[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38890-39055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15017]
[[Page 38889]]
Vol. 77
Friday,
No. 126
June 29, 2012
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, et al.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2012 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 38890]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 50, 51, 52, 53, and 58
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492; FRL-9682-9]
RIN 2060-AO47
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed 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 proposes to make revisions to the primary and secondary
NAAQS for PM to provide requisite protection of public health and
welfare, respectively, and to make corresponding revisions to the data
handling conventions for PM and ambient air monitoring, reporting, and
network design requirements. The EPA also proposes revisions to the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permitting program with
respect to the proposed NAAQS revisions. With regard to primary
standards for fine particles (generally referring to particles less
than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter,
PM2.5), the EPA proposes to revise the annual
PM2.5 standard by lowering the level to within a range of
12.0 to 13.0 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. The EPA proposes changes to the Air Quality Index (AQI) for
PM2.5 to be consistent with the proposed primary
PM2.5 standards. With regard to the primary standard for
particles generally less than or equal to 10 [mu]m in diameter
(PM10), the EPA proposes 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 proposes to revise the suite of secondary PM
standards by adding a distinct standard for PM2.5 to address
PM-related visibility impairment and to retain the current standards
generally to address non-visibility welfare effects. The proposed
distinct secondary standard would 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 dv or 28 dv.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2012.
Public Hearings: The EPA intends to hold public hearings on this
proposed rule in July 2012. These will be announced in a separate
Federal Register notice that provides details, including specific
dates, times, addresses, and contact information for these hearings.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0492 by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
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.
Docket: 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 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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 38891]]
General Information
What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA
through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of
the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk
or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM
the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
Follow directions--the agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives,
and substitute language for your requested changes.
Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
Availability of Related Information
A number of the documents that are relevant to this rulemaking are
available through 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. 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
III. Rationale for Proposed 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. Health Effects Related to Exposure to Fine Particles
1. Nature of Effects
a. Health Effects Associated With Long-term PM2.5
Exposures
b. Health Effects Associated With Short-term PM2.5
Exposures
c. Summary
2. Limitations and Uncertainties Associated With the Currently
Available Evidence
3. At-Risk Populations
4. Potential PM2.5-Related Impacts on Public Health
C. Quantitative Characterization of Health Risks
1. Overview
2. Summary of Design Aspects
3. Risk Estimates and Key Observations
D. Conclusions on the Adequacy of the Current Primary
PM2.5 Standards
1. Evidence-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
a. Associations With Long-term PM2.5 Exposures
b. Associations With Short-term PM2.5 Exposures
2. Summary of Risk-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
3. CASAC Advice
4. Administrator's Proposed 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. Approach Used in the Policy Assessment
b. Consideration of the Annual Standard in the Policy Assessment
c. Consideration of the 24-Hour Standard in the Policy
Assessment
d. CASAC Advice
e. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on the Primary
PM2.5 Standard Levels
F. Administrator's Proposed Decisions on Primary
PM2.5 Standards
IV. Rationale for Proposed 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 Policy Assessment for the
Current Review
B. Health Effects Related to Exposure to Thoracic Coarse
Particles
1. Nature of Effects
a. Short-term PM10-2.5 Exposure and Mortality
b. Short-term PM10-2.5 Exposure and Cardiovascular
Effects
c. Short-term PM10-2.5 Exposure and Respiratory
Effects
2. Potential Impacts of Sources and Composition on
PM10-2.5 Toxicity
3. Ambient PM10 Concentrations in PM10-2.5
Study Locations
4. At-Risk Populations
5. Limitations and Uncertainties Associated With the Currently
Available Evidence
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
a. Indicator
b. Averaging Time
c. Form
d. Level
i. Evidence-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
ii. Air Quality-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
iii. Integration of Evidence-Based and Air Quality-Based
Considerations in the Policy Assessment
D. CASAC Advice
E. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy
of the Current Primary PM10 Standard
F. Administrator's Proposed Decision on the Primary
PM10 Standard
V. Communication of Public Health Information
[[Page 38892]]
VI. Rationale for Proposed 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. PM-Related Visibility Impairment
1. Nature of PM-Related Visibility Impairment
a. Relationship Between Ambient PM and Visibility
b. Temporal Variations of Light Extinction
c. Periods During the Day of Interest for Assessment of
Visibility
d. Exposure Durations of Interest
2. Public Perception of Visibility Impairment
C. Adequacy of the Current Standards for PM-Related Visibility
Impairment
1. Visibility Under Current Conditions
2. Protection Afforded by the Current Standards
3. CASAC Advice
4. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on the Adequacy of the
Current Standards for PM-Related Visibility Impairment
D. Consideration of Alternative Standards for Visibility
Impairment
1. Indicator
a. Alternative Indicators Considered in the Policy Assessment
i. PM2.5 Mass
ii. Directly Measured PM2.5 Light Extinction
iii. Calculated PM2.5 Light Extinction
iv. Conclusions in the Policy Assessment
b. CASAC Advice
c. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Indicator
2. Averaging Times
a. Alternative Averaging Times
i. Sub-Daily
ii. 24-Hour
iii. Conclusions in the Policy Assessment
b. CASAC Advice
c. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Averaging Time
3. Form
4. Level
E. Other PM-Related Welfare Effects
1. Climate
2. Ecological Effects
a. Plants
b. Soil and Nutrient Cycling
c. Wildlife
d. Water
e. Effects Associated With Ambient PM Concentrations
f. Conclusions in the Policy Assessment
3. Materials Damage
4. CASAC Advice
5. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Secondary Standards
for Other PM-related Welfare Effects
F. Administrator's Proposed Decisions on Secondary PM Standards
VII. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM
A. Proposed 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 Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5
NAAQS
5. Data Handling Procedures for the Proposed New Secondary
PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
B. Exceptional Events
C. Proposed Updates for Data Handling Procedures for Reporting
the Air Quality Index
VIII. Proposed 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 CSN Methods to Support the Proposed New Secondary
PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
B. Proposed Changes to 40 CFR Part 58 (Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance)
1. Proposed Terminology Changes
2. Special Considerations for Comparability of PM2.5
Ambient Air Monitoring Data to the NAAQS
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. Proposed Changes to Monitoring for the National Ambient Air
Monitoring System
a. Background
b. Primary PM2.5 NAAQS
i. Proposed 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 Requirements at NCore Sites
d. Measurements for the Proposed New PM2.5 Visibility
Index NAAQS
4. Proposed 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. Proposed 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
B. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP Requirements
C. Implementing the Proposed Revised Primary Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in Nonattainment Areas
D. Implementing the Primary and Secondary PM10 NAAQS
E. Implementing the Proposed New PM2.5 Visibility
Index NAAQS in Nonattainment Areas
F. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New
Source Review Programs for the Proposed Revised Primary Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the Proposed New Secondary
PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
1. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
a. Grandfathering Provision
b. Recent Guidance Applicable to the Proposed Revised Primary
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
c. Surrogacy Approach for the Proposed New Secondary
PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
d. PSD Screening Provisions: Significant Emissions Rates,
Significant Impact Levels, and Significant Modeling Concentration
e. PSD Increments
2. Nonattainment New Source Review
G. Transportation Conformity Program
H. 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
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 proposed rulemaking is being done pursuant to these
statutory requirements. The schedule for this proposed rule is set out
in a court order.
In 2006, the EPA completed the 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
[[Page 38893]]
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 [mu]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. (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 EPA because EPA 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 is responding to the court's remands as part of the
current review of the PM NAAQS.
This review was initiated in June 2007. Between 2007 and 2011, 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 peer reviewed
by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). This proposed
rulemaking is the next step in the review process.
In this rulemaking, the EPA proposes to make revisions to the suite
of primary and secondary standards for PM to provide increased
protection of public health and welfare. We also discuss EPA's current
perspectives on implementation issues related to the proposed revisions
to the PM NAAQS. The EPA proposes revisions to the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations to address the
proposed changes in the primary and secondary PM NAAQS. The EPA also
proposes an approach for implementing the PSD program specifically for
the proposed secondary standard. The EPA is also proposing to update
the Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM2.5 and to make changes in
the data handling conventions for PM and ambient air monitoring,
reporting, and network design requirements to correspond with the
proposed changes to the standards.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
With regard to the primary standards for fine particles, EPA
proposes to revise the annual PM2.5 standard by lowering the
level from 15.0 to within a range of 12.0 to 13.0 [mu]g/m\3\ so as to
provide increased protection against health effects associated with
long- and short-term exposures. The EPA proposes to retain the level
(35 [mu]g/m\3\) and the form (98th percentile) of the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard to provide supplemental protection against
health effects associated with short-term exposures. This proposed
action would provide 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 proposes to eliminate spatial averaging
provisions as part of the form of the annual standard to avoid
potential disproportionate impacts on at-risk populations.
The proposed changes to the primary annual PM2.5
standard are within the range that CASAC advised the Agency to
consider. These changes 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 proposed changes also
reflect 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 proposes to conclude 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 the
proposed revisions are warranted to provide the appropriate degree of
increased public health protection. The EPA solicits comment on all
aspects of the proposed primary PM2.5 standards.
With regard to the primary standard for coarse particles, EPA
proposes to retain 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 proposes to conclude 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 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. The
Administrator welcomes the public's views on these approaches to
considering and accounting for the evidence and its limitations and
uncertainties.
With regard to the secondary PM standards, the EPA proposes to
revise the suite of secondary PM standards by adding a distinct
standard for PM2.5 to address PM-related visibility
impairment. More specifically, the EPA proposes to establish a
secondary standard 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, 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 deciviews (dv) or 28 dv. The EPA also
proposes to rely upon the existing Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) to
provide appropriate monitoring data for calculating PM2.5
visibility index values.
The proposed secondary standard is based on the long-standing
science characterizing the contribution of PM, especially fine
particles, to visibility impairment and on air quality analyses, with
consideration also given to a reanalysis of public perception surveys
regarding people's stated preferences regarding acceptable and
unacceptable visual air quality. Based on this information, the
Administrator proposes to conclude that the current secondary
PM2.5 standards are not sufficiently protective of the
public welfare with respect to visual air quality. The EPA solicits
comment on all aspects of the proposed secondary standard.
To address other non-visibility welfare effects including
ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate impacts, the EPA
proposes to retain the current suite of secondary PM standards
generally, while proposing to revise only the form of the secondary
annual PM2.5 standard to remove the option for spatial
averaging consistent with this
[[Page 38894]]
proposed change to the primary annual PM2.5 standard.
The proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS would 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
proposed new or revised NAAQS for PM2.5. States will also
review, modify and supplement their existing state implementation
plans. The proposed NAAQS revisions would affect the applicable air
permitting requirements and the transportation conformity and general
conformity processes. This notice provides background information for
understanding the implications of the proposed NAAQS revisions for
these implementation processes and describes and requests comment on
EPA's current perspectives on implementation issues. In addition, the
EPA proposes to revise its PSD regulations to provide limited
grandfathering from the requirements that result from the revised PM
NAAQS for permit applications for which the public comment period has
begun when the revised PM NAAQS take effect. The EPA also proposes to
implement a surrogate approach that would provide a mechanism for
permit applicants to demonstrate that they will not cause or contribute
to a violation of the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS. It is the EPA's intention to finalize any time-sensitive
revisions to its PSD regulations at the same time as any new or revised
NAAQS are finalized.
With regard to implementation-related activities, the EPA intends
to promulgate rules or develop guidance related to NAAQS implementation
on a schedule that provides timely clarity to the states, tribes, and
other parties responsible for NAAQS implementation. The EPA solicits
comment on all implementation aspects during the public comment period
for this notice and will consider these comments as it develops future
rulemaking or guidance, as appropriate.
On other topics, the EPA proposes changes to the Air Quality Index
(AQI) for PM2.5 to be consistent with the proposed primary
PM2.5 standards. The EPA also proposes revisions to the data
handling procedures consistent with the proposed 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 proposes updates to several
aspects of the monitoring regulations and specifically proposes 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.
C. Costs and Benefits
In setting the NAAQS, the EPA may not consider the costs of
implementing the standards. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in
Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457, 465-472, 475-
76 (2001), as discussed in section II.A of this notice. 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 proposed 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 $88 million to $220 million (for 13.0 [mu]g/m\3\) and from
$2.3 billion to $5.9 billion per year (for 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\) in 2020 and
costs ranging from $2.9 million (for 13.0 [mu]g/m\3\) to $69 million
(for 12.0 [mu]g/m\3\) per year.
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 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
[[Page 38895]]
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 sensitive population(s) at risk, 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), 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
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Lists of CASAC members and of members of the CASAC PM Review
Panel are available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebCASAC/CommitteesandMembership?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [mu]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).
Table 1--Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards Promulgated for PM 1971-2006 \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final rule Indicator Averaging time Level Form
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1971--36 FR 8186 April 30, TSP............... 24-hour........... 260 [mu]g/m\3\ Not to be exceeded
1971. (primary), 150 more than once per
[mu]g/m\3\ year.
(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
1987. 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.
1997--62 FR 38652, July 18, PM2.5............. 24-hour........... 65 [mu]g/m\3\.... 98th percentile,
1997. averaged over 3
years.\6\
Annual............ 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.. Annual arithmetic
mean, averaged over
3 years.7 8
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 17, PM2.5............. 24-hour........... 35 [mu]g/m\3\.... 98th percentile,
2006. averaged over 3
years.\6\
Annual............ 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.. Annual arithmetic
mean, averaged over
3 years.\7\ \9\
[[Page 38896]]
PM10.............. 24-hour........... 150 [mu]g/m\3\... Not to be exceeded
more than once per
year on average over
a 3-year period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ When not specified, primary and secondary standards are
identical.
\6\ 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).
\7\ 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).
\8\ 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'').
\9\ 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 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).\10\ The EPA
established two new PM2.5 standards: an annual standard of
15 [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 \11\; 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 \12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58 for more information on
reference and equivalent methods for measuring PM in ambient air.
\11\ 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)].
\12\ 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 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 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 (DC Cir.
1999), rehearing granted in part and denied in part, 195 F. 3d 4 (DC
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 EPA's decision to regulate coarse particle
pollution, but vacated the 1997 PM10 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 PM10 standards from the CFR (69 FR 45592, July
30, 2004) and deleted the regulatory provision [at 40 CFR section
50.6(d)] that controlled the transition from the pre-existing 1987
PM10 standards to the 1997 PM10 standards. The
pre-existing 1987 PM10 standards remained in place (65 FR
80776, December 22, 2000). The court also upheld 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 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 EPA's long-standing interpretation and DC
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 (DC
Cir. 1999). The full Court of Appeals denied 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 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 EPA's
discretion, affirming 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
[[Page 38897]]
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 EPA's PM2.5
standards were reasonably supported by the administrative record and
were not ``arbitrary and capricious.'' American Trucking Associations
v. EPA, 283 F. 3d 355, 369-72 (DC 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,
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 their 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 in the range of 35 to
30 [micro]g/m\3\ with a 98th percentile form, in concert with revising
the level of the primary annual PM2.5 standard in the range
of 14 to 13 [micro]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 [micro]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, this proposed indicator 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 [micro]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.\13\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 [micro]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 promulgated 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 [micro]g/m\3\, retained the level of
the primary annual PM2.5 standard at 15 [micro]g/m\3\, and
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 [micro]g/m\3\ with a
one-expected exceedance form), 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
61212-13). 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 ``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 [micro]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).\14\ 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 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38898]]
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
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. 3d 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.
3d 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).\15\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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.16 17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 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, EPA 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, 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).
\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 with 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). The first external review draft
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2008b; 73 FR 77686, December
19, 2008) was reviewed by CASAC and the public 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. 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) were 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 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,
[[Page 38899]]
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, 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 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. CASAC's comments on
this preliminary draft were considered in developing a first draft PA
(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. The second draft
document was reviewed by CASAC at a meeting on July 26 and 27, 2010 (75
FR 32763, June 9, 2010). CASAC (Samet, 2010d) and public comments on
the second draft Policy Assessment were considered by EPA staff 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 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. The court order, entered on June
2, 2012 and amended on June 6, 2012, provides that EPA will sign, for
publication, a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning its review of
the PM NAAQS no later than June 14, 2012.
