National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter

203 Pages·2016·4.12 MB·English

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
with
D
O
R
P
N1
V
T
P
S
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
3086 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ADDRESSES: Section X.B requests at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
AGENCY comments on an information collection dockets.htm. Comments on this
request regarding changes to the information collection request should
40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53 and 58 monitoring requirements. Submit your also be sent to the Office of Management
comments, identified by Docket ID No. and Budget (OMB). See section X.B
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492; FRL–9761–8]
EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492, to the EPA below for additional information
RIN 2060–AO47 by one of the following methods: regarding submitting comments to OMB.
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the Docket: The EPA has established a
National Ambient Air Quality
on-line instructions for submitting docket for this action under Docket No.
Standards for Particulate Matter comments. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492. All
AGENCY: Environmental Protection •• EFamxa: i2l:0 a2-–a5n6d6-–r-9D7o4c4k. [email protected]. dthoec uwmwewn.rtse ginu ltahtieo dnos.cgkoevt Waree bl issitteed. Tonh is
Agency (EPA). • Mail: Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR– includes documents in the rulemaking
ACTION: Final rule. 2007–0492, Environmental Protection docket (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–
SUMMARY: Based on its review of the air Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200 2007–0492) and a separate docket,
quality criteria and the national ambient Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, established for 2009 Integrated Science
air quality standards (NAAQS) for DC 20460. Please include a total of two Assessment (Docket No. EPA–HQ–
pmaarktiicnugl aretev imsiaotntesr t (oP tMhe), stuhiet eE oPfA is co•pieHsa. nd Delivery: Docket No. EPA– OinRcoDr–p2o0r0a7te–d0 5b1y7 r)e, ftehraetn hcea si nhtaov teh bee en
HQ–OAR–2007–0492, Environmental rulemaking docket. All documents in
standards for PM to provide requisite
Protection Agency, EPA West, Room these dockets are listed on the
protection of public health and welfare
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
and to make corresponding revisions to
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are listed in the index, some information is
the data handling conventions for PM
only accepted during the Docket’s not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
and to the ambient air monitoring,
normal hours of operation, and special information whose disclosure is
reporting, and network design
arrangements should be made for restricted by statute. Certain other
requirements. The EPA also is making
deliveries of boxed information. material, such as copyrighted material,
revisions to the prevention of significant Instructions: Direct your comments to
is not placed on the Internet and may be
deterioration (PSD) permitting program Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–
viewed, with prior arrangement, at the
with respect to the NAAQS revisions. 0492. The EPA’s policy is that all
EPA Docket Center. Publicly available
With regard to primary (health-based) comments received will be included in
docket materials are available either
standards for fine particles (generally the public docket without change and
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
referring to particles less than or equal may be made available online at
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in diameter, www.regulations.gov, including any
Docket and Information Center, EPA/
PM2.5), the EPA is revising the annual personal information provided, unless DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
PM2.5standard by lowering the level to the comment includes information Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/ claimed to be Confidential Business
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
m3) so as to provide increased Information (CBI) or other information
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
protection against health effects whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
through Friday, excluding legal
associated with long- and short-term Do not submit information that you
holidays. The telephone number for the
exposures (including premature consider to be CBI or otherwise
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744
mortality, increased hospital admissions protected through www.regulations.gov
and the telephone number for the Air
and emergency department visits, and or email. The www.regulations.gov Web
and Radiation Docket and Information
development of chronic respiratory site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, Center is (202) 566–1742. For additional
disease), and to retain the 24-hour PM2.5 which means the EPA will not know information about EPA’s public docket
standard at a level of 35 mg/m3. The EPA your identity or contact information visit the EPA Docket Center homepage
is revising the Air Quality Index (AQI) unless you provide it in the body of at: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
for PM2.5to be consistent with the your comment. If you send an email dockets.htm.
revised primary PM2.5standards. With comment directly to the EPA without
regard to the primary standard for going through www.regulations.gov your FORFURTHERINFORMATIONCONTACT: Ms.
particles generally less than or equal to email address will be automatically Beth M. Hassett-Sipple, Health and
10 mm in diameter (PM10), the EPA is captured and included as part of the Environmental Impacts Division, Office
retaining the current 24-hour PM10 comment that is placed in the public of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
standard to continue to provide docket and made available on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
protection against effects associated Internet. If you submit an electronic Mail code C504–06, Research Triangle
with short-term exposure to thoracic comment, the EPA recommends that Park, NC 27711; telephone: (919) 541–
coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5). With you include your name and other 4605; fax: [phone]; email:
regard to the secondary (welfare-based) contact information in the body of your [email protected].
PM standards, the EPA is generally comment and with any disk or CD–ROM SUPPLEMENTARYINFORMATION:
retaining the current suite of secondary you submit. If the EPA cannot read your General Information
standards (i.e., 24-hour and annual comment due to technical difficulties
PM2.5standards and a 24-hour PM10 and cannot contact you for clarification, Availability of Related Information
standard). Non-visibility welfare effects the EPA may not be able to consider A number of the documents that are
are addressed by this suite of secondary your comment. Electronic files should relevant to this rulemaking are available
D with simtapnadiarrmdes,n at nisd a PdMdr-ereslsaetde db yv itshieb ility afovromid o tfh een ucsrey potfi ospne, cainadl cbhea frraecet eorfs a, nayn y tPhlraonunginhg t haen dE PSAta’ns dOafrfdicse ( OofA AQirP SQ)u ality
PRO secondary 24-hour PM2.5standard. defects or viruses. For additional Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
VN1 DATES: The final rule is effective on information about EPA’s public docket Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
SPT March 18, 2013. visit the EPA Docket Center homepage naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html.
