisions of the Act. See, In re Interpower of New
York, Inc., 5 E.A.D. 130, 141 (EAB 1994) (describing an EPA Region 2
PSD permit that relied in part on offsets to demonstrate the source
would not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS).
Existing EPA regulations provide a procedure by which major
stationary sources and major modifications locating in an area
designated as attainment or unclassifiable for any NAAQS, and found to
cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation in any area, may utilize
offsets to address such adverse impacts and ultimately be issued a
permit. See 40 CFR 51.165(b). Specifically, paragraph (b)(3) of those
regulations provides that the required permit program may include a
provision allowing a proposed major source or major modification to
reduce the impact of its emissions on air quality by obtaining
sufficient emissions reductions to, at a minimum, compensate for its
adverse ambient impact where the source or modification would otherwise
cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. On October 20, 2010,
the EPA amended the requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(b) to define a
significant impact with regard to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See 75 FR
64864 at 64902.
As noted by some of the commenters, the EPA addressed this same
issue in 1987 when it promulgated a new set of NAAQS for
PM10 and revised 40 CFR 51.165(b) of the regulations. See 52
FR 24672 (July 1, 1987) at 24684, 24686-87,
[[Page 3262]]
24698. For PM10, the EPA made it clear that when a proposed
PSD source was found to cause or contribute to violation of the
PM10 NAAQS, the source would be required satisfy the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(b) ``to obtain, at a minimum, sufficient
PM10 emission offsets to compensate for the source's ambient
impact in the area of the violation.'' Such offsets were considered to
satisfy the ``cause or contribute to'' language under section
165(a)(3)(B) of the CAA. Id. at 24698.\256\ In response to comments
concerning the appropriate criteria for applying this offset
requirement for PSD purposes, the EPA also stated that any emissions
offsets used for PSD purposes must meet applicability criteria that are
at least as stringent as the offset criteria set forth in the
nonattainment NSR requirements for offsets under 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3).
Id. at 24684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ In 1980, the EPA had determined that the statutory
requirement under CAA section 165(a)(3)(B), providing that a
proposed new or modified PSD source must demonstrate that it will
not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS, taken together
with the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA required
all major stationary sources locating outside a nonattainment area
but causing or contributing to a NAAQS violation to reduce the
impact on air quality so as to assure attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS. In a footnote, the EPA further indicated that this offset
requirement must apply to sources causing or contributing to a newly
discovered NAAQS violation until the area is designated
nonattainment. See 45 FR 31307 (May 13, 1980) at 31310. In this 1980
rule, EPA adopted section 51.18(k), which was later renumbered
section 51.165(b). EPA revised 51.165(b) in 1987 to expressly
authorize an offset program to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), but this provision may also be interpreted to apply
to section 165(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, consistent with EPA's reading of
section 51.18(k) in 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We continue to believe that the 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3) criteria
provide the most appropriate guide for determining the creditability of
PSD offsets, including any offsets obtained to satisfy the PSD
requirements for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS prior to any
anticipated designation of any area as nonattainment with that NAAQS.
Since the purpose for using offsets in PSD is to show that additional
emissions from the proposed construction will not cause or contribute
to a violation, the EPA has not codified a requirement that such
offsets necessarily must meet the same criteria that apply to offsets
under the nonattainment NSR program. In fact, the EPA has previously
observed that, in the context of PSD, it may not be necessary for a
permit applicant to fully offset the proposed emissions increase if an
emissions reduction of lesser quantity will be sufficient to mitigate
the proposed source's adverse air quality impact on a modeled
violation. Page (2010c); 44 FR 3274, January 16, 1979, at 3278
(``Although full emission offsets are not required, such a source must
obtain emission offsets sufficient to compensate for its air quality
impact where the violation occurs.''). This may be particularly true
where anticipated reductions from existing air quality regulations may
mitigate the impacts of a proposed source's emissions by the time the
source begins operating in an area that is expected to be designated
nonattainment. This would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
To the extent that any permit applicants may experience difficulties
making the NAAQS compliance showing required to obtain a PSD permit in
areas and as set forth in the Memorandum noted above, the EPA is
committed to working with permitting authorities and applicants to
identify ways to apply offsets under the PSD program as necessary to
meet PSD requirements.
2. Nonattainment New Source Review
Part D of Title I of the CAA pertains to the preconstruction review
and permitting requirements for new major stationary sources and major
modifications locating in areas designated ``nonattainment'' for a
particular pollutant. Those requirements are commonly referred to as
the NNSR program. The EPA regulations for the NNSR program are
contained at 40 CFR 51.165, 52.24 and part 51, appendix S.
For NNSR, ``major stationary source'' is generally defined as a
source with the potential to emit at least 100 tpy or more of a
pollutant for which an area has been designated ``nonattainment.'' The
NNSR program applies only to pollutants for which the EPA has
promulgated NAAQS. Because the EPA has defined the PM NAAQS, and has
established area designations for PM, in terms of two separate
indicators--PM10 and PM2.5--each indicator is
regulated separately for purposes of NNSR applicability. That is, for
PM10, a ``major stationary source'' for NNSR applicability
generally is a source that is located in a PM10
nonattainment area and has the potential to emit at least 100 tpy of
PM10 emissions.\257\ For PM2.5, a ``major
stationary source'' for NNSR applicability is a source that is located
in a PM2.5 nonattainment area and has the potential to emit
at least 100 tpy of direct PM2.5 (``PM2.5
emissions'') or any individual precursor of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ In some cases, however, the CAA and the EPA's regulations
define ``major stationary source'' for nonattainment area NSR in
terms of a lower emissions rate dependent on the pollutant. For
PM10, for example, a source having the potential to emit
at least 70 tpy of PM10 is considered ``major'' if the
source is located in a nonattainment area classified as a ``Serious
Area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For a major modification, the NNSR regulations rely upon SERs
described previously in the PSD discussion in section IX.D.1. For NNSR,
a major modification is a physical change or a change in the method of
operation of an existing stationary source that is major for the
nonattainment pollutant and results in a significant emissions increase
and a significant net emissions increase of that nonattainment
pollutant or any individual precursor of that pollutant. As described
earlier, the EPA will be evaluating the existing SERs for
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors, and will determine
whether there is any basis for proposing changes to any of the existing
values. Any decision to propose changing the existing SERs in a future
rulemaking would also apply to their use in the NNSR program
requirements.
The EPA has designated nonattainment areas for the existing primary
annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS independently, and the EPA
also approves redesignations to attainment separately for the two
averaging periods. Thus, an area may be nonattainment for the annual
standard and unclassifiable/attainment or attainment for the 24-hour
standard. In the proposal, the EPA indicated that no formal policy has
yet been developed to address this situation, but that the EPA
presently believes that it is reasonable to require that only NNSR (and
not PSD) applies for PM2.5 in any area that is nonattainment
for either averaging period.\258\ The same situation would have existed
with respect to the proposed secondary visibility index standard, had
the EPA elected to finalize such a standard. Accordingly, the EPA
indicated in the proposal that it intends to address this issue in a
future NSR rulemaking, but invited preliminary comment on whether it is
appropriate to apply the NNSR program requirements for any pollutant
that is designated nonattainment for at least one averaging period or
at least one primary or secondary NAAQS for a particular pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ However, transportation conformity requirements discussed
in section IX.E below are dependent upon the averaging period(s) for
which an area is designated nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New major stationary sources or major modifications that trigger
NNSR based on PM2.5 emissions (or emissions of a
PM2.5 precursor) in a PM2.5 nonattainment area
must install technology that meets the lowest achievable emission rate
(LAER); secure appropriate emissions reductions to offset the proposed
emissions increases;
[[Page 3263]]
and perform other analyses as required under section 173 of the CAA.
Following the promulgation of any revised NAAQS for PM2.5,
some new nonattainment areas for PM2.5 may result. Where a
state does not have any NNSR program or the current NNSR program does
not apply to PM2.5, that state will be required to submit
the necessary SIP revisions to ensure that new major stationary sources
and major modifications for PM2.5 undergo preconstruction
review pursuant to the NNSR program. Under section 172(b) of the CAA,
the Administrator may provide states up to 3 years from the effective
date of nonattainment area designations to submit the necessary SIP
revisions meeting the applicable NNSR requirements. Nevertheless,
permits issued to sources in nonattainment areas must satisfy the
applicable requirements for nonattainment areas as of the effective
date of the specific nonattainment designation; therefore, states whose
existing NNSR program requirements, if any, cannot be interpreted to
apply to the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS at that time
will be allowed to issue the necessary permits in accordance with the
applicable nonattainment permitting requirements contained in the
Emissions Offset Interpretative Ruling at 40 CFR part 51, appendix S,
which would apply to the revised PM2.5 NAAQS upon its
effective date (see 73 FR 38321, May 16, 2008 at 28340). The EPA did
not propose any type of PM2.5 grandfathering provision at
this time for purposes of NNSR.
Several industry commenters recommended that the EPA establish a
grandfathering provision for NNSR as was proposed under the PSD
program. A subset of these commenters recommended that grandfathering
be accomplished by establishing an effective date for designations one
year after initial publication in the Federal Register. However, no
commenters provided any rationale or supporting basis for such a
grandfathering provision or the underlying need for a transition into
NNSR permitting for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS.
The EPA disagrees with commenters that recommended a grandfathering
provision for NNSR requirements associated with the revised
PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in the proposal, the timetable for
adopting new provisions under a state's NNSR program will not apply
with regard to the revised NAAQS for PM2.5 until such time
that an area is designated nonattainment for a particular standard.
Major NSR permits for PM2.5 issued in areas newly designated
as nonattainment for the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS
must, as of the effective date of such designation, meet the applicable
NNSR requirements for PM2.5 (Seitz, 1991). As such, there
may be cases where applicants with PSD permit applications for
PM2.5 in progress will be required to revise their
applications to address NNSR requirements for a newly designated
PM2.5 nonattainment area, and such revisions could result in
additional resource burden and permit delays. However, the EPA believes
at this time that such cases will be very limited, and in addition
there is a substantial lead time between the effective date of the
revised PM2.5 NAAQS and the effective date of any associated
new nonattainment designations for permit applicants and air agencies
to anticipate when the NNSR requirements will apply. Therefore, the EPA
is not inclined at this time to pursue a rulemaking to establish a
grandfathering provision for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS under
the NNSR program. The EPA will independently, and in consultation with
other reviewing authorities, work with permit applicants on specific
projects requiring additional measures to achieve a workable transition
into NNSR permitting requirements. The EPA will also continue to
consider whether regulatory grandfathering may become necessary for
NNSR, and if determined to be, will undertake any such action as part
of a subsequent NSR implementation rulemaking with additional
opportunity for public comment.
A few industry and state commenters addressed the issue of
potential dual review (applying NNSR and PSD simultaneously) based on
distinct designations for separate averaging times of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. These commenters generally agreed with the
EPA's conclusion that it was reasonable to apply only the NNSR
permitting requirements to such situations and not PSD. Regarding the
issue of potential dual review for multiple averaging times of the
PM2.5 NAAQS, since the proposal, the EPA has determined that
existing regulations resolve this issue in favor of the conclusion
suggested in the proposed rule. Based on the express terms of existing
regulations, only the NNSR permit requirements, and not PSD, apply for
the pollutant PM2.5 in cases where the area is designated
nonattainment for at least one averaging time of the PM2.5
NAAQS. The federal PSD regulations provide that the PSD requirements
(the requirements of paragraphs (j) through (r) of each section) ``do
not apply to a major stationary source or major modification with
respect to a particular pollutant if the owner or operator demonstrates
that, as to that pollutant, the source or modification is located in an
area designated as nonattainment under section 107 of the Act.'' 40 CFR
52.21(i)(2) and 40 CFR 51.166(i)(2) (emphasis added). Thus, this
provision expressly excludes from PSD any pollutant for which an area
is designated nonattainment, without reference to a particular
averaging period. For a number of years, it was the EPA's practice to
establish a single designation in an area for a particular pollutant.
Accordingly, if the area was not meeting the NAAQS for a particular
averaging period, the area was designated nonattainment--even though
the area was likely meeting the NAAQS for one or more averaging periods
for the same pollutant. The EPA's statement in the proposal that we had
not yet established a policy on the dual review question for
PM2.5 was based on the fact that we had only recently begun
establishing designations for each averaging time in the case of the
PM2.5 NAAQS. However, at the time of the proposal, the EPA
had not closely examined the applicability of the language in sections
51.166(i)(2) and 52.21(i)(2) in this context. After closer inspection
prompted by the comments on this issue, we do not read these provisions
to authorize application of PSD to a pollutant when an area may be
designated nonattainment for a particular averaging time, while also
designated attainment or unclassifiable for a different averaging time
for the same pollutant.
As proposed, the EPA is not finalizing any changes under the NNSR
program regulations as part of this final NAAQS rule. The EPA will
consider the need for any changes to the NNSR program provisions and
will implement any such changes as part of a future NSR implementation
rule and/or guidance.
E. Transportation Conformity Program
Transportation conformity is required under CAA section 176(c) to
ensure that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs
(TIPs) and federally supported highway and transit projects will not
cause new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay
timely attainment of the relevant NAAQS or interim reductions and
milestones. Transportation conformity applies to areas that are
designated nonattainment and maintenance for transportation-related
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, ozone, NO2, and
PM2.5, and PM10. Transportation conformity for
any
[[Page 3264]]
revised NAAQS for PM2.5 does not apply until 1 year after
the effective date of the nonattainment designation for that revised
NAAQS (see CAA section 176(c)(6) and 40 CFR 93.102(d)). The EPA's
Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart T, and 40 CFR
part 93, subpart A) establishes the criteria and procedures for
determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP. The
EPA is not making any changes to the transportation conformity rule in
this rulemaking. The EPA notes that the transportation conformity rule
already addresses the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. The
EPA will review whether there is a need to issue new or revised
transportation conformity guidance in light of this final rule. In
developing new or revised guidance the EPA will consider the comments
related to implementation of the transportation conformity rule that
were received in response to the proposal.
As discussed in section VIII above, the EPA finalized certain
clarifying changes to PM2.5 air quality monitoring
regulations. These changes are designed to align different elements of
the monitoring regulations for consistency.
Due to these changes to the monitoring regulations, the EPA will
update its guidance on conformity quantitative PM2.5 hot-
spot analyses as appropriate to make it consistent with the revised
monitoring requirements (U.S. EPA, 2010j). The EPA intends that the
current quantitative PM2.5 hot-spot guidance continues to
apply to any quantitative PM2.5 hot-spot analysis that was
begun before the effective date of these revisions to the monitoring
regulations. Revised guidance for quantitative PM2.5 hot-
spot analyses would apply to any quantitative PM2.5 hot-spot
analysis begun after the effective date of the revised monitoring
regulations. Nonattainment and maintenance areas are encouraged to use
their interagency consultation processes to determine whether an
analysis for a given project was started before the effective date of
changes to the monitoring requirements. Applying the current guidance
to PM2.5 analyses that had begun before the effective date
of changes to the monitoring regulations is consistent with how the
conformity rule and guidance address the transitional period for new
emissions factor models or local planning assumptions (40 CFR 93.110(a)
and 93.111(b) and (c)). In both of those cases, analyses begun before
the new model or data became available can be completed using the data
and/or model that were available when the analyses began. The EPA rules
allow this in order to conserve state resources by not making
transportation planning agencies redo analyses simply because a model
has been revised, new data have become available, or in this case, the
EPA has revised its regulations for PM2.5 monitoring.
F. General Conformity Program
General conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). This section
requires that actions by federal agencies do not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant NAAQS or interim reductions and milestones. General
conformity applies to any federal action (e.g., funding, licensing,
permitting, or approving), other than projects that are Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA)/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) projects as
defined in 40 CFR 93.101 (which are covered under transportation
conformity described above), if the action takes place in a
nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone, PM, NO2, carbon
monoxide, lead, or SO2. General conformity also applies to a
federal highway and transit project if it does not involve either Title
23 or 49 funding, but does involve FHWA or FTA approval such as is
required for a connection to an Interstate highway or for a deviation
from applicable design standards per 40 CFR 93.101. (The FHWA and FTA
actions described here as not subject to general conformity are subject
to transportation conformity.) General conformity for the revised PM
NAAQS will not apply until 1 year after the effective date of a
nonattainment designation for that NAAQS. The EPA's General Conformity
Rule (40 CFR 93.150 to 93.165) establishes the criteria and procedures
for determining if a federal action conforms to the SIP. With respect
to the revised PM NAAQS, federal agencies are expected to continue to
estimate emissions for conformity analyses in the same manner as they
are estimated for conformity analyses for the 1997 and 2006 p.m. NAAQS.
The EPA's existing general conformity regulations include the basic
requirement that a federal agency's general conformity analysis be
based on the latest and most accurate emissions estimation techniques
available (40 CFR 93.159(b)), and the EPA expects that this same
principle will be followed for analyses needed for these revised PM
NAAQS. When updated and improved emissions estimation techniques become
available, the EPA expects the federal agency to use those techniques.