The EPA is aware that a number of new scientific studies on the
health effects of PM have been published since the mid-2009 cutoff date
for inclusion in the Integrated Science Assessment. As in the last PM
NAAQS review, the EPA intends to conduct a provisional review and
assessment of any significant new studies published since the close of
the Integrated Science Assessment, including studies that may be
submitted during the public comment period on this proposed rule in
order to ensure that, before making a final decision, the Administrator
is fully aware of the new science that has developed since 2009. In
this provisional assessment, the EPA will examine these new studies in
light of the literature evaluated in the Integrated Science Assessment.
This provisional assessment and a summary of the key conclusions will
be placed in the rulemaking docket.
Today's action presents the Administrator's proposed decisions on
the current PM standards. Throughout this preamble there are a number
of conclusions, findings, and determinations that are part of the
rationales for the decisions proposed by the Administrator. They are
referred to throughout as ``provisional'' conclusions, findings, and
determinations to reflect that they are not intended to be final or
conclusive but rather proposals for public comment. The EPA invites
general, specific, and technical comments on all issues involved with
this proposal, including all such proposed decisions and provisional
conclusions, findings, and determinations.
C. Related Control Programs To Implement PM Standards
States are primarily responsible for ensuring attainment and
maintenance of ambient air quality standards once the EPA has
established them. Under section 110 of the CAA, and related provisions,
states are to submit, for EPA's approval, state implementation plans
(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 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 for stationary sources under section 111 of the
CAA.
Currently, there are 55 areas in the U.S. (with a population of
more than 100 million) that are designated as nonattainment for either
the annual or 24-hour PM2.5 standards. Regarding the 1997
PM2.5 standards, the EPA designated 39 nonattainment areas
in 2005. Regarding the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard, the EPA
designated 31 areas in 2009 and added one area in 2010. Sixteen areas
are currently designated as nonattainment for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 standards. With regard to the PM10 NAAQS,
45 areas (with a population of more than 25 million) are currently
designated as nonattainment. Upon any revisions to the PM NAAQS, the
EPA would work with the states to conduct a new area designation
process. Upon designation of new nonattainment areas, certain states
would then be required to develop SIPs to attain the standards. In
developing their attainment plans, states would first take into account
projected emission reductions from federal and state rules that have
been already 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
the Transport Rule for electric generating units, 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 would
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
[[Page 38900]]
regulations as appropriate. Section IX includes additional discussion
of designation and implementation issues associated with any revised PM
NAAQS.
III. Rationale for Proposed Decisions on the Primary PM2.5
Standards
This section presents the rationale for the Administrator's
proposed decision to revise the level and form of the existing primary
annual PM2.5 standard and to retain the existing primary 24-
hour PM2.5 standard. As discussed more fully below, this
rationale 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. This proposal also
takes 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; and (3) public comments received
during the development of these documents, either in connection with
CASAC meetings or separately.
In developing this proposal, the Administrator recognizes that the
CAA requires her to reach a public health policy judgment as to what
standards would be requisite 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 standards to propose,
and subsequently 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, 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 well
reflect different demographic and air pollution characteristics.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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 proposed rule, the EPA has drawn upon an integrative
synthesis of the entire body of evidence between 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 in taking into account potential impacts on
at-risk populations\19\ and in considering alternative standard levels
that provide protection with an appropriate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In this proposal, the term ``at-risk'' is the broadly
encompassing term used for groups with specific factors that
increase the risk of PM-related health effects in a population. In
the Integrated Science Assessment, as discussed in section III.B.3
below, the term ``susceptibility'' was used broadly to recognize
populations at greater risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 opportunities for public review and comment.
Although important uncertainties remain in the qualitative and
quantitative characterizations of health effects attributable to
ambient fine particles, the review of this information has been
extensive and deliberate. This intensive evaluation of the scientific
evidence and quantitative assessments has provided an 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 potential 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 will draw 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 this proposal.
In presenting the rationale for the proposed revisions of 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 those standards in 2006 (section
III.A.1). The D.C. 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 history, section II.A.3
describes EPA's general approach used in the current review for
considering the need to retain or revise the current suite of fine
particle standards. Section III.B summarizes the body of scientific
evidence supporting the rationale for the proposed decisions, including
key health endpoints associated with long- and short-term exposures to
ambient fine particles. This overview includes a discussion of at-risk
populations and potential PM2.5-related impacts on public
health. Section III.C outlines the approach taken by the EPA to assess
health risks associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5,
including a discussion of key uncertainties and limitations associated
with these analyses. Section III.D discusses the scientific evidence,
air quality, risk-based information; CASAC advice; and the
Administrator's proposed decisions related to the adequacy of the
current standards. Section III.E discusses the scientific evidence, air
quality, and risk-based information; CASAC advice; and the
[[Page 38901]]
Administrator's proposed decisions related to alternative standards.
Section III.F summarizes the Administrator's proposed decisions with
regard to the primary PM2.5 NAAQS.
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 PM 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, 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. 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. 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.
1. General Approach Used in Previous Reviews
The general approach used to translate scientific information into
standards used in the previous reviews focused on consideration of
alternative standard levels that were somewhat below the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in epidemiological studies
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.1.1). This approach recognized that the
strongest evidence of PM2.5-related associations occurs at
concentrations near 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.\20\ 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 a national annual
standard (62 FR 38669/3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 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 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 both short-
and long-term exposure studies, 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 [mu]g/m\3\ to protect against effects associated with short-term
exposures. The EPA relied upon evidence from long-term exposure studies
as the principal basis for retaining the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]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
[[Page 38902]]
any of the litigants and, thus, 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 PM NAAQS decisions, as summarized in section III.A.1. 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 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 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, 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 is broader and more integrative than in past reviews. Our
general approach also reflects consideration of the issues raised by
the court in its remand of the primary annual PM2.5
standard, 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 takes 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, EPA staff developed a final Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a) which provides as broad an array of policy
options as is supportable 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 presented in this document.
The Policy Assessment concludes it is 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).\21\ As the
EPA recognized in 1997, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ By utilizing this approach, the Agency would also be
responsive to the remand of the 2006 standard. As noted in section
III.A.2, the DC 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 recognizes 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 recognizes 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
[[Page 38903]]
recognizes that the short-term exposure studies are 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 is 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 demonstrate 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 is no evidence suggesting that
risks associated with long-term exposures are likely to be
disproportionately driven by peak 24-hour concentrations.\22\ For these
reasons, strategies that focus primarily on reducing peak days are less
likely to achieve reductions in the PM2.5 concentrations
that are most strongly associated with the observed health effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In confirmation, a number of studies that have presented
analyses excluding higher PM concentration days 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, a policy approach that focuses 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, 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
discussed above.
The Policy Assessment concludes 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, is
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 concludes, however, 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 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 concludes it is 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 focuses 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 is 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 considers effects and estimated risks
associated with short-term exposures. In both cases, the Policy
Assessment places greatest weight on health effects that have 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 focuses on specific at-risk populations.
The Policy Assessment places relatively greater weight on statistically
significant associations that yield relatively more precise effect
estimates and that are judged to be robust to confounding by other air
pollutants. In the case of short-term exposure studies, the Policy
Assessment places 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 considers a number of factors
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2). As an initial matter, the Policy
Assessment considers 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
considers evidence on at-risk populations and potential impacts on such
populations. Further, the Policy Assessment explores the extent to
which PM2.5-related health effects have been observed in
areas where air quality distributions extend to lower levels 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 alternative standard levels for
consideration (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.4), the Policy
Assessment first recognizes 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).\23\
In the absence of any discernible thresholds, the Agency's general
approach for identifying appropriate standard levels for consideration
involves 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 recognizes
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 decisions to either retain or
revise the standards. Final decisions will necessarily also take into
account
[[Page 38904]]
public health policy judgments as to the degree of health protection
that is to be achieved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 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 concludes that the
studies evaluated support the use of a no-threshold, log-linear
model but recognizes 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 is appropriate to consider, the Policy Assessment focuses
on identifying an annual standard that provides requisite protection
from effects associated with both long- and short-term exposures. In so
doing, the Policy Assessment explores 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.
The approach that most directly addresses this issue considers
studies that present confidence intervals around concentration-response
relationships, and in particular, analyses that average across multiple
concentration-response models rather than considering a single
concentration-response model.\24\ The Policy Assessment explores the
extent to which such analyses have 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 concludes
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 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 explores other approaches that
consider different statistical metrics from epidemiological studies.
The Policy Assessment first takes 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.\25\ This approach recognizes that the strongest evidence of
PM2.5-related associations occurs at concentrations near the
long-term (i.e., annual) mean. In using this approach, the Policy
Assessment places greatest weight on those long- and short-term
exposure studies that reported statistically significant associations
with mortality and morbidity effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Epidemiological studies typically report PM2.5
concentrations averaged across the available ambient monitors. For
multi-city studies, this metric reflects concentrations averaged
across one or more ambient monitors within each area included in a
given study 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 considers
information beyond a single statistical metric of PM2.5
concentrations (i.e., the mean) to the extent such information is
available. In so doing, the Policy Assessment employs 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 epidemiological studies. Thus, the Policy
Assessment considers the range of PM2.5 concentrations where
the data analyzed in the study (i.e., air quality and population-level
data, as discussed below) are most concentrated, specifically, the
range of PM2.5 concentrations around the long-term mean over
which our confidence in the associations observed in the
epidemiological studies is greatest. The Policy Assessment then focuses
on the lower part of this range to characterize where in the
distributions the data become appreciably more sparse and, thus, where
our understanding of the associations correspondingly becomes more
uncertain. The Policy Assessment recognizes there is no one percentile
value within a given distribution that is the most appropriate or
``correct'' way to characterize where our confidence in the
associations becomes appreciably lower. The Policy Assessment concludes
that the range from the 25th to 10th percentiles is a reasonable range
to consider as a region where we have appreciably less confidence in
the associations observed in epidemiological studies.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ In the PM NAAQS review completed in 2006, the Staff Paper
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 advices are most useful to consider
in identifying the PM2.5 concentrations most influential in
generating the health effect estimates reported in the epidemiological
studies.\27\ Consistent with CASAC advice, the most relevant
information is 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, as
discussed in section III.E.4.b below, the Policy Assessment also
considers the number of study participants within each study area as an
appropriate surrogate for health event data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The second draft Policy Assessment focused on the
distributions of PM2.5 concentrations 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, EPA considered area-specific health event and area-
specific population data along with corresponding PM2.5
concentrations to generate a cumulative distribution of the
population data relative to long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations to determine the most influential range (U.S. EPA,
2011a, Figure 2-7 and associated text).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment recognizes that an approach considering
analyses of confidence intervals around concentration-response
functions is intrinsically related to an approach that considers
different distributional statistics. Both of these approaches could be
employed to identify the range of PM2.5 concentrations over
which we have the most confidence in the associations reported in
epidemiological studies.
In applying these approaches, the Policy Assessment considers
PM2.5 concentrations from long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposure studies using composite monitor
distributions.\28\ For multi-city studies, this distribution reflects
concentrations averaged across one or more ambient monitors within
[[Page 38905]]
each area included in a given study and then averaged across study
areas for an overall study mean PM2.5 concentration. Beyond
considering air quality concentrations based on composite monitor
distributions, the second draft Policy Assessment also considered
PM2.5 concentrations based on measurements at the monitor
within each area that records the highest concentration (i.e., maximum
monitor) (U.S. EPA, 2010f, sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.4.1).\29\ Although
the second draft Policy Assessment discussed whether consideration of
alternative annual standard levels should be based on composite or
maximum monitor distributions, the final Policy Assessment, consistent
with CASAC advice (Samet, 2010d, p. 3), concluded that it is most
reasonable to place more weight on an approach based on composite
monitor distributions, which represent the PM2.5
concentrations typically presented and used in epidemiological analyses
and which provide a direct link between PM2.5 concentrations
and the observed health effects reported in both long- and short-term
exposure studies (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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, as noted above, the
composite monitor concentration represents the average concentration
across one or more monitors within each area included in a given
study and then averaged across study areas for an overall study mean
PM2.5 concentration.
\29\ The maximum monitor distribution is relevant because it is
generally used to determine whether a given standard is met in an
area and the extent to which ambient PM2.5 concentrations
need to be reduced in order to bring an area into attainment with
the standard. However, maximum monitor distributions represent a far
less robust metric than composite monitor distributions for
consideration of alternative annual standard levels in part because
they are available for only a few epidemiological studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching staff conclusions on alternative standard levels that
are appropriate to consider, the Policy Assessment also includes a
broader consideration of the uncertainties related to the
concentration-response relationships from multi-city, long- and short-
term exposure studies. Most notably, these uncertainties relate to our
currently limited understanding of the heterogeneity of relative risk
estimates in areas across the country. This heterogeneity may be
attributed, in part, to the potential for different components within
the mix of ambient fine particles to differentially contribute to
health effects observed in the studies and to exposure-related factors
(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 further
discussed in section III.B.2 below.
The Policy Assessment recognizes that the level of protection
afforded by the NAAQS relies both on the level and the form of the
standard. The Policy Assessment concludes that a policy approach that
uses data based on composite monitor distributions to identify
alternative standard levels, and then compares those levels to
concentrations at maximum monitors to determine if an area meets a
given standard, inherently has the potential to build in some margin of
safety (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-14).\30\ This conclusion is 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 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.
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 and the composite
monitor distributions may be well below the maximum monitor
distributions (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 informs 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 evaluates both the distributions of 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations, with a focus on the 98th percentile concentrations to
match the form of the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, to the
extent such data were available, 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
considers air quality information based on county-level 24-hour and
annual design values \31\ to understand the policy implications of the
alternative standard levels supported by the underlying science. In
particular, the Policy Assessment considers 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. Based on the evidence-based
considerations outlined above, the Policy Assessment develops
integrated conclusions with regard to alternative suites of standards,
including both annual and 24-hour standards that are appropriate to
consider in this review based on the currently available evidence and
air quality information. In so doing, the Policy Assessment discusses
the roles that each standard might be expected to play in the
protection afforded by alternative suites of standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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 considers the quantitative risk estimates and the key observations
presented in the Risk Assessment. This assessment includes 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 considers 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 characterizes 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 recognizes the
uncertainties inherent in such risk estimates, and takes 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 considers 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
[[Page 38906]]
related to both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures.
The Policy Assessment conclusions related to the primary
PM2.5 standards reflect an 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) potential alternative standards, if any, that are
appropriate to consider in this review to protect against effects
associated with both long- and short-term exposures to fine particles.
In addressing these broad questions, the discussions included in the
Policy Assessment were organized around a series of more specific
questions reflecting different aspects of each overarching question
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, chapter 2, Figure 2-1). When evaluating the health
protection afforded by the current or any alternative suites of
standards considered, the Policy Assessment takes 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 provides a comprehensive basis to help inform
the judgments required of the Administrator in reaching decisions about
the current and potential alternative primary fine particle standards
and in responding to the remand of the 2006 primary annual
PM2.5 standard.
B. Health Effects Related to Exposure to Fine Particles
This section outlines key information contained 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. As was true in the last review, evidence from
epidemiologic studies plays a key role in the Integrated Science
Assessment's evaluation of the scientific evidence. The following
sections discuss 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).
1. Nature of Effects
In considering the strength of the associations between long- and
short-term exposures to PM2.5 and health effects, the Policy
Assessment notes that in the PM NAAQS review completed in 2006 the
Agency 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 epidemiological
evidence 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).\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The term ``likely causal association'' was used in the 2004
Criteria Document to summarize the strength of the available
epidemiological 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 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 (U.S. EPA,
2009a, sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2). The currently available evidence is
stronger in comparison to evidence available in the last review because
of its breadth and the substantiation of previously observed health
effects. A number of large multi-city epidemiological studies have been
conducted throughout the U.S., including extended analyses of studies
that were important to inform decision-making in the last review. These
studies have reported consistent increases in morbidity and/or
mortality related to ambient PM2.5 concentrations, with the
strongest evidence reported for cardiovascular-related effects. In
addition, the findings of new toxicological and controlled human
exposure studies greatly expand and provide stronger support for a
number of potential biologic mechanisms or pathways for cardiovascular
and respiratory effects associated with long- and short-term PM
exposures (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-17; chapter 5; Figures 5-4 and 5-5).