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations 3087
These documents include the Plan for 3. Administrator’s Final Conclusions b. Public Perception of Visibility
Review of the National Ambient Air Concerning the Adequacy of the Current Impairment
Quality Standards for Particulate Matter Primary PM2.5Standards c. Summary of Proposed Conclusions
(U.S. EPA, 2008a), available at http:// E. Conclusions on the Elements of the i. Adequacy
Primary Fine Particle Standards ii. Indicator
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/
s_pm_2007_pd.html, the Integrated 1. Indicator iii. Averaging Time
2. Averaging Time iv. Form
Science Assessment for Particulate 3. Form v. Level
Matter (U.S. EPA, 2009a), available at a. Annual Standard vi. Administrator’s Proposed Conclusions
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ b. 24-Hour Standard vii. Related Technical Analysis
standards/pm/s_pm_2007_isa.html, the 4. Level 2. Other (Non-Visibility) PM-related
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for a. General Approach for Considering Welfare Effects
Particulate Matter (U.S. EPA, 2010a), Standard Levels a. Evidence of Other Welfare Effects
available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ b. Proposed Decisions on Level Related to PM
naaqs/standards/pm/ i. Consideration of Alternative Standard b. CASAC Advice
s_pm_2007_risk.html, the Particulate ii. LCeAvSelAs Cin A thdev iPcoe licy Assessment c. Summary of Proposed Decisions
Regarding Other Welfare Effects
Matter Urban-Focused Visibility iii. Administrator’s Proposed Decisions on
C. Comments on Proposed Rule
Assessment (U.S. EPA 2010b), available the Primary PM2.5Standard Levels 1. Comments on Proposed Secondary PM
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ c. Comments on Standard Levels Standard for Visibility Protection
standards/pm/s_pm_2007_risk.html, i. Annual Standard Level a. Overview of Comments
ii. 24-Hour Standard Level
and the Policy Assessment for the b. Indicator
d. Administrator’s Final Conclusions on
Review of the Particulate Matter i. Comments on Calculated vs. Directly
National Ambient Air Quality the Primary PM2.5Standard Levels Measured Light Extinction
F. Administrator’s Final Decisions on the
aStt ahnttdpa:/r/dws w(Uw..Se.p EaP.gAo,v 2/t0tn11/naa),a aqvsa/i lable IV. RPartiimonaarlye PfoMr2 F.5iSntaaln Ddeacridssio n on Primary ii. CCaolmcumlaetnedts Loing hStp Eexctiifnicc tAiosnp eIcntds iocfa tor
standards/pm/s_pm_2007_pa.html. PM10Standard cd.. AFovremra ging Time
These and other related documents are A. Background
e. Level
also available for inspection and 1. Previous Reviews of the PM NAAQS
i. Comments on Visibility Preference
copying in the EPA docket identified a. Reviews Completed in 1987 and 1997 Studies
b. Review Completed in 2006
above. ii. Specific Comments on Level
2. Litigation Related to the 2006 Primary
f. Need for a Distinct Secondary Standard
Table of Contents PM10Standards g. Legal Issues
3. General Approach Used in the Current
The following topics are discussed in this h. Relationship With Regional Haze
Review
preamble: Program
B. Health Effects Related to Exposure to
I. Executive Summary 2. Comments on the Proposed Decision
Thoracic Coarse Particles
A. Purpose of This Regulatory Action Regarding Non-Visibility Welfare Effects
C. Consideration of the Current and
B. Summary of Major Provisions D. Conclusions on Secondary PM
Potential Alternative Standards in the
C. Costs and Benefits Standards
Policy Assessment
II. Background 1. Conclusions Regarding Secondary PM
1. Consideration of the Current Standard in
A. Legislative Requirements Standards To Address Non-Visibility
the Policy Assessment
B. Review of the Air Quality Criteria and 2. Consideration of Potential Alternative Welfare Effects
Standards for PM Standards in the Policy Assessment 2. Conclusions Regarding Secondary PM
1. Previous PM NAAQS Reviews D. CASAC Advice Standards for Visibility Protection
2. Litigation Related to the 2006 PM E. Administrator’s Proposed Conclusions E. Administrator’s Final Decisions on
Standards
3. Current PM NAAQS Review Concerning the Adequacy of the Current Secondary PM Standards
C. Related Control Programs To Implement Primary PM10Standard VII. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM
PM Standards F. Public Comments on the Administrator’s A. Amendments to Appendix N:
D. Summary of Proposed Revisions to the Proposed Decision To Retain the Primary Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM2.5
PM NAAQS PM10Standard 1. General
E. Organization and Approach to Final PM G. Administrator’s Final Decision on the 2. Monitoring Considerations
NAAQS Decisions Primary PM10Standard 3. Requirements for Data Use and
III. Rationale for Final Decisions on the V. Communication of Public Health Reporting for Comparison With the
A.P Braimckagrryo PuMnd2 .5Standards VI. RIantfioornmalaet ifoonr Final Decisions on the 4. NCoAmApQaSri fsoorn Ps Mw2i.t5h the PM2.5NAAQS
1. General Approach Used in Previous Secondary PM Standards B. Exceptional Events
Reviews A. Background C. Updates for Data Handling Procedures
2. Remand of Primary Annual PM2.5 1. Approaches Used in Previous Reviews for Reporting the Air Quality Index
Standard 2. Remand of 2006 Secondary PM2.5 VIII. Amendments to Ambient Monitoring
3. General Approach Used in the Policy Standards and Reporting Requirements
Assessment for the Current Review 3. General Approach Used in the Policy A. Issues Related to 40 CFR Part 53
B. Overview of Health Effects Evidence Assessment for the Current Review (Reference and Equivalent Methods)
C. Overview of Quantitative B. Proposed Decisions on Secondary PM 1. PM2.5and PM10-2.5Federal Equivalent
Characterization of Health Risks Standards Methods
D. Conclusions on the Adequacy of the 1. PM-related Visibility Impairment 2. Use of Chemical Speciation Network
Current Primary PM2.5Standards a. Nature of PM-related Visibility (CSN) Methods to Support the Proposed
1. Introduction Impairment New Secondary PM2.5Visibility Index
a. Evidence- and Risk-based Considerations i. Relationship Between Ambient PM and NAAQS
in the Policy Assessment Visibility B. Changes to 40 CFR Part 58 (Ambient Air
with b. CASAC Advice ii. Temporal Variations of Light Extinction Quality Surveillance)
OD c. Administrator’s Proposed Conclusions iii. Periods During the Day of Interest for 1. Terminology Changes
PR Concerning the Adequacy of the Current Assessment of Visibility 2. Special Considerations for
TVN1 Primary PM2.5Standards iv. Exposure Durations of Interest Comparability of PM2.5Ambient Air
SP 2. Comments on the Need for Revision v. Periods of Fog and Rain Monitoring Data to the NAAQS
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
3088 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations
a. Revoking Use of Population-Oriented as A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory both short- and long-term exposures to
a Condition for Comparability of PM2.5 Planning and Review and Executive fine particles, including protection for
Monitoring Sites to the NAAQS Order 13563: Improving Regulation and at-risk populations such as children.
b. Applicability of Micro- and Middle-scale Regulatory Review
The court remanded the secondary
Monitoring Sites to the Annual PM2.5 B. Paperwork Reduction Act PM standards to the EPA because the
NAAQS C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 2.5
Agency failed to explain adequately
3. Changes to Monitoring for the National D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Ambient Air Monitoring System E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism why setting the secondary standards
a. Background F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation identical to the primary standards
b. Primary PM2.5NAAQS and Coordination With Indian Tribal provided the required protection for
i. Addition of a Near-road Component to Governments public welfare, including protection
the PM2.5Monitoring Network G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of from PM-related visibility impairment.
ii. Use of PM2.5Continuous FEMs at Children From Environmental Health The EPA initiated this review in June
SLAMS and Safety Risks 2007. Between 2007 and 2011, the EPA
c. Revoking PM10-2.5Speciation H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that prepared draft and final Integrated
Requirements at NCore Sites Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
d. Measurements for the Proposed New Distribution, or Use Science Assessments, Risk and
PM2.5Visibility Index NAAQS I. National Technology Transfer and Exposure Assessments, and Policy
4. Revisions to the Quality Assurance Advancement Act Assessments. Multiple drafts of all of
Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs, and J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions these documents were subject to review
PSD To Address Environmental Justice in by the public and were peer reviewed
a. Quality Assurance Weight of Evidence Minority Populations and Low-Income by the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific
b. Quality Assurance Requirements for the Populations Advisory Committee (CASAC). The EPA
Chemical Speciation Network K. Congressional Review Act proposed revisions to the primary and
c. Waivers for Maximum Allowable References
secondary PM NAAQS on June 29, 2012
Separation of Collocated PM2.5Samplers I. Executive Summary (77 FR 38890). This final rulemaking is
and Monitors
the final step in the review process.