With this final rule, the EPA is making no changes to the general
conformity rule as it already addresses the PM2.5 and
PM10 NAAQS. As noted in the proposal, the EPA will review
the need to issue guidance describing how the current conformity rule
applies in nonattainment and maintenance areas for the final revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993), this action is an ``economically significant
regulatory action'' because it is likely to have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more. The $100 million threshold can be
triggered by either costs or benefits, or a combination of them.
Accordingly, the EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76
FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This analysis is contained in Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Final Revisions to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, EPA 452/R-12-003. A copy of
the analysis is available in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0955.
The estimates in the RIA are associated with the revised standard
and alternative standard levels (in [mu]g/m\3\) of the primary annual
PM2.5 standards including: 13, 12, and 11. Table 4 provides
a summary of the estimated costs, monetized benefits, and net benefits
associated with full attainment of these alternative standards.
[[Page 3265]]
Table 4--Total Costs, Monetized Benefits and Net Benefits in 2020 (millions of 2010$)
Full Attainment a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs \b\ Monetized benefits \d\ Net benefits
Alternative PM2.5 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
annual standards 3% Discount rate
([mu]g/m\3\) 3% Discount rate \c\ 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate \d\ 7% Discount rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.................. $11 to $100............. $11 to $100............. $1,300 to $2,900.. $1,200 to $2,600.. $1,200 to $2,900.. $1,100 to $2,600
12.................. $53 to $350............. $53 to $350............. $4,000 to $9,100.. $3,600 to $8,200.. $3,700 to $9,000.. $3,300 to $8,100
11.................. $320 to $1,700.......... $320 to $1,700.......... $13,000 to $29,000 $12,000 to $26,000 $11,000 to $29,000 $10,000 to $26,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ These estimates reflect incremental emissions reductions from an analytical baseline that gives an ``adjustment '' to the San Joaquin and South
Coast areas in California for NOX emissions reductions expected to occur between 2020 and 2025, when those areas are expected to demonstrate
attainment with the revised standards. Full benefits of the revised standards in those two areas will not be realized until 2025.
\b\ The two cost estimates do not represent lower and upper bound estimates, but represent estimates generated by two different methodologies. The lower
estimate is generated using the fixed-cost methodology, which assumes that technological change and innovation will result in the availability of
additional controls by 2020 that are similar in cost to the higher end of the cost range for current, known controls. The higher estimate is generated
using the hybrid methodology, which assumes that while additional controls may become available by 2020, they become available at an increasing cost
and the increasing cost varies by geographic area and by degree of difficulty associated with obtaining the needed emissions reductions.
\c\ Due to data limitations, we were unable to discount compliance costs for all sectors at 3%. See section 7.2.2 of the RIA for additional details on
the data limitations. As a result, the net benefit calculations at 3% were computed by subtracting the costs at 7% from the monetized benefits at 3%.
\d\ The reduction in premature deaths each year accounts for over 90% of total monetized benefits. Mortality risk valuation assumes discounting over the
SAB-recommended 20-year segmented lag structure. Not all possible benefits or disbenefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. B is the sum
of all unquantified benefits. Data limitations prevented us from quantifying these endpoints, and as such, these benefits are inherently more
uncertain than those benefits that we were able to quantify. The range of benefits reflects the range of the central estimates from two mortality
cohort studies (i.e., Krewski et al. (2009) to Lepeule et al. (2012)).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection requirements are
not enforceable until OMB approves them. The Information Collection
Request (ICR) document prepared by the EPA for these revisions to part
58 has been assigned EPA ICR number 0940.26. The information collected
under 40 CFR part 53 (e.g., test results, monitoring records,
instruction manual, and other associated information) is needed to
determine whether a candidate method intended for use in determining
attainment of the NAAQS in 40 CFR part 50 will meet the design,
performance, and/or comparability requirements for designation as an
FRM or FEM. The EPA does not expect the number of FRM or FEM
determinations to increase over the number that is currently used to
estimate burden associated with PM10, PM2.5, or
PM10-2.5 FRM/FEM determinations provided in the current ICR
for 40 CFR part 53 (EPA ICR numbers 0940.24). As such, no change in the
burden estimate for 40 CFR part 53 has been made as part of this
rulemaking.
The information collected and reported under 40 CFR part 58 is
needed to determine compliance with the NAAQS, to characterize air
quality and associated health impacts, to develop emissions control
strategies, and to measure progress for the air pollution program. The
amendments finalized in this rule will revise the network design
requirements for PM2.5 monitoring sites, resulting in the
movement of 21 monitors to established near-road monitoring stations by
January 1, 2015. The incremental burden associated with moving these 21
monitors that are required in 40 CFR part 58 (this is a one-time cost
of relocating the monitors) is $28,570. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b). State, local, and Tribal entities are eligible for state
assistance grants provided by the federal government under the CAA
which can be used for monitors and related activities. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy
of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden, the EPA has established a public docket
for this rule, which includes this ICR, under Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492. Submit any comments related to the ICR to the EPA and
OMB. Send comments to the EPA at the Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the
Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air
and Radiation Docket and Information Center Docket is (202) 566-1742.
An electronic version of the public docket is available at
www.regulations.gov. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60
days after January 15, 2013, a comment to OMB is best assured of having
its full effect if OMB receives it by February 14, 2013.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental
[[Page 3266]]
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Rather, this
rule establishes national standards for allowable concentrations of
particulate matter in ambient air as required by section 109 of the
CAA. See also American Trucking Associations v. EPA. 175 F.3d at 1044-
45 (NAAQS do not have significant impacts upon small entities because
NAAQS themselves impose no regulations upon small entities). We
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector beyond those duties already
established in the CAA. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
This action is also not subject to the requirements section 205 of
the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action imposes
no new expenditure or enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector, and the EPA has determined that this
rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
Furthermore, in setting a NAAQS, the EPA cannot consider the
economic or technological feasibility of attaining ambient air quality
standards although such factors may be considered to a degree in the
development of state plans to implement the standards. See also
American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F. 3d at 1043 (noting that
because the EPA is precluded from considering costs of implementation
in establishing NAAQS, preparation of a Regulatory Impact Analysis
pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not furnish any
information which the court could consider in reviewing the NAAQS). The
EPA acknowledges, however, that any corresponding revisions to
associated SIP requirements and air quality surveillance requirements,
40 CFR part 51 and 40 CFR part 58, respectively, might result in such
effects. Accordingly, the EPA will address, as appropriate, unfunded
mandates if and when it proposes any revisions to 40 CFR parts 51 or
58.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. The rule does not alter the
relationship between the Federal government and the states regarding
the establishment and implementation of air quality improvement
programs as codified in the CAA. Under section 109 of the CAA, the EPA
is mandated to establish and review NAAQS; however, CAA section 116
preserves the rights of states to establish more stringent requirements
if deemed necessary by a state. Furthermore, this final rule does not
impact CAA section 107 which establishes that the states have primary
responsibility for implementation of the NAAQS. Finally, as noted in
section D (above) on UMRA, this rule does not impose significant costs
on state, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
However, as also noted in section D (above) on UMRA, the EPA
recognizes that states will have a substantial interest in this rule
and any corresponding revisions to associated air quality surveillance
requirements, 40 CFR part 58.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires the 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.'' This rule concerns
the establishment of national standards to address the health and
welfare effects of particulate matter. Historically, the EPA's
definition of ``tribal implications'' has been limited to situations in
which it can be shown that a rule has impacts on the tribes' ability to
govern or implications for tribal sovereignty. Based on this historic
definition, this action does not have Tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), i.e. because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, since tribes are not obligated to adopt or implement any NAAQS.
Nevertheless, we were aware that many tribes would be interested in
this rule and we undertook a number of outreach activities to inform
tribes about the PM NAAQS review and offered to two consultations with
tribes.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, the EPA
undertook a consultation process including: Prior to proposal on March
29, 2012 we sent letters to tribal leadership inviting consultation on
the rule and then sent a second round of letters offering consultation
after the proposal was issued on June 29, 2012. No tribe requested a
formal consultation with the EPA. We conducted outreach and information
calls to tribal environmental staff on May 9, 2012; June 15, 2012; and
August 1, 2012. We also participated on the National Tribal Air
Association call on June 28, 2012.
As a result we received comments from the National Tribal Air
Association, the Southern Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation
EPA. In general, these tribal organizations were supportive of the
EPA's proposal.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997) because it is an economically significant regulatory action
as defined by Executive Order 12866, and the EPA believes that the
environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. Accordingly, we have evaluated the
environmental health or safety effects of PM exposures on children. The
protection offered by these standards is especially important for
children because childhood represents a lifestage associated with
increased susceptibility to PM-related health effects. Because children
have been identified as an at-risk population, we have carefully
evaluated the environmental health effects of exposure to PM pollution
among children. Discussions of the results of the evaluation of the
scientific evidence and policy considerations pertaining to
[[Page 3267]]
children are contained in sections III.B, III.D, III.E, IV.B, and IV.C
of this preamble. The revised primary PM2.5 NAAQS discussed
above will provide greater public health protection, including
increased protection for at-risk populations such as children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. The purpose of this action concerns the
review of the NAAQS for PM. The action does not prescribe specific
pollution control strategies by which these ambient standards will be
met. Such strategies are developed by states on a case-by-case basis,
and the EPA cannot predict whether the control options selected by
states will include regulations on energy suppliers, distributors, or
users.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs the
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
This final rulemaking involves technical standards for
environmental monitoring and measurement. Specifically, the EPA
proposes to retain the indicators for fine (PM2.5) and
coarse (PM10) particles. The indicator for fine particles is
measured using the Reference Method for the Determination of Fine
Particulate Matter as PM2.5 in the Atmosphere (appendix L to
40 CFR part 50), which is known as the PM2.5 FRM, and the
indicator for coarse particles is measured using the Reference Method
for the Determination of Particulate Matter as PM10 in the
Atmosphere (appendix J to 40 CFR part 50), which is known as the
PM10 FRM.
To the extent feasible, the EPA employs a Performance-Based
Measurement System (PBMS), which does not require the use of specific,
prescribed analytic methods. The PBMS is defined as a set of processes
wherein the data quality needs, mandates or limitations of a program or
project are specified, and serve as criteria for selecting appropriate
methods to meet those needs in a cost-effective manner. It is intended
to be more flexible and cost effective for the regulated community; it
is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and
improved data quality. Though the FRM defines the particular
specifications for ambient monitors, there is some variability with
regard to how monitors measure PM, depending on the type and size of PM
and environmental conditions. Therefore, it is not practically possible
to fully define the FRM in performance terms to account for this
variability. Nevertheless, our approach in the past has resulted in
multiple brands of monitors being approved as FRM for PM, and we expect
this to continue. Also, the FRMs described in 40 CFR part 50 and the
equivalency criteria described in 40 CFR part 53, constitute a
performance-based measurement system for PM, since methods that meet
the field testing and performance criteria can be approved as FEMs.
Since finalized in 2006 (71 FR, 61236, October 17, 2006) the new field
and performance criteria for approval of PM2.5 continuous
FEMs has resulted in the approval of six approved FEMs.\259\ In
summary, for measurement of PM2.5 and PM10, the
EPA relies on both FRMs and FEMs, with FEMs relying on a PBMS approach
for their approval. The EPA is not precluding the use of any other
method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not,
as long as it meets the specified performance criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ A list of designated reference and equivalent methods is
available on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA maintains an ongoing commitment to ensure environmental
justice for all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income. Ensuring environmental justice means not only protecting human
health and the environment for everyone, but also ensuring that all
people are treated fairly and are given the opportunity to participate
meaningfully in the development, implementation, and enforcement of
environmental laws, regulations, and policies. We conducted an outreach
and information call with environmental justice organizations on August
9, 2012.
The EPA has identified potential disproportionately high and
adverse effects on minority and/or low-income populations related to
PM2.5 exposures. In addition, the EPA has identified persons
from lower socioeconomic strata as an at-risk population for PM-related
health effects. As a result, the EPA has carefully evaluated the
potential impacts on low-income and minority populations as discussed
in section III.E.3.a of this preamble. Based on this evaluation and
consideration of public comments on the proposal, the EPA is
eliminating the spatial averaging provisions as part of the form of the
primary annual PM2.5 standard to avoid potential
disproportionate impacts on at-risk populations. The Agency expects
this final rule will lead to the establishment of uniform NAAQS for PM.
The Integrated Science Assessment and Policy Assessment contain the
evaluation of the scientific evidence and policy considerations that
pertain to these populations. These documents are available as
described in the Supplementary Information section of this preamble and
copies of all documents have been placed in the public docket for this
action.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 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. The 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
[[Page 3268]]
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective March 18, 2013.
References
AAM (2012). Comments of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9475. August 31,
2012.
AASHTO (2012). Comments of the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials on National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492-9506. August 31, 2012.
Abt Associates Inc. (2001). Assessing Public Opinions on Visibility
Impairment Due to Air Pollution: Summary Report. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/reports/vis_rpt_final.pdf.
Abt Associates (2005). Particulate Matter Health Risk Assessment for
Selected Urban Areas. Final Report. Bethesda, MD. Prepared for the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-D-03-002. EPA 452/R-05-007A.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/data/PMrisk20051220.pdf.
ACC (2012). Comments of the American Chemistry Council on National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9295/August 29, 2012.
AFPM (2012). Comments of the American Fuel & Petrochemical
Manufacturers on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
9573. August 31, 2012.
AHA et al. (2012). American Heart Association; American Lung
Association; American Public Health Association; American Thoracic
Society; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America; Health Care
Without Harm; March of Dimes; National Association of County and
City Health Officials; Trust for America's Health (2012). Letter to
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson re: Comments on the Proposed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter.
August 31, 2012. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9512.
Air Alliance Houston et al., (2012). Air Alliance Houston, Alliance
for Affordable Energy, Alliance for Health Promotion, American
Bottom Conservancy; Center for Biological Diversity; Chelsea Board
of Health; Clelsea Collaborative; Citizens for Pennsylvania's
Future; Clean Air Carolina; Clean Air Task Force; Clean Air Watch;
Clean Water Action; Clean Water Action Michigan; Clean Water Action
Rhode Island; Communities for a Better Environment; Conservation Law
Foundation; Environment & Human Health, Inc.; Environment Illinois;
Environment Northeast; Environmental and Energy Study Institute;
Environmental Defense Fund; Fresh Energy; Green For All; Greenpeace
USA; Hoosier Environmental Council; Improving Kids' Environment;
Kentucky Resources Council; Massachusetts Climate Action Network;
Midwest Environmental Advocates; Mining Impact Coalition of
Wisconsin; Moms Clean Air Force; Mothers & Others for Clean Air;
NAACP; National Resources Defense Council; National Wildlife
Federation; New York Public Interest Research Group; Powder River
Basin Resource Council; Respiratory Health Association; Safe Air for
Everyone; Save Our Sky Blue Waters; Save the Dunes; Sierra Club;
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Uranium Watch; US Climate Action
Network; Valley Watch; Wasatch Clean Air Coalition; Western
Environmental Law Center. Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P.
Jackson. Comments on the Proposed National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter. August 31, 2012. Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9402.
ALA et al. (2012). Comments of the American Lung Association, Clean
Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Earthjustice, Environmental
Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club on
EPA's Proposed Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
9826. August 31, 2012.
AMC, et al. (2012). Comments of the Appalachian Mountain Club, the
National Parks Conservation Association, and Earthjustice on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9562. August 31,
2012.
API (2009). Comments of the American Petroleum Institute on the
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter--Second
External Review Draft. Docket No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0079. October
13, 2009.
API (2012). Comments of the American Petroleum Institute on National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9530. August 31, 2012.
Armstrong BG. Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies
of environmental and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med 1998,
55: 651-6.
Arizona DEQ (2012). Comments of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
9492. August 31, 2012.
Avol E; Gauderman WG; Tan SM; London SJ; Peters JM (2001).
Respiratory effects of relocating to areas of differing air
pollution levels. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 164: 2067-2072.
BBC Research & Consulting (2003). Phoenix Area Visibility Survey.
Draft Report. Available: http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/download/vis_021903f.pdf. Accessed 9/16/2008.
Bell ML, Ebisu K, Belanger K (2007). Ambient air pollution and low
birth weight in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Environ Health
Perspect, 115: 1118-24.
Bell ML; Ebisu K; Peng RD; Walker J; Samet JM; Zeger SL; Dominic F
(2008). Seasonal and regional short-term effects of fine particles
on hospital admissions in 202 U.S. counties, 1999-2005. Am J
Epidemiol, 168: 1301-1310.
Bell ML (2009a). Personal communication with Dr. Michelle Bell.
Annual PM2.5 levels used in Dominici et al. 2006 and Bell
et al. 2008. December 7, 2009. Docket No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0087.