With regard to causal inferences described in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the Policy Assessment notes that since the last
review, the Agency has developed a more formal framework for reaching
causal determinations that 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 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-18;
U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5). 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
a 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).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Causal inferences, as discussed in the Integrated Science
Assessment, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using this causal framework, the Integrated Science Assessment
concludes that the collective evidence is largely consistent with past
studies and substantially strengthens what was known about fine
particles in the last review to reach the conclusion that a causal
relationship exists between both long- and short-term exposures to
PM2.5 and mortality and cardiovascular effects including
cardiovascular-related mortality. The Integrated Science Assessment
also concludes that the collective evidence continues to support a
likely causal relationship between long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures and respiratory effects, including
respiratory-related mortality. Further, the Integrated Science
Assessment concludes that the currently available evidence is
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) (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.1 and 2.6; Table 2-6; U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Table 2-1).
a. Health Effects Associated With Long-Term PM2.5 Exposures
With regard to mortality, the Integrated Science Assessment
concludes that newly available evidence significantly strengthens the
link between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality,
while providing indications that the magnitude of the PM2.5-
mortality association may be larger than previously estimated (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 7.2.10, 7.2.11, and 7.6.1; Figures 7-6 and 7-7). A
number of large U.S. cohort studies have been published since the last
review, including extended analyses of the
[[Page 38907]]
American Cancer Society (ACS) and Harvard Six Cities studies (U.S. EPA,
2009a, pp. 7-84 to 7-85; Figure 7-6; Krewski et al., 2009; Pope et al.,
2004; Jerrett et al., 2005; Laden et al., 2006). In addition, new long-
term PM2.5 exposure studies evaluating mortality impacts in
additional cohorts are now available (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.6).
For example, the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Observational Study
reported effects of PM2.5 on cardiovascular-related
mortality in post-menopausal women with no previous history of cardiac
disease (Miller et al., 2007). The PM2.5 effect estimate in
this study remained positive and statistically significant in a multi-
pollutant model that included gaseous co-pollutants as well as coarse
particles. In addition, multiple studies observed PM2.5-
associated mortality among older adults using Medicare data (Eftim et
al., 2008; Zeger et al., 2007, 2008). Collectively, these new studies,
along with evidence available in the last review, provide consistent
and stronger evidence of associations between long-term exposure to
PM2.5 and mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.1 and
7.6).
The strength of the causal relationship between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality also builds upon new studies
providing evidence of improvement in community health following
reductions in ambient fine particles. Pope et al. (2009) documented the
population health benefits of reducing ambient air pollution by
correlating past reductions in ambient PM2.5 concentrations
with increased life expectancy. These investigators reported that
reductions in ambient fine particles during the 1980s and 1990s account
for as much as 15 percent of the overall improvement in life expectancy
in 51 U.S. metropolitan areas, with the fine particle reductions
reported to be associated with an estimated increase in mean life
expectancy of approximately 5 to 9 months (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-95;
Pope et al., 2009). An extended analysis of the Harvard Six Cities
study found that as cities cleaned up their air, locations with the
largest reductions in PM2.5 saw the largest improvements in
reduced mortality rates, while those with the smallest decreases in
PM2.5 concentrations saw the smallest improvements (Laden et
al., 2006). Another extended follow-up to the Harvard Six Cities study
investigated the delay between changes in ambient PM2.5
concentrations and changes in mortality (Schwartz et al., 2008) and
reported that the effects of changes in PM2.5 were seen
within the 2 years prior to death (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-92; Figure 7-
9).
With regard to cardiovascular effects, 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. The Integrated Science Assessment concludes that the
strongest evidence comes from recent studies investigating
cardiovascular-related mortality. This includes evidence from a number
of large, multi-city U.S. long-term cohort studies including extended
follow-up analyses of the ACS and Harvard Six Cities studies, as well
as the WHI study (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 7.2.10 and 7.6.1; Krewski
et al., 2009; Pope et al., 2004; Laden et al., 2006; Miller et al.,
2007). Pope et al. (2004) reported a positive association between
mortality and long-term PM2.5 exposure for a number of
specific cardiovascular diseases, including ischemic heart disease,
dysrhythmia, heart failure, and cardiac arrest (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-
84; Figure 7-7). Krewski et al. (2009) provides further evidence for
mortality related to ischemic heart disease associated with long-term
PM2.5 exposure (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-84, Figure 7-7).
With regard to cardiovascular-related morbidity associated with
long-term PM2.5 exposures, studies were not available in the
last review. Recent studies, however, have provided new evidence
linking long-term exposure to PM2.5 with cardiovascular
outcomes that has ``expanded upon the continuum of effects ranging from
the more subtle subclinical measures to cardiopulmonary mortality''
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-17). In the current review, studies are now
available that evaluated a number of endpoints ranging from subtle
indicators of cardiovascular health to serious clinical events
associated with coronary heart disease and cardiovascular and
cerebrovascular disease.\34\ The most important new evidence comes from
the WHI study which provides evidence of nonfatal cardiovascular events
including both coronary and cerebrovascular events (Miller et al.,
2007; U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 7.2.9 and 7.6.1). Toxicological studies
provide supportive evidence that the cardiovascular morbidity effects
observed in long-term exposure epidemiological studies are biologically
plausible and coherent with studies of cardiovascular-related mortality
as well as with studies of cardiovascular-related effects associated
with short-term exposures to PM2.5, as described below (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 7-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Coronary and cerebrovascular events include myocardial
infarction, coronary artery revascularization (e.g., bypass graft,
angioplasty, stent, atherectomy), congestive heart failure and
stroke.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to respiratory effects, the Integrated Science
Assessment concludes that 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 associated with long-term PM2.5 exposure. The
strongest evidence for respiratory-related effects available in this
review is from studies that evaluated decrements in lung function
growth, increased respiratory symptoms, and asthma development (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.1.2, 7.3.1.1, and 7.3.2.1).\35\ Specifically,
extended analyses of the Southern California Children's Health Study
provide evidence that clinically important deficits in lung function
\36\ associated with long-term exposure to PM2.5 persist
into early adulthood (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-27; Gauderman et al.,
2004). Additional analyses of the 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 24;
McConnell et al., 2003) 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, 2009, 7-24; Islam et al., 2007). The outcomes
observed in these 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 previously reported. Supporting these results are new
longitudinal cohort studies conducted by other researchers in varying
locations using different methods (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.3.9.1).
New evidence from a U.S. cohort of cystic fibrosis patients provided
evidence of association between long-term PM2.5 exposures
and exacerbations of respiratory symptoms
[[Page 38908]]
resulting in hospital admissions or use of home intravenous antibiotics
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-25; Goss et al., 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Supporting evidence comes from studies ``that observed
associations between long-term exposure to PM10 and an
increase in respiratory symptoms and reductions in lung function
growth in areas where PM10 is dominated by
PM2.5'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-12).
\36\ 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 includes
this interpretation for FEV1 (75 FR 35525, June 22,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxicological studies provide coherence and biological plausibility
for the respiratory effects observed in epidemiological studies (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 7-42). For example, pre- and postnatal exposure to
ambient levels of urban particles has been found to affect lung
development in an animal model (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.3.2.2; p. 7-
43). This finding is important because impaired lung development is one
mechanism by which PM exposure may decrease lung function growth in
children (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-12; section 7.3).
With regard to respiratory-related mortality associated with long-
term PM2.5 exposure, the Integrated Science Assessment
concludes that ``when deaths due to respiratory causes are separated
from all-cause (nonaccidental) and cardiopulmonary deaths, there is
limited and inconclusive evidence for an effect of PM2.5 on
respiratory mortality, with one large cohort study finding a reduction
in deaths due to respiratory causes associated with reduced
PM2.5 concentrations, and another large cohort study finding
no PM2.5 associations with respiratory mortality'' (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 7-41). The extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities
study reported a positive but statistically non-significant association
between long-term PM2.5 exposure and respiratory-related
mortality (Laden et al., 2006), whereas Pope et al. (2004) found no
association in the ACS cohort (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-84). There is
emerging but limited evidence for an association between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and respiratory mortality in post-neonatal
infants where long-term exposure was considered as approximately one
month to one year (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 7-54 to 7-55). Emerging
evidence of short- and long-term exposure to PM2.5 and
respiratory morbidity and infant mortality provide some support for the
weak respiratory-related mortality effects observed.
Beyond effects considered to have causal or likely causal
relationships with long-term PM2.5 exposure as discussed
above, the following health outcomes are classified in the Integrated
Science Assessment as having evidence suggestive of a causal
relationship with long-term PM2.5 exposure: (1) Reproductive
and developmental effects and (2) cancer, mutagenicity, and
genotoxicity effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 2-6). With regard to
reproductive and developmental effects, the Integrated Science
Assessment notes, ``[e]vidence is accumulating for PM2.5-
related effects on low birth weight and infant mortality, especially
due to respiratory causes during the post-neonatal period'' (U.S. EPA,
2009a, p. 2-13). New evidence available in this review reports
significant associations between exposure to PM2.5 during
pregnancy and lower birth weight and infant mortality, with less
consistent evidence for pre-term birth and intrauterine growth
restriction. (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.4). The Integrated Science
Assessment further notes that ``[i]nfants and fetal development
processes may be particularly vulnerable to PM exposure, and although
the physical mechanisms are not fully understood, several hypotheses
have been proposed involving direct effects on fetal health, altered
placenta function, or indirect effects on the mother's health'' (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 7.4.1). Although toxicological studies provide some
evidence that supports an association between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental
outcomes, there is ``little mechanistic information or biological
plausibility for an association between long-term PM exposure and
adverse birth outcomes (e.g., low birth weight, infant mortality)''
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-13).
With regard to cancer, mutagenic and genotoxic 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
and sections 2.3.1.2 and 7.5; Table 7-7; Figures 7-6 and 7-7). The
extended follow-up to the ACS study reported an association between
long-term PM2.5 exposure and lung cancer mortality (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 7-71; Krewski et al., 2009) as did the extended follow-
up to the Harvard Six Cities study when considering the entire 25-year
follow-up period (Laden et al., 2006). There is some evidence,
primarily from in vitro studies, providing biological plausibility for
the PM-lung cancer relationships observed in epidemiological studies
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-80), although in vivo toxicological studies of
carcinogenicity generally reported mixed results (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 7.5).
b. Health Effects Associated With Short-Term PM2.5 Exposures
In considering effects associated with short-term PM2.5
exposure, the body of currently available scientific evidence has 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 fine particle 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 climate and 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 (U.S. EPA
2009a, chapter 6).
With regard to mortality, new U.S. and Canadian multi-city and
single-city PM2.5 exposure studies have found generally
consistent positive associations between short-term PM2.5
exposures and cardiovascular- and respiratory-related mortality as well
as all-cause (non-accidental) mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections
2.3.1.1, 6.2.11 and 6.5.2.2; Figures 6-26, 6-27, and 6-28). In an
analysis of the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study
(NMMAPS) data, Dominici et al. (2007) reported associations between
fine particle exposures and all-cause and cardiopulmonary-related
mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-175, Figure 6-26). In a study of 112
U.S. cities, Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) reported positive
associations (in 99 percent of the cities) and frequently statistically
significant associations (in 55 percent of the cities) between short-
term PM2.5 exposure and total (non-accidental) mortality
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 6-176 to 6-179; Figures 6-23 and 6-24).\37\ A
Canadian 12-city study (Burnett et al., 2004) is generally consistent
with an earlier Canadian 8-city study (Burnett and Goldberg, 2003).
Both studies reported a positive and statistically significant
association between short-term PM2.5 exposure and mortality
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 6-182, Figure 2-1), although the influence of
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and limited PM2.5 data for
several years during the study period somewhat diminished the findings
reported in the 12-city study. In addition to these multi-city studies,
evidence from available single-city studies suggests that gaseous
copollutants do not confound the PM2.5-mortality association
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3.1.1). Collectively, these studies provide
generally consistent and much stronger evidence for PM2.5-
[[Page 38909]]
associated mortality than the evidence available in the last review
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Single-city Bayes-adjusted effect estimates for the 112
cities analyzed in Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) were provided by
the study author (personal communication with Dr. Antonella
Zanobetti, 2009; see also U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to cardiovascular effects, new multi-city as well as
single-city short-term PM2.5 exposure studies conducted
since the last review support a largely positive and frequently
statistically significant association between short-term exposure to
PM2.5 and cardiovascular-related morbidity and mortality,
substantiating prior findings. For example, among a multi-city cohort
of older adults participating in the Medicare Air Pollution Study
(MCAPS), investigators reported evidence of a positive association
between short-term PM2.5 exposures and hospital admissions
related to cardiovascular outcomes (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 6-57 to 58;
Dominici et al, 2006a; Bell et al, 2008). The strongest evidence for
cardiovascular effects has been observed predominantly for hospital
admissions and emergency department visits for ischemic heart disease
and congestive heart failure, and cardiovascular-related mortality
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 2-1, p. 6-79, sections 6.2.10.3, 6.2.10.5, and
6.2.11; Bell et al., 2008; Dominici et al., 2006a; Tolbert et al.,
2007; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009). In studies that evaluated the
potential for confounding using co-pollutant models, PM2.5
effect estimates for cardiovascular-related hospital admissions and
emergency department visits generally remained positive, with the
magnitude of PM2.5 effect estimates increasing in some
models and decreasing in others (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-5).
Furthermore, these findings are supported by a recent study of a multi-
city cohort of women participating in the WHI study that reported a
positive but statistically nonsignificant association between short-
term exposure to PM2.5 and electrocardiogram measures of
myocardial ischemia (Zhang et al., 2009).
In focusing on respiratory effects, the strongest evidence from
short-term PM2.5 exposure studies has been observed for
respiratory-related emergency department visits and hospital admissions
for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and respiratory
infections (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.1.1 and 6.3.8.3; Figures 2-1
and 6-13; Dominici et al., 2006a). In studies that employed co-
pollutant models to evaluate the potential for confounding,
PM2.5 effect estimates for respiratory-related hospital
admissions and emergency department visits generally remained positive,
with the magnitude of PM2.5 effect estimates increasing in
some models and decreasing in others (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-15).
Evidence for PM2.5-related respiratory effects has also been
observed in panel studies, which indicate associations with respiratory
symptoms, pulmonary function, and pulmonary inflammation among
asthmatic children (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-10). Although not
consistently observed, some controlled human exposure studies have
reported small decrements in various measures of pulmonary function
following controlled exposures to PM2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p.
2-10). Furthermore, the comparatively larger body of toxicological
evidence since the last review is coherent with the evidence from
epidemiological and controlled human exposure studies that examined
short-term exposures to PM2.5 and respiratory effects (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 6.3.10.1).
c. Summary
In considering the extent to which newly available scientific
evidence strengthens or calls into question evidence of associations
identified in the last review between ambient fine particle exposures
and health effects, the Policy Assessment recognizes that much progress
has been made in assessing some key uncertainties related to our
understanding of health effects associated with long- and short-term
exposure to PM2.5. As briefly discussed above as well as in
the more complete discussion of the evidence as presented and assessed
in the Integrated Science Assessment, the Policy Assessment notes that
the newly available information combined with information available in
the last review provides substantially stronger confidence in a causal
relationship between long- and short-term exposures to PM2.5
and mortality and cardiovascular effects. In addition, the newly
available evidence reinforces and expands the evidence supporting a
likely causal relationship between long- and short-term exposure to
PM2.5 and respiratory effects. The body of scientific
evidence is somewhat expanded 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 Integrated Science Assessment concludes that
these data provide evidence that is suggestive of a causal relationship
for these effects. Thus, the Policy Assessment concludes there is
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.