5. Revisions To Probe and Monitoring Path A. Purpose of This Regulatory Action
In this rulemaking, the EPA is
Siting Criteria
a. MNeoanri-trooraidn gC Nometpwoonrekn t to the PM2.5 AcSte (cCtAioAn)s g1o0v8e arnn dth 1e0 e9s otafb tlhiesh Cmleeannt ,A ir rpervoivsiidneg rtehqeu siusiittee pofr ostteacntdioanrd osf fpour bPlMic to
b. CSN Network review, and revision, as appropriate, of health and welfare. The EPA is revising
c. Reinsertion of Table E–1 to Appendix E the national ambient air quality the PSD permitting regulations to
6. Additional Ambient Air Monitoring standards (NAAQS) to protect public address the changes in the PM NAAQS.
Topics health and welfare. The CAA requires In addition, the EPA is updating the
a. Annual Monitoring Network Plans and periodic review of the air quality AQI for PM and making changes in
2.5
Periodic Assessment criteria—the science upon which the the data handling conventions for PM
b. Operating Schedules standards are based—and the standards and ambient air monitoring, reporting,
c. Data Reporting and Certification for CSN
themselves. This rulemaking is being and network design requirements to
and IMPROVE Data
d. Requirements for Archiving Filters done pursuant to these statutory correspond with the changes to the PM
IX. Clean Air Act Implementation requirements. The schedule for NAAQS.
Requirements for the PM NAAQS completing this review is established by
B. Summary of Major Provisions
A. Designation of Areas a court order.
1. Overview of Clean Air Act Designations In 2006, the EPA completed its last With regard to the primary standards
Requirements review of the PM NAAQS. In that for fine particles, the EPA is revising the
2. Proposed Designations Schedules review, the EPA took three principal annual PM standard by lowering the
2.5
3. Comments and Responses actions: (1) With regard to fine particles level from 15.0 to 12.0 mg/m3so as to
4. Final Intended Designations Schedules
(generally referring to particles less than provide increased protection against
B. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP
or equal to 2.5 micrometers (mm) in health effects associated with long-and
Requirements
diameter, PM ), at that time, the EPA short-term exposures. The EPA is
C. Implementing the Revised Primary 2.5
Annual PM2.5NAAQS in Nonattainment revised the level of the primary 24-hour retaining the level (35 mg/m3) and the
Areas PM2.5standard from 65 to 35 mg/m3and form (98th percentile) of the 24-hour
D. Prevention of Significant Deterioration retained the level of the primary annual PM2.5standard to continue to provide
and Nonattainment New Source Review PM standard; (2) With regard to the supplemental protection against health
2.5
Programs for the Revised Primary primary standards for particles less than effects associated with short-term
Annual PM2.5NAAQS or equal to 10 mm in diameter (PM10), exposures. This action provides
1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
the EPA retained the primary 24-hour increased protection for children, older
a. Transition Provision (Grandfathering)
PM standard to continue to provide adults, persons with pre-existing heart
i. Proposal 10
protection against effects associated and lung disease, and other at-risk
ii. Comments and Responses
iii. Final Action with short-term exposure to thoracic populations against an array of PM2.5-
b. Modeling Tools and Guidance coarse particles (i.e., PM10-2.5) and related adverse health effects that
Applicable to the Revised Primary revoked the primary annual PM10 include premature mortality, increased
Annual PM2.5NAAQS standard; and (3) the EPA also revised hospital admissions and emergency
c. PSD Screening Tools: Significant the secondary standards to be identical department visits, and development of
Emissions Rates, Significant Impact in all respects to the primary standards. chronic respiratory disease. The EPA
Levels, and Significant Monitoring In subsequent litigation, the U.S. also is eliminating spatial averaging
Concentration
Court of Appeals for the District of provisions as part of the form of the
d. PSD Increments
OD with e2.. ONtohneart tPaSinDm Ternatn Nsietiwon S Iosusurcees Review Canonluumalb PiaM C2.i5rcsutaint dreamrda ntod ethde t hEeP Apr imary adnisnpuraolp sotratniodnaardte tiom apvaocitds poont eant-triiaslk
PR E. Transportation Conformity Program because the Agency had failed to populations.
VN1 F. General Conformity Program explain adequately why the standard The final decisions for the primary
T
K3SP X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews provided the requisite protection from annual and 24-hour PM2.5standards are
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations 3089
within the ranges that CASAC advised Administrator has identified a target measurement data that are appropriate
the Agency to consider. These decisions degree of protection, defined in terms of for comparison to the standards. With
are based on an integrative assessment a PM visibility index (based on regard to monitoring-related activities,
2.5
of an extensive body of new scientific speciated PM2.5mass concentrations the EPA is updating several aspects of
evidence, which substantially and relative humidity data to calculate the monitoring regulations and
strengthens what was known about PM2.5light extinction), a 24-hour specifically requiring that a small
PM2.5-related health effects in the last averaging time, and a 90th percentile number of PM2.5monitors be relocated
review, including extended analyses of form, averaged over 3 years, and a level to be collocated with measurements of
key epidemiological studies, and of 30 deciviews (dv), which she judges other pollutants (e.g., nitrogen dioxide,
evidence of health effects observed at to be requisite to protect public welfare carbon monoxide) in the near-road
lower ambient PM2.5concentrations, with regard to visual air quality (VAQ). environment.
including effects in areas that likely met The EPA’s analysis of monitoring data
C. Costs and Benefits
the current standards. The revised suite provides the basis for concluding that
of PM standards also reflects the current secondary 24-hour PM In setting the NAAQS, the EPA may
2.5 2.5
consideration of a quantitative risk standard would provide sufficient not consider the costs of implementing
assessment that estimates public health protection, and in some areas greater the standards. This was confirmed by
risks likely to remain upon just meeting protection, relative to this target the United States Supreme Court in
the current and various alternative protection level. Adding a distinct Whitman v. American Trucking
standards. Based on this information, secondary standard to address visibility Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 465–472,
the Administrator concludes that the would not affect this protection. Since 475–76 (2001), as noted in section II.A
current primary PM2.5standards are not sufficient protection from visibility of this rule. As has traditionally been
requisite to protect public health with impairment will be provided for all done in NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA
an adequate margin of safety, as areas of the country without adoption of has conducted a Regulatory Impact
required by the CAA, and that these a distinct secondary standard, and Analysis (RIA) to provide the public
revisions are warranted to provide the adoption of a distinct secondary with information on the potential costs
appropriate degree of increased public standard will not change the degree of and benefits of attaining several
health protection. over-protection of VAQ provided for alternative PM standards. In NAAQS
2.5
With regard to the primary standard some areas of the country by the rulemaking, the RIA is done for
for thoracic coarse particles (PM10-2.5), secondary 24-hour PM2.5standard, the informational purposes only, and the
the EPA is retaining the current 24-hour Administrator judges that adoption of a final decisions on the NAAQS in this
PM10standard, with a level of 150 mg/ distinct secondary standard, in addition rulemaking are not in any way based on
m3and a one-expected exceedance to the current suite of secondary consideration of the information or
form, to continue to provide protection standards, is not needed to provide analyses in the RIA. The RIA fulfills the
against effects associated with short- requisite protection for both visibility requirements of Executive Orders 13563
term exposure to PM10-2.5including and non-visibility related welfare and 12866. The summary of the RIA,
premature mortality and increased effects. which is discussed in more detail below
hospital admissions and emergency The revisions to the PM NAAQS in section X.A, estimates benefits
department visits. In reaching this trigger a process under which states ranging from $4,000 million to $9,100
decision, the Administrator concludes (and tribes, if they choose) will make million at a 3 percent discount rate and
that the available health evidence and recommendations to the Administrator
$3,600 million to $8,200 million at a 7
air quality information for PM , regarding designations, identifying areas
10-2.5 percent discount rate in 2020 and costs
taken together with the considerable of the country that either meet or do not
ranging from $53 million to $350
uncertainties and limitations associated meet the revised NAAQS. States will
million per year at a 7 percent discount
with that information, suggests that a also review, modify and supplement
rate.