Bell ML, Ebisu K, Peng R, Samet J, Dominici F (2009b). Hospital
Admissions and Chemical Composition of Fine Particle Air Pollution.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 179: 1115-1120.
Burnett RT; Brook J et al. (2000). Association between particulate-
and gas-phase components of urban air pollution and daily mortality
in eight Canadian cities. Inhal. Toxicol. 12 Suppl 4: 15-39.
Burnett RT, Goldberg MS (2003). Size-fractionated particulate mass
and daily mortality in eight Canadian cities. In: Revised analyses
of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report.
May 2003. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 85-90.
Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/news.htm.
Burnett RT, Stieb D, Brook JR, Cakmak S, Dales R, Raizenne M,
Vincent R, Dann T (2004). Associations between short-term changes in
nitrogen dioxide and mortality in Canadian cities. Arch Environ
Occup Health, 59: 228-236.
CARB (2012). Comments of the California Air Resources Board on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-1694. July 18, 2012.
CA OEHHA (2012). Comments of the California Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9882. August 28, 2012.
Carroll RJ, Ruppert D, Stefanski LA (1995). Measurement error in
nonlinear models. London, UK: Chapman and Hall Ltd.
CBD (2012). Comments of the Center for Biological Diversity on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9894. August 31,
2012.
CDC (2004) Introduction and approach to causal inference. In: The
health consequences of smoking: a report of the Surgeon General.
Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic
[[Page 3269]]
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and
Health. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/pdfs/tableofcontents.pdf.
Chan CC; Chuang KJ; Chen WJ; Chang WT; Lee CT; Peng CM (2008).
Increasing cardiopulmonary emergency visits by long-range
transported Asian dust storms in Taiwan. Environ Res, 106: 393-400.
Chock DP; Winkler SL; Chen C. (2000). A study of the association
between daily mortality and ambient air pollutant concentrations in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 50: 1481-1500.
CHPAC (2012). Comments of the Children's Health Protection Advisory
Committee on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9944.
September 10, 2012.
Class of '85 RRG (2012). Comments of the Class of '85 Regulatory
Response Group on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
9435. August 31, 2012.
Colorado DPHE (2012). Comments of the Colorado Department of Public
Health and the Environment on National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492-9353. August 31, 2012.
CPMC (2012). Comments of the Coarse Particulate Matter Coalition on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9491. August 31,
2012.
Deck L; Lawson M (2010). Statistical analysis of existing urban
visibility preference studies. Memorandum to Vicki Sandiford, U.S.
EPA/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards from Leland Deck
and Megan Lawson, Stratus Consulting Inc. February 3, 2010. Docket
ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0089.
DHEW (1969). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service,
Environmental Health Service, National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Washington, DC January 1969.
Dockery DW, Pope CA III, Xu X, Spengler JD, Ware JH, Fay ME, Ferris
BG Jr, Speizer FE (1993). An association between air pollution and
mortality in six U.S. cities. N Engl J Med, 329: 1753-1759.
Dockery DW, Cunningham J, Damokosh AI, Neas LM, Spengler JD,
Koutrakis P, Ware JH, Raizenne M, Speizer FE (1996). Health effects
of acid aerosols on North American children: respiratory symptoms.
Environ Health Perspect, 104(5):500-5.
DOI (2012). Comments of the United States Department of the Interior
on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-7970. August 23,
2012.
Dominici F, Peng RD, Bell ML, Pham L, McDermott A, Zeger SL, Samet
JM (2006a). Fine particulate air pollution and hospital admission
for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. JAMA, 295: 1127-1134.
Dominici F (2006b). Letter from Dr. Francesca Dominici, Associate
Professor of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns
Hopkins University, comments to the proposed rule. Docket ID number
OAR-2001-0017-0988. March 21, 2006.
Dominici F, Peng RD, Zeger SL, White RH, Samet JM (2007).
Particulate air pollution and mortality in the United States: did
the risks change from 1987 to 2000? Am J Epidemiol, 166: 880-8.
Dominici F; Zeger SL; Janes H; Greven S (2012). Memo from Francesca
Dominici, Harvard School of Public Health; Scott L. Zeger, The Johns
Hopkins University; Sonja Greven, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat
Munchen; and Holly Janes, University of Washington to Bryan Hubbell
and Jason Sacks, U.S. EPA. Additional information to EPA for Janes
et al. (2007) and Greven et al. (2011). November 28, 2012.
Dow (2012). Comments of the Dow Chemical Company on National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-8424. August 28, 2012.
Eftim SE., Samet JM, Janes H, McDermott A, Dominici F (2008). Fine
Particulate Matter and Mortality: A Comparison of the Six Cities and
American Cancer Society Cohorts With a Medicare Cohort.
Epidemiology, 19: 209- 216.
Ely DW; Leary JT; Stewart TR; Ross DM (1991). The establishment of
the Denver Visibility Standard. Presented at 84th annual meeting &
exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Association; June;
Vancouver, British Columbia. Pittsburgh, PA: Air & Waste Management
Association; paper no. 91-48.4.
EPRI (2012). Comments of the Electric Power Research Institute on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9396. August 31,
2012.
Frank N (2006). Retained Nitrate, Hydrated Sulfates, and
Carbonaceous Mass in Federal Reference Method Fine Particulate
Matter for Six Eastern U.S. Cities. J Air Waste Manage Assoc., 56:
500-511.
Frank N (2012a). Differences between maximum and composite monitor
annual PM2.5 design values by CBSA. Memorandum to the PM
NAAQS review docket. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492. December
2012. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Frank N (2012b). Reanalysis of the relationship between 24-hour and
4-hour visibility index levels. Memorandum to the PM NAAQS review
docket. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492. December 2012.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Franklin M; Zeka A; Schwartz J (2007). Association between
PM2.5 and all-cause and specific-cause mortality in 27
U.S. communities. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 17: 279-287.
Franklin M; Koutrakis P; Schwartz J (2008). The role of particle
composition on the association between PM2.5 and
mortality. Epidemiology, 19: 680-689.
Gauderman WJ; McConnell R; Gilliland F; London S; Thomas D; Avol E;
Vora H; Berhane K; Rappaport EB; Lurmann F; Margolis HG; Peters J
(2000). Association between air pollution and lung function growth
in southern California children. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 162:
1383-1390.
Gauderman WJ; Gilliland GF; Vora H; Avol E; Stram D; McConnell R;
Thomas D; Lurmann F; Margolis HG; Rappaport EB; Berhane K; Peters JM
(2002). Association between air pollution and lung function growth
in southern California children: results from a second cohort. Am J
Respir Crit Care Med, 166: 76-84.
Gauderman WJ; Avol E; Gilliland F; Vora H; Thomas D; Berhane K;
McConnell R; Kuenzli N; Lurmann F; Rappaport E; Margolis H; Bates D;
Peters J (2004). The effect of air pollution on lung development
from 10 to 18 years of age. NEJM, 351: 1057-67.
Gent JF, Koutrakis P, Belanger K, Triche E, Holford TR, Bracken MB,
Leaderer BP (2009) Symptoms and medication use in children with
asthma and traffic-related sources of fine particle pollution.
Environ Health Perspect, 117: 1168-74.
Georgia DNR (2012). Comments of the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9444. August
31, 2012.
GMA (2012). Comments of the Georgia Mining Association on National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-3678. August 5, 2012.
Gong H Jr; Linn WS; Clark KW; Anderson KR; Geller MD; Sioutas C
(2005). Respiratory responses to exposures with fine particulates
and nitrogen dioxide in the elderly with and without COPD. Inhal
Toxicol, 17(3):123-32.
Goodman SN. (1993). P values, hypothesis tests, and likeli-hood:
implications for epidemiology of a neglected historical debate.
American Journal of Epidemiology 137:485-496.
Goodman SN. (1999). Towards evidence-based medical statistics. 1:
the P value fallacy. Annals of Internal Medicine 130:995-1004.
Goss CH; Newsom SA; Schildcrout JS; Sheppard L; Kaufman JD (2004).
Effect of ambient air pollution on pulmonary exacerbations and lung
function in cystic fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 169: 816-
821.
Greenland, S. (1998) Meta-analysis. In: Rothman, K. J.; Greenland,
S., eds. Modern epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams
& Wilkins; pp. 643-673.
Greven S; Dominici F; Zeger S (2011). An Approach to the Estimation
of Chronic
[[Page 3270]]
Air Pollution Effects Using Spatio-Termporal Information. Journal of
the American Statistical Association. Vol. 106, No. 494. 396-406.
Hanley T and Reff A (2011). Assessment of PM2.5 FEMs
compared to collocated FRMs. Memorandum to PM NAAQS review. Docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0332. April 7, 2011. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_bar;2007--td.html.
Harnett WT (2009). Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
September 25, 2009. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0341.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_110a12.pdf.
Hassett-Sipple B; Rajan P; Schmidt M (2010). Analyses of
PM2.5 Data for the PM NAAQS Review. Memorandum to the PM
NAAQS review docket. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0077.
March 29, 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
HEI (2003). Commentary on revised analyses of selected studies. In:
Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health.
Special report. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 255-290.
Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf. October
18, 2004.
Henderson R (2005a). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to Honorable Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC PM Review Panel's Peer Review of the
Agency's Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical
Information (Second Draft PM Staff Paper, January 2005). June 6,
2005. EPA-SAB-CASAC-05-007. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-
0393. Available: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-05-007.pdf.
Henderson R (2005b). Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC)
Review of the EPA Staff Recommendations Concerning a Potential
Thoracic Coarse PM Standard in the Review of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information (Final PM OAQPS Staff Paper,
EPA-452/R-05-005, June 2005). September 15, 2005. EPA-SAB-CASAC-05-
012. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-0477. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
3562FF25F05133FC85257084000B1B77/$File/sab-casac-05-012.pdf.
Henderson R (2005c). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Stephen L.
Johnson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) Advisory on Implementation Aspects of the Agency's
Final Draft National Ambient Air Monitoring Strategy (NAAMS)
(December 2004). April 20, 2005. EPA-SAB-CASAC-05-006. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
FA9EBA6E90F17DBC8525700B005520A5/$File/SAB-CASAC-05-006--
unsigned.pdf.
Henderson R. (2006a). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Stephen L.
Johnson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee Recommendations Concerning the Proposed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. March 21, 2006. EPA-
CASAC-LTR-06-002. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017-1452.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/sab/pdf/casac-ltr-06-002.pdf.
Henderson R; Cowling E; Crapo JD; Miller FJ; Poirot RL; Speizer F;
Zielinski B (2006b). Letter from Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee to the Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, U.S.
EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Recommendations
Concerning the Final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter. September 29, 2006. EPA-CASAC-LTR-06-003. Docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0051. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
1C69E987731CB775852571FC00499A10/$File/casac-ltr-06-003.pdf.
Henderson R (2008). Letter from Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Stephen L.
Johnson, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee Particulate Matter Review Panel's Consultation on EPA's
Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter. January 3, 2008. EPA-CASAC-08-004.
Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0018. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/76D069B8191381DA852573C500688E74/
$File/EPA-CASAC-08-004-unsigned.pdf.
Herman SA, Perciasepe R (1999). State Implementation Plans: Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown. Memorandum from Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X. September 20, 1999.
Hill AB (1965). The environment and disease: Association or
causation? Proc. R. Soc. Med. 58: 295-300.
Hopke PK; Ito K; Mar T; Christensen WF; Eatough DJ; Henry RC; Kim E;
Laden F; Lall R; Larson TV; Liu H; Neas L; Pinto J; Stolzel M; Suh
H; Paatero P; Thurston GD (2006). PM source apportionment and health
effects: 1 Intercomparison of source apportionment results. J Expo
Sci Environ Epidemiol, 16: 275-286.
Indiana DEM (2012). Comments of the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management on National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492-9398. August 31, 2012.
ISEE (2012). Comments on EPA's proposal to revise the Air Quality
Standards for Particle Pollution (Particulate Matter). Letter from
Annette Peters, President, International Society for Environmental
Epidemiology to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. Docket No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9234. August 30, 2012.
Islam T; Gauderman WJ; Berhane K; McConnell R; Avol E; Peters JM;
Gilliland FD (2007). The relationship between air pollution, lung
function and asthma in adolescents. Thorax, 62: 957-963.
Ito K; Christensen WF; Eatough DJ; Henry RC; Kim E; Laden F; Lall R;
Larson TV; Neas L; Hopke PK; Thurston GD (2006). PM source
apportionment and health effects: 2 An investigation of intermethod
variability in associations between source-apportioned fine particle
mass and daily mortality in Washington, DC. J Expo Sci Environ
Epidemiol, 16: 300-310.
Jackson L (2009). Memo from Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to
Elizabeth Craig, Acting Assistant Administrator for OAR and Lek
Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator for ORD. Process for
Reviewing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 21, 2009.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pdfs/NAAQSReviewProcessMemo52109.pdf.
Jackson L J (2010). Letter from Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to Dr.
Jonathan M. Samet, Chairman, Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee. February 25, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-
0127.
Janes H; Dominici F; Zeger SL (2007). Trends in Air Pollution and
Mortality: An Approach to the Assessment of Unmeasured Confounding.
Epidemiology, 18: 416-423.
Kelly J; Schmidt M; Frank N; Timin B; Solomon D; Rao V (2012a).
Technical Analyses to Support Surrogacy Policy for Proposed
Secondary PM2.5 NAAQS under NSR/PSD Program. Memorandum
to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492 through Richard Wayland,
Director, Air Quality Assessment Division, U.S. EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. June 14, 2012. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Kelly J; Schmidt M; Frank N (2012b). Updated comparison of 24-hour
PM2.5 design values and visibility index design values.
Memorandum to EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Kennecott Utah Copper (2012). Comments of the Kennecott Utah Copper
LLC on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9442. August
31, 2012.
Killingsworth CR; Alessandrini F; Krishna Murthy GG; Catalano PJ;
Paulauskis JD; Godleski JJ (1997). Inflammation,
[[Page 3271]]
chemokine expression, and death in monocrotaline-treated rats
following fuel oil fly ash inhalation. Inhalation Toxicology. 9:
541-565.
Kim JJ; Smorodinsky S; Lipsett M; Singer BC; Hodgson AT; Ostro B
(2004). Traffic-related air pollution near busy roads: The East Bay
Children's Respiratory Health Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 170:
520-526.
Klemm RJ; Mason R (2003). Replication of reanalysis of Harvard Six-
City mortality study. In HEI Special Report: Revised Analyses of
Time-Series Studies of Air Pollution and Health, Part II (pp. 165-
172). Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute.
Klemm RJ; Lipfert FW; Wyzga RE; Gust C (2004). Daily mortality and
air pollution in Atlanta: Two years of data from ARIES. Inhal
Toxicol, 16 Suppl 1: 131-141.
Krewski D; Burnett RT; Goldberg MS; Hoover K; Siemiatycki J; Jerrett
M; Abrahamowicz M; White WH (2000). Reanalysis of the Harvard Six
Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of particulate
air pollution and mortality. A special report of the Institute's
particle epidemiology reanalysis project. Cambridge, MA: Health
Effects Institute. Available: http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=6.
Krewski D; Jerrett M; Burnett RT; Ma R; Hughes E; Shi Y; Turner MC;
Pope AC III; Thurston G; Calle EE; Thun MJ (2009). Extended Follow-
Up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking
Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. HEI Research Report 140,
Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA. Available: http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=315.
Laden F; Neas LM; Dockery DW; Schwartz J (2000). Association of fine
particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in
six U.S. cities. Environ Health Perspect, 108: 941-947.
Laden F; Schwartz J; Speizer FE; Dockery DW (2006). Reduction in
fine particulate air pollution and mortality: Extended follow-up of
the Harvard Six Cities Study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 173:
667-672.
Laden F (2009). Personal communication with Dr. Francine Laden:
Annual PM2.5 levels used in the update of the Harvard Six
Cities Study. May 21, 2009. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0122.
Lanki T; Pekkanen J; Aalto P; Elosua R; Berglind N; D'Ippoliti D;
Kulmala M; Nyberg F; Peters A; Picciotto S; Salomaa V; Sunyer J;
Tiittanen P; Von Klot S; Forastiere F (2006). Associations of
traffic-related air pollutants with hospitalization for first acute
myocardial infarction: The HEAPSS study. Occup Environ Med, 63: 844-
851.
League of Women Voters (2012). Comments of the League of Women
Voters on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9505.
Lepeule J, Laden F, Dockery D, Schwartz .J (2012). Chronic Exposure
to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-Up of the
Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009. Environ Health Perspect.
120: 965-970.
Lipfert, FW; Wyzga RE; Baty JD; Miller JP (2006a). Traffic density
as a surrogate measure of environmental exposures in studies of air
pollution health effects: Long-term mortality in a cohort of U.S.
veterans. Atmospheric Environment 40: 154-169.