2. Limitations and Uncertainties Associated With the Currently
Available Evidence
With respect to understanding the nature and magnitude of
PM2.5-related risks, the Policy Assessment recognizes that
important uncertainties remain in the current review (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-25). Epidemiological studies evaluating health effects associated
with long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures have reported
heterogeneity in responses both within and between cities and
geographic regions within the U.S. In particular, the Policy Assessment
notes that there are challenges with interpreting differences in health
effects observed in the eastern versus western parts of the U.S.,
including evaluating effects stratified by seasons.\38\ This
heterogeneity may be attributed, in part, to differences in the fine
particle composition or related to exposure measurement error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Seasonal differences in effects may be related to
PM2.5 composition as well as regional differences in
climate and infrastructure that may affect time spent outdoors or
indoors, housing characteristics including air conditioning usage,
and differences in baseline incidence rates (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 3-
182).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the relationships between PM composition and health
effects, the ISA notes that the scientific evidence continues to evolve
and concludes that, while many constituents of PM 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 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-17).
In particular, based on assessing the body of available evidence, the
ISA notes that (1) cardiovascular effects have been linked with
elemental carbon as well as with PM2.5 from crustal sources,
traffic, and wood smoke/vegetative burning; (2) respiratory effects
have been linked with secondary sulfate PM2.5 as well as
with PM2.5 from crustal/soil/road dust and traffic sources;
and (3) a few studies have reported associations between total
mortality and secondary sulfate/long-range transport, traffic, and
salt. While specific PM2.5 constituents have been linked
with various PM2.5-related health effects in a small number
of studies, research continues to focus on the identification of
specific constituents or sources that may be most closely related to
specific PM2.5-related health outcomes.
[[Page 38910]]
Exposure measurement error is also an important source of
uncertainty (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 3.8.6). 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, climate,
source characteristics, ventilation usage, personal activity patterns,
photochemistry). As noted in the Integrated Science Assessment,
exposure measurement error can introduce bias and increased uncertainty
in associated health effect estimates (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-17).
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).\39\ As noted above,
although short-term studies of cardiovascular and respiratory hospital
admissions and emergency department visits generally reported that
PM2.5 effect estimates remained positive, the magnitude of
those effect estimates increased in some models and decreased in
others. In addition, although evidence from single-city studies
available in the last review suggests that gaseous copollutants do not
confound the PM2.5-related mortality association (U.S. EPA,
2004, section 8.4.3.3), a conclusion that is supported by studies that
examined the PM10-mortality relationship (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
p. 6-182 and 6-201), many recent U.S. multi-city studies have not
analyzed multipollutant models. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. At-Risk Populations
In identifying population groups or lifestages at greatest risk for
health risk from a specific pollutant, the terms susceptibility,
vulnerability, sensitivity, and at-risk are commonly employed. The
definition for these terms sometimes varies, but in most instances
``susceptibility'' refers to biological or intrinsic factors (e.g.,
lifestage, gender, preexisting disease/conditions) while
``vulnerability'' refers to nonbiological or extrinsic factors (e.g.,
socioeconomic factors). However, factors included in the terms
``susceptibility'' and ``vulnerability'' are intertwined and are
difficult to distinguish. In the Integrated Science Assessment, the
term ``susceptibility'' has been used broadly to recognize populations
that have a greater likelihood of experiencing effects related to
ambient PM exposure\40\, such that use of the term ``susceptible
populations'' in the Integrated Science Assessment is used as a term
that encompasses factors related both to susceptibility and
vulnerability.\41\ In the development of a more recent Integrated
Science Assessment, the Agency is using the term ``at-risk'' groups to
more broadly define the populations with characteristics that increase
the risk of pollutant-related health effects (U.S. EPA, 2011d, p. 8-1).
Therefore, in this proposal, the term ``at-risk'' is the broadly
encompassing term used for groups with specific factors that increase
the risk of PM-related health effects in a population. At-risk
populations could exhibit a greater risk of PM-related health effects
than the general population for a number of reasons including: being
affected by lower concentrations of PM, experiencing a larger health
impact at a given PM concentration or being exposed to higher PM
concentrations than the general population. Given the heterogeneity of
individual responses to PM exposures, the severity of the health
effects experienced by an at-risk population may be much greater than
that experienced by the population at large.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Although studies have primarily used exposures to
PM10 or PM2.5, the available evidence suggests
that the identified factors also increase risk from
PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.8).
\41\ The term ``susceptible population'' is defined in the
Integrated Science Assessment as ``[P]opulations that have a greater
likelihood of experiencing health effects related to exposure to an
air pollutant (e.g., PM) due to a variety of factors including, but
not limited to: Genetic or developmental factors, race, gender,
lifestage, lifestyle (e.g., smoking status and nutrition) or
preexisting disease; as well as population-level factors that can
increase an individual's exposure to an air pollutant (e.g., PM)
such as socioeconomic status [SES], which encompasses reduced access
to health care, low educational attainment, residential location,
and other factors (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 8-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As summarized below and presented in more detail in chapter 8 of
the Integrated Science Assessment and section 2.2.1 of the Policy
Assessment, the currently available epidemiological and controlled
human exposure 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) (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 2.4.1, Table 8-2). In addition, toxicological studies provide
underlying support for the biological mechanisms that potentially lead
to increased susceptibility to PM-related health effects (U.S. EPA,
2009a, sections 2.4.1 and 8.1.8).
Two different lifestages have been associated with increased risk
to PM-related health effects: childhood (i.e., less than 18 years of
age) and older adulthood (i.e., 65 years of age and older). Childhood
represents a lifestage where susceptibility to PM exposures may be
related to the following observations: children spend more time
outdoors; children have greater activity levels than adults; children
have exposures resulting in higher doses per body weight and lung
surface area; and the developing lung is prone to damage, including
irreversible effects, from environmental pollutants as it continues to
develop through adolescence (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.1.2). Older
adults represent a lifestage where susceptibility to PM-associated
health effects may be related to the higher prevalence of pre-existing
cardiovascular and respiratory diseases found in this age group
compared to younger age groups as well as the gradual decline in
physiological processes that occur as part of the aging process (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.1.1). In addition, accumulating evidence
suggests that the developing fetus may also represent an additional
lifestage that is at greater risk to PM exposures (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
sections 2.3.1.2 and 7.4).
With regard to mortality, recent epidemiological studies have
continued to find that older adults are at greater risk of all-cause
(non-accidental) mortality associated with short-term exposure to both
PM2.5 and PM10, providing consistent and stronger
evidence of effects in this at-risk population compared to the last
review (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 7-7, section 8.1.1.1, Zeger et al.,
2008). Evidence is accumulating for PM2.5-related infant
mortality, especially due to respiratory causes during the post-
neonatal period (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.1.2 and 7.4).
[[Page 38911]]
With regard to morbidity effects, currently available studies
provide evidence that older adults have heightened responses,
especially for cardiovascular-related effects, and children have
heightened responses for respiratory-related effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
p. 2-23). In considering respiratory-related effects in children
associated with long-term PM exposures, the Policy Assessment
recognizes that our understanding of effects on lung development has
been strengthened based on newly available evidence that is consistent
and coherent across different study designs, locations, and research
groups (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-28). The strongest evidence comes from
the extended follow-up for the Southern California Children's Health
Study which includes several new studies that report positive
associations between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and
respiratory morbidity, particularly for such endpoints as lung function
growth, respiratory symptoms (e.g., bronchitic symptoms), and
respiratory disease incidence (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 7.3; McConnell
et al, 2003; Gauderman et al., 2004; Islam et al., 2007). These
analyses provide evidence that PM2.5-related effects persist
into early adulthood and are more robust and larger in magnitude than
previously reported. With regard to respiratory effects in children
associated with short-term exposures to PM2.5, currently
available studies provide stronger evidence of respiratory-related
hospitalizations with larger effect estimates observed among children.
In addition, reductions in lung function (i.e., FEV1) and
increases in respiratory symptoms and medication use associated with PM
exposures have been reported among asthmatic children (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
sections 6.3.1, 6.3.2.1, and 8.4.9).
A number of health conditions have been found to put individuals at
greater risk for adverse effects following exposure to PM. The
currently available evidence confirms and strengthens evidence in the
last review that individuals with underlying cardiovascular and
respiratory diseases are more susceptible to PM exposures (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 8.1.6; U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.1). There is also
emerging evidence that people with diabetes, who are at risk for
cardiovascular disease, as well as obese individuals, may have
increased susceptibility to PM exposures (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
8.1.6.4). As discussed in section 8.1.6 of the Integrated Science
Assessment, this body of evidence includes findings from
epidemiological and human clinical studies that associations with
mortality or morbidity are greater in those with pre-existing
conditions, and also includes evidence from toxicological studies using
animal models of cardiopulmonary disease.
Stronger evidence is available in this review than the last
indicating that people from lower socioeconomic strata are an at-risk
population relative to PM exposures (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.7;
U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.1). Persons with lower socioeconomic
status (SES) \42\ have been generally found to have a higher prevalence
of pre-existing diseases; limited access to medical treatment; and
increased nutritional deficiencies, which can increase this
population's risk to PM-related effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Socioeconomic status is a composite measure that usually
consists of economic status, measured by income; social status
measured by education; and work status measured by occupation (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, p. 8-14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation of potential genetic susceptibility has provided
evidence that individuals with specific genetic differences are more
susceptible to PM-related effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 8-7 to 8-9).
More research is needed to better understand the relationship between
genetic effects and potential susceptibility to PM-related effects
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-109).
In summary, there are several at-risk populations that may be
especially susceptible or vulnerable to PM-related effects. 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. The available evidence does not generally allow distinctions to
be drawn between the PM indicators in terms of whether populations are
more at-risk to a particular size fraction (i.e., PM2.5 and
PM10-2.5).
4. Potential PM2.5-Related Impacts on Public Health
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 as described in section III.B.3.
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. In addition, it appears that mortality
risks are not limited to the very frail. Taken together, these results
suggest that exposure to ambient PM2.5 concentrations can
have substantial public health impacts.
With regard to at-risk populations in the United States,
approximately 7 percent of adults (approximately 16 million adults) and
9 percent of children (approximately 7 million children) have asthma
(U.S. EPA 2009a, Table 8-3; CDC, 2008 \43\). In addition, approximately
4 percent of adults have been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and
approximately 2 percent with emphysema (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 8-3).
Approximately 11 percent of adults have been diagnosed with heart
disease, 6 percent with coronary heart disease, 23 percent with
hypertension, and 8 percent with diabetes (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 8-3).
In addition, approximately 3 percent of the U.S. adult population has
suffered a stroke (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 8-3). Therefore, large
portions of the United States population are in groups that may be at
increased risk to health effects associated with exposures to ambient
PM2.5. The size of the potentially at-risk population
suggests that exposure to ambient PM2.5 has significant
impact on public health in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ For percentages, see http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/nhis/06/table4-1.htm. For population estimates, see http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/nhis/06/table3-1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Quantitative Characterization of Health Risks
1. Overview
In this review, the quantitative risk assessment builds on the
approach used and lessons learned in the last review and focuses 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. The goals of this quantitative risk assessment are largely
the same as those articulated in the risk assessment conducted for the
last review. These goals include: (1) To provide estimates of the
potential magnitude of premature mortality and/or selected morbidity
effects in the population associated with recent ambient level of
PM2.5 and with simulating just meeting the current and
alternative suites of PM2.5 standards in 15 selected urban
study areas, including, where data were available, consideration of
impacts on at-risk
[[Page 38912]]
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.
The 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 I.B.3.
2. Summary of Design Aspects
Based on a review of the evidence presented and assessed in the
Integrated Science Assessment and criteria for selecting specific
health effect endpoints discussed in the Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2010a, section 3.3.1), the following broad categories of health
endpoints were included in the quantitative risk assessment: (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 associated with short-term PM2.5 exposure.
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 (U.S.
EPA, 2010a, p. 3-29). The quantitative risk assessment estimates risks
for various health effects in 15 urban study areas. The selection of
urban study areas was based on a number of criteria including: (1)
Consideration of urban study areas evaluated in the last PM risk
assessment; (2) consideration of locations evaluated in key
epidemiological studies; (3) preference for locations with relatively
elevated annual and/or 24-hour PM2.5 monitored
concentrations; and (4) preference for including locations from
different regions across the country, reflecting potential differences
in PM2.5 sources, composition, and potentially other factors
which might impact PM2.5-related risk (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
section 3.3.2). Based on the results of several analyses examining the
representativeness of these 15 urban study areas in the broader
national context, the Risk 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 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).\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ 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 have
relatively low PM2.5 concentrations (e.g., urban areas in
Florida) and, consequently, the Risk Assessment concludes failure to
include these areas in the set of urban study areas is unlikely to
exclude high PM2.5-risk locations (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
section 4.4.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to estimate the incidence of a particular health effect
associated with recent ambient conditions in a specific urban study
area attributable to PM2.5 exposures, as well as the change
in incidence corresponding to a given change in PM2.5
concentrations resulting from simulating just meeting current or
alternative PM2.5 standards, three elements are required
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.1.1, Figures 3-2 and 3-3). These elements
are: (1) Air quality information (including recent air quality data for
PM2.5 from ambient monitors for the selected location,
estimates of background PM2.5 concentrations appropriate for
that location, and a method for adjusting the recent data to reflect
patterns of air quality estimated to occur when the area just meets a
given set of PM2.5 standards); (2) relative risk-based
concentration-response functions that provide an estimate of the
relationship between the health endpoints of interest and ambient
PM2.5 concentrations; and (3) baseline health effects
incidence rates and population data, which are needed to provide an
estimate of the incidence of health effects in an area before any
changes in PM2.5 air quality.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Incidence rates express the occurrence of a disease or
event (e.g., death, hospital admission) in a specific period of
time, usually per year. Rates are expressed either as a value per
population group (e.g., the number of cases in Philadelphia County)
or a value per number of people (e.g., the number of cases per
10,000 residents in Philadelphia County), and may be age- and/or
sex-specific. Incidence rates vary among geographic areas due to
differences in populations characteristics (e.g., age distribution)
and factors promoting illness (e.g., smoking rates, air pollution
concentrations). The baseline incidence rate provides an estimate of
the incidence rate (i.e., number of cases of the health effect per
year, usually per 10,000 or 100,000 general population) in the
assessment location unrelated to changes in ambient PM2.5
concentrations in that location (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Risk Assessment includes 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 provide information to evaluate and
rank the potential impacts of key sources of uncertainty on the core
risk estimates (U.S. EPA, 2010a, sections 3.5 and 4.3, Table 4-3). In
addition, the sensitivity analyses represent a set of reasonable
alternatives to the core set of risk estimates that fall within an
overall set of plausible risk estimates surrounding the core estimates
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 4.3.2).