standard is needed to protect against their existing state implementation
short-term exposure to all types of plans (SIPs), as needed. With regard to II. Background
PM and that the degree of public these implementation-related activities,
10-2.5 A. Legislative Requirements
health protection provided against the EPA intends to promulgate a
short-term exposures to PM does separate implementation rule on a Two sections of the CAA govern the
10-2.5
not need to be increased beyond that schedule that provides timely clarity to establishment, review and revision of
provided by the current PM standard. the states, tribes, and other parties the NAAQS. Section 108 (42 U.S.C.
10
With regard to the secondary PM responsible for NAAQS 7408) directs the Administrator to
standards, the Administrator is retaining implementation. The NAAQS revisions identify and list certain air pollutants
the current suite of secondary PM also affect the applicable air permitting and then to issue air quality criteria for
standards, except for a change to the requirement, but cause no significant those pollutants. The Administrator is
form of the annual PM2.5standard. change to the transportation conformity to list those air pollutants that in her
Specifically, the EPA is retaining the and general conformity processes. The ‘‘judgment, cause or contribute to air
current secondary 24-hour PM2.5and EPA is revising its PSD regulations to pollution which may reasonably be
PM10standards, and is revising only the provide limited grandfathering from the anticipated to endanger public health or
form of the secondary annual PM2.5 requirements that result from the welfare;’’ ‘‘the presence of which in the
standard to remove the option for revised PM NAAQS. ambient air results from numerous or
spatial averaging consistent with this On other topics, the EPA is changing diverse mobile or stationary sources;’’
change to the primary annual PM the AQI for PM to be consistent with and ‘‘for which * * * [the
2.5 2.5
standard. This suite of secondary the revised primary PM NAAQS. The Administrator] plans to issue air quality
2.5
OD with svtiasnibdialirtdys w adeldfareress eefsf ePcMts- irneclaluteddi nngo n- EpProAc eadlsuor eiss froerv iPsMin2g.5 thcoen dsaistate hnat nwdiltihn gth e cinritteenrdiae d* t*o ‘*‘a’c’ cAuirra qteulayl irteyf lcercitte trhiea laartee st
R ecological effects, effects on materials, revised PM NAAQS including the scientific knowledge useful in
P 2.5
N1 and climate impacts. With respect to computations necessary for determining indicating the kind and extent of all
V
T
SP PM-related visibility impairment, the when the standards are met and the identifiable effects on public health or
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
3090 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations
welfare which may be expected from the effects can be said to occur with ‘‘[a]ttainability and technological
presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient reasonable scientific certainty. Thus, in feasibility are not relevant
air * * *’’ 42 U.S.C. 7408(b). Section selecting primary standards that provide considerations in the promulgation of
109 (42 U.S.C. 7409) directs the an adequate margin of safety, the national ambient air quality standards.’’
Administrator to propose and Administrator is seeking not only to American Petroleum Institute v. Costle,
promulgate ‘‘primary’’ and ‘‘secondary’’ prevent pollution levels that have been 665 F. 2d at 1185.
NAAQS for pollutants for which air demonstrated to be harmful but also to Section 109(d)(1) requires that ‘‘not
quality criteria are issued. Section prevent lower pollutant levels that may later than December 31, 1980, and at 5-
109(b)(1) defines a primary standard as pose an unacceptable risk of harm, even year intervals thereafter, the
one ‘‘the attainment and maintenance of if the risk is not precisely identified as Administrator shall complete a
which in the judgment of the to nature or degree. The CAA does not thorough review of the criteria
Administrator, based on such criteria require the Administrator to establish a published under section 108 and the
and allowing an adequate margin of primary NAAQS at a zero-risk level or national ambient air quality standards
safety, are requisite to protect the public at background concentration levels, see * * * and shall make such revisions in
health.’’1A secondary standard, as Lead Industries v. EPA, 647 F.2d at 1156 such criteria and standards and
defined in section 109(b)(2), must n.51, but rather at a level that reduces promulgate such new standards as may
‘‘specify a level of air quality the risk sufficiently so as to protect public be appropriate * * *’’ Section 109(d)(2)
attainment and maintenance of which, health with an adequate margin of requires that an independent scientific
in the judgment of the Administrator, safety. review committee ‘‘shall complete a
based on such criteria, is requisite to In addressing the requirement for an
review of the criteria * * * and the
protect the public welfare from any adequate margin of safety, the EPA
national primary and secondary ambient
known or anticipated adverse effects considers such factors as the nature and
air quality standards * * * and shall
associated with the presence of [the] severity of the health effects involved,
recommend to the Administrator any
pollutant in the ambient air.’’2 the size of at-risk population(s), and the
new * * * standards and revisions of
The requirement that primary kind and degree of the uncertainties that
existing criteria and standards as may be
standards provide an adequate margin must be addressed. The selection of any
appropriate. * * *’’ Since the early
of safety was intended to address particular approach to providing an
1980’s, this independent review
uncertainties associated with adequate margin of safety is a policy
function has been performed by the
inconclusive scientific and technical choice left specifically to the
CASAC.3
information available at the time of Administrator’s judgment. See Lead
standard setting. It was also intended to Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d B. Review of the Air Quality Criteria and
provide a reasonable degree of at 1161–62; Whitman v. American Standards for PM
protection against hazards that research Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457,
1. Previous PM NAAQS Reviews
has not yet identified. See Lead 495 (2001).
Industries Association v. EPA, 647 F.2d In setting standards that are The EPA initially established NAAQS
1130, 1154 (D.C. Cir 1980); American ‘‘requisite’’ to protect public health and for PM under section 109 of the CAA in
Petroleum Institute v. Costle, 665 F.2d welfare, as provided in section 109(b), 1971. Since then, the Agency has made
1176, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1981); American the EPA’s task is to establish standards a number of changes to these standards
Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F. that are neither more nor less stringent to reflect continually expanding
3d 512, 533 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Association than necessary for these purposes. In so scientific information, particularly with
of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 604 F. 3d doing, the EPA may not consider the respect to the selection of indicator4and
613, 617–18 (D.C. Cir. 2010). Both kinds costs of implementing the standards. level. Table 1 provides a summary of the
of uncertainties are components of the See generally, Whitman v. American PM NAAQS that have been promulgated
risk associated with pollution at levels Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, to date. These decisions are briefly
below those at which human health 465–472, 475–76 (2001). Likewise, discussed below.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS PROMULGATED FOR PM 1971–2006a
Averaging
Final rule Indicator Level Form
time
1971—36 FR 8186 April 30, TSP.......... 24-hour .... 260 μg/m 3(primary) .................. Not to be exceeded more than once per year.
1971. 150 μg/m 3 ..................................