Lipfert FW; Baty JD; Miller JP; Wyzga RE (2006b). PM2.5
constituents and related air quality variables as predictors of
survival in a cohort of U.S. military veterans. Inhalation
Toxicology. 18: 645-657.
Lipfert FW; Baty JD; Miller JP; Wyzga RE (2006). PM2.5
constituents and related air quality variables as predictors of
survival in a cohort of U.S. military veterans. Inhal Toxicol, 18:
645-657.
Liu S; Krewski D; Shi Y; Chen Y; Burnett R (2007). Association
between maternal exposure to ambient air pollutants during pregnancy
and fetal growth restriction. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 17: 426-
432.
Malm WC; Sisler JF; Huffman D; Eldred RA; Cahill TA (1994). Spatial
and Seasonal Trends in Particle Concentration and Optical Extinction
in the United States, Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres),
99:. 1347-1370.
Malm WC; Schichtel BA; Pitchford ML (2011). Uncertainties in
PM2.5 gravimetric and speciation measurements and what we
can learn from them. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 61(11): 1131-49.
MANE-VU (2012). Comments of the Mid-Atlantic North East Visibility
Union on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9364.
Mar TF; Ito K; Koenig JQ; Larson TV; Eatough DJ; Henry RC; Kim E;
Laden F; Lall R; Neas L; St[ouml]lzel M; Paatero P; Hopke PK;
Thurston GD (2006). PM source apportionment and health effects. 3.
Investigation of inter-method variations in associations between
estimated source contributions of PM2.5 and daily
mortality in Phoenix, AZ. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 16:. 311-20.
McCarthy, R. (2012). Letter from the Assistant Administrator, EPA
Office of Air and Radiation to Mr. Robert Ukeiley. Subject: Petition
to Initiate Rulemaking to Designate Air Quality Models. January 4,
2012. Available:
McClellan R (2012). Comments of Roger O McClellan, Advisor,
Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis on National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9409. August 31, 2012.
McConnell R; Berhane K; Gilliland F; London SJ; Vora H; Avol E;
Gauderman WJ; Margolis HG; Lurmann F; Tomas DC; Peters JM (1999).
Air pollution and bronchitic symptoms in southern California
children with asthma. Environ. Health Perspect. 107: 757-760.
McConnell R; Berhane K; Gilliland F; Molitor J; Thomas D; Lurmann F;
Avol E; Gauderman WJ; Peters JM (2003). Prospective study of air
pollution and bronchitic symptoms in children with asthma. Am J
Respir Crit Care Med, 168: 790-797.
McCubbin D (2011). Health Benefits of Alternative PM2.5
Standards. July 2011.
Middleton N; Yiallouros P; Kleanthous S; Kolokotroni O; Schwartz J;
Dockery DW; Demokritou P; Koutrakis P (2008). A 10-year time-series
analysis of respiratory and cardiovascular morbidity in Nicosia,
Cyprus: The effect of short-term changes in air pollution and dust
storms. Environ Health, 7: 39.
Miller KA; Siscovick DS; Sheppard L; Shepherd K; Sullivan JH;
Anderson GL; Kaufman JD (2007). Long-term exposure to air pollution
and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. N Engl J Med, 356:
447-458.
MOE-Ontario (2012). Comments of the Ministry of the Environment for
the Province of Ontario, Canada on National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492-9409. August 31, 2012.
Molenar JV; Malm WC; Johnson CE (1994). Visual air quality
simulation techniques. Atmos Environ, 28(5): 1055-1063.
NACAA (2012). Comments of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9397. August
31, 2012.
NAM et al. (2012). Comments of the National Association of
Manufacturers, Aluminum Association, American Chemistry Council,
American Coke & Coal Chemicals Institute, American Forest & Paper
Association, American Foundry Society, American Iron & Steel
Institute, American Petroleum Institute, American Wood Council, BCCA
Appeal Group, Brick Industry Association, Council of Industrial
Boiler Owners, Corn Refiners Association, Hardwood Plywood and
Veneer Association, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, Motor &
Equipment Manufacturers Association, National Association for
Surface Finishing, National Federation of Independent Business,
National Oilseed Processors Association, National Mining
Association, North American Die Casting Association, Rubber
Manufacturers Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Wisconsin
Manufacturers & Commerce on National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492-9425. August 31, 2012.
NEDA/CAP (2012). Comments of the National Environmental Development
Association's Clean Air Project on National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492-9421. August 31, 2012.
NESCAUM (2012). Comments of the Northeast States for Coordinated Air
Use Management on National Ambient Air
[[Page 3272]]
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9366. August 31, 2012.
Nevada DEP (2012). Comments of the Nevada Division of Environmental
Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9410. August 31,
2012.
New York DOH/DEC (2012). Comments of the New York State Departments
of Health and Environmental Conservation on National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9352. August 28, 2012.
NTAA (2012). Comments of the National Tribal Air Association on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9926. August 31,
2012.
Ntziachristos L; Ning Z; Geller MD; Sheesley RJ; Schauer JJ; Sioutas
C (2007). Fine, ultrafine and nanoparticle trace element
compositions near a major freeway with a heavy-duty diesel fraction.
Atmospheric Environment, 41 (2007): 5684-5696.
NMA/NCBA (2012). Comments of the National Mining Association and the
National Cattlemen's Beef Association on National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9382. August 31, 2012.
NSSGA (2012). Comments of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Association on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
9345. August 30, 2012.
O'Connor GT; Neas L; Vaughn B; Katan M; Mitchell H; Crain EF; Evans
R 3rd; Gruchalla R; Morgan W; Stout J; Adams GK; Lippmann M (2008).
Acute respiratory health effects of air pollution on children with
asthma in U.S. inner cities. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 121: 1133-1139.
Oklahoma DEQ (2012). Comments of the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
9373. August 30, 2012.
Ostro BD; Broadwin R; Lipsett, MJ (2003). Coarse particles and daily
mortality in Coachella Valley, California. In: Revised analyses of
time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special report.
Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute; pp. 199-204. Available: http://pubs.healtheffects.org/getfile.php?u=21.
Page S (2010a). Applicability of the Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Permit Requirements to New and Revised
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Memorandum from Stephen D.
Page, Director, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards to Air Division Directors and Deputies, Regions I-X. April
1, 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/psdnaaqs.pdf.
Page S (2010b). Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance
with PM2.5 NAAQS. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
March 23, 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrmemos/pm25memo.pdf.
Page S (2010c). Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division Directors.
June 29, 2010. Includes 2 attachments. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwno2.pdf.
Page S (2010d). Guidance Concerning the Implementation of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Air Division Directors.
August 23, 2010. Includes 2 attachments. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrmemos/appwso2.pdf.
Page S (2011). Guidance to Regions for Working with Tribes during
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Designations
Process. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA OAQPS to
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X. December 20, 2011. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/20120117naaqsguidance.pdf.
Page S (2012). Timely Processing of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Permits when EPA or a PSD-Delegated Air Agency
Issues the Permit. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to Regional Air
Division Directors. October 15, 2012. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/nsr/nsrmemos/timely.pdf.
Parker JD; Woodruff TJ; Basu R; Schoendorf KC (2005). Air pollution
and birth weight among term infants in California. Pediatrics, 115:
121-128.
Parker JD; Woodruff TJ (2008). Influences of study design and
location on the relationship between particulate matter air
pollution and birthweight. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol, 22: 214-227.
Penttinen P; Vallius M; Tiittanen P; Ruuskanen J; Pekkanen J (2006).
Source-specific fine particles in urban air and respiratory function
among adult asthmatics. Inhal Toxicol, 18: 191-198.
Perez L; Tobias A; Querol X; Kunzli N; Pey J; Alastuey A; Viana M;
Valero N; Gonzalez-Cabre M; Sunyer J (2008). Coarse particles from
Saharan dust and daily mortality. Epidemiology, 19: 800-807.
Peters A; Dockery DW; Muller JE; Mittleman MA (2001). Increased
particulate air pollution and the triggering of myocardial
infarction. Circulation, 103: 2810-2815.
Peters J; Avol E; Gauderman WJ; Linn WS; Navidi W; London S;
Margolis H; Rappaport E; Vora H; Gong H Jr; Thomas DC (1999). A
study of twelve southern California communities with differing
levels and types of air pollution II Effects on pulmonary function.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 159: 768-775.
Pitchford M; Maim W; Schichtel B; Kumar N; Lowenthal D; Hand J
(2007). Revised algorithm for estimating light extinction from
IMPROVE particle speciation data. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 57: 1326-
36.
Pitchford M (2010). Assessment of the Use of Speciated
PM2.5 Mass-Calculated Light Extinction as a Secondary PM
NAAQS Indicator of Visibility. Memorandum to PM NAAQS review docket.
November 17, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0337.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Pope CA 3rd; Dockery DW (1992). Acute health effects of
PM10 pollution on symptomatic and asymptomatic children.
Am Rev Respir Dis, 145(5): 1123-8.
Pope CA 3rd; Thun MJ; Namboodiri MM; Dockery DW; Evans JS; Speizer
FE; Heath CW (1995). Particulate air pollution as a predictor of
mortality in a prospective study of U.S. adults. Am J Respir Crit
Care Med, 151: 669-674.
Pope CA 3rd; Burnett RT; Thun MJ; Calle EE; Krewski D; Ito K;
Thurston GD (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and
long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA, 287:
1132-1141.
Pope CA; Burnett RT (2007). Commentary: Confounding in Air Pollution
Epidemiology: The Broader Context. Epidemiology, 18: 424-426.
Pryor SC (1996). Assessing public perception of visibility for
standard setting exercises. Atmos Environ, 30: 2705-2716.
PSR (2012). Comments on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Submitted on behalf of Physicians
for Social Responsibility by Alan H. Lockwood, Andrew S. Kanter,
Catherine Thomasson, and Barbara Gottlieb. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492-5763. August 13, 2012.
Puett RC; Schwartz J; Hart JE; Yanosky JD; Speizer FE; Suh H;
Paciorek CJ; Neas LM; Laden F (2008). Chronic particulate exposure,
mortality, and coronary heart disease in the nurses' health study.
Am J Epidemiol, 168: 1161-1168.
Rabinovitch N; Zhang LN; Murphy JR; Vedal S; Dutton SJ; Gelfand EW
(2004). Effects of wintertime ambient air pollutants on asthma
exacerbations in urban minority children with moderate to severe
disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol, 114: 1131-1137.
Raizenne M; Neas LM; Damokosh AI; Dockery DW; Spengler JD; Koutrakis
P; Ware JH; Speizer FE (1996). Health effects of acid aerosols on
North American children: Pulmonary function. Environ Health
Perspect, 104: 506-514.
Rajan P, Schmidt M, Hassett-Sipple B (2011). PM2.5
Distributional Statistical Analyses. Memorandum to PM NAAQS review
docket. April 7, 2011. Docket ID number
[[Page 3273]]
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0333. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Rom W (2012). Letter from Dr. William N. Rom and more than 350
doctors, nurses, scientists, and public health and medical
professionals to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson providing
comments on the proposed revision of the PM NAAQS, August 31, 2012.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9755. August 31, 2012.
Roosli M; Kunzli N; Braun-Farlander C; Egger M (2005). Years of life
lost attributable to air pollution in Switzerland: Dynamic exposure-
response model. Int J Epidemiol, 34:1029-1035.
Ross Z; Jerrertt M; Ito K; Tempalski B; Thurston GD (2007). A land
use regression for predicting fine particulate matter concentrations
in the New York City region. Atmospheric Environment 41 (2007) 2255-
2269.
Rothman, KJ; Greenland S., eds. (1998). Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed.
Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
Royall, RM (1997). Statistical Evidence: A Likelihood Paradigm.
London: Chapman and Hall.
Russell, A (2009). Letter from the Clean Air Science Advisory
Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring and Methods Subcommittee
(AAMMS) to the Honorable Lisa P, Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA.
Subject: Consultation on Monitoring Issues Related to the NAAQS for
Particulate Matter. March 6, 2009. EPA-CASAC-09-006. Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0088. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
C446E60A1156E2DF8525757100780CF4/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-006-
unsigned.pdf.
Russell, A; Samet, J.M. (2010b). Letter from the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring and Methods
Subcommittee (AAMMS) to the Honorable Lisa P, Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of the ``Near-road Guidance
Document-Outline'' and ``Near-road Monitoring Pilot Study Objectives
and Approach.'' November 24, 2010. EPA-CASAC-11-001. Docket ID
number. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-XXXX Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
ACD1BD26412312DC852577E500591B37/$File/EPA-CASAC-11-001-
unsigned.pdf.
Savitz, DA; Tolo KA; Poole C (1994). Statistical significance
testing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, 1970-1990. American
Journal of Epidemiology 139:1047-1052.
Samet J (2009a). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Consultation on EPA's Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for
Health Risk and Exposure Assessment. May 21, 2009. EPA-CASAC-09-009.
Docket ID number. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0024. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
723FE644C5D758DF852575BD00763A32/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-009-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet, J (2009b). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Consultation on EPA's Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for
Urban Visibility Impact Assessment. EPA-CASAC-09-010. Docket ID
number. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0026. May 21, 2009. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
0F63D7995F5850D5852575BD0077869C/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-010-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2009c). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of Risk Assessment to Support the
Review of the Particulate Matter (PM) Primary National Ambient Air
Quality Standards--External Review Draft (September 2009). November
24, 2009. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0065. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
BC1ECC5D539EF72385257678006D5754/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-003-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2009d). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of Particulate Matter Urban-Focused
Visibility Assessment (External Review Draft, September 2009).
November 24, 2009. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0064.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
15872217938041F685257678006A26E3/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-002-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2009e). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of EPA's Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter--First External Review Draft
(December 2008). May 21, 2009. EPA-CASAC-09-008. Docket ID number
EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0120. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/
73ACCA834AB44A10852575BD0064346B/$File/EPA-CASAC-09-008-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2009f). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of EPA's Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter--Second External Review Draft
(July 2009). November 24, 2009. Docket ID number. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-
0517-0121. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/151B1F83B023145585257678006836B9/
$File/EPA-CASAC-10-001-unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2010a). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of Quantitative Health Risk
Assessment for Particulate Matter--Second External Review Draft
(February 2010). April 15, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492-0109. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
BC4F6E77B6385155852577070002F09F/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-008-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2010b). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of Particulate Matter Urban-
Focused Visibility Assessment--Second External Review Draft (January
2010). April 20, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0110.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
0D5CB76AFE7FA77C8525770D004EED55/$File/EPA-CASAC-10-009-
unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2010c). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of Policy Assessment for the
Review of the PM NAAQS--First External Review Draft (March 2010).
May 17, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0113. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/E504EE3276D87A9E8525772700647AFB/
$File/EPA-CASAC-10-011-unsigned.pdf.
Samet J (2010d). Letter from Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Chair, Clean Air
Scientific Advisory Committee to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. CASAC Review of Policy Assessment for the
Review of the PM NAAQS--Second External Review Draft (June 2010).
September 10, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0256.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/CCF9F4C0500C500F8525779D0073C593/
$File/EPA-CASAC-10-015-unsigned.pdf.
Sarnat J; Marmur A; Klein M; Kim E; Russell AG; Sarnat SE;
Mulholland JA; Hopke PK; Tolbert PE (2008). Fine particle sources
and cardiorespiratory morbidity: An application of chemical mass
balance and factor analytical source-apportionment methods. Environ
Health Perspect, 116: 459-466.
Sato M; Hansen J; Koch D; Lucis A; Ruedy R; Dubovik O; Holben B;
Chin M; Novakov T (2003). Global atmospheric black carbon inferred
from AAEONET. Presented at Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science.
Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW (2009). Overadjustment bias and
unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology 20(4):
488-495.
Schmidt M; Hassett-Sipple B; Rajan P (2010) PM2.5 Air
Quality Analyses. Memorandum for the PM NAAQS Review (Docket EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492). July 22, 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
[[Page 3274]]
Schmidt M (2011). PM2.5 Air Quality Analyses--Update:
Memorandum to the PM NAAQS Review Docket. April 15, 2011. Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0340. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Schmidt M (2012a). Sensitivity Analysis of Long-term Mean
PM2.5 Concentrations for Selected Long-term Exposure
Epidemiological Studies. Memorandum to PM NAAQS Review Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492. December 2012. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Schmidt M (2012b). Evaluation of the PM2.5 Collocated
PM10 Data Substitution Routine, 2009-2011. Memorandum to
PM NAAQS Review Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492, December 2012.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Schneiderman ET; Myers MJ; Wilson L; Biden JR; King G; Kilmartin PF;
Sorrell WH (2012). Comments of the State Attorneys General of New
York, Delaware, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont on National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9385. August 31, 2012.
Schwartz J; Dockery DW; Neas LM (1996). Is daily mortality
associated specifically with fine particles? J Air Waste Manage
Assoc, 46: 927-939.
Schwartz J; Coull B; Laden F; Ryan L (2008). The effect of dose and
timing of dose on the association between airborne particles and
survival. Environ Health Perspect, 116: 64-69.