Recent air quality was characterized for the 15 urban study areas
based on 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations measured for 3 years
(i.e., 2005, 2006, and 2007) as described in section 3.2.1 of the Risk
Assessment. Different methodologies were then used to simulate
conditions for just meeting the current or alternative PM2.5
standards (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.3). This included using the
single rollback approach used in the risk assessment conducted for the
last review which reflects a uniform regional pattern of reductions in
ambient PM2.5 concentrations across monitors (i.e.,
proportional rollback approach). The proportional rollback approach was
used in generating the core risk estimates (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section
3.2.3.1). In sensitivity analyses, the Risk Assessment also applied two
alternative rollback approaches (i.e., hybrid and locally-focused
rollback approaches)\46\ to better characterize
[[Page 38913]]
potential variability in the way air quality in urban areas responds to
programs put in place to meet the current or alternative
PM2.5 standards. In considering the three rollback
approaches collectively, the proportional and locally-focused methods
are approaches that are more likely to represent ``bounding'' scenarios
related to the spatial pattern of future reductions in ambient
PM2.5 concentrations. In contrast, the hybrid approach, in
principle, reflects a more plausible or representative rollback
strategy since it: (1) Reflects consideration for site-specific
information regarding larger PM2.5 sources and their
potential impact on source-oriented monitors and (2) combines elements
of more locally-focused and regionally-focused patterns of reductions
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ The hybrid rollback approach involves a combination of an
initial step of a more localized reduction in ambient
PM2.5 concentrations at source-oriented monitors followed
by a regional pattern of reduction across all monitors in a study
area (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.3.2). The locally-focused
rollback approach involves a focused reduction of concentrations
only at those monitors exceeding the current or alternative 24-hour
standard levels (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.3.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The peak-to-mean ratio of ambient PM2.5 concentrations
within a study area informs the type of rollback approach used to
simulate just meeting the current or alternative suites of standards to
determine the magnitude of the reduction in annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations for that study area and consequently
the degree of risk reduction.\47\ For example, study areas with
relatively high peak-to-mean ratios are likely to have greater
estimated risk reductions for the current suite of standards (depending
on the combination of 24-hour and annual design values), and such
locations can be especially sensitive to the type of rollback approach
used, with the proportional rollback approach resulting in notably
greater estimated risk reduction compared with the locally-focused
rollback approach. In contrast, study areas with lower peak-to-mean
ratios typically experience greater risk reductions when simulating
just meeting the current or alternative annual-standard level than with
simulating just meeting the current or alternative 24-hour standard
level (again depending on the combination of 24-hour and annual design
values). In addition, the type of rollback approach used will tend to
have less of an impact on the magnitude of risk reductions for study
areas with lower peak-to-mean ratios. Consideration of these two
factors helps to inform an understanding of the nature and pattern of
estimated risk reductions and risk remaining upon simulation of just
meeting the current and alternative suites of standards across the
urban study areas (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 5.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ The peak-to-mean ratio of ambient PM2.5
concentrations also has a direct bearing on whether the 24-hour or
annual standard will be the generally controlling standard for a
particular study area, with higher peak-to-mean ratios generally
being associated with locations where the 24-hour standard is likely
the controlling standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The concentration-response functions used in the risk assessment
were based on findings from epidemiological studies that have relied on
fixed-site, population-oriented, ambient monitors as a surrogate for
actual ambient PM2.5 exposures. The risk assessment
addresses risks attributable to anthropogenic sources and activities
(i.e., risk associated with concentrations above policy-relevant
background).\48\ This approach of estimating risks in excess of
background was judged to be more relevant to policy decisions regarding
ambient air quality standards than risk estimates that include effects
potentially attributable to PM2.5 concentrations that are
not associated with North American anthropogenic emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Policy-relevant background estimates used in the risk
assessment model were based on information presented in the
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 3.7, Table
3-23) and discussed in the Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section
3.2.2). These values were generated based on a combination of
Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CMAQ) and Goddard Earth
Observing System (GEOS)-Chem modeling (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
3.7.1.2; U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In modeling risk associated with long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposures, the Risk Assessment initially focused on
selecting concentration-response functions from multi-city studies.\49\
Concentration-response functions from two single-city studies provided
coverage for additional health effect endpoints (i.e., emergency
department visits for cardiovascular and/or respiratory effects)
associated with short-term PM2.5 exposures (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
p. 3-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ As noted in section 3.3.3 of the Risk Assessment, multi-
city studies have a number of advantages over single-city studies
including: increased statistical power providing effect estimates
with relatively greater precision and reduced problems with
publication bias (i.e., in which studies with statistically
insignificant or negative results are less likely to get published
than those with positive and/or statistically significant results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to modeling risks associated with long-term
PM2.5 exposure, concentration-response functions used in the
risk model are all based on cohort studies, in which a cohort of
individuals is followed over time. In the core analysis, estimated
premature mortality risk associated with long-term PM2.5
concentrations used concentration-response functions from the extended
ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). This study had a number of advantages
including: analyses that expanded upon previous publications presenting
evaluations of the ACS long-term cohort study and extending the follow-
up period to eighteen years; a rigorous examination of different model
forms for estimating effect estimates; coverage for a range of
ecological variables (e.g., social, economic, and demographic factors)
which allowed for consideration of whether these factors confound or
modify the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and
mortality; and updated and expanded data sets on incidence and exposure
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, p 2-9 and 3-38).
As discussed in section III.B.3, persons of lower socioeconomic
status have been identified as an at-risk population. The ACS study
cohort does not provide representative coverage for persons of lower-
socioeconomic status and, thus, the Risk Assessment concludes that
using the concentration-response functions from this study may result
in risk estimates that are biased low (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 5-7).
Therefore, concentration-response functions from a reanalysis of the
Harvard Six Cities study (Krewski et al., 2000) were used in a
sensitivity analysis to better support generalizing the results of the
risk assessment across the broader national population.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ As noted in the last review, the ACS study population has
persons generally representative of a higher SES (e.g., higher
educational status) relative to the Harvard Six Cities study
population (12 percent versus 28 percent of the cohort had less than
a high school education, respectively) (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-118).
The Policy Assessment concludes that the Harvard Six Cities study
cohort may provide a more representative sample of the broader
national population than the ACS study cohort (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
2-40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While being mindful that the use of concentration-response
functions from Krewski et al. (2009) introduces potential for low bias
in the core risk estimates, the Policy Assessment also recognizes many
strengths of this study and reasons for its continued use for
generating the core risk estimates, including: consideration of a large
number of metropolitan statistical areas, inclusion of two time periods
for the air quality data which allowed us to consider different
exposure windows, and analysis of a wide range of concentration-
response function models. Therefore, the Risk Assessment concludes that
concentration-response functions obtained from this study had the
greatest overall support and were appropriate to incorporate in the
core risk model (U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 3-38).
[[Page 38914]]
In the core analysis, for modeling health endpoints associated with
long-term exposure, the Risk Assessment concluded that modeling risks
down to policy-relevant background would require substantial
extrapolation of the estimated concentration-response functions below
the range of the data on which they were estimated (i.e., the lowest
measured levels reported in the epidemiological studies were
substantially above policy-relevant background). Therefore, the Risk
Assessment concluded it was most appropriate in the core analysis to
estimate risk only down to the lowest measured level to avoid
introducing additional uncertainty into the analysis (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
3-1 to 3-3).\51\ A sensitivity analysis comparing the impact of
estimated risks down to policy-relevant background rather than down to
the lowest measured level (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.5.4.1) used
annual estimates of policy-relevant background values for specific
geographic regions (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.2, Table 3-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ To provide consistency for the different concentration-
response functions selected from the long-term exposure studies,
and, in particular, to avoid the choice of lowest measured levels
unduly influencing the results of the risk assessment, the Risk
Assessment concluded it was appropriate to select a single lowest
measured level--5.8 [mu]g/m\3\ from the later exposure period
evaluated in Krewski et al. (2009)--to use in estimating risks
associated with long-term PM2.5 exposures (U.S. EPA,
2010a, p. 3-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to modeling risks associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposure, concentration-response functions from two
time-series studies were selected as the primary studies to support the
core analysis. Concentration-response functions from Zanobetti and
Schwartz (2009) were used in estimating premature non-accidental,
cardiovascular-related, and respiratory-related mortality.
Concentration-response functions from Bell et al. (2008) were used in
estimating cardiovascular-related and respiratory-related hospital
admissions. In addition, concentration-response functions from two
single-city studies were used to estimate emergency department visits
for cardiovascular and/or respiratory illnesses associated with short-
term PM2.5 exposure (Tolbert et al., 2007; Ito et al., 2007;
U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 3-37).
For modeling health endpoints associated with short-term
PM2.5 exposure, the Risk Assessment estimates risk down to
policy-relevant background exclusively using quarterly values to
represent the appropriate block of days within a simulated year (U.S.
EPA, 2010a, section 3.2.2, Table 3-2).
To estimate the change in incidence of a health endpoint associated
with a given change in PM2.5 concentrations, information on
the baseline incidence of that endpoint is needed (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
section 3.4). In calculating a baseline incidence rate to be used with
a concentration-response function from a given epidemiological study,
the Risk Assessment matched the counties, age grouping, and
International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes used in that study
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.4.2).
An important component of a population health risk assessment is
the characterization of both uncertainty and variability.\52\ The
design of the risk assessment includes a number of elements to address
these issues, including using guidance from the World Health
Organization (WHO, 2008) as a framework for developing the approach
used for characterizing uncertainty in the analyses (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
section 3.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Risk Assessment considers key sources of variability that can
impact the nature and magnitude of risks associated with simulating
just meeting current and alternative standard levels across the urban
study areas (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.5.2). These sources of
variability include those that contribute to differences in risk across
urban study areas, but do 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
focuses on factors that not only introduce variability into risk
estimates across study areas, but also play 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 are likely to affect population
risks and the degree to which they were (or were not) fully captured in
the design of the risk assessment are discussed in section 3.5.2 of the
Risk Assessment. These sources include: PM2.5 composition;
intra-urban variability in ambient PM2.5 concentrations;
variability in the patterns of reductions in PM2.5
concentrations associated with different rollback approaches when
simulating just meeting the current or alternative standards; co-
pollutant exposures; factors related to demographic and socioeconomic
status; behavioral differences across urban study areas (e.g., time
spent outdoors); baseline incidence rates; and 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 (U.S. EPA, 2010a, pp. 3-67 to 3-69).
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 (U.S. EPA, 2010a, sections 3.5.3
and 3.5.4). The quantitative sensitivity analyses informed our
understanding of sources of uncertainty that may have a moderate to
large impact on the core risk estimates including: (1) Characterizing
intra-urban population exposure in the context of epidemiology 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 associate with long-term PM2.5 exposures; and (8)
potential variation in effect estimates reflecting compositional
differences in PM2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 5.1.4). In
addition to identifying sources of uncertainty with a moderate to large
impact on the core risk estimates, the single and multi-element
sensitivity analyses also produced a set of reasonable alternative risk
estimates that allowed us to place the results of the core analysis in
context with regard to uncertainty and potential bias (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
section 5.1.4). The qualitative uncertainty analysis supplemented the
quantitative sensitivity analyses by allowing coverage for sources of
uncertainty that could not be readily included in the sensitivity
analysis (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.5.3).
With respect to the long-term exposure-related mortality risk
[[Page 38915]]
estimates,\53\ the most important sources of uncertainty identified in
the quantitative sensitivity analyses included: selection of
concentration-response functions; modeling risk down to policy-relevant
background versus lowest measured level; and the choice of rollback
approach used to simulate just meeting current or alternative standards
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-39). With regard to the qualitative analysis of
uncertainty, the following sources were identified as potentially
having a large impact on the core risk estimates for the long-term
exposure-related mortality: characterization of intra-urban population
exposures; impact of historical air quality; and potential variation in
effect estimates reflecting differences in PM2.5 composition
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Given increased emphasis placed in this analysis on long-
term exposure-related mortality, the uncertainty analyses completed
for this health endpoint category were more comprehensive than those
conducted for analyses of short-term exposure-related mortality and
morbidity. This reflects, to some extent, limitations in the
epidemiological data available for addressing uncertainty in the
latter categories (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.5.4.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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). Two additional analyses examined potential bias
and overall confidence in the risk estimates. The first analysis
explored potential bias in the core risk estimates by considering a set
of alternative reasonable risk estimates generated as part of a
sensitivity analysis. The second analysis compared the annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations associated with simulating just meeting
the current and alternative suites of standards with the air quality
distribution used in deriving the concentration-response functions
applied in modeling mortality risk. 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).
3. Risk Estimates and Key Observations
As discussed below, three factors figure prominently in the
interpretation of the risk estimates associated with simulating just
meeting the current and alternative suites of standards, including: (1)
The importance of changes in annual mean PM2.5
concentrations for a specific study area in estimating changes in risks
related to both long- and short-term exposures associated with recent
air quality conditions and air quality simulated to just meet the
current and alternative suites of PM2.5 standards; (2) the
ratio of peak- to-mean ambient PM2.5 concentrations in a
study area; and (3) the spatial pattern of ambient PM2.5
reductions that result from using different approaches to simulate just
meeting the current standard levels (i.e., rollback approaches). The
latter two factors are interrelated and influence the degree of risk
reduction estimated under the current suite of standards.
The magnitude of both long- and short-term exposure-related risk
estimated to remain upon just meeting the current suite of standards is
strongly associated with the simulated change in annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. The role of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations in driving long-term exposure-related
risk estimates is intuitive given that risks are modeled using the
annual mean air quality metric.\54\ The fact that short-term exposure-
related risk estimates are also driven by changes in long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations is less intuitive, since changes in
mean 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations are used to estimate
changes in risk for this time period.\55\ Analyses show that short-term
exposure-related risks are 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 (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 3.1.2.2). Consequently, the
largest part of the estimates of short-term exposure-related risk is
related to the changes in the portion of the distribution of short term
PM2.5 exposures that are well represented by changes in the
annual mean. Therefore, the Policy Assessment focuses on changes in
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations to inform our understanding
of patterns of both long- and short-term exposure-related risk
estimates across the set of urban study areas evaluated in the
quantitative risk assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-36 to 2-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ As noted in section 3.2.1 of the Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2010a), estimates of long-term exposure-related mortality are
actually based on an annual mean PM2.5 concentration that
is the average across monitors in a study area (i.e., based on the
composite monitor distribution). Therefore, in considering changes
in long-term exposure-related mortality, it is most appropriate to
compare composite monitor estimates generated for a study area under
each alternative suite of standards considered. The annual mean at
the highest reporting monitor (i.e., based on the maximum monitor
distribution) for a study area is the annual design value. The
annual design value is used to determine the percent reduction in
PM2.5 concentrations required to meet a particular
standard. Both types of air quality estimates are provided in Table
3-4 of the Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010a, pp. 3-25 to 3-27).
\55\ Estimates of short-term PM2.5 exposure-related
mortality and morbidity are based on composite monitor 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations. However, similar to the case with
long-term exposure-related mortality, under the current rules, it is
the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration estimated at the maximum
monitor (the 24-hour design value) that will determine the degree of
reduction required to meet a given 24-hour standard level (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In estimating PM2.5-related risks likely to remain upon
simulation of just meeting the current annual and 24-hour standards in
the 15 urban study areas, the Risk Assessment focuses on the 13 areas
that would likely not have met the current suite of PM2.5
standards based on recent air quality (2005 to 2007). These 13 areas
have annual and/or 24-hour design values that are above the levels of
the current standards (U.S. EPA, 2010a, Table 3-3).\56\ Based on the
core risk estimates for these areas, using the proportional rollback
approach, the Policy Assessment makes the following key observations
regarding the magnitude of risk remaining upon simulation of just
meeting the current suite of standards:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Of the 15 urban study areas, only Dallas and Phoenix have
both annual and 24-hour design values below the levels of the
current standards based on 2005-2007 air quality data (U.S. EPA,
2010a, Table 3-3).
(1) Long-term exposure-related mortality risk estimated to
remain upon just meeting the current standards are significant:
Premature mortality related to ischemic heart disease attributable
to long-term PM2.5 exposure was estimated to range from
less than 100 to approximately 2,000 cases per year across the urban
study areas. The variability in these estimates reflects, to a
[[Page 38916]]
great extent, differences in the size of study area populations.
These estimates represent from 4 to 17% of all mortality related to
ischemic heart disease in a given year for the urban study areas
evaluated, representing a measure of risk that takes into account
differences in population size and baseline mortality rates (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-43, Table 2-2). These estimates of risk for
mortality related to ischemic heart disease associated with long-
term PM2.5 exposure would likely be in a range of
thousands of deaths per year for the 15 urban study areas \57\ (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-46 to 2-47). Based on these risk estimates for
premature mortality related to ischemic heart disease alone, the
Policy Assessment concludes that risks estimated to remain upon
simulation of just meeting the current suite of standards are
important from a public health standpoint (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-
47). The Risk Assessment also includes estimated risks for premature
mortality related to cardiopulmonary effects and lung cancer, which
increase the total annual incidence of mortality attributable to
long-term PM2.5 exposure (see U.S. EPA, 2010a, section
4.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Premature mortality for all causes attributed to
PM2.5 exposure was estimated to be in a range 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Short-term exposure-related mortality risk estimated to
remain upon just meeting the current standards are much smaller than
long-term exposure-related mortality risks: Cardiovascular-related
mortality associated with short-term PM2.5 exposure was
estimated to range from less than 10 to 500 cases per year across
the urban study areas. These estimates represent approximately 1 to
2 percent of total cardiovascular-related mortality in a given year
for the urban study areas evaluated (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-43, Table
2-3). 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 substantially lower, up
to an order of magnitude smaller, for short-term exposure-related
mortality (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-47).