(secondary) ................................
Annual ..... 75 μg/m 3 .................................... Annual average.
(primary) ....................................
1987—52 FR 24634 July 1, PM ........ 24-hour .... 150 μg/m 3 .................................. Not to be exceeded more than once per year on
10
1987. average over a 3-year period.
Annual ..... 50 μg/m 3 .................................... Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years.
1The legislative history of section 109 indicates made materials, animals, wildlife, weather, yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebCASAC/
that a primary standard is to be set at ‘‘the visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration CommitteesandMembership?OpenDocument.
maximum permissible ambient air level * * * of property, and hazards to transportation, as well Members of the CASAC PM Review Panel are listed
which will protect the health of any [sensitive] as effects on economic values and on personal in the CASAC letters providing advice on draft
group of the population,’’ and that for this purpose comfort and well-being.’’
assessment documents (Samet, 2009a–f, 2012a–d).
‘‘reference should be made to a representative 3The CASAC PM Review Panel is comprised of
D with sraatmhperl et hoaf np etor sao nsisn cgolem pperrissoinng i nth seu scehn sai tgirvoeu gpr.o’’u Sp. tshuep pselevmene nmteedm bbyer fsi fotef ethne s uchbajerctet-rmeda tCteAr SeAxpCe, rts cla4sPsa orft icchuelamteic malalytt earn ids pthhey sgiecnaellryic d tievremrs feo r a broad
RO Rep. No. 91–1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 10 (1970). appointed by the Administrator to provide substances that exist as discrete particles (liquid
N1P 2Welfare effects as defined in section 302(h) (42 additional scientific expertise relevant to this droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes, such
TV U.S.C. 7602(h)) include, but are not limited to, review of the PM NAAQS. Lists of current CASAC that the indicator for a PM NAAQS has historically
SP ‘‘effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, man- members and review panels are available at: http:// been defined in terms of particle size ranges.
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations 3091
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS PROMULGATED FOR PM 1971–2006a—Continued
Averaging
Final rule Indicator Level Form
time
1997—62 FR 38652 July 18, PM ........ 24-hour .... 65 μg/m 3 .................................... 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years.b
2.5
1997.
Annual ..... 15.0 μg/m 3 ................................. Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3
years.cd
PM ........ 24-hour .... 150 μg/m 3 .................................. Initially promulgated 99th percentile, averaged
10
over 3 years; when 1997 standards for PM
10
were vacated, the form of 1987 standards re-
mained in place (not to be exceeded more
than once per year on average over a 3-year
period).
Annual ..... 50 μg/m 3 .................................... Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3 years.
2006—71 FR 61144 October PM ........ 24-hour .... 35 μg/m 3 .................................... 98th percentile, averaged over 3 years.b
2.5
17, 2006. Annual ..... 15.0 μg/m 3 ................................. Annual arithmetic mean, averaged over 3
years.ce
PM ........ 24-hour .... 150 μg/m 3 .................................. Not to be exceeded more than once per year on
10
average over a 3-year period.
aWhen not specified, primary and secondary standards are identical.
bThe 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 μg/m 3would round to 35 μg/m 3and thus meet the 24-hour standard and a 3-year average of 35.50 μg/m 3
would round to 36 and, hence, violate the 24-hour standard (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).
cThe level of the annual standard is defined to one decimal place (i.e., 15.0 μg/m 3) as determined by rounding. For example, a 3-year average
annual mean of 15.04 μg/m 3would round to 15.0 μg/m 3and, thus, meet the annual standard and a 3-year average of 15.05 μg/m 3would round
to 15.1 μg/m 3and, hence, violate the annual standard (40 CFR part 50, appendix N).
dThe level of the standard was to be compared to measurements made at sites that represent ‘‘community-wide air quality’’ recording the high-
est level, or, if specific requirements were satisfied, to average measurements from multiple community-wide air quality monitoring sites (‘‘spatial
averaging’’).
eThe 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 standard with a PM standard of 50 mg/ PM concentrations from single or
10 2.5
for PM based on the original air quality m3, annual arithmetic mean. The multiple monitors sited to represent
criteria document (DHEW, 1969; 36 FR secondary standard was revised by community-wide air quality6and a 24-
8186, April 30, 1971). The reference replacing it with 24-hour and annual hour standard of 65 mg/m3, based on the
method specified for determining PM10standards identical in all respects 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
attainment of the original standards was to the primary standards. The revisions 24-hour PM concentrations at each
2.5
the high-volume sampler, which also included a new reference method population-oriented monitor7within an
collects PM up to a nominal size of 25 for the measurement of PM10in the area. Also, the EPA established a new
to 45 mm (referred to as total suspended ambient air and rules for determining reference method for the measurement
particles or TSP). The primary standards attainment of the new standards. On of PM in the ambient air and rules for
2.5
(measured by the indicator TSP) were judicial review, the revised standards determining attainment of the new
260 mg/m3, 24-hour average, not to be were upheld in all respects. Natural standards. To continue to address
exceeded more than once per year, and Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 902 thoracic coarse particles, the annual
75 mg/m3, annual geometric mean. The F. 2d 962 (D.C. Cir. 1990). PM standard was retained, while the
10
secondary standard was 150 mg/m3, 24- In April 1994, the EPA announced its form, but not the level, of the 24-hour
hour average, not to be exceeded more plans for the second periodic review of PM standard was revised to be based
10
than once per year. the criteria and NAAQS for PM, and on the 99th percentile of 24-hour PM
10
In October 1979, the EPA announced promulgated significant revisions to the concentrations at each monitor in an
the first periodic review of the criteria NAAQS in 1997 (62 FR 38652, July 18, area. The EPA revised the secondary
and NAAQS for PM, and significant 1997). Most significantly, the EPA standards by making them identical in
revisions to the original standards were determined that although the PM all respects to the primary standards.
promulgated in 1987 (52 FR 24634, July NAAQS should continue to focus on Following promulgation of the revised
1, 1987). In that decision, the EPA thoracic particles (PM10), the fine and PM NAAQS in 1997, petitions for
changed the indicator for PM from TSP coarse fractions of PM10should be review were filed by a large number of
considered separately. New standards
to PM , the latter including particles
10 were added, using PM as the indicator
with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 6Monitoring stations sited to represent
or equal to a nominal 10 mm, which for fine particles. The PM10standards community-wide air quality would typically be at
were retained for the purpose of the neighborhood or urban-scale; however, where a
delineates thoracic particles (i.e., that regulating the coarse fraction of PM population-oriented micro or middle-scale PM2.5
subset of inhalable particles small 10 monitoring station represents many such locations
(referred to as thoracic coarse particles
enough to penetrate beyond the larynx throughout a metropolitan area, these smaller scales
to the thoracic region of the respiratory or PM10-2.5).5The EPA established two might also be considered to represent community-
new PM standards: an annual wide air quality [40 CFR part 58, appendix D,
tract). The EPA also revised the primary standard2 .o5f 15.0 mg/m3, based on the 3- 4.7.1(b)].