Seitz J (1991). New Source Review Program Transitional Guidance.
Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Available: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/trnsguid.pdf.
Seitz J (1997). Memorandum on the Interim Implementation of New
Source Review Requirements for PM2.5. Memorandum from
John S. Seitz, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. EPA Reference OZPMRH-2-97. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/pm25.pdf.
Sheppard L; Levy D; Norris G; Larson TV; Koenig JQ (2003). Effects
of ambient air pollution and nonelderly asthma hospital admissions
in Seattle, Washington, 1987-1994. Epidemiology, 10: 23-30.
Slaughter JC; Kim E; Sheppard L; Sullivan JH; Larson TV; Claiborn C
(2005). Association between particulate matter and emergency room
visits, hospital admissions and mortality in Spokane, Washington. J
Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 15: 153-159.
Smith A (2009). Comments to CASAC on Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban
Visibility Impact Assessment. Anne E. Smith, CRA International.
Washington, DC. March 24, 2009. Prepared at the request of the
Utility Air Regulatory Group. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
0015, Attachment I.
Smith AE; Howell S (2009). An assessment of the robustness of visual
air quality preference study results. CRA International. Washington,
DC. http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
B55911DF9796E5E385257592006FB737/$File/
CRA+VAQ+Pref+Robustness+Study+3+30+09+final.pdf.
South Carolina DHEC (2012). Comments of the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control on National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9469. August 31, 2012.
South Dakota DENR (2012). Comments of the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources on National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492-9360. August 31, 2012.
Southern Company (2012). Comments of the Southern Company on
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9365. August 31,
2012.
Stanojevic S; Wade A; Stocks J; Hankinson J; Coates AL; Pan H;
Rosenthal M; Corey M; Lebecque P; Cole TJ (2008). Reference ranges
for spirometry across all ages: a new approach. Am J Respir Crit
Care Med. 177: 253-260.
Stratus Consulting (2009). Review of Urban Visibility Public
Preference Studies: Final Report. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492-0042.
Texas CEQ (2012). Comments of the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate
Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9522. August
31, 2012.
Thomas D, Stram D, Dwyer J (1993). Exposure measurement error:
influence on exposure-disease. Relationships and methods of
correction. Annu Rev Public Health, 14: 69-93.
Thurston G; Ito K; Mar T; Christensen WF; Eatough DJ; Henry RC; Kim
E; Laden F; Lall R; Larson TV; Liu H; Neas L; Pinto J; Stolzel M;
Suh H; Hopke PK (2005). Results and implications of the workshop on
the source apportionment of PM health effects. Epidemiology, 16:
S134-S135.
UARG (2009). Comments of the Utility Air Resources Group on the
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter--Second
External Review Draft. Docket No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0077. October
13, 2009.
UARG (2012). Comments of the Utility Air Resources Group on National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9483. August 31, 2012.
Urban Air Initiative (2012). Comments on National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule. Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9538. August 30, 2012.
U.S. EPA (1996). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/
600/P-95/001. April 1996. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_cd.html.
U.S. EPA (1997). Guidance for Network Design and Optimum Site
Exposure for PM2.5 and PM10. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; EPA-454/R-99-022.
December 1997. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/network/r-99-022.pdf.
U.S. EPA (1999). Guideline on Data Handling Conventions for the PM
NAAQS; EPA-454/R-99-008.
U.S. EPA (2003). Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standard, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
Report No. EPA-454/B-03-004. September 2003. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2004a). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter.
National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; Report No. EPA/600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/
002bF. October 2004. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_cd.html.
U.S. EPA (2004b). The Particle Pollution Report: Current
Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Report No. EPA 454-R-04-002. December 2004. Available: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrnd04/pmreport03/report_2405.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific
and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper. Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Report
No. EPA-452/R-05-005a. December 2005. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html.
U.S. EPA (2006a). Provisional Assessment of Recent Studies on Health
Effects of Particulate Matter Exposure. National Center for
Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Report
No. EPA 600/R-06/063. July 2006. Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=151826.
U.S. EPA (2006b). Air Quality Criteria for Lead--Final Report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/144aF-
bF, October 2006. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_cr_cd.html.
U.S. EPA (2006c). Report on Air Quality in Nonattainment Areas for
2003-2005 Covering Ozone, Particulate Matter, Carbon Monoxide,
Sulfur Dioxide,
[[Page 3275]]
Nitrogen Dioxide, and Lead: Technical Summary. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. November 2006, revised February 14, 2007.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pdfs/20070214_aq_na_2003-2005.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2007a). Draft Integrated Review Plan for the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. National
Center for Environmental Assessment and Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. Report No. EPA 452/P-08-006. October
2007. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html.
U.S. EPA (2007b). Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment
Guidance, Analytical Techniques for Technical Assessments of Ambient
Air Monitoring Networks. EPA 454/d-07-001. February 2007. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/pm25/datamang/network-assessment-guidance.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2008a). Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. National Center for
Environmental Assessment and Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. Report No. EPA 452/R-08-004. March 2008. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html.
U.S. EPA (2008b). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter: First External Review Draft. National Center for
Environmental Assessment--RTP Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139
and 139A. December 2008. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html.
U.S. EPA (2008c). U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for
Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur Ecological Criteria (Final Report).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/
082F, December 2008. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_isi.html.
U.S. EPA (2008d). Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Health
Research: Summary of April 16-17, 2008. Workshop to Discuss Key
Issues. December 2008. EPA-452/S-08-001. Available: http://epa.gov/airscience/pdf/FINAL-April-2008-AQ-Health-Research-Workshop-Summary-Dec-2008.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2008e). Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of
Nitrogen--Health Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/071. July 2008.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/nox/s_nox_cr_isi.html.
U.S. EPA (2008f). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Sulfur
Oxides--Health Criteria (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/047F, 2008.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/so2/s_so2_cr_isa.html.
U.S. EPA (2009a). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter: Final Report. National Center for Environmental Assessment--
RTP Division, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139F. December 2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html.
U.S. EPA (2009b). Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate
Matter: Second External Review Draft. National Center for
Environmental Assessment--RTP Division, Office of Research and
Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA/600/R-08/139B. July
2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html.
U.S. EPA (2009c). Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure
Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-
452/P-09-002. February 2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html.
U.S. EPA (2009d). Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban Visibility Impact
Assessment. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-
452/P-09-001. February 2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pd.html.
U.S. EPA (2009e). Risk Assessment to Support the Review of the PM
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards--External Review
Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-
452/P-09-006. September 2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html.
U.S. EPA (2009f). Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility
Assessment--External Review Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/P-09-005. September 2009. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html.
U.S. EPA (2009g). Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--
Preliminary Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA-452/P-09-007. September 2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html.
U.S. EPA (2009h). Risk and Exposure Assessment for Review of the
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of
Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur. (Final Report). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-452/R-09-008a.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_rea.html.
U.S. EPA (2010a). Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for
Particulate Matter--Final Report. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA-452/R-10-005. June 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html.
U.S. EPA (2010b). Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility
Assessment--Final Report. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA-452/R-10-004. July 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html.
U.S. EPA (2010c). Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--First
External Review Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA 452/P-10-003. March 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html.
U.S. EPA (2010d). Quantitative Risk Assessment for Particulate
Matter--Second External Review Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/P-10-001. February 2010. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html.
U.S. EPA (2010e). Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility
Assessment--Second External Review Draft. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-452/P-10-002. January 2010.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html.
U.S. EPA (2010f). Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Second
External Review Draft. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
EPA 452/P-10-007. June 2010. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html.
U.S. EPA (2010h). Risk and Exposure Assessment for Review of the
Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of
Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. EPA 452/R-09-008a/b. September 2009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_rea.html.
U.S. EPA (2010i). White Paper regarding Draft Near-road Guidance
Document--
[[Page 3276]]
Outline and Draft Near-road Monitoring Pilot Study Objectives &
Approach. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. August
24. 1010. Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/0/
9E0F3E9D727323C18525778900596432/$File/
Review+Document+for+Sept.+29+-+30,+2010+AAMMS+Meeting.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2010j). Transportation Conformity Guidance for
Quantitative Hot-spot Analyses in PM2.5 and
PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. U.S. EPA Office
of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional
Programs Division. December 2010. EPA-420-B-10-040. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy/420b10040.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2010k). Integrated Science Assessment for Carbon Monoxide
(Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/R-09/019F, January 2010. Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=218686.
U.S. EPA (2011a). Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA 452/R-11-003. April 2011.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html.
U.S. EPA (2011b). Policy Assessment for the Review of the Secondary
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and
Oxides of Sulfur. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-
452/R-11-005a, b. February 2011. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/no2so2sec/cr_pa.html.
U.S. EPA (2011c). Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit for the Avenal Energy
Project. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 2011.
U.S. EPA (2011d). Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related
Photochemical Oxidants (Second External Review Draft). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-10/076B,
2011. September 2011. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_2008_isa.html.
U.S. EPA (2012a). Responses to Significant Comments on the 2012
Proposed Rule on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Particulate Matter (June 29, 2012; 77 FR 38890). Docket Number EPA-
HQ-OAR-2007-0492. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December
2012. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html.
U.S. EPA (2012b). Provisional Assessment of Recent Studies on Health
Effects of Particulate Matter Exposure. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development, National
Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/R-12/056A. December
2012.
U.S. EPA (2012c). Report to Congress on Black Carbon. Office of Air
and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-
450/R-12-001. March 2012. Available: http://www.epa.gov/blackcarbon/.
U.S. EPA (2012d). Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying the
Petition for Objection to Permit for CF&I Steel, L.P. (EVRAZ Rocky
Mountain Steel). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May 31, 2012.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/evraz_response2011.pdf.
U.S. EPA (2012e). Draft Guidance to Implement Requirements for the
Treatment of Air Quality Monitoring Data Influenced by Exceptional
Events. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 2012. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/analysis/exevents.htm.
Vandenberg J (2009). CASAC Review of Integrated Science Assessment
for Particulate Matter: Second External Review Draft. Memorandum
from John Vandenberg, Director, National Center for Environmental
Assessment, Research Triangle Park Division, U.S. EPA to Holly
Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. August
5, 2009. Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0125.
Wegman L (2011). Transmittal of Policy Assessment for the Review of
the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards--Final
Document. Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Director, Health and
Environmental Impacts Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA to Holly Stallworth, Designated Federal Officer,
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, EPA Science Advisory Board
Staff Office. April 20, 2011. Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
0338.
WESTAR (2012). Comments of the Western States Air Resources Council
on National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Proposed Rule. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-9374. August 31,
2012.
WHO (2008). Part 1: Guidance Document on Characterizing and
Communicating Uncertainty in Exposure Assessment, Harmonization
Project Document No. 6. Published under joint sponsorship of the
World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization and
the United Nations Environment Programme. WHO Press, World Health
Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.
Woodruff TJ; Darrow LA; Parker JD (2008). Air pollution and
postneonatal infant mortality in the United States, 1999-2002.
Environ Health Perspect, 116: 110-115.
Yanosky JD; Paciorek CJ; Suh HH (2009). Predicting Chronic Fine and
Coarse Particulate Exposures Using Spatiotemporal Models for the
Northeastern and Midwestern United States. EHP, 117(4): 522-529.
Zanobetti A; Schwartz J (2009). The effect of fine and coarse
particulate air pollution on mortality: A national analysis. Environ
Health Perspect, 117: 898-903.
Zanobetti A. (2009). Personal communication with Dr. Antonella
Zanobetti; email to Jason Sacks, U.S. EPA, NCEA. June 1, 2009.
Docket No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0064.
Zeger S; Dominici F; McDermott A; Samet J (2008). Mortality in the
Medicare population and chronic exposure to fine particulate air
pollution in urban centers (2000-2005). Environ Health Perspect,
116: 1614.
Zwack LM; Paciorek CJ; Spengler JD; Levy JI (2011). Characterizing
local traffic contributions to particulate air pollution in street
canyons using mobile monitoring techniques. Atomspheric Environment
45 (2011), 2507-2514.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 50
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations.
40 CFR Part 53
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 58
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 14, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
[[Page 3277]]
PART 50--NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
0
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 50.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.3 Reference conditions.
All measurements of air quality that are expressed as mass per unit
volume (e.g., micrograms per cubic meter) other than for particulate
matter (PM2.5) standards contained in Sec. Sec. 50.7,
50.13, and 50.18, and lead standards contained in Sec. 50.16 shall be
corrected to a reference temperature of 25 (deg) C and a reference
pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury (1,013.2 millibars).
Measurements of PM2.5 for purposes of comparison to the
standards contained in Sec. Sec. 50.7, 50.13, and 50.18, and of lead
for purposes of comparison to the standards contained in Sec. 50.16
shall be reported based on actual ambient air volume measured at the
actual ambient temperature and pressure at the monitoring site during
the measurement period.
0
3. Table 1 in Sec. 50.14(c)(2)(vi) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 50.14 Treatment of air quality monitoring data influenced by
exceptional events.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
Table 1--Special Schedules for Exceptional Event Flagging and Documentation Submission for Data To Be Used in
Initial Designations for New or Revised NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality data Event flagging &
NAAQS pollutant/ standard/(level)/ collected for calendar initial description Detailed documentation
promulgation date year deadline submission deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5/24-Hr Standard (35 [mu]g/m\3\) 2004-2006.............. October 1, 2007........ April 15, 2008.
Promulgated October 17, 2006.
Ozone/8-Hr Standard (0.075 ppm) 2005-2007.............. June 18, 2009.......... June 18, 2009.
Promulgated March 12, 2008. 2008................... June 18, 2009.......... June 18, 2009.
2009................... 60 days after the end 60 days after the end
of the calendar of the calendar
quarter in which the quarter in which the
event occurred or event occurred or
February 5, 2010, February 5, 2010,
whichever date occurs whichever date occurs
first.. first.
NO2/1-Hr Standard (100 ppb) 2008................... July 1, 2010........... January 22, 2011.
Promulgated February 9, 2010. 2009................... July 1, 2010 \a\....... January 22, 2011.
2010................... April 1, 2011.......... July 1, 2011.
SO2/1-Hr Standard (75 ppb) 2008................... October 1, 2010........ June 1, 2011.
Promulgated June 22, 2010. 2009................... October 1, 2010........ June 1, 2011.
2010................... June 1, 2011........... June 1, 2011.
2011................... 60 days after the end 60 days after the end
of the calendar of the calendar
quarter in which the quarter in which the
event occurred or event occurred or
March 31, 2012, March 31, 2012,
whichever date occurs whichever date occurs
first. first.
PM2.5/Primary Annual Standard (12 2010 and 2011.......... July 1, 2013........... December 12, 2013.
[mu]g/m\3\) Promulgated December 14, 2012................... July 1, 2013 \a\....... December 12, 2013.
2012. 2013................... July 1, 2014 \a\....... August 1, 2014.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This date is the same as the general schedule in 40 CFR 50.14.
Note: The table of revised deadlines only applies to data EPA will use to establish the initial area
designations for new or revised NAAQS. The general schedule applies for all other purposes, most notably, for
data used by the EPA for redesignations to attainment.
* * * * *
0
4. Add Sec. 50.18 to read as follows:
Sec. 50.18 National primary ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5.
(a) The national primary ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5 are 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
annual arithmetic mean concentration and 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour average
concentration measured in the ambient air as PM2.5
(particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal
2.5 micrometers) by either:
(1) A reference method based on appendix L to this part and
designated in accordance with part 53 of this chapter; or
(2) An equivalent method designated in accordance with part 53 of
this chapter.
(b) The primary annual PM2.5 standard is met when the
annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with
appendix N of this part, is less than or equal to 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
(c) The primary 24-hour PM2.5 standard is met when the
98th percentile 24-hour concentration, as determined in accordance with
appendix N of this part, is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
0
5. Appendix N to part 50 is revised to read as follows:
Appendix N to Part 50--Interpretation of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for PM2.5
1.0 General
(a) This appendix explains the data handling conventions and
computations necessary for determining when the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 are met, specifically
the primary and secondary annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
specified in Sec. 50.7, 50.13, and 50.18. PM2.5 is
defined, in general terms, as particles with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers. PM2.5
mass concentrations are measured in the ambient air by a Federal
Reference Method (FRM) based on appendix L of this part, as
applicable, and designated in accordance with part 53 of this
chapter; or by a Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) designated in
accordance with part 53 of this chapter; or by an Approved Regional
Method (ARM) designated in accordance with part 58 of this chapter.
Only those FRM, FEM, and ARM measurements that are derived in
accordance with part 58 of this chapter (i.e., that are deemed
``suitable'') shall be used in comparisons with the PM2.5
NAAQS. The data handling and computation procedures to be used to
construct annual and 24-hour
[[Page 3278]]
NAAQS metrics from reported PM2.5 mass concentrations,
and the associated instructions for comparing these calculated
metrics to the levels of the PM2.5 NAAQS, are specified
in sections 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0 of this appendix.