(3) Short-term exposure-related morbidity risk estimated to
remain upon just meeting the current standards indicate
hospitalizations are significantly larger for cardiovascular-related
rather than respiratory-related events and emergency department
visits for asthma-related events are significant: Cardiovascular-
related hospitalizations were estimated to range from approximately
10 to 800 cases per year across the study areas, which are less than
1 percent of total cardiovascular-related hospitalizations (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-43, Table 2-3). Respiratory-related hospital
admissions attributable to short-term PM2.5 exposure were
significantly smaller than those related to cardiovascular events
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, Tables E-102 and E-111). Cardiovascular- and
respiratory-related hospital admissions together ranged up to
approximately 1,000 admissions per year across the urban study
areas. The estimated incidence of asthma-related emergency
department visits is several times larger than the estimates of
cardiovascular- and respiratory-related hospital admissions (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-47; U.S. EPA, 2010a, Tables E-118 to E-123
(4) Substantial variability exists in the magnitude of risk
remaining across urban study areas: Estimated risks remaining upon
just meeting the current suite of standards vary substantially
across study areas, even when considering risks normalized for
differences in population size and baseline incidence rates. This
variability is a consequence of the substantial differences in the
annual mean PM2.5 concentrations across study areas that
result from simulating just meeting the current standards. This is
important because, as discussed above, annual mean concentrations
are highly correlated with both long- and short-term exposure-
related risk. The variability in annual mean PM2.5
concentrations occurred primarily in those study areas in which the
24-hour standard was the generally controlling standard. In such
areas, the variability in estimated risks across study areas was
largest when regional patterns of reductions in PM2.5
concentrations were simulated, using the proportional rollback
approach, as was done in the core analysis. Less variability was
observed when more localized patterns of PM2.5 reductions
were simulated using the locally-focused rollback approach, as was
done in a sensitivity analysis. When simulations were done using the
locally-focused rollback approach, estimated risks remaining upon
just meeting the current suite of standards were appreciably larger
than those estimated in the core analysis (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-46;
U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 4.3.1.1).
(5) Simulation of just meeting the current suite of standards
results in annual mean PM2.5 concentrations well below
the current standard for some study areas: In simulating just
meeting the current suite of standards, the resulting composite
monitor annual mean PM2.5 concentrations ranged from
about 15 [micro]g/m\3\ (for those study areas in which the annual
standard was controlling) down to as low as about 8 [micro]g/m\3\
(for those study areas in which the 24-hour standard was the
generally controlling standard or the annual mean concentration was
well below 15 [micro]g/m\3\ based on recent air quality) (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-46).
Reductions in risk associated with simulating air quality to just
meet alternative standard levels were also estimated in this review
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, sections 4.2.2, 5.2.2, and 5.2.3; U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 2.3.4.2). The estimated percent of risk reductions are depicted
graphically in the Policy Assessment (US 2011a, Figures 2-11 and 2-12),
showing patterns of estimated risk reductions associated with
alternative suites of standards.\58\ These figures also depict the
level of confidence associated with the risk estimates generated for
simulating just meeting the current standards as well as alternative
standard levels considered. As would be expected, patterns of
increasing estimated risk reductions are generally observed as either
the annual or 24-hour standard, or both, are reduced over the ranges
considered in the Risk Assessment. A number of the key observations
regarding the magnitude of risk remaining upon simulation of just
meeting the alternative suites of standards are analogous to the
observations identified above for simulation of just meeting the
current standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-97 to 2-100).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Patterns of risk reduction across alternative annual
standard levels, in terms of percent change relative to risk
estimates upon simulating just meeting the current standards, are
similar for all health endpoints modeled (i.e., all-cause, ischemic
heart disease-related, and cardiopulmonary-related mortality). This
similarity reflects the fact that the concentration-response
functions used in the quantitative risk assessment are close to
linear across the range of ambient PM2.5 concentrations
evaluated. However, estimated incidence will vary by health endpoint
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-93 to 2-94, footnote 70).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to characterizing estimates of PM2.5-related
risk associated with simulation of alternative standards, the Policy
Assessment recognizes that greater overall confidence is associated
with estimates of risk reduction than for estimates of absolute risk
remaining (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-94). Furthermore, the Policy
Assessment recognizes 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
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-97). In addition, the Policy Assessment observes
that in considering the overall confidence associated with the
quantitative analyses, the Risk Assessment recognizes that: (1)
Substantial variability exists in the magnitude of risk remaining
across urban study areas and (2) in general, higher confidence is
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.
The variability in risk is a consequence of the substantial
differences in the annual mean PM2.5 concentrations across
urban study areas that result from simulating just meeting current or
alternative standards. As PM2.5 concentrations decrease from
the mean PM2.5 concentrations, the Risk Assessment concludes
there is decreasing confidence in the risk estimates (U.S. EPA, 2010a,
p. 5-16). As lower long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations are
simulated (i.e., ambient concentrations further from
[[Page 38917]]
recent air quality conditions), the potential variability in such
factors as the spatial pattern of ambient PM2.5 reductions
(i.e., rollback) increases, thereby introducing greater uncertainty
into the simulation of composite monitor annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and, consequently, in the risk estimates (U.S. EPA,
2010a, Appendix J).
Based on consideration of the composite monitor annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations involved in estimating long-term
exposure-related mortality, the Risk Assessment has higher confidence
in using those concentrations that generally fall well within the range
of ambient PM2.5 concentrations considered in fitting the
concentration-response functions used (i.e., within one standard
deviation of the mean PM2.5 concentration reported in
Krewski et al. (2009) for 1999-2000) as inputs to the risk model. For
example, with the exception of one urban study area, those areas
estimated to have risk reductions using alternative annual standard
levels of 13 and 14 [micro]g/m\3\ had simulated composite monitor
annual mean concentrations ranging from approximately 10.6 to 13.3
[micro]g/m\3\. With lower alternative annual standard levels of 12
[micro]g/m\3\ and 10 [micro]g/m\3\, the composite monitor annual mean
values ranged from approximately 9.0 to 11.4 [micro]g/m\3\ and 7.6 and
8.9 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively. These concentrations are towards the
lower end of the range of ACS data (in some cases approaching the
lowest measured level) used in fitting the concentration-response
functions, particularly for an annual standard level of 10 [micro]g/
m\3\, and, thus, the Policy Assessment concludes there is less
confidence in the risk estimates associated with these levels compared
with those for the higher alternative annual standard levels considered
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-99). Thus, while simulation of risks for an
alternative annual standard level of 10 [micro]g/m\3\ suggests that
additional risk reductions could be expected with alternative annual
standards below 12 [micro]g/m\3\, the Policy Assessment recognizes that
there is potentially greater uncertainty associated with these risk
estimates compared with estimates generated for the higher alternative
annual standard levels considered in the quantitative risk assessment,
since these estimates required simulation of relatively greater
reductions in ambient PM2.5 concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-98).
The results of simulating alternative suites of PM2.5
standards including a combination of alternative annual and 24-hour
standard levels suggest 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 the alternative 24-hour standard is highly
variable (U.S. EPA, 2010a, section 4.2.2). Thus, the Risk Assessment
concludes more consistent reductions in estimated risk and consequently
degrees of public health protection are estimated to result from
simulating just meeting the alternative annual standard levels
considered (U.S. EPA, 2010a, pp. 5-15 to 5-16). Furthermore, the Policy
Assessment concludes that the urban study areas with the greatest
degree of estimated reduction associated with simulating just meeting
alternative 24-hour standard levels of 30 and 25 [micro]g/m\3\ also had
the lowest estimated annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and,
therefore, there was substantially lower confidence in these risk
estimates (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-99 to 2-100).
Based on the consideration of both the qualitative and quantitative
assessments of uncertainty, the Risk Assessment concludes 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 Risk Assessment conclude 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 \59\ (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 recognizes that the currently available scientific
information includes evidence for a broader range of health endpoints
and at-risk populations beyond those included in the quantitative risk
assessment, including lung function growth and respiratory symptoms in
children and reproductive and developmental effects (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 2.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Most of the alternative model specifications supported by
the currently available scientific information produced risk
estimates that are higher (by up to a factor of 2 to 3) than the
core risk estimates (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-40 and 2-41).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the set of quantitative risk estimates and related
uncertainties and limitations related to long- and short-term
PM2.5 exposure discussed above together with consideration
of the health endpoints which could not be quantified, the Policy
Assessment concludes this information provides 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 (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-47). Furthermore, while the alternative 24-hour standard levels
considered (when controlling) did result in additional estimated risk
reductions beyond those estimated for alternative annual standards
alone, these additional estimated reductions are highly variable, in
part due to different rollback approaches. Conversely, the Risk
Assessment recognizes 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).
D. Conclusions on the Adequacy of the Current Primary PM2.5 Standards
The initial issue to be addressed in the current review of the
primary PM2.5 standards is whether, in view of the
additional information now available, the existing standards should be
retained or revised. In evaluating whether it is appropriate to retain
or revise the current suite of standards, the Administrator considered
the scientific information from the last review and the broader body of
evidence and information now available. The Administrator has taken
into account both evidence- and risk-based considerations in developing
conclusions on the adequacy of the current primary PM2.5
standards. Evidence-based considerations (section III.D.1) 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). The risk-
based considerations (section III.D.2) 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). The advice received from CASAC is discussed in section
III.D.3. Finally, the Administrator's proposed conclusion on the
adequacy of the current PM2.5 primary standards is provided
in section III.D.4.
[[Page 38918]]
1. Evidence-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
In light of the health evidence described above, specifically with
regard to factors contributing to greater susceptibility to health
effects associated with ambient PM2.5 exposures, the Policy
Assessment considers the extent to which the currently available
scientific evidence reports associations between fine particle
exposures and health effects that extend to air quality concentrations
that are lower than had previously been observed or that have been
observed in areas that would likely meet the current suite of
PM2.5 standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.2.1). As noted
above, the Integrated Science Assessment concludes there is no evidence
to support the existence of a discernible threshold below which effects
would not occur (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.3).
a. Associations With Long-term PM2.5 Exposures
With regard to associations observed in long-term PM2.5
exposure studies, the Policy Assessment recognizes that extended
follow-up analyses of the ACS and Harvard Six Cities studies provide
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
[micro]g/m\3\ across 50 metropolitan areas for 1979-1983 (Pope et al.,
1995; Krewski et al., 2000).\60\ 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 (1979-1983) 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 with a long-term mean PM2.5 concentration of 18.0
[micro]g/m\3\ for 1980-1985 (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 [micro]g/m\3\
for 1980-1988 \61\ (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ The study periods referred to in the Policy Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2011a) and in this proposed 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 status data that were included.
\61\ Aggregate mean concentration provided by study author
(personal communication from Dr. Francine Laden, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New cohort studies provide 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 greater in magnitude (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
pp. 2-32 to 2-33). The WHI study reported positive and most often
statistically significant associations between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and cardiovascular-related mortality, with
much larger relative risk estimates than in the ACS and Harvard Six
Cities studies, as well as morbidity effects at an aggregate long-term
mean PM2.5 concentration of 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2000 (Miller
et al., 2007).\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 2000-2002. The MCAPS
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 [micro]g/m\3\, although
no association was reported for the western region with an aggregate
long-term PM2.5 median concentration of 13.1 [micro]g/m\3\
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 7-88; Zeger et al., 2008).\63\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Miller et al. (2007) studied postmenopausal women without
previous cardiovascular disease in 36 study areas from 1994 to 1998,
with a median follow-up period of six years. The ambient
PM2.5 monitor nearest to a study subject's residence
(within 30 miles or 48 kilometers) was identified and used to assign
long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations to each subject. The
annual average concentration in the year 2000 was the primary
exposure measure because of the substantially increased network of
monitors in that year, as compared with previous years. Miller et
al. (2007) reported a long-term mean PM2.5 concentration
across study areas of 13.5 [mu]g/m\3\. This concentration was
presented in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
Figure 2-2, Table 7-8) and discussed in the second draft Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010f, Figure 2-4). In response to a request
from the EPA for additional information on the air quality data used
in selected epidemiological studies (Hassett-Sipple and Stanek,
2009), study investigators provided updated air quality data for the
study period. The updated long-term mean PM2.5
concentration provided by the study authors was 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\
(personal communication from Cynthia Curl, 2009; Stanek et al.,
2010). The EPA notes that this updated long-term mean concentration
matches the composite monitor approach annual mean calculated by
staff for the year of air quality data (i.e., 2000) considered by
the study investigators (Hassett-Sipple et al., 2010, Attachment A,
p. 6). The updated air quality data for the Women's Health
Initiative study was presented and considered in the final Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-32). The Policy Assessment notes
that in comparison to other long-term exposure studies, the WHI
study was more limited in that it was based on only one year of air
quality data (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-82).
\63\ 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
[micro]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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [mu]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\. 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).
In also considering health effects for which the Integrated Science
Assessment concludes evidence is suggestive of a causal relationship,
the Policy Assessment notes a limited number of birth outcome studies
that reported positive and statistically significant effects related to
aggregate long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
[[Page 38919]]
down to approximately 12 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-33).
Collectively, the Policy Assessment concludes that currently
available evidence provides support for associations between long-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality and morbidity effects that
extend to air quality concentrations that are lower than had previously
been observed, with aggregate long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations extending to well below the level of the current annual
standard. These studies evaluated a broader range of health outcomes in
the general population and in at-risk populations than were considered
in the last review, and include extended follow-up for prospective
epidemiological studies that were important in the last review as well
as additional evidence in important new cohorts.
b. Associations With Short-term PM2.5 Exposures
In light of the mixed findings reported in single-city, short-term
exposure studies, the Policy Assessment places 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 recognizes
that long-term mean concentrations reported in new multi-city U.S. and
Canadian studies provide evidence of associations between short-term
PM2.5 exposure and mortality at similar air quality
distributions than 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 indicate the association between short-term
exposure to PM2.5 and total mortality and cardiovascular-
and respiratory-related mortality is 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 notes 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 [mu]g/m\3\ (personal
communication with Dr. Antonella Zanobetti, 2009).\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 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 MCAPS 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).\65\ In an
extended analysis of the MCAPS study, 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 indicate that effects are occurring in areas that would meet the
current standards but also suggest 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ This sub-analysis was not included in the original
publication (Dominici et al., 2006a). 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 concludes that the findings
from short-term PM2.5 exposure studies provide 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 are 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, the Policy Assessment first concludes that
there is 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
addresses the question of whether the available evidence supports
consideration of standards that are more protective than the current
standards. In so doing, the Policy Assessment considers whether there
is 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 provide 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 recognizes
that important limitations and uncertainties associated with this
expanded body of scientific evidence, noted above in section III.B.2,
need 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
concludes 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 concludes this evidence provides strong support
for considering fine particle standards that would afford increased
protection beyond that
[[Page 38920]]
afforded by the current standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-35).
2. Summary of Risk-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
In addition to evidence-based consideration, the Policy Assessment
also considers 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 notes 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;
\66\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 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 concludes these risks are
important from a public health standpoint (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-47).
This conclusion reflects consideration of both the severity and the
magnitude of the effects. For example, the risk assessment indicates
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 \67\ (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-46 to 2-47). Moreover, additional risks are
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 quantitative assessments of
uncertainty completed as part of the quantitative risk assessment, the
Risk Assessment concludes that it is 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 above provides 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the risks estimated to occur upon simulating just
meeting the current PM2.5 standards, the Policy Assessment
concludes that these estimated risks can reasonably be judged to be
important from a public health perspective and provide strong support
for consideration of alternative standards that would provide increased
protection beyond that afforded by the current PM2.5
standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-48).