ROD with sTsttSaannPdd saatarrddns do abfr y1d 5( 1w0) i mrthge/p aml a23c4iw-nhigto htuh rne oP 2 Mm4-1oh0r oeu r year average of annual arithmetic mean raerse7iaPdsoe, pninutidlaault saitorreniaa-osl ,ra icreoenamtse mdw emhrecorinea liw taoorreirnaksge, r (rsoe frcr rsoeimtaet simo) nomraeel a ns
N1P than one expected exceedance per year 5See 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58 for more than one company are located, and other areas
V information on reference and equivalent methods where a substantial number of people may spend
T
SP and (2) replacing the annual TSP for measuring PM in ambient air. a significant fraction of their day (40 CFR 58.1).
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
3092 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations
parties, addressing a broad range of points. American Trucking Associations thoracic coarse particles, the Panel had
issues. In May 1998, a three-judge panel v. EPA, 195 F. 3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999). The reservations in recommending a primary
of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the full Court of Appeals denied the EPA’s 24-hour PM standard, and agreed
10-2.5
District of Columbia Circuit issued an request for rehearing en banc, with five that there was a need for more research
initial decision that upheld the EPA’s judges dissenting. Id. at 13. Both sides on the health effects of thoracic coarse
decision to establish fine particle filed cross appeals on these issues to the particles (Henderson, 2005b). With
standards, holding that ‘‘the growing United States Supreme Court, which regard to secondary standards, most
empirical evidence demonstrating a granted certiorari. In February 2001, the Panel members strongly supported
relationship between fine particle Supreme Court issued a unanimous establishing a new, distinct secondary
pollution and adverse health effects decision upholding the EPA’s position PM standard to protect urban
2.5
amply justifies establishment of new on both the constitutional and cost visibility (Henderson, 2005a, p. 9).
fine particle standards.’’ American issues. Whitman v. American Trucking On January 17, 2006, the EPA
Trucking Associations v. EPA, 175 F. 3d Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 464, 475–76. proposed to revise the primary and
1027, 1055–56 (D.C. Cir. 1999), On the constitutional issue, the Court secondary NAAQS for PM (71 FR 2620)
rehearing granted in part and denied in held that the statutory requirement that and solicited comment on a broad range
part, 195 F. 3d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1999), NAAQS be ‘‘requisite’’ to protect public of options. Proposed revisions included:
affirmed in part and reversed in part, health with an adequate margin of safety (1) Revising the level of the primary 24-
Whitman v. American Trucking sufficiently cabined the EPA’s hour PM2.5standard to 35 mg/m3; (2)
Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). The discretion, affirming the EPA’s approach revising the form, but not the level, of
panel also found ‘‘ample support’’ for of setting standards that are neither the primary annual PM2.5standard by
the EPA’s decision to regulate coarse more nor less stringent than necessary. tightening the constraints on the use of
particle pollution, but vacated the 1997 The Supreme Court remanded the case spatial averaging; (3) replacing the
P.M.10standards, concluding, in part, to the Court of Appeals for resolution of primary 24-hour PM10standard with a
that PM10is a ‘‘poorly matched any remaining issues that had not been 24-hour standard defined in terms of a
indicator for coarse particulate addressed in that court’s earlier rulings. new indicator, PM10-2.5, which was
pollution’’ because it includes fine Id. at 475–76. In March 2002, the Court qualified so as to include any ambient
particles. Id. at 1053–55. Pursuant to the of Appeals rejected all remaining mix of PM10-2.5dominated by particles
court’s decision, the EPA removed the challenges to the standards, holding generated by high-density traffic on
vacated 1997 P.M.10standards from the under the statutory standard of review paved roads, industrial sources, and
CFR (69 FR 45592, July 30, 2004) and that the EPA’s PM standards were construction sources, and to exclude
2.5
deleted the regulatory provision (at 40 reasonably supported by the any ambient mix of particles dominated
CFR 50.6(d)) that controlled the administrative record and were not by rural windblown dust and soils and
transition from the pre-existing 1987 ‘‘arbitrary and capricious.’’ American agricultural and mining sources (71 FR
P.M.10standards to the 1997 P.M.10 Trucking Association v. EPA, 283 F. 3d 2667 to 2668), set at a level of 70 mg/
standards. The pre-existing 1987 P.M.10 355, 369–72 (D.C. Cir. 2002). m3based on the 3-year average of the
standards remained in place (65 FR In October 1997, the EPA published 98th percentile of 24-hour PM10-2.5
80776, December 22, 2000). The court its plans for the next periodic review of concentrations; (4) revoking the primary
also upheld the EPA’s determination not the air quality criteria and NAAQS for annual PM10standard; and (5) revising
to establish more stringent secondary PM (62 FR 55201, October 23, 1997). the secondary standards by making
standards for fine particles to address
After CASAC and public review of them identical in all respects to the
effects on visibility (175 F. 3d at 1027).
several drafts, the EPA’s National Center proposed suite of primary standards for
More generally, the panel held (over
for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) fine and coarse particles.8Subsequent to
a strong dissent) that the EPA’s
finalized the Air Quality Criteria the proposal, CASAC provided
approach to establishing the level of the
standards in 1997, both for the PM and Document for Particulate Matter additional advice to the EPA in a letter
for the ozone NAAQS promulgated on (henceforth, AQCD or the ‘‘Criteria to the Administrator requesting
the same day, effected ‘‘an Document’’) in October 2004 (U.S. EPA, reconsideration of CASAC’s
unconstitutional delegation of 2004) and OAQPS finalized an recommendations for both the primary
legislative authority.’’ Id. at 1034–40. assessment document, Particulate and secondary PM2.5standards as well
Although the panel stated that ‘‘the Matter Health Risk Assessment for as the standards for thoracic coarse
factors EPA uses in determining the Selected Urban Areas (Abt Associates, particles (Henderson, 2006a).
On October 17, 2006, the EPA
degree of public health concern 2005), and the Review of the National
published revisions to the PM NAAQS
associated with different levels of ozone Ambient Air Quality Standards for
to provide increased protection of
and PM are reasonable,’’ it remanded Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
public health and welfare (71 FR
the rule to the EPA, stating that when Scientific and Technical Information, in
61144). With regard to the primary and
the EPA considers these factors for December 2005 (henceforth, ‘‘Staff
secondary standards for fine particles,
potential non-threshold pollutants Paper,’’ U.S. EPA, 2005). In conjunction
the EPA revised the level of the primary
‘‘what EPA lacks is any determinate with its review of the Staff Paper,
24-hour PM standard to 35 mg/m3,
criterion for drawing lines’’ to CASAC provided advice to the 2.5
retained the level of the primary annual
determine where the standards should Administrator on revisions to the PM
PM standard at 15.0 mg/m3, and
be set. Consistent with the EPA’s long- NAAQS (Henderson, 2005a). In 2.5
standing interpretation and D.C. Circuit particular, most CASAC PM Panel
precedent, the panel also reaffirmed its members favored revising the level of 8In recognition of an alternative view expressed
by most members of the CASAC PM Panel, the
prior holdings that in setting NAAQS, the primary 24-hour PM2.5standard Agency also solicited comments on a subdaily (4-
D with tthhee EcoPsAt oisf i‘‘mnoptl epmeremntiitntegd t htoo sceo nsider wa 9it8htihn ptherec reanntgilee ofof r3m5 ,t oin 3 c0o mngc/emrt3 wwitihth ttoo a8d-hdoruesrs a vviesriabgiilnitgy tiimmpea) isremceonntd, acroyn PsiMde2.r5instga ndard
N1PRO staOnnd aErPdAs.’’s’ Ipde.t aitti o1n04 f0o–r 4re1h. earing, the rPeMvisinsgta tnhdea lredv ewl iothf itnh eth per irmanagrey oafn 1n4u atol a3l0t emrgn/amti3vein s tcaonndjuarndc tlieovne lws iwthit ah ifno ram r awnigteh ionf a2 0r atnog e
V 2.5 of the 92nd to 98th percentile (71 FR 2685, January
T
SP panel adhered to its position on these 13 mg/m3(Henderson, 2005a, p.7). For 17, 2006).