(b) Decisions to exclude, retain, or make adjustments to the
data affected by exceptional events, including natural events, are
made according to the requirements and process deadlines specified
in Sec. Sec. 50.1, 50.14 and 51.930 of this chapter.
(c) The terms used in this appendix are defined as follows:
Annual mean refers to a weighted arithmetic mean, based on
quarterly means, as defined in section 4.4 of this appendix.
The Air Quality System (AQS) is EPA's official repository of
ambient air data.
Collocated monitors refers to two or more air measurement
instruments for the same parameter (e.g., PM2.5 mass)
operated at the same site location, and whose placement is
consistent with Sec. 53.1 of this chapter. For purposes of
considering a combined site record in this appendix, when two or
more monitors are operated at the same site, one monitor is
designated as the ``primary'' monitor with any additional monitors
designated as ``collocated.'' It is implicit in these appendix
procedures that the primary monitor and collocated monitor(s) are
all deemed suitable for the applicable NAAQS comparison; however, it
is not a requirement that the primary and monitors utilize the same
specific sampling and analysis method.
Combined site data record is the data set used for performing
calculations in appendix N. It represents data for the primary
monitors augmented with data from collocated monitors according to
the procedure specified in section 3.0(d) of this appendix.
Creditable samples are daily values in the combined site record
that are given credit for data completeness. The number of
creditable samples (cn) for a given year also governs which value in
the sorted series of daily values represents the 98th percentile for
that year. Creditable samples include daily values collected on
scheduled sampling days and valid make-up samples taken for missed
or invalidated samples on scheduled sampling days.
Daily values refer to the 24-hour average concentrations of
PM2.5 mass measured (or averaged from hourly measurements
in AQS) from midnight to midnight (local standard time) from
suitable monitors.
Data substitution tests are diagnostic evaluations performed on
an annual PM2.5 NAAQS design value (DV) or a 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS DV to determine if those metrics, which are
judged to be based on incomplete data in accordance with 4.1(b) or
4.2(b) of this appendix shall nevertheless be deemed valid for NAAQS
comparisons, or alternatively, shall still be considered incomplete
and not valid for NAAQS comparisons. There are two data substitution
tests, the ``minimum quarterly value'' test and the ``maximum
quarterly value'' test. Design values (DVs) are the 3-year average
NAAQS metrics that are compared to the NAAQS levels to determine
when a monitoring site meets or does not meet the NAAQS, calculated
as shown in section 4. There are two separate DVs specified in this
appendix:
(1) The 3-year average of PM2.5 annual mean mass
concentrations for each eligible monitoring site is referred to as
the ``annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV''.
(2) The 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average
PM2.5 mass concentration values recorded at each eligible
monitoring site is referred to as the ``24-hour (or daily) PM2.5
NAAQS DV''.
Eligible sites are monitoring stations that meet the criteria
specified in Sec. 58.11 and Sec. 58.30 of this chapter, and thus
are approved for comparison to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
For the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, all site locations that meet
the criteria specified in Sec. 58.11 are approved (i.e., eligible)
for NAAQS comparisons.
Extra samples are non-creditable samples. They are daily values
that do not occur on scheduled sampling days and that cannot be used
as make-up samples for missed or invalidated scheduled samples.
Extra samples are used in mean calculations and are included in the
series of all daily values subject to selection as a 98th percentile
value, but are not used to determine which value in the sorted list
represents the 98th percentile.
Make-up samples are samples collected to take the place of
missed or invalidated required scheduled samples. Make-up samples
can be made by either the primary or the collocated monitor. Make-up
samples are either taken before the next required sampling day or
exactly one week after the missed (or voided) sampling day.
The maximum quarterly value data substitution test substitutes
actual ``high'' reported daily PM2.5 values from the same
site (specifically, the highest reported non-excluded quarterly
value(s) (year non-specific) contained in the combined site record
for the evaluated 3-year period) for missing daily values.
The minimum quarterly value data substitution test substitutes
actual ``low'' reported daily PM2.5 values from the same
site (specifically, the lowest reported quarterly value(s) (year
non-specific) contained in the combined site record for the
evaluated 3-year period) for missing daily values.
98th percentile is the smallest daily value out of a year of
PM2.5 mass monitoring data below which no more than 98
percent of all daily values fall using the ranking and selection
method specified in section 4.5(a) of this appendix.
Primary monitors are suitable monitors designated by a state or
local agency in their annual network plan (and in AQS) as the
default data source for creating a combined site record for purposes
of NAAQS comparisons. If there is only one suitable monitor at a
particular site location, then it is presumed to be a primary
monitor.
Quarter refers to a calendar quarter (e.g., January through
March).
Quarterly data capture rate is the percentage of scheduled
samples in a calendar quarter that have corresponding valid reported
sample values. Quarterly data capture rates are specifically
calculated as the number of creditable samples for the quarter
divided by the number of scheduled samples for the quarter, the
result then multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer.
Scheduled PM2.5 samples refers to those reported daily values
which are consistent with the required sampling frequency (per Sec.
58.12 of this chapter) for the primary monitor, or those that meet
the special exception noted in section 3.0(e) of this appendix.
Seasonal sampling is the practice of collecting data at a
reduced frequency during a season of expected low concentrations.
Suitable monitors are instruments that use sampling and analysis
methods approved for NAAQS comparisons. For the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, suitable monitors include all FRMs, and all
FEMs/ARMs except those specific continuous FEMs/ARMs disqualified by
a particular monitoring agency network in accordance with Sec.
58.10(b)(13) and approved by the EPA Regional Administrator per
Sec. 58.11(e) of this chapter.
Test design values (TDV) are numerical values that used in the
data substitution tests described in sections 4.1(c)(i), 4.1(c)(ii)
and 4.2(c)(i) of this appendix to determine if the PM2.5
NAAQS DV with incomplete data are judged to be valid for NAAQS
comparisons. There are two TDVs: TDVmin to determine if
the NAAQS is not met and is used in the ``minimum quarterly value''
data substitution test and TDVmax to determine if the
NAAQS is met and is used in the ``maximum quarterly value'' data
substitution test. These TDV's are derived by substituting
historically low or historically high daily concentration values for
missing data in an incomplete year(s).
Year refers to a calendar year.
2.0 Monitoring Considerations
(a) Section 58.30 of this chapter provides special
considerations for data comparisons to the annual PM2.5
NAAQS.
(b) Monitors meeting the network technical requirements detailed
in Sec. 58.11 of this chapter are suitable for comparison with the
NAAQS for PM2.5.
(c) Section 58.12 of this chapter specifies the required minimum
frequency of sampling for PM2.5. Exceptions to the
specified sampling frequencies, such as seasonal sampling, are
subject to the approval of the EPA Regional Administrator and must
be documented in the state or local agency Annual Monitoring Network
Plan as required in Sec. 58.10 of this chapter and also in AQS.
3.0 Requirements for Data Use and Data Reporting for Comparisons With
the NAAQS for PM2.5
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this appendix, all valid
FRM/FEM/ARM PM2.5 mass concentration data produced by
suitable monitors that are required to be submitted to AQS, or
otherwise available to EPA, meeting the requirements of part 58 of
this chapter including appendices A, C, and E shall be used in the
DV calculations. Generally, EPA will only use such data if they have
been certified by the reporting organization (as prescribed by Sec.
58.15 of this chapter); however, data not certified by the
[[Page 3279]]
reporting organization can nevertheless be used, if the deadline for
certification has passed and EPA judges the data to be complete and
accurate.
(b) PM2.5 mass concentration data (typically
collected hourly for continuous instruments and daily for filter-
based instruments) shall be reported to AQS in micrograms per cubic
meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to at least one decimal place. If
concentrations are reported to one decimal place, additional digits
to the right of the tenths decimal place shall be truncated. If
concentrations are reported to AQS with more than one decimal place,
AQS will truncate the value to one decimal place for NAAQS usage
(i.e., for implementing the procedures in this appendix). In
situations where suitable PM2.5 data are available to EPA
but not reported to AQS, the same truncation protocol shall be
applied to that data. In situations where PM2.5 mass data
are submitted to AQS, or are otherwise available, with less
precision than specified above, these data shall nevertheless still
be deemed appropriate for NAAQS usage.
(c) Twenty-four-hour average concentrations will be computed in
AQS from submitted hourly PM2.5 concentration data for
each corresponding day of the year and the result will be stored in
the first, or start, hour (i.e., midnight, hour `0') of the 24-hour
period. A 24-hour average concentration shall be considered valid if
at least 75 percent of the hourly averages (i.e., 18 hourly values)
for the 24-hour period are available. In the event that less than
all 24 hourly average concentrations are available (i.e., less than
24, but at least 18), the 24-hour average concentration shall be
computed on the basis of the hours available using the number of
available hours within the 24-hour period as the divisor (e.g., 19,
if 19 hourly values are available). Twenty-four-hour periods with
seven or more missing hours shall also be considered valid if, after
substituting zero for all missing hourly concentrations, the
resulting 24-hour average daily value is greater than the level of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (i.e., greater than or equal to
35.5 [mu]g/m\3\). Twenty-four hour average PM2.5 mass
concentrations that are averaged in AQS from hourly values will be
truncated to one decimal place, consistent with the data handling
procedure for the reported hourly (and also 24-hour filter-based)
data.
(d) All calculations shown in this appendix shall be implemented
on a site-level basis. Site level concentration data shall be
processed as follows:
(1) The default dataset for PM2.5 mass concentrations
for a site shall consist of the measured concentrations recorded
from the designated primary monitor(s). All daily values produced by
the primary monitor are considered part of the site record; this
includes all creditable samples and all extra samples.
(2) Data for the primary monitors shall be augmented as much as
possible with data from collocated monitors. If a valid daily value
is not produced by the primary monitor for a particular day
(scheduled or otherwise), but a value is available from a collocated
monitor, then that collocated value shall be considered part of the
combined site data record. If more than one collocated daily value
is available, the average of those valid collocated values shall be
used as the daily value. The data record resulting from this
procedure is referred to as the ``combined site data record.''
(e) All daily values in a combined site data record are used in
the calculations specified in this appendix; however, not all daily
values are given credit towards data completeness requirements. Only
creditable samples are given credit for data completeness.
Creditable samples include daily values in the combined site record
that are collected on scheduled sampling days and valid make-up
samples taken for missed or invalidated samples on scheduled
sampling days. Days are considered scheduled according to the
required sampling frequency of the designated primary monitor with
one exception. The exception is, if a collocated continuous FEM/ARM
monitor has a more intensive sampling frequency than the primary FRM
monitor, then samples contributed to the combined site record from
that continuous FEM/ARM monitor are always considered scheduled and,
hence, also creditable. Daily values in the combined site data
record that are reported for nonscheduled days, but that are not
valid make-up samples are referred to as extra samples.
4.0 Comparisons With the Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
4.1 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
(a) The primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS DV is less than or equal to 12.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ at each eligible monitoring site. The secondary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
DV is less than or equal to 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ at each eligible
monitoring site.
(b) Three years of valid annual means are required to produce a
valid annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV. A year meets data
completeness requirements when quarterly data capture rates for all
four quarters are at least 75 percent. However, years with at least
11 creditable samples in each quarter shall also be considered valid
if the resulting annual mean or resulting annual PM2.5
NAAQS DV (rounded according to the conventions of section 4.3 of
this appendix) is greater than the level of the applicable primary
or secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Furthermore, where the
explicit 75 percent data capture and/or 11 sample minimum
requirements are not met, the 3-year annual PM2.5 NAAQS
DV shall still be considered valid if it passes at least one of the
two data substitution tests stipulated below.
(c) In the case of one, two, or three years that do not meet the
completeness requirements of section 4.1(b) of this appendix and
thus would normally not be useable for the calculation of a valid
annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV, the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
DV shall nevertheless be considered valid if one of the test
conditions specified in sections 4.1(c)(i) and 4.1(c)(ii) of this
appendix is met.
(i) An annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV that is above the level
of the NAAQS can be validated if it passes the minimum quarterly
value data substitution test. This type of data substitution is
permitted only if there are at least 30 days across the three
quarters of the three years under consideration (e.g., collectively,
quarter 1 of year 1, quarter 1 of year 2 and quarter 1 of year 3)
from which to select the quarter-specific low value. Data
substitution will be performed in all quarter periods that have less
than 11 creditable samples.
Procedure: Identify for each deficient quarter (i.e., those with
less than 11 creditable samples) the lowest reported daily value for
that quarter, looking across those three months of all three years
under consideration. If after substituting the lowest reported daily
value for a quarter for (11- cn) daily values in the matching
deficient quarter(s) (i.e., to bring the creditable number for those
quarters up to 11), the procedure yields a recalculated annual
PM2.5 NAAQS test DV (TDVmin) that is greater
than the level of the standard, then the annual PM2.5
NAAQS DV is deemed to have passed the diagnostic test and is valid,
and the annual PM2.5 NAAQS is deemed to have been
violated in that 3-year period.
(ii) An annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV that is equal to or
below the level of the NAAQS can be validated if it passes the
maximum quarterly value data substitution test. This type of data
substitution is permitted only if there is at least 50 percent data
capture in each quarter that is deficient of 75 percent data capture
in each of the three years under consideration. Data substitution
will be performed in all quarter periods that have less than 75
percent data capture but at least 50 percent data capture. If any
quarter has less than 50 percent data capture then this substitution
test cannot be used.
Procedure: Identify for each deficient quarter (i.e., those with
less than 75 percent but at least 50 percent data capture) the
highest reported daily value for that quarter, excluding state-
flagged data affected by exceptional events which have been approved
for exclusion by the Administrator, looking across those three
quarters of all three years under consideration. If after
substituting the highest reported daily PM2.5 value for a
quarter for all missing daily data in the matching deficient
quarter(s) (i.e., to make those quarters 100 percent complete), the
procedure yields a recalculated annual PM2.5 NAAQS test
DV (TDVmax) that is less than or equal to the level of
the standard, then the annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV is deemed to
have passed the diagnostic test and is valid, and the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is deemed to have been met in that 3-year
period.
(d) An annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV based on data that do
not meet the completeness criteria stated in 4(b) and also do not
satisfy the test conditions specified in section 4(c), may also be
considered valid with the approval of, or at the initiative of, the
EPA Administrator, who may consider factors such as monitoring site
closures/moves, monitoring diligence, the consistency and levels of
the daily values that are available, and nearby concentrations in
determining whether to use such data.
(e) The equations for calculating the annual PM2.5
NAAQS DVs are given in section 4.4 of this appendix.
[[Page 3280]]
4.2 Twenty-four-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(a) The primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are
met when the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV at each eligible
monitoring site is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
(b) Three years of valid annual PM2.5 98th percentile
mass concentrations are required to produce a valid 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS DV. A year meets data completeness
requirements when quarterly data capture rates for all four quarters
are at least 75 percent. However, years shall be considered valid,
notwithstanding quarters with less than complete data (even quarters
with less than 11 creditable samples, but at least one creditable
sample must be present for the year), if the resulting annual 98th
percentile value or resulting 24-hour NAAQS DV (rounded according to
the conventions of section 4.3 of this appendix) is greater than the
level of the standard. Furthermore, where the explicit 75 percent
quarterly data capture requirement is not met, the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS DV shall still be considered valid if it
passes the maximum quarterly value data substitution test.
(c) In the case of one, two, or three years that do not meet the
completeness requirements of section 4.2(b) of this appendix and
thus would normally not be useable for the calculation of a valid
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV, the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS DV shall nevertheless be considered valid if the test
conditions specified in section 4.2(c)(i) of this appendix are met.
(i) A PM2.5 24-hour mass NAAQS DV that is equal to or
below the level of the NAAQS can be validated if it passes the
maximum quarterly value data substitution test. This type of data
substitution is permitted only if there is at least 50 percent data
capture in each quarter that is deficient of 75 percent data capture
in each of the three years under consideration. Data substitution
will be performed in all quarters that have less than 75 percent
data capture but at least 50 percent data capture. If any quarter
has less than 50 percent data capture then this substitution test
cannot be used.
Procedure: Identify for each deficient quarter (i.e., those with
less than 75 percent but at least 50 percent data capture) the
highest reported daily PM2.5 value for that quarter,
excluding state-flagged data affected by exceptional events which
have been approved for exclusion by the Regional Administrator,
looking across those three quarters of all three years under
consideration. If, after substituting the highest reported daily
maximum PM2.5 value for a quarter for all missing daily
data in the matching deficient quarter(s) (i.e., to make those
quarters 100 percent complete), the procedure yields a recalculated
3-year 24-hour NAAQS test DV (TDVmax) less than or equal
to the level of the standard, then the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS DV is deemed to have passed the diagnostic test and is valid,
and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is deemed to have been met in
that 3-year period.