3. CASAC Advice
CASAC, based on their review of drafts of the Integrated Science
Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Policy Assessment, has
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).
4. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions Concerning the Adequacy of the
Current Primary PM2.5 Standards
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 staff conclusions and associated
rationales presented in the Policy Assessment, views expressed by
CASAC, and public comments. In particular, the Administrator recognizes
that the Integrated Science Assessment concludes 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. Moreover, the
Administrator reflects that these effects have 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. See
American Trucking Associations v. EPA, 283 F. 3d at 369, 376 (revision
of level of existing standards justified when effects are observed in
areas that meet those standards). With regard to the results of the
quantitative risk assessment, the Administrator notes that the Risk
Assessment concludes that the risks estimated to remain upon simulation
of just meeting the current standards are important from a public
health standpoint in terms of both the severity and magnitude of the
effects.
Based on her consideration of these conclusions, as well as
consideration of CASAC's conclusion that the evidence and risk
assessment clearly call into question the adequacy of the public health
protection provided by the current PM2.5 NAAQS, the
Administrator provisionally concludes that the current primary
PM2.5 standards, taken together, are not requisite to
protect public health with an adequate margin of safety and that
revision is needed to provide increased public health protection. The
Administrator provisionally concludes that the scientific evidence and
information on risk provide strong support for consideration of
alternative standards that would provide increased public health
protection beyond that afforded by the current PM2.5
standards.
[[Page 38921]]
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 concludes that it is 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, 2011, p. 2-50).
The Policy Assessment also considers the expanded body of evidence
available in this review to consider whether there is sufficient
evidence to support a separate standard for ultrafine particles \68\ or
whether there is 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 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 concludes this evidence is still very
limited and largely focused on exposure to diesel exhaust, for which
the Integrated Science Assessment concludes it is unclear if 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 notes 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 recognizes 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 concludes
that the currently available evidence is suggestive of a causal
relationship between short-term exposures to ultrafine particles and
cardiovascular and respiratory effects. Furthermore, the Integrated
Science Assessment concludes that evidence is 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
recognizes a national characterization of concentrations, temporal and
spatial patterns, and trends is not possible at this time, and the
availability of ambient ultrafine measurements to support health
studies is 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
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 suggest 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
[[Page 38922]]
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 concludes that this
information is 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 concludes 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, there are 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). Data from the
CSN provide 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).\69\
The CSN provides PM2.5 speciation measurements generally on
a one-in-three or one-in-six day sampling schedule and, thus, do not
capture data every day at most sites.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 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).
\70\ 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 recognizes that several new multi-city
studies evaluating short-term exposures to fine particle constituents
are now available. These studies continue 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 notes the most
significant new evidence is 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., 2006). Using health data from a
cohort of U.S. military veterans and PM2.5 measurement data
from the CSN, Lipfert et al. (2006) 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 associated with
a range of health endpoints, the Integrated Science Assessment reports
that the currently available evidence suggests associations between
cardiovascular effects and a number of specific PM2.5-
related source categories, specifically 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. These studies include a study that 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). There
is less consistency in associations observed between sources of fine
particles and respiratory health effects, which may be partially due to
the fact that fewer studies have evaluated respiratory-related outcomes
and measures. However, there is 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). Respiratory effects relating to
the crustal/soil/road dust and traffic sources of PM have been observed
in asthmatic children and adults (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). 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
morality 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
[[Page 38923]]
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 concludes 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 concludes 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 concludes 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 concludes 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 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 proposes to retain
PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles. Further, the
Administrator provisionally concludes 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.
Furthermore, the Administrator also provisionally concludes that the
currently available scientific information does 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.
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.
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 concludes 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 notes 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 is much
sparser than for cardiovascular effects and continues to be very
limited. The Integrated Science Assessment concludes 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 concludes 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 provide 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 observes that there are few studies
presently available to deduce a general
[[Page 38924]]
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 concludes that there is no
basis to consider a seasonal averaging time separate from a 24-hour
averaging time.
Based on the above considerations, the Policy Assessment concludes
that the currently available information provides strong support for
consideration of retaining current annual and 24-hour averaging timers
but does not provide support for considering alternative averaging
times (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-58). In addition, CASAC considers it
appropriate to retain the current annual and 24-hour averaging times
for the primary PM2.5 standards (Samet, 2010c, pp. 2 to 3).
The Administrator concurs with the staff conclusions and CASAC advice
and proposes 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 concludes,
consistent with conclusions reached in the Policy Assessment and by
CASAC, that the currently available information is 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.
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, we consider whether
currently available information supports consideration of alternative
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 (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 area or
were taken from a single monitor that was selected to represent
community-wide exposures.
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 discussed in section III.B.3, 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 is 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, would provide
appropriate public health protection.
In considering the potential for disproportionate impacts on at-
risk populations, the Policy Assessment recognizes an update of an air
quality analysis conducted for the last review (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-
59 to 60; Schmidt, 2011a, Analysis A). This analysis focuses on
determining if 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
considers whether persons of lower socioeconomic status 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,
2011a, Analysis A). Recognizing the limitations of such cross-sectional
analyses, the Policy Assessment observes 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
concludes 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 concludes that it is
appropriate to consider revising the form of the annual
PM2.5 standard such that it does 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 \71\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-
60).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ As discussed in section VIII.B.1 below, the EPA is
proposing to revise several terms associated with PM2.5
monitor placement. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to revoke the
term ``community-oriented'' and replace it with the term ``area-
wide'' monitoring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CASAC agreed with staff conclusions that it is ``reasonable''
for the EPA to eliminate the spatial averaging provisions (Samet,
2010d, p. 2). Further, in CASAC's comments on
[[Page 38925]]
the first draft Policy Assessment, they 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 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 proposes to revise the form of the
annual PM2.5 standard to eliminate the use of spatial
averaging. Thus, the Administrator proposes 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\72\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ As discussed in section VIII.B.2.b below, the EPA proposes
that PM2.5 monitoring sites at micro- and middle-scale
locations be comparable to the annual standard unless the monitoring
site has been approved by the Regional Administrator as a
``relatively unique micro-scale, or localized hot-spot, or unique
middle-scale site.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 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 considers air quality data reported in 2000 to 2008
to update our understanding of the ratio between peak-to-mean
PM2.5 concentrations. This analysis provides evidence that
the 98th percentile value is a more stable metric than the 99th
percentile (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-2, p. 2-62).
The Agency recognizes 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.\74\ As in previous
reviews, the EPA recognizes that a concentration-based form, compared
to an exceedance-based form, is 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 concludes
that a concentration-based form, when averaged over three years,
provides an appropriate balance between limiting peak pollutant
concentrations and providing a stable regulatory target, thus
facilitating the development of more stable implementation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 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. The context for the court's discussion is
identical to that here; whether to adopt a 98th percentile form for
a 24-hour primary PM2.5 standard intended to provide
supplemental protection for a generally controlling annual standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 proposes to retain the
98th percentile form of the 24-hour standard. The Administrator
provisionally concludes 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.
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 exposures
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 [micro]g/m\3\ \75\ was challenged and on judicial
review, the D.C. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Throughout this section, the annual standard level is
denoted as an integer value for simplicity, although, as noted above
in section II.B.1, Table 1, the standard level is defined to one
decimal place, such that the current standard level is 15.0
[micro]g/m\3\. Alternative standard levels discussed in this section
are similarly defined to one decimal place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Approach Used in the Policy Assessment
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 uses an
approach that integrates evidence-based and risk-based considerations,
takes into account CASAC advice, and considers the issues raised by the
court in remanding the primary annual PM2.5 standard.
Following the general approach outlined in section III.A.3, for the
reasons discussed below, the Policy Assessment concludes it is
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 is 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.
[[Page 38926]]
Beyond looking directly at the relevant epidemiologic evidence, the
Policy Assessment considers the extent to which specific alternative
PM2.5 standard levels are 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.3 above, patterns of increasing estimated risk reductions are
generally observed as either the annual or 24-hour standard, or both,
are 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
observes, as discussed in section III.A.3, that analyses conducted for
this and previous reviews demonstrate 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.3, the Risk Assessment observes 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 notes that while the
results of simulating alternative suites of PM2.5 standards
including different combinations of alternative annual and 24-hour
standard levels suggest 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 is
highly variable, in part due to the choice of rollback approached used
(U.S. EPA, 2010a, p. 5-17).
Therefore, the Policy Assessment concludes, consistent with CASAC
advice (Samet 2010c, p. 1), that it is appropriate to set a ``generally
controlling'' annual standard that will lower a wide range of ambient
24-hour concentrations. The Policy Assessment concludes 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 believes 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.
The Policy Assessment recognizes 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 concludes it is 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.
Based on the above considerations, the approach used in the Policy
Assessment to identify alternative standard levels that are appropriate
for consideration focuses on translating information from
epidemiological studies into the basis for staff conclusions on levels.
This approach is broader and more integrative than the general approach
used by the EPA in previous reviews (see summary in section III.A.3
above; U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 2.1.3 and 2.3.4.1) and reflects the
more extensive and stronger body of scientific evidence now available
on health effects related to long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures, a more comprehensive quantitative risk assessment, and more
extensive PM2.5 air quality data. In considering the
currently available information, the Policy Assessment focuses on
identifying levels for an annual standard and a 24-hour standard that,
in combination, provide protection against health effects associated
with both long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures. The Policy
Assessment also considers the extent to which various combinations of
annual and 24-hour standards reflect setting a generally controlling
annual standard with a 24-hour standard providing supplemental
protection (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 2.1.3, 2.3.4.1).
As discussed in the Policy Assessment, EPA staff recognizes that
there is no single factor or criterion that comprises the ``correct''
approach for reaching conclusions on alternative standard levels for
consideration, but rather there are various approaches that are
reasonable to consider (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.3.4.1). In reaching
conclusions in the Policy Assessment on the ranges of standard levels
that are appropriate to consider, staff considered the relative weight
to place on different evidence. The Policy Assessment initially focuses
on long- and short-term PM2.5 exposure studies conducted in
the U.S. and Canada and places the greatest weight on health outcomes
judged in the Integrated Science Assessment as having evidence to
support a causal or likely causal relationship. The Policy Assessment
also considers the evidence for a broader range of health outcomes
judged in the Integrated Science Assessment to have evidence suggestive
of a causal relationship, specifically studies that focus on effects in
susceptible populations, to evaluate whether this evidence provides
support for considering lower alternative standard levels.
Several factors were taken into account in placing relative weight
on the body of available epidemiological studies, for example, study
characteristics, including study design (e.g., time period of air
quality monitoring, control for potential confounders); strength of the
study (in terms of statistical significance and precision of results);
and availability of population-level and air quality distribution data.
As noted above in section III.A.3, the Policy Assessment places
greatest weight on information from multi-city epidemiological studies
to inform staff conclusions regarding alternative annual standard
levels. These studies have a number of advantages compared to single-
city studies \76\ that include providing representation of ambient
PM2.5 concentrations and potential health impacts across a
range of diverse locations providing spatial coverage for different
regions across the country, reflecting differences in PM2.5
sources, composition, and potentially other exposure-related factors
which might impact PM2.5-related risks; lack of
[[Page 38927]]
`publication bias' (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 8-30); and consideration of
larger study populations that afford the possibility of generalizing to
the broader national population and provide higher statistical power
than single-city studies to detect potentially statistically
significant associations with relatively more precise effect estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ As discussed in section III.B.1 above, the Policy
Assessment recognizes that single-city studies provide ancillary
evidence to multi-city studies in support of calling into question
the adequacy of the current suite of standards. However, in light of
the mixed findings reported in single-city short-term
PM2.5 exposure studies, and the likelihood that these
results are influenced by localized events and not representative of
air quality across the country, the Policy Assessment places
comparatively greater weight on the results from multi-city studies
in considering alternative annual and 24-hour standard levels (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 2-64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching conclusions in the Policy Assessment regarding
alternative 24-hour standard levels that are appropriate to consider,
staff also considers relevant information from single-city short-term
PM2.5 exposure studies. Although, as discussed above, multi-
city studies have greater power to detect associations and provide
broader geographic coverage in comparison to single-city studies, the
extent to which effects reported in multi-city short-term
PM2.5 exposure studies are associated with the specific
short-term air quality in any particular location is unclear,
especially when considering short-term concentrations at the upper end
of the air quality distribution (i.e., at the 98th percentile value)
for a given study area. In contrast, single-city studies are more
limited in terms of power and geographic coverage but the link between
reported health effects and the air quality in a given study area is
more straightforward. Therefore, the Policy Assessment considers the
results of both multi-city and single-city short-term exposure studies
to inform staff conclusions regarding alternative levels that are
appropriate to consider for a 24-hour standard that is intended to
provide supplemental protection in areas where the annual standard may
not offer appropriate protection against the effects of all short-term
exposures (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-62 to 2-65).
b. Consideration of the Annual Standard 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 are
appropriate to consider focuses on characterizing the range of
PM2.5 concentrations over which we have the most confidence
in the associations reported in the epidemiological studies, and
conversely where our confidence in the association becomes appreciably
lower. The most direct approach to address this issue, consistent with
CASAC advice (Samet, 2010c, p.10), is 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 three long-
term PM2.5 exposure studies reporting confidence intervals
around concentration-response functions (i.e., Schwartz et al., 2008;
Pope et al., 2002; Miller et al., 2007; U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-65 to 2-
70 and Figure 2-3).\77\ In its assessment of these studies, the Policy
Assessment places greater weight on analyses that averaged across
multiple concentration-response models since this approach represents a
more robust examination of the underlying concentration-response
relationship than analyses considering a single concentration-response
model. Although these analyses of long-term exposure to
PM2.5 provide information on the lack of any discernible
population threshold, only Schwartz et al. (2008) conducted a multi-
model analysis to characterize confidence intervals around the
estimated concentration-response relationship that can help inform at
what PM2.5 concentrations we have appreciably less
confidence in the nature of the underlying concentration-response
relationship. Although analyses of confidence intervals associated with
concentration-response relationships can help inform consideration of
alternative standard levels, the Policy Assessment concludes that the
single relevant analysis now available is too limited to serve as the
principal basis for identifying alternative standard levels in this
review (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-70).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ The EPA carefully analyzed the published evidence, but was
unable to identify any short-term PM2.5 exposure studies
that characterized confidence intervals around concentration-
response relationships. Nor did CASAC or public comments on this
issue, as addressed in their comments on the second draft Policy
Assessment, identify any additional analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment explores other approaches that considered
different statistical metrics to identify ranges of long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations that were most influential in
generating health effect estimates in long- and short-term
epidemiological studies, placing 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 recognizes 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 exposure studies. The long-
term mean concentrations represent air quality data typically used in
epidemiological analyses and provide a direct link between
PM2.5 concentrations and the observed health effects.
Further, these data are available for all long- and short-term exposure
studies analyzed and, therefore, represent the data set available for
the broadest set of epidemiological studies.
However, consistent with CASAC's comments on the second draft
Policy Assessment \78\ (Samet, 2010d, p. 2), in preparing the final
Policy Assessment, 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 range of PM2.5 concentrations down through
which staff continued to have confidence in the associations observed
in epidemiological studies and below which there is a comparative lack
of data such that the staff's confidence in the relationship was
appreciably less. This would also be the range of PM2.5
concentrations which has the most influence on generating the health
effect estimates reported in epidemiological studies. As discussed in
section III.A.3 above, the Policy Assessment recognizes there is no one
percentile value within a given distribution that is the most
appropriate or ``correct'' way to characterize where our confidence in
the associations becomes appreciably lower. The Policy Assessment
concludes that focusing on concentrations within the lower quartile of
a distribution, such as the range from the 25th to the 10th percentile,
is reasonable to consider as a region within which we begin to have
appreciably less confidence in the associations observed in
epidemiological studies.\79\ In staff's
[[Page 38928]]
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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 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).
\79\ 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
recognizes that there are 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 is 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 an
appropriate surrogate for health event data.