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations 3093
revised the form of the primary annual thoracic coarse particles, CASAC had CAA. The court further concluded that
PM standard by adding further mixed views with regard to the decision the EPA failed to adequately explain
2.5
constraints on the optional use of spatial to retain the 24-hour standard and the why setting the secondary PM standards
averaging. The EPA revised the continued use of PM10as the indicator identical to the primary standards
secondary standards for fine particles by of coarse particles, while also provided the required protection for
making them identical in all respects to recognizing the need to have a standard public welfare, including protection
the primary standards. With regard to in place to protect against effects from visibility impairment. American
the primary and secondary standards for associated with short-term exposures to Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 559 F.
thoracic coarse particles, the EPA thoracic coarse particles (Henderson et 2d at 528–32.
retained the level and form of the 24- al., 2006b, p. 2). With regard to the The decisions of the court with regard
hour PM10standard (such that the EPA’s final decision to revise the to these three issues are discussed
standard remained at a level of 150 mg/ secondary PM2.5standards to be further in sections III.A.2, IV.A.2, and
m3with a one-expected exceedance identical in all respects to the revised VI.A.2 below. The EPA is responding to
form and retained the PM10indicator) primary PM2.5standards, CASAC the court’s remands as part of the
and revoked the annual PM10standard. expressed concerns that its advice to current review of the PM NAAQS.
The EPA also established a new Federal establish a distinct secondary standard
3. Current PM NAAQS Review
Reference Method (FRM) for the for fine particles to address visibility
measurement of PM in the ambient impairment was not followed and The EPA initiated the current review
10-2.5
air (71 FR 61212 to 13). Although the emphasized ‘‘that continuing to rely on of the air quality criteria for PM in June
standards for thoracic coarse particles the primary standard to protect against 2007 with a general call for information
were not defined in terms of a PM all PM-related adverse environmental (72 FR 35462, June 28, 2007). In July
10-2.5
indicator, the EPA adopted a new FRM and welfare effects assures neglect, and 2007, the EPA held two ‘‘kick-off’’
for PM to facilitate consistent will allow substantial continued workshops on the primary and
10-2.5
research on PM air quality and degradation, of visual air quality over secondary PM NAAQS, respectively (72
10-2.5
health effects and to promote large areas of the country’’ (Henderson FR 34003 to 34004, June 20, 2007).10
commercial development of Federal et al, 2006b, p. 2). These workshops provided an
Equivalent Methods (FEMs) to support 2. Litigation Related to the 2006 PM opportunity for a public discussion of
future reviews of the PM NAAQS (71 FR Standards the key policy-relevant issues around
61212/2). which the EPA would structure this PM
Following issuance of the final rule, Several parties filed petitions for NAAQS review and the most
CASAC articulated its concern that the review following promulgation of the meaningful new science that would be
revised PM NAAQS in 2006. These
‘‘EPA’s final rule on the NAAQS for PM available to inform our understanding of
petitions addressed the following issues:
does not reflect several important these issues.
aspects of the CASAC’s advice’’ (1) Selecting the level of the primary Based in part on the workshop
annual PM standard; (2) retaining
(Henderson et al., 2006b, p. 1). With 2.5 discussions, the EPA developed a draft
PM as the indicator of a standard for
regard to the primary PM annual 10 Integrated Review Plan outlining the
2.5
thoracic coarse particles, retaining the
standard, CASAC expressed serious schedule, process, and key policy-
level and form of the 24-hour PM
concerns regarding the decision to 10 relevant questions that would guide the
standard, and revoking the PM annual
retain the level of the standard at 15 mg/ 10 evaluation of the air quality criteria for
standard; and (3) setting the secondary
m3. Specifically, CASAC stated, ‘‘It is PM and the review of the primary and
PM standards identical to the primary
the CASAC’s consensus scientific 2.5 secondary PM NAAQS (U.S. EPA,
standards. On February 24, 2009, the
opinion that the decision to retain 2007a). On November 30, 2007, the EPA
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
without change the annual PM held a consultation with CASAC on the
2.5 Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in
standard does not provide an ‘adequate draft Integrated Review Plan (72 FR
the case American Farm Bureau
margin of safety * * * requisite to 63177, November 8, 2007), which
Federation v. EPA, 559 F. 3d 512 (D.C.
protect the public health’ (as required included the opportunity for public
Cir. 2009). The court remanded the
by the Clean Air Act), leaving parts of comment. The final Integrated Review
primary annual PM NAAQS to the
the population of this country at 2.5 Plan (U.S. EPA, 2008a) incorporated
EPA because the EPA failed to
significant risk of adverse health effects comments from CASAC (Henderson,
adequately explain why the standard
from exposure to fine PM’’ (Henderson 2008) and the public on the draft plan
provided the requisite protection from
et al., 2006b, p. 2). Furthermore, CASAC as well as input from senior Agency
both short- and long-term exposures to
pointed out that its recommendations managers.1112
fine particles, including protection for
‘‘were consistent with the mainstream
at-risk populations such as children.
scientific advice that EPA received from 10See workshop materials available at: http://
American Farm Bureau Federation v.
virtually every major medical www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home
EPA, 559 F. 3d 512, 520–27 (D.C. Cir. Docket ID numbers EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492–008;
association and public health
2009). With regard to the standards for EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492–009; EPA–HQ–OAR–
organization that provided their input to PM , the court upheld the EPA’s 2007–0492–010; and EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492–
the Agency’’ (Henderson et al., 2006b, p. 10 012.