(d) A 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV based on data that do
not meet the completeness criteria stated in section 4(b) of this
appendix and also do not satisfy the test conditions specified in
section 4(c) of this appendix, may also be considered valid with the
approval of, or at the initiative of, the EPA Administrator, who may
consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves, monitoring
diligence, the consistency and levels of the daily values that are
available, and nearby concentrations in determining whether to use
such data.
(e) The procedures and equations for calculating the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS DVs are given in section 4.5 of this
appendix.
4.3 Rounding Conventions. For the purposes of comparing
calculated PM2.5 NAAQS DVs to the applicable level of the
standard, it is necessary to round the final results of the
calculations described in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this appendix.
Results for all intermediate calculations shall not be rounded.
(a) Annual PM2.5 NAAQS DVs shall be rounded to the
nearest tenth of a [mu]g/m\3\ (decimals x.x5 and greater are rounded
up to the next tenth, and any decimal lower than x.x5 is rounded
down to the nearest tenth).
(b) Twenty-four-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DVs shall be rounded
to the nearest 1 [mu]g/m\3\ (decimals 0.5 and greater are rounded up
to the nearest whole number, and any decimal lower than 0.5 is
rounded down to the nearest whole number).
4.4 Equations for the Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
(a) An annual mean value for PM2.5 is determined by
first averaging the daily values of a calendar quarter using
equation 1 of this appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.005
Where:
Xq,y = the mean for quarter q of the year y;
nq = the number of daily values in the quarter; and
xi q,y = the ith value in quarter q for year
y.
(b) Equation 2 of this appendix is then used to calculate the
site annual mean:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.006
Where:
Xy = the annual mean concentration for year y (y = 1, 2, or 3); and
Xq,y = the mean for quarter q of year y (result of equation 1).
(c) The annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV is calculated using
equation 3 of this appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.007
Where:
X = the annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV; and
Xy = the annual mean for year y (result of equation 2)
(d) The annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV is rounded according to
the conventions in section 4.3 of this appendix before comparisons
with the levels of the primary and secondary annual PM2.5
NAAQS are made.
4.5 Procedures and Equations for the 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(a) When the data for a particular site and year meet the data
completeness requirements in section 4.2 of this appendix,
calculation of the 98th percentile is accomplished by the steps
provided in this subsection. Table 1 of this appendix shall be used
to identify annual 98th percentile values.
Identification of annual 98th percentile values using the Table
1 procedure will be based on the creditable number of samples (as
described below), rather than on the actual number of samples.
Credit will not be granted for extra (non-creditable) samples. Extra
samples, however, are candidates for selection as the annual 98th
percentile. [The creditable number of samples will determine how
deep to go into the data distribution, but all samples (creditable
and extra) will be considered when making the percentile
assignment.] The annual creditable number of samples is the sum of
the four quarterly creditable number of samples.
Procedure: Sort all the daily values from a particular site and
year by descending value. (For example: (x[1], x[2], x[3], * * *,
x[n]). In this case, x[1] is the largest number and x[n] is the
smallest value.) The 98th percentile value is determined from this
sorted series of daily values which is ordered from the highest to
the lowest number. Using the left column of Table 1, determine the
appropriate range for the annual creditable number of samples for
year y (cny) (e.g., for 120 creditable samples per year,
the appropriate range would be 101 to 150). The corresponding ``n''
value in the right column identifies the rank of the annual 98th
percentile value in the descending sorted list of site specific
daily values for year y (e.g., for the range of 101 to 150, n would
be 3). Thus, P0.98, y = the nth largest value
(e.g., for the range of 101 to 150, the 98th percentile value would
be the third highest value in the sorted series of daily values.
[[Page 3281]]
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 98th percentile for year
y (P0.98,y), is the nth
Annual number of creditable samples for maximum 24-hour average
year y (cny) value for the year where n
is the listed number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 50................................... 1
51 to 100................................. 2
101 to 150................................ 3
151 to 200................................ 4
201 to 250................................ 5
251 to 300................................ 6
301 to 350................................ 7
351 to 366................................ 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV is then calculated by
averaging the annual 98th percentiles using equation 4 of this
appendix: P0.98,y
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JA13.008
Where:
P0.98 = the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV; and
P0.98, y = the annual 98th percentile for year y
(c) The 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV is rounded according
to the conventions in section 4.3 of this appendix before a
comparison with the level of the primary and secondary 24-hour NAAQS
are made.
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
6. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart I--[Amended]
0
7. In Sec. 51.166, add paragraph (i)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(10) The plan may provide that the requirements of paragraph (k)(1)
of this section shall not apply to a stationary source or modification
with respect to the national ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5 in effect on March 18, 2013 if:
(i) The reviewing authority has determined a permit application
subject to this section to be complete on or before December 14, 2012.
Instead, the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall
apply with respect to the national ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5 in effect at the time the reviewing authority
determined the permit application to be complete; or
(ii) The reviewing authority has first published before March 18,
2013 a public notice of a preliminary determination for the permit
application subject to this section. Instead, the requirements in
paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall apply with respect to the
national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 in effect
at the time of first publication of a public notice on the preliminary
determination.
* * * * *
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
8. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
9. In Sec. 52.21, add paragraph (i)(11) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.21 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(11) The requirements of paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall not
apply to a stationary source or modification with respect to the
national ambient air quality standards for PM2.5 in effect
on March 18, 2013 if:
(i) The Administrator has determined a permit application subject
to this section to be complete on or before December 14, 2012. Instead,
the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of this section shall apply with
respect to the national ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5 in effect at the time the Administrator determined the
permit application to be complete; or
(ii) The Administrator has first published before March 18, 2013 a
public notice that a draft permit subject to this section has been
prepared. Instead, the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) of this section
shall apply with respect to the national ambient air quality standards
for PM2.5 in effect on the date the Administrator first
published a public notice that a draft permit has been prepared.
* * * * *
PART 53--AMBIENT AIR MONITORING REFERENCE AND EQUIVALENT METHODS
0
10. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Section 301(a) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. sec. 1857g(a)),
as amended by sec. 15(c)(2) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat. 1713, unless
otherwise noted.
0
11. In Sec. 53.9, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 53.9 Conditions of designation.
* * * * *
(c) Any analyzer, PM10 sampler, PM2.5
sampler, or PM10-2.5 sampler offered for sale as part of an
FRM or FEM shall function within the limits of the performance
specifications referred to in Sec. 53.20(a), Sec. 53.30(a), Sec.
53.35, Sec. 53.50, or Sec. 53.60, as applicable, for at least 1 year
after delivery and acceptance when maintained and operated in
accordance with the manual referred to in Sec. 53.4(b)(3).
* * * * *
PART 58--AMBIENT AIR QUALITY SURVEILLANCE
0
12. The authority citation of part 58 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7403, 7405, 7410, 7414, 7601, 7611, 7614,
and 7619.
0
13. Section 58.1 is amended by adding in alphabetical order a
definition for ``Area-wide'' and by removing the definition for
``Community monitoring zone (CMZ)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 58.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Area-wide means all monitors sited at neighborhood, urban, and
regional
[[Page 3282]]
scales, as well as those monitors sited at either micro- or middle-
scale that are representative of many such locations in the same CBSA.
* * * * *
0
14. Section 58.10 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraph (a)(2).
0
b. By adding paragraph (a)(8).
0
c. By adding paragraph (b)(13).
0
d. By revising paragraph (c).
0
e. By revising paragraph (d).
Sec. 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network
assessment.
(a) * * *
(2) Any annual monitoring network plan that proposes SLAMS network
modifications (including new monitoring sites, new determinations that
data are not of sufficient quality to be compared to the NAAQS, and
changes in identification of monitors as suitable or not suitable for
comparison against the annual PM2.5 NAAQS) is subject to the
approval of the EPA Regional Administrator, who shall provide
opportunity for public comment and shall approve or disapprove the plan
and schedule within 120 days. If the State or local agency has already
provided a public comment opportunity on its plan and has made no
changes subsequent to that comment opportunity, and has submitted the
received comments together with the plan, the Regional Administrator is
not required to provide a separate opportunity for comment.
* * *
(8)(i) A plan for establishing near-road PM2.5
monitoring sites in CBSAs having 2.5 million or more persons, in
accordance with the requirements of appendix D to this part, shall be
submitted as part of the annual monitoring network plan to the EPA
Regional Administrator by July 1, 2014. The plan shall provide for
these required monitoring stations to be operational by January 1,
2015.
(ii) A plan for establishing near-road PM2.5 monitoring
sites in CBSAs having 1 million or more persons, but less than 2.5
million persons, in accordance with the requirements of appendix D to
this part, shall be submitted as part of the annual monitoring network
plan to the EPA Regional Administrator by July 1, 2016. The plan shall
provide for these required monitoring stations to be operational by
January 1, 2017.
(b) * * *
(13) The identification of any PM2.5 FEMs and/or ARMs
used in the monitoring agency's network where the data are not of
sufficient quality such that data are not to be compared to the NAAQS.
For required SLAMS where the agency identifies that the
PM2.5 Class III FEM or ARM does not produce data of
sufficient quality for comparison to the NAAQS, the monitoring agency
must ensure that an operating FRM or filter-based FEM meeting the
sample frequency requirements described in Sec. 58.12 or other Class
III PM2.5 FEM or ARM with data of sufficient quality is
operating and reporting data to meet the network design criteria
described in appendix D to this part.
(c) The annual monitoring network plan must document how state and
local agencies provide for the review of changes to a PM2.5
monitoring network that impact the location of a violating
PM2.5 monitor. The affected state or local agency must
document the process for obtaining public comment and include any
comments received through the public notification process within their
submitted plan.
(d) The state, or where applicable local, agency shall perform and
submit to the EPA Regional Administrator an assessment of the air
quality surveillance system every 5 years to determine, at a minimum,
if the network meets the monitoring objectives defined in appendix D to
this part, whether new sites are needed, whether existing sites are no
longer needed and can be terminated, and whether new technologies are
appropriate for incorporation into the ambient air monitoring network.
The network assessment must consider the ability of existing and
proposed sites to support air quality characterization for areas with
relatively high populations of susceptible individuals (e.g., children
with asthma), and, for any sites that are being proposed for
discontinuance, the effect on data users other than the agency itself,
such as nearby states and tribes or health effects studies. The state,
or where applicable local, agency must submit a copy of this 5-year
assessment, along with a revised annual network plan, to the Regional
Administrator. The assessments are due every five years beginning July
1, 2010.
* * * * *
0
15. Section 58.11 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 58.11 Network technical requirements.
* * * * *
(e) State and local governments must assess data from Class III
PM2.5 FEM and ARM monitors operated within their network
using the performance criteria described in table C-4 to subpart C of
part 53 of this chapter, for cases where the data are identified as not
of sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM, and the monitoring
agency requests that the FEM or ARM data should not be used in
comparison to the NAAQS. These assessments are required in the
monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan described in Sec.
58.10(b) for cases where the FEM or ARM is identified as not of
sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM. For these collocated
PM2.5 monitors the performance criteria apply with the
following additional provisions:
(1) The acceptable concentration range (Rj), [mu]g/m\3\ may include
values down to 0 [mu]g/m\3\.
(2) The minimum number of test sites shall be at least one;
however, the number of test sites will generally include all locations
within an agency's network with collocated FRMs and FEMs or ARMs.
(3) The minimum number of methods shall include at least one FRM
and at least one FEM or ARM.
(4) Since multiple FRMs and FEMs may not be present at each site;
the precision statistic requirement does not apply, even if precision
data are available.
(5) All seasons must be covered with no more than thirty-six
consecutive months of data in total aggregated together.
(6) The key statistical metric to include in an assessment is the
bias (both additive and multiplicative) of the PM2.5
continuous FEM(s) compared to a collocated FRM(s). Correlation is
required to be reported in the assessment, but failure to meet the
correlation criteria, by itself, is not cause to exclude data from a
continuous FEM monitor.
0
16. Section 58.12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii) and by
removing and reserving paragraph (f)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 58.12 Operating schedules.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the 24-
hour design value for their area and whose data are within plus or
minus 5 percent of the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must
have an FRM or FEM operate on a daily schedule if that area's design
value for the annual NAAQS is less than the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard. A continuously operating FEM or ARM
PM2.5 monitor satisfies this requirement unless it is
identified in the monitoring agency's annual monitoring network plan as
not appropriate for comparison to the NAAQS.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
[[Page 3283]]
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
17. Section 58.13 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 58.13 Monitoring network completion.
* * * * *
(f) PM2.5 monitors required in near-road environments as
described in appendix D to this part, must be physically established
and operating under all of the requirements of this part, including the
requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E to this part, no later than:
(1) January 1, 2015 for PM2.5 monitors in CBSAs having
2.5 million persons or more; or
(2) January 1, 2017 for PM2.5 monitors in CBSAs having 1
million or more, but less than 2.5 million persons.
0
18. Section 58.16 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (f) to read
as follows:
Sec. 58.16 Data submittal and archiving requirements.
(a) The state, or where appropriate, local agency, shall report to
the Administrator, via AQS all ambient air quality data and associated
quality assurance data for SO2; CO; O3;
NO2; NO; NOy; NOX; Pb-TSP mass concentration; Pb-
PM10 mass concentration; PM10 mass concentration;
PM2.5 mass concentration; for filter-based PM2.5
FRM/FEM the field blank mass, sampler-generated average daily
temperature, and sampler-generated average daily pressure; chemically
speciated PM2.5 mass concentration data; PM10-2.5
mass concentration; meteorological data from NCore and PAMS sites;
average daily temperature and average daily pressure for Pb sites if
not already reported from sampler generated records; and metadata
records and information specified by the AQS Data Coding Manual (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/manuals/manuals.htm). The state, or where
appropriate, local agency, may report site specific meteorological
measurements generated by onsite equipment (meteorological instruments,
or sampler generated) or measurements from the nearest airport
reporting ambient pressure and temperature. Such air quality data and
information must be submitted directly to the AQS via electronic
transmission on the specified quarterly schedule described in paragraph
(b) of this section.
* * * * *
(f) The state, or where applicable, local agency shall archive all
PM2.5, PM10, and PM10-2.5 filters from
manual low-volume samplers (samplers having flow rates less than 200
liters/minute) from all SLAMS sites for a minimum period of 5 years
after collection. These filters shall be made available for
supplemental analyses, including destructive analyses if necessary, at
the request of EPA or to provide information to state and local
agencies on particulate matter composition. Other Federal agencies may
request access to filters for purposes of supporting air quality
management or community health--such as biological assay--through the
applicable EPA Regional Administrator. The filters shall be archived
according to procedures approved by the Administrator, which shall
include cold storage of filters after post-sampling laboratory analyses
for at least 12 months following field sampling. The EPA recommends
that particulate matter filters be archived for longer periods,
especially for key sites in making NAAQS-related decisions or for
supporting health-related air pollution studies.
* * * * *
0
19. Section 58.20 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 58.20 Special purpose monitors (SPM).
* * * * *
(c) All data from an SPM using an FRM, FEM, or ARM which has
operated for more than 24 months are eligible for comparison to the
relevant NAAQS, subject to the conditions of Sec. Sec. 58.11(e) and
58.30, unless the air monitoring agency demonstrates that the data came
from a particular period during which the requirements of appendix A,
appendix C, or appendix E to this part were not met, subject to review
and EPA Regional Office approval as part of the annual monitoring
network plan described in Sec. 58.10.
* * * * *
0
20. The heading for Subpart D is revised to read as follows:
Subpart D--Comparability of Ambient Data to the NAAQS
0
21. Section 58.30 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 58.30 Special considerations for data comparisons to the NAAQS.
(a) Comparability of PM2.5 data. The primary and secondary annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS are described in part 50 of this
chapter. Monitors that follow the network technical requirements
specified in Sec. 58.11 are eligible for comparison to the NAAQS
subject to the additional requirements of this section.
PM2.5 measurement data from all eligible monitors are
comparable to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. PM2.5
measurement data from all eligible monitors that are representative of
area-wide air quality are comparable to the annual PM2.5
NAAQS. Consistent with appendix D to this part, section 4.7.1, when
micro- or middle-scale PM2.5 monitoring sites collectively
identify a larger region of localized high ambient PM2.5
concentrations, such sites would be considered representative of an
area-wide location and, therefore, eligible for comparison to the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. PM2.5 measurement data from
monitors that are not representative of area-wide air quality but
rather of relatively unique micro-scale, or localized hot spot, or
unique middle-scale impact sites are not eligible for comparison to the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. PM2.5 measurement data from
these monitors are eligible for comparison to the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, if a micro- or middle-scale
PM2.5 monitoring site is adjacent to a unique dominating
local PM2.5 source, then the PM2.5 measurement
data from such a site would only be eligible for comparison to the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Approval of sites that are suitable and
sites that are not suitable for comparison with the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS is provided for as part of the annual monitoring
network plan described in Sec. 58.10.