In applying this approach, the Policy Assessment focuses on
identifying the broader range 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, 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). For the three studies for which both
health event and study population data were available, EPA staff
analyzed the reliability of using study population data as a surrogate
for health event data. Based on these analyses, 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).
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\.\80\ 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). By following the general approach used in previous PM
NAAQS reviews, one could consider identifying alternative standard
levels that are somewhat below the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations reported in these epidemiological studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 38929]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.000
[[Page 38930]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.001
[[Page 38931]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 38932]]
With regard to consideration of additional information from
epidemiological studies which is relevant to the second approach, EPA
has compiled a summary of the range of PM2.5 concentrations
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 \81\ (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Health event data (e.g., number of deaths,
hospitalizations) occurring in a study population were obtained 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. As noted above in section
III.A.3 and discussed in the Policy Assessment, a policy approach that
uses data based on composite monitor distributions to identify
alternative standard levels, and then compares those levels to
concentrations at appropriate maximum monitors to determine if an area
meets a given standard, inherently has the potential to build in some
margin of safety (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-14). In analyses conducted by
EPA staff based on selected long- and short-term exposure studies, the
Policy Assessment notes that the differences between the maximum and
composite distributions were greater for studies with fewer years of
air quality data (i.e., 1 to 3 years) and smaller numbers of study
areas (i.e., 36 to 51 study areas). The differences in the maximum and
composite monitor distribution were much smaller (i.e., generally
within five percent) for studies with more years of air quality data
(i.e., up to 6 years) and larger numbers of study areas (i.e., 112 to
204 study areas) (Hassett-Sipple et al., 2010; U.S. EPA, 2010f, section
2.3.4.1). Therefore, any margin of safety that may be provided by a
policy approach that uses data based on composite monitor distributions
to identify alternative standard levels, and then compares those levels
to concentrations at appropriate maximum monitors to determine if an
area meets a given standard, will vary depending upon the number of
monitors and air quality distributions within a given area. See also,
section III.A.3 above.
Figure 4 summarizes statistical metrics for those studies included
in Figures 1, 2, and 3 that provide evidence of statistically
significant PM2.5-related effects, which are relevant to the
two approaches for translating epidemiological evidence into standard
levels discussed above. The top of Figure 4 includes information for
long-term exposure studies evaluating health outcomes classified as
having evidence of a casual or likely casual 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 casual or likely casual
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.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 38933]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.003
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 38934]]
In looking first at the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations reported in the multi-city long-term exposure studies,
as summarized at the top of Figure 4, the Policy Assessment observes
positive and often statistically significant associations at long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations ranging from 16.4 to 12.9 [mu]g/
m\3\ \82\ (Laden et al., 2006; Lipfert et al., 2006; Krewski et al.,
2009; Goss et al., 2004; Miller et al.; 2007; Zeger et al., 2008; Eftim
et al., 2008; Dockery et al., 1996; McConnell et al., 2003). In
considering the one long-term PM2.5 exposure study for which
health event data are available (Krewski et al., 2009), the Policy
Assessment observes that the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations corresponding with study areas contributing to the 25th
and 10th percentiles of the distribution of mortality data are 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\ and 10.2 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively (Figure 4; U.S. EPA,
2011a, Figure 2-7; Rajan et al., 2011, Table 1). As identified above,
although less directly relevant than event data, the number of
participants within each study area can be used as a surrogate for
health event data in relation to the distribution of PM2.5
concentrations. The long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
corresponding with study areas contributing to the 25th and 10th
percentiles of the distribution of study participants for Miller et al.
(2007) were 11.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and 9.7 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively (Figure 4;
U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-7; Rajan et al., 2011, Table 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ As discussed in section III.D.1.a above, the lowest long-
term mean PM2.5 concentration reported in the long-term
exposure studies was based on updated air quality data for Miller et
al. (2007). As noted in the Policy Assessment, these air quality
data were based on only one year of ambient measurements (2000) and
in comparison to other long-term exposure studies that considered
multiple years of air quality data, were much more limited (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-81 to 2-82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In then considering information from multi-city, short-term
exposure studies reporting positive and statistically significant
associations with these same broad health effect categories, as
summarized in the middle of Figure 4, the Policy Assessment observes
positive and statistically significant associations at long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations in a similar range of 15.6 to 12.8
[mu]g/m\3\ (Franklin et al., 2007, 2008; Klemm and Mason, 2003; Burnett
and Goldberg, 2003; Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009; Burnett et al., 2004;
Bell et al., 2008; Dominici et al., 2006a; see Figure 3). In
considering the two multi-city, short-term PM2.5 exposure
studies for which health event data are available, the Policy
Assessment observes that the long-term mean PM2.5
concentrations corresponding with study areas contributing to the 25th
and 10th percentiles of the distribution of deaths and cardiovascular-
related hospitalizations are 12.5 [mu]g/m\3\ and 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\,
respectively, for Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009), and 11.5 [mu]g/m\3\
and 9.8 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively, for Bell et al. (2008) (Figure 4;
U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-7; Rajan et al., 2011, Table 1).
Taking into consideration additional studies of specific at-risk
populations (i.e., children), the Policy Assessment expands its
evaluation of the long-term exposure studies to include a broader range
of health outcomes judged in the Integrated Science Assessment to have
evidence suggestive of a causal relationship. This evidence was taken
into account to evaluate whether it provides support for considering
lower alternative levels than if weight were only placed on studies for
which health effects have been judged in the Integrated Science
Assessment to have evidence supporting a causal or likely causal
relationship. The Policy Assessment makes note of a limited number of
studies that provide emerging evidence for PM2.5-related low
birth weight and infant mortality, especially related to respiratory
causes during the post-neonatal period. This more limited body of
evidence, as summarized at the bottom of Figure 4, indicates positive
and often statistically significant effects associated with long-term
PM2.5 mean concentrations in the range of 14.9 to 11.9
[mu]g/m\3\ (Woodruff et al., 2008; Liu et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2007;
see Figure 2). As illustrated in Figure 2, although Parker and Woodruff
(2008) did not observe an association between quarterly estimates of
exposure to PM2.5 and low birth weight in a multi-city U.S.
study, other U.S. and Canadian studies did report positive and
statistically significant associations between PM2.5 and low
birth weight at lower ambient concentrations (Bell et al., 2007; Liu et
al., 2007).\83\ There remain significant limitations (e.g., identifying
the etiologically relevant time period) in the evaluation of evidence
on the relationship between PM2.5 exposures and birth
outcomes (U.S. EPA, 2009a, pp. 7-48 and 7-56) which should be taken
into consideration in reaching judgments about how to weigh these
studies of potential impacts on specific susceptible populations in
considering alternative standard levels that provide protection with an
appropriate margin of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ As noted in section 7.4 of the Integrated Science
Assessment, Parker et al. (2005) reported that over a 9-month
exposure period (mean PM2.5 concentration of 15.4 [mu]g/
m\3\) a significant decrease in birth weight was associated with
infants in the highest quartile of PM2.5 exposure as
compared to infants exposed in the lowest quartile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity
(evidence suggestive of a causal relationship), the strongest evidence
currently available is from long-term prospective cohort studies that
report positive associations between PM2.5 and lung cancer
mortality. At this time, 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, in
selecting alternative standard levels appropriate to consider, the
Policy Assessment noted that, in providing protection against mortality
and cardiovascular and respiratory effects it is reasonable to
anticipate that protection will also be provided for carcinogenicity,
mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-78).
In summarizing the currently available evidence and air quality
information within the context of identifying potential alternative
annual standard levels for consideration, the Policy Assessment first
notes that the Integrated Science Assessment concludes there is no
evidence of a discernible population threshold below which effects
would not occur. Thus, health effects may occur over the full range of
concentrations observed in the epidemiological studies. In the absence
of any discernible thresholds, the general approach used in the Policy
Assessment for identifying alternative standard levels that would
provide appropriate protection against effects observed in
epidemiological studies has focused on the central question of
identifying the range of PM2.5 concentrations below the
long-term mean concentrations where we continue to have confidence in
the associations observed in epidemiological studies.
In considering the evidence, the Policy Assessment recognizes 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 the weight placed on different aspects of the evidence and
inherent uncertainties, considerations of different alternative
standard levels could be supported.
[[Page 38935]]
Given the currently available evidence and considering the various
approaches discussed above, the Policy Assessment concludes it is
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, a standard level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\, at
the upper end of this range, is somewhat below the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations reported in all the 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, 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 corresponds with
approximately the 25th percentile of the available distributions of
health events data in the studies for which population-level
information was available.\84\ In addition, a level of 12 [mu]g/m\3\
would reflect some consideration of studies that provide more limited
evidence of reproductive and developmental effects, which are
suggestive of a causal relationship, in that it is about at the same
level as the lowest long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations
reported in such studies (see Figure 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ As outlined in section III.A.3, the Policy Assessment
considers the 25th percentile to be the start of the range of
PM2.5 concentrations below the mean within which the data
become appreciably more sparse and, thus, where our confidence in
the associations observed in epidemiological studies begins to
become appreciably less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, an annual standard level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\, at the
lower end of this range, is 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 is within the
range of PM2.5 concentrations corresponding to the 25th and
10th percentiles of all the available distributions of such data.\85\
In addition, a level of 11 [mu]g/m\3\ is 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 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 concludes that the
available evidence does not provide a sufficient basis to consider
alternative annual standard levels below 11 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-81).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ As discussed in section III.A.3, the Policy Assessment
identifies the range from the 25th to the 10th percentiles as a
reasonable range to consider, in that it is a range where we have
appreciably less confidence in the associations observed in
epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment also considers the extent to which the
available evidence provides a basis for considering alternative annual
standard levels above 12 [mu]g/m\3\. As discussed below, the Policy
Assessment concludes that it could be reasonable to consider a standard
level up to 13 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a policy approach that tends to
weigh 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 is placed on
long-term exposure studies as a basis for an annual standard level. A
level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ is 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\ is the WHI
study (Miller et al., 2007). As noted in section III.D.1.a above, the
Policy Assessment observes that in comparison to other long-term
exposure studies, the WHI study was more limited in that it was based
on only one year of air quality data (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 2-81 to 2-
82). Thus, to the extent that less weight is placed on the WHI 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, the Policy Assessment notes that a level of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ is
below the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations reported in
most such studies, but is above the long-term means of 12.8 and 12.9
[mu]g/m\3\ reported in Burnett et al. (2004) and Bell et al. (2008),
respectively. In considering these studies, the Policy Assessment finds
no basis to conclude that these two studies are 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 concludes 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,
such that taken together the suite of PM2.5 standards 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 notes 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.2 above,
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 is too uncertain to support
consideration of any lower level.
Beyond evidence-based considerations, the Policy Assessment also
considered the extent to which quantitative risk assessment supports
consideration of these alternative standard levels or provides 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 reductions estimated for
standard levels of 13 and 12 [mu]g/m\3\, noting 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
[[Page 38936]]
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 concludes 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 concludes
that the currently available evidence most strongly supports
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
concludes 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 would also reflect placing weight on information from
studies that help 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 is appreciably less at
lower concentrations.
c. Consideration of the 24-Hour Standard in the Policy Assessment
As recognized in section III.A.3 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 concludes that it is 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
considers 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 takes
into account information from multi-city studies as well as single-city
studies. The Policy Assessment considers 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 considers
information on the long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations from
these studies.
In addition to considering the epidemiological evidence, the Policy
Assessment also considers 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 help 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 recognizes that to the extent these
studies were conducted in areas that likely did not meet one or both of
the current standards, such studies do 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 places 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,
the Policy Assessment observes 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 Policy Assessment notes 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 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). To the extent that consideration is given to revising
the level of the annual standard, as discussed above in section
III.E.4.b, the Policy Assessment recognizes 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 work in conjunction with an annual standard to
provide appropriate public health protection, the Policy Assessment
notes that to the extent that the level of the annual standard is
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 effects observed in these multi-city studies (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-84).
In summary, the Policy Assessment concludes that the multi-city,
short-term exposure studies generally provide support for retaining the
24-hour standard level at 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 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 concludes that
the multi-city studies provide 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 in conjunction with an
overall long-term mean
[[Page 38937]]
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 are appropriate to consider, the Policy Assessment
also takes into account relevant information from single-city studies
that evaluated effects associated with short-term PM2.5
exposures. The Policy Assessment recognizes that these studies may
provide additional insights regarding impacts on susceptible
populations and/or on areas with isolated peak concentrations.
Although, as discussed in section III.E.4.a above, multi-city studies
have advantages over single-city studies in terms of statistical power
to detect associations and broader geographic coverage as well as other
factors such as less likelihood of publication bias, reflecting
differences in PM2.5 sources, composition, and potentially
other factors that could impact PM2.5-related effects,
multi-city studies often present overall effect estimates rather than
single-city effect estimates. Since short-term air quality can vary
considerably across cities, the extent to which effects reported in
multi-city studies are associated with short-term air quality in any
particular location is uncertain, especially when considering short-
term concentrations at the upper end of the distribution of daily
PM2.5 concentrations (i.e., at the 98th percentile value).
In contrast, single-city studies are more limited in terms of power and
geographic coverage but the link between reported health effects and
the air quality in a given study area is more straightforward to
establish. Therefore, the Policy Assessment also considers evidence
from single-city, short-term exposure studies to inform staff
conclusions regarding alternative levels that are appropriate to
consider for a 24-hour standard that is intended to provide
supplemental protection in areas where the annual standard may not
provide an adequate margin of safety against the effects of all short-
term PM2.5 exposures.
As discussed above for the multi-city studies, the Policy
Assessment takes into account both the 24-hour PM2.5
concentrations in the single-city studies, focusing on the 98th
percentile air quality values, as well as the long-term mean
PM2.5 concentrations. The Policy Assessment considers
single-city studies conducted in areas that would likely have met the
current suite of PM2.5 standards as most useful for
informing staff conclusions related to the level of the 24-hour
standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-9). The Policy Assessment notes
that additional single-city studies summarized in that Figure 2-9 were
conducted in areas that would likely have met one but not both of the
current PM2.5 standards. To the extent changes in air
quality designed to just meet the current suite of PM2.5
standards are undertaken, one could reasonably anticipate additional
public health protection will occur in these study areas. Therefore,
the Policy Assessment concludes that these studies are not helpful to
inform staff conclusions regarding alternative standard levels that are
appropriate to consider (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-87).
With regard to single-city studies that were conducted in areas
that would likely have met both the current 24-hour and annual
standards, the Policy Assessment first considers studies that reported
positive and statistically significant associations. In considering
this group of studies, the Policy Assessment notes Mar et al. (2003)
reported a positive and statistically significant association for
premature mortality in Phoenix with a long-term mean concentration of
13.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in conjunction with a 98th percentile value of 32.2
[mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-9). To the extent that
consideration is given to revising the level of the annual standard,
within a range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\, as discussed above, additional
protection would be provided for the effects observed in this study
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 2-87).
Four additional studies reported positive and statistically
significant associations with 98th percentile values within a range of
31.2 to 25.8 [mu]g/m\3\ and long-term mean concentrations within a
range of 12.1 to 8.5 [mu]g/m\3\ (Delfino et al., 1997; Peters et al.,
2001; Stieb et al., 2000; and Mar et al., 2004; U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure
2-9). Delfino et al. (1997) reported statistically significant
associations between PM2.5 and respiratory emergency
department visits for older adults (greater than 64 years old) but not
young children (less than 2 years old), in one part of the study period
(summer 1993) but not the other (summer 1992). Peters et al. (2001)
reported a positive and statistically significant association between
short-term exposure to PM2.5 (2-hour and 24-hour averaging
times) and onset of acute myocardial infarction in Boston. Stieb et al.
(2000) reported positive and statistically significant associations
with cardiovascular- and respiratory-related emergency department
visits in Saint John, Canada, in single pollutant models but not in
multi-pollutant models (U.S. EPA, 2004, pp. 8-154 and 8-252 to 8-253).
Mar et al. (2004) reported a positive and statistically significant
association for short-term PM2.5 exposures in relation to
respiratory symptoms among children but not adults in Spokane, however,
this study had very limited statistical power