decisions to retain the 24-hour PM
2).9With regard to EPA’s final decision 10 11The process followed in this review varies from
standard to provide protection from the NAAQS review process described in section 1.1
to retain the 24-hour PM standard for
10 thoracic coarse particle exposures and of the Integrated Review Plan (U.S. EPA, 2008a). On
to revoke the annual PM standard. May 21, 2009, Administrator Jackson called for key
10
9CASAC specifically identified input provided American Farm Bureau Federation v. changes to the NAAQS review process including
by the American Medical Association, the reinstating a policy assessment document that
EPA, 559 F. 2d at 533–38. With regard
American Thoracic Society, the American Lung contains staff analyses of the scientific bases for
D with Athses oAcmiaetrioicna,n t hCeo Allemgeer oicf aCna Ardciaodloegmyy, tohfe P Aedmieartricicasn, ctoo uthrte rseemcoannddaerdy t PhMe s2t.5anstdaanrddasr tdos ,t hthee aseltneironra Ativgeen pcoyl imcya noapgtieomnesn fto rp rcioonr stiod reuraletimonak biyn g. In
RO Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, EPA because the Agency’s decision was conjunction with this change, the EPA will no
N1P the American Public Health Association, and the ‘‘unreasonable and contrary to the longer issue a policy assessment in the form of an
V National Association of Local Boards of Health advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) as
T
SP (Henderson et al., 2006b, p. 2). requirements of section 109(b)(2)’’ of the Continued
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2
3094 Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 10/Tuesday, January 15, 2013/Rules and Regulations
A major element in the process for designing and conducting the initial Assessment. The EPA considered
reviewing the NAAQS is the health risk and visibility impact CASAC’s comments on this preliminary
development of an Integrated Science assessments, the Agency considered draft in developing a first draft Policy
Assessment. This document provides a CASAC comments (Samet 2009a,b) on Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010c; 75 FR
concise evaluation and integration of the Scope and Methods Plans made 4067, January 26, 2010) that built upon
the policy-relevant science, including during an April 2009 consultation (74 the information presented and assessed
key science judgments upon which the FR 7688, February 19, 2009) as well as in the final Integrated Science
risk and exposure assessments build. As public comments. CASAC and the Assessment and second draft Risk and
part of the process of preparing the PM public reviewed two draft assessment Exposure Assessments. The EPA
Integrated Science Assessment, NCEA documents, Risk Assessment to Support presented an overview of the first draft
hosted a peer review workshop in June the Review of the PM Primary Policy Assessment at a CASAC meeting
2.5
2008 on preliminary drafts of key National Ambient Air Quality on March 10, 2010 (75 FR 8062,
Integrated Science Assessment chapters Standards: External Review Draft, February 23, 2010) and it was discussed
(73 FR 30391, May 27, 2008). CASAC September 2009 (U.S. EPA, 2009e) and during public CASAC teleconferences
and the public reviewed the first Particulate Matter Urban-Focused on April 8 and 9, 2010 (75 FR 8062,
external review draft Integrated Science Visibility Assessment—External Review February 23, 2010) and May 7, 2010 (75
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2008b; 73 FR Draft, September 2009 (U.S. EPA, 2009f) FR 19971, April 16, 2010).
77686, December 19, 2008) at a meeting at a meeting held on October 5 and 6, The EPA developed a second draft
held on April 1 to 2, 2009 (74 FR 2688, 2009 (74 FR 46586, September 10, Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010f; 75
February 19, 2009). Based on CASAC 2009). Based on CASAC (Samet FR 39253, July 8, 2010) based on
(Samet, 2009e) and public comments, 2009c,d) and public comments, OAQPS CASAC (Samet, 2010c) and public
NCEA prepared a second draft staff revised these draft documents and comments on the first draft Policy
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. released second draft assessment Assessment. CASAC reviewed the
EPA, 2009b; 74 FR 38185, July 31, documents (U.S. EPA, 2010d,e) in second draft document at a meeting on
2009), which was reviewed by CASAC January and February 2010 (75 FR 4067, July 26 and 27, 2010 (75 FR 32763, June
and the public at a meeting held on January 26, 2010) for CASAC and public 9, 2010). The EPA staff considered
October 5 and 6, 2009 (74 FR 46586, review at a meeting held on March 10 CASAC (Samet, 2010d) and public
September 10, 2009). Based on CASAC and 11, 2010 (75 FR 8062, February 23, comments on the second draft Policy
(Samet, 2009f) and public comments, 2010). Based on CASAC (Samet, Assessment in preparing a final Policy
NCEA prepared the final Integrated 2010a,b) and public comments on the Assessment titled Policy Assessment for
Science Assessment titled Integrated second draft assessment documents, the the Review of the Particulate Matter
Science Assessment for Particulate National Ambient Air Quality
EPA revised these documents and
Matter, December 2009 (U.S. EPA, Standards, April, 2011 (U.S. EPA,
released final assessment documents
2009a; 74 FR 66353, December 15, 2011a; 76, FR 22665, April 22, 2011).
titled Quantitative Health Risk
2009). This document includes final staff
Assessment for Particulate Matter, June
Building upon the information conclusions on the adequacy of the
2010 (henceforth, ‘‘Risk Assessment,’’
presented in the PM Integrated Science current PM standards and alternative
U.S. EPA, 2010a) and Particulate Matter
Assessment, the EPA prepared Risk and standards for consideration.
Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment—
Exposure Assessments that provide a The schedule for the rulemaking in
Final Document, July 2010 (henceforth,
concise presentation of the methods, this review is subject to a court order in
‘‘Visibility Assessment,’’ U.S. EPA,
key results, observations, and related a lawsuit filed in February 2012 by a
2010b) (75 FR 39252, July 8, 2010).
uncertainties. In developing the Risk group of plaintiffs who alleged that the
and Exposure Assessments for this PM Based on the scientific and technical EPA had failed to perform its mandatory
NAAQS review, OAQPS released two information available in this review as duty, under section 109(d)(1), to
planning documents: Particulate Matter assessed in the Integrated Science complete a review of the PM NAAQS
National Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Risk and Exposure within the period provided by statute.
Standards: Scope and Methods Plan for Assessments, the EPA staff prepared a American Lung Association and
Health Risk and Exposure Assessment Policy Assessment. The Policy National Parks Conservation
and Particulate Matter National Assessment is intended to help ‘‘bridge Association v. EPA, D.D.C. No. 12–cv–
Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope the gap’’ between the relevant scientific 00243 (consol. with No. 12–cv–00531)
and Methods Plan for Urban Visibility information and assessments and the Court orders in that case provide that
Impact Assessment (henceforth, Scope judgments required of the Administrator the EPA sign a notice of proposed
and Methods Plans, U.S. EPA, 2009c,d; in reaching decisions on the NAAQS rulemaking concerning its review of the
74 FR 11580, March 18, 2009). These (Jackson, 2009, attachment, p. 2). PM NAAQS no later than June 14, 2012
planning documents outlined the scope American Farm Bureau Federation v. and a notice of final rulemaking no later
and approaches that staff planned to use EPA, 559 F. 3d at 521. The Policy than December 14, 2012.
in conducting quantitative assessments Assessment is not a decision document; On June 14, 2012, the EPA issued its
as well as key issues that would be rather it presents the EPA staff proposed decision to revise the NAAQS
addressed as part of the assessments. In conclusions related to the broadest for PM (77 FR 38890, June 29, 2012)
range of policy options that could be (henceforth ‘‘proposal’’). In the
discussed in the Integrated Review Plan (U.S. EPA, supported by the currently available proposal, the EPA identified revisions to
2008a, p. 3). For more information on the overall information. A preliminary draft Policy the standards, based on the air quality
process followed in this review including a Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009g) was criteria for PM, and to related data
description of the major elements of the process for
released in September 2009 for handling conventions and ambient air
reviewing NAAQS see Jackson (2009).
D with are1 2aAvalli lwabrliett einn tchoem dmoceknetst fsourb tmhiistt ePdM t oN tAhAe QASge ncy idnifsocrumssaitoinon wali tphu CrpAoSsAesC a antd t htoe Ofacctiolibtaetre mdeosniginto rreinqgu,i rreempoerntitns.g T, ahned E nPeAtw pororkp osed
RO review (EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0429). Transcripts of 5 and 6, 2009 meeting on the overall revisions to the PSD permitting program
N1P public meetings and teleconferences held in structure, areas of focus, and level of with respect to the proposed NAAQS
TV conjunction with CASAC’s reviews are also
SP included in the docket. detail to be included in the Policy revisions. The Agency also proposed
K3
S
D
tkelley on VerDate Mar<15>2010 20:39 Jan 14, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JAR2.SGM 15JAR2