* * * * *
0
22. Appendix A to part 58 is amended as follows:
0
a. By redesignating the existing introductory paragraph in section 1 as
paragraph (b) in section 1, and revising newly redesignated paragraph
(b).
0
b. By adding paragraph (a) to section 1.
0
c. By revising paragraphs 3.2.5.6, and 3.2.6.3.
0
d. By revising Table A-1.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 58--Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs
and PSD Air Monitoring
* * * * *
1. * * *
(a) Each monitoring organization is required to implement a
quality system that provides sufficient information to assess the
quality of the monitoring data. The quality system must, at a
minimum, include the specific requirements described in this
appendix of this subpart. Failure to conduct or pass a required
check or procedure, or a series of required checks or procedures,
does not by itself invalidate data for regulatory decision making.
Rather, monitoring agencies and EPA shall use the checks and
procedures required in this appendix in combination with other data
quality information, reports, and similar documents showing overall
compliance with part 58. Accordingly, EPA
[[Page 3284]]
and monitoring agencies shall use a ``weight of evidence'' approach
when determining the suitability of data for regulatory decisions.
The EPA reserves the authority to use or not use monitoring data
submitted by a monitoring organization when making regulatory
decisions based on the EPA's assessment of the quality of the data.
Generally, consensus built validation templates or validation
criteria already approved in Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs)
should be used as the basis for the weight of evidence approach.
(b) This appendix specifies the minimum quality system
requirements applicable to SLAMS air monitoring data and PSD data
for the pollutants SO2, NO2, O3,
CO, Pb, PM2.5, PM10 and PM10-2.5
submitted to EPA. This appendix also applies to all SPM stations
using FRM, FEM, or ARM methods which also meet the requirements of
appendix E of this part, unless alternatives to this appendix for
SPMs have been approved in accordance with Sec. 58.11(a)(2).
Monitoring organizations are encouraged to develop and maintain
quality systems more extensive than the required minimums. The
permit-granting authority for PSD may require more frequent or more
stringent requirements. Monitoring organizations may, based on their
quality objectives, develop and maintain quality systems beyond the
required minimum. Additional guidance for the requirements reflected
in this appendix can be found in the ``Quality Assurance Handbook
for Air Pollution Measurement Systems'', Volume II (see reference 10
of this appendix) and at a national level in references 1, 2, and 3
of this appendix.
* * * * *
3.2.5* * *
3.2.5.6 The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of
each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than
200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow
rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A
waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3
meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and
collocated sampler may be approved by the Regional Administrator for
sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation. This
waiver may be approved during the annual network plan approval
process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be the same for
all the collocated samplers in each agency's network.
* * * * *
3.2.6 * * *
3.2.6.3 The two collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of
each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than
200 liters/min or at least 1 meter apart for samplers having flow
rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference. A
waiver allowing up to 10 meters horizontal distance and up to 3
meters vertical distance (inlet to inlet) between a primary and a
collocated sampler may be approved by the Regional Administrator for
sites at a neighborhood or larger scale of representation taking
into consideration safety, logistics, and space availability. This
waiver may be approved during the annual network plan approval
process. Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be the same for
all the collocated samplers in each agency's network.
* * * * *
Table A-1 of Appendix A to Part 58--Difference and Similarities Between
SLAMS and PSD Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic SLAMS PSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements.................... 1. The Same as SLAMS.
development,
documentation,
and
implementation of
an approved
quality system.
2. The assessment
of data quality.
3. The use of
reference,
equivalent, or
approved methods.
4. The use of
calibration
standards
traceable to NIST
or other primary
standard.
5. The Same as SLAMS
participation in
EPA performance
evaluations and
the permission
for EPA to
conduct system
audits.
Monitoring and QA Responsibility State/local agency Source owner/
via the ``primary operator.
quality assurance
organization''.
Monitoring Duration............. Indefinitely...... Usually up to 12
months.
Annual Performance Evaluation Standards and Personnel,
(PE). equipment standards and
different from equipment
those used for different from
spanning, those used for
calibration, and spanning,
verifications. calibration, and
Prefer different verifications.
personnel.
PE audit rate:
--Automated................. 100% per year..... 100% per quarter.
--Manual.................... Varies depending 100% per quarter.
on pollutant. See
Table A-2 of this
appendix.
Precision Assessment:
--Automated................. One-point QC check One point QC check
biweekly but data biweekly.
quality dependent.
--Manual.................... Varies depending One site: 1 every
on pollutant. See 6 days or every
Table A-2 of this third day for
appendix. daily monitoring
(TSP and Pb).
Reporting
--Automated................. By site--EPA By site--source
performs owner/operator
calculations performs
annually. calculations each
sampling quarter.
--Manual.................... By reporting By site--source
organization--EPA owner/operator
performs performs
calculations calculations each
annually. sampling quarter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
23. Appendix D to part 58 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs 4.7.1(b) and 4.7.1(c)(1).
0
b. By removing paragraph 4.7.5.
0
c. By removing and reserving paragraph 4.8.2.
Appendix D to Part 58--Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring
* * * * *
4.7.1 * * *
(b) Specific Design Criteria for PM2.5. The required
monitoring stations or sites must be sited to represent area-wide
air quality. These sites can include sites collocated at PAMS. These
monitoring stations will typically be at neighborhood or urban-
scale; however, micro-or middle-scale PM2.5 monitoring
sites that represent many such locations throughout a metropolitan
area are considered to represent area-wide air quality.
(1) At least one monitoring station is to be sited at
neighborhood or larger scale in an area of expected maximum
concentration.
(2) For CBSAs with a population of 1,000,000 or more persons, at
least one PM2.5 monitor is to be collocated at a near-
road NO2
[[Page 3285]]
station required in section 4.3.2(a) of this appendix.
(3) For areas with additional required SLAMS, a monitoring
station is to be sited in an area of poor air quality.
(4) Additional technical guidance for siting PM2.5
monitors is provided in references 6 and 7 of this appendix.
(c) * * *
(1) Micro-scale. This scale would typify areas such as downtown
street canyons and traffic corridors where the general public would
be exposed to maximum concentrations from mobile sources. In some
circumstances, the micro-scale is appropriate for particulate sites.
SLAMS sites measured at the micro-scale level should, however, be
limited to urban sites that are representative of long-term human
exposure and of many such microenvironments in the area. In general,
micro-scale particulate matter sites should be located near
inhabited buildings or locations where the general public can be
expected to be exposed to the concentration measured. Emissions from
stationary sources such as primary and secondary smelters, power
plants, and other large industrial processes may, under certain
plume conditions, likewise result in high ground level
concentrations at the micro-scale. In the latter case, the micro-
scale would represent an area impacted by the plume with dimensions
extending up to approximately 100 meters. Data collected at micro-
scale sites provide information for evaluating and developing hot
spot control measures.
* * * * *
4.8 * * *
4.8.2 [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
24. Appendix E to part 58 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding table E-1 to paragraph 6 above paragraph 6.1.
0
b. By revising table E-4.
Appendix E to Part 58--Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
* * * * *
6. * * *
Table E-1 to Appendix E of Part 58--Minimum Separation Distance Between
Roadways and Probes or Monitoring Paths for Monitoring Neighborhood and
Urban Scale Ozone (O3) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NO, NO2, NOX, NOy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Minimum
Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles distance \1\ distance 1 2
per day (meters) (meters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<= 1,000.................................... 10 10
10,000...................................... 10 20
15,000...................................... 20 30
20,000...................................... 30 40
40,000...................................... 50 60
70,000...................................... 100 100
>= 110,000.................................. 250 250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Distance from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. The distance for
intermediate traffic counts should be interpolated from the table
values based on the actual traffic count.
\2\ Applicable for ozone monitors whose placement has not already been
approved as of December 18, 2006.
* * * * *
11. * * *
Table E-4 of Appendix E to Part 58--Summary of Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Horizontal and
vertical distance
Scale (maximum Height from ground to from supporting Distance from trees Distance from
Pollutant monitoring path probe, inlet or 80% of structures \2\ to to probe, inlet or roadways to probe,
length, meters) monitoring path \1\ probe, inlet or 90% 90% of monitoring inlet or monitoring
(meters) of monitoring path\1\ path \1\ (meters) path \1\ (meters)
(meters)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 3 4 5 6........................ Middle (300 m) 2-15.................. >1................... >10.................. N/A.
Neighborhood Urban,
and Regional (1 km).
CO 4 5 7........................... Micro [downtown or 2.5-3.5; 2-7; 2-15.... >1................... >10.................. 2-10 for downtown
street canyon sites], areas or street
micro [near-road canyon microscale;
sites], middle (300 <=50 for near-road
m) and Neighborhood microscale; see
(1 km). Table E-2 of this
appendix for middle
and neighborhood
scales.
O 33 4 5........................... Middle (300 m) 2-15.................. >1................... >10.................. See Table E-1 of this
Neighborhood, Urban, appendix for all
and Regional (1 km). scales.
NO2 3 4 5.......................... Micro (Near-road [50- 2-7 (micro);.......... >1................... >10.................. <=50 for near-road
300 m]). micro-scale.
Middle (300 m)........ 2-15 (all other
scales).
Neighborhood, Urban, ...................... ..................... ..................... See Table E-1 of this
and Regional (1 km). appendix for all
other scales.
Ozone precursors (for PAMS) 3 4 5.. Neighborhood and Urban 2-15.................. >1................... >10.................. See Table E-4 of this
(1 km). appendix for all
scales.
PM, Pb 3 4 5 6 8................... Micro, Middle, 2-7 (micro); 2-7 >2 (all scales, >10 (all scales)..... 2-10 (micro); see
Neighborhood, Urban (middle horizontal distance Figure E-1 of this
and Regional. PM10[dash]2.5); 2-7 only). appendix for all
for near-road; 2-15 other scales. <=50
(all other scales). for near-road.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A--Not applicable.
\1\ Monitoring path for open path analyzers is applicable only to middle or neighborhood scale CO monitoring, middle, neighborhood, urban, and regional
scale NO2 monitoring, and all applicable scales for monitoring SO2, O3, and O3 precursors.
\2\ When probe is located on a rooftop, this separation distance is in reference to walls, parapets, or penthouses located on roof.
\3\ Should be greater than 20 meters from the dripline of tree(s) and must be 10 meters from the dripline when the tree(s) act as an obstruction.
\4\ Distance from sampler, probe, or 90 percent of monitoring path to obstacle, such as a building, must be at least twice the height the obstacle
protrudes above the sampler, probe, or monitoring path. Sites not meeting this criterion may be classified as middle scale (see text).
\5\ Must have unrestricted airflow 270 degrees around the probe or sampler; 180 degrees if the probe is on the side of a building or a wall.
\6\ The probe, sampler, or monitoring path should be away from minor sources, such as furnace or incineration flues. The separation distance is
dependent on the height of the minor source's emission point (such as a flue), the type of fuel or waste burned, and the quality of the fuel (sulfur,
ash, or lead content). This criterion is designed to avoid undue influences from minor sources.
\7\ For micro-scale CO monitoring sites, the probe must be >10 meters from a street intersection and preferably at a midblock location.
[[Page 3286]]
\8\ Collocated monitors must be within 4 meters of each other and at least 2 meters apart for flow rates greater than 200 liters/min or at least 1 meter
apart for samplers having flow rates less than 200 liters/min to preclude airflow interference, unless a waiver is in place as approved by the
Regional Administrator pursuant to section 3 of Appendix A.
* * * * *
0
25. Appendix G to part 58 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising section 9.
0
b. By revising section 10.
0
c. By revising paragraphs 12.1 introductory text and 12.1.a, and table
2.
0
d. By revising section 13.
Appendix G to Part 58--Uniform Air Quality Index (AQI) and Daily
Reporting
* * * * *
9. How does the AQI relate to air pollution levels?
For each pollutant, the AQI transforms ambient concentrations to a
scale from 0 to 500. The AQI is keyed as appropriate to the national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for each pollutant. In most
cases, the index value of 100 is associated with the numerical level of
the short-term standard (i.e., averaging time of 24-hours or less) for
each pollutant. The index value of 50 is associated with the numerical
level of the annual standard for a pollutant, if there is one, at one-
half the level of the short-term standard for the pollutant, or at the
level at which it is appropriate to begin to provide guidance on
cautionary language. Higher categories of the index are based on
increasingly serious health effects and increasing proportions of the
population that are likely to be affected. The index is related to
other air pollution concentrations through linear interpolation based
on these levels. The AQI is equal to the highest of the numbers
corresponding to each pollutant. For the purposes of reporting the AQI,
the sub-indexes for PM10 and PM2.5 are to be
considered separately. The pollutant responsible for the highest index
value (the reported AQI) is called the ``critical'' pollutant.
10. What monitors should I use to get the pollutant concentrations for
calculating the AQI?
You must use concentration data from State/Local Air Monitoring
Station (SLAMS) or parts of the SLAMS required by 40 CFR 58.10 for each
pollutant except PM. For PM, calculate and report the AQI on days for
which you have measured air quality data (e.g., from continuous
PM2.5 monitors required in Appendix D to this part). You may
use PM measurements from monitors that are not reference or equivalent
methods (for example, continuous PM10 or PM2.5
monitors). Detailed guidance for relating non-approved measurements to
approved methods by statistical linear regression is referenced in
section 13 below.
* * * * *
12. How do I calculate the AQI?
i. The AQI is the highest value calculated for each pollutant as
follows:
a. Identify the highest concentration among all of the monitors
within each reporting area and truncate as follows:
(1) Ozone--truncate to 3 decimal places
PM2.5--truncate to 1 decimal place
PM10--truncate to integer
CO--truncate to 1 decimal place
SO2--truncate to integer
NO2--truncate to integer
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
Table 2--Breakpoints for the AQI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These breakpoints Equal these AQI's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10 ([mu]g/
O3 (ppm) 8-hour O3 (ppm) 1- PM2.5 ([mu]g/ m\3\) 24- CO (ppm) 8- SO2 (ppb) 1- NO2 (ppb) 1- AQI Category
hour\1\ m\3\) 24-hour hour hour hour hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000-0.059....................... ........... 0.0-12.0 0-54 0.0-4.4 0-35 0-53 0-50 Good.
0.060-0.075....................... ........... 12.1-35.4 55-154 4.5-9.4 36-75 54-100 51-100 Moderate.
0.076-0.095....................... 0.125-0.164 35.5-55.4 155-254 9.5-12.4 76-185 101-360 101-150 Unhealthy for
Sensitive Groups.
0.096-0.115....................... 0.165-0.204 \3\ 55.5-150.4 255-354 12.5-15.4 \4\ 186-304 361-649 151-200 Unhealthy.
0.116-0.374....................... 0.205-0.404 \3\ 150.5-250.4 355-424 15.5-30.4 \4\ 305-604 650-1249 201-300 Very Unhealthy.
(\2\)............................. 0.405-0.504 \3\ 250.5-350.4 425-504 30.5-40.4 \4\ 605-804 1250-1649 301-400 Hazardous.
(\2\)............................. 0.505-0.604 \3\ 350.5-500.4 505-604 40.5-50.4 \4\ 805- 1650-2049 401-500
1004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas are generally required to report the AQI based on 8-hour ozone values. However, there are a small number of areas where an AQI based on 1-hour
ozone values would be more precautionary. In these cases, in addition to calculating the 8-hour ozone index value, the 1-hour ozone index value may be
calculated, and the maximum of the two values reported.
\2\ 8-hour O\3\ values do not define higher AQI values (>=301). AQI values of 301 or greater are calculated with 1-hour O3 concentrations.
\3\ If a different SHL for PM2.5 is promulgated, these numbers will change accordingly.
\4\ 1-hr SO2 values do not define higher AQI values (>= 200). AQI values of 200 or greater are calculated with 24-hour SO2 concentrations.
* * * * *
13. What additional information should I know?
The EPA has developed a computer program to calculate the AQI for
you. The program prompts for inputs, and it displays all the pertinent
information for the AQI (the index value, color, category, sensitive
group, health effects, and cautionary language). The EPA has also
prepared a brochure on the AQI that explains the index in detail (The
Air Quality Index), Reporting Guidance (Technical Assistance Document
for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality--the Air Quality Index (AQI))
that provides associated health effects and cautionary statements, and
Forecasting Guidance (Guideline for Developing an Ozone Forecasting
Program) that explains the steps necessary to start an air pollution
forecasting program. You can download the program and the guidance
documents at www.airnow.gov. Reference for relating non-approved PM
measurements to approved methods (Eberly, S., T. Fitz-Simons, T.
Hanley, L. Weinstock., T. Tamanini, G. Denniston, B. Lambeth, E.
Michel, S. Bortnick. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) For Relating
Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Continuous PM2.5
Measurements to Report an Air Quality Index (AQI). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454/B-02-002,
November 2002) can be found on the Ambient Monitoring Technology
Information Center
[[Page 3287]]
(AMTIC) Web site, http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/.
[FR Doc. 2012-30946 Filed 1-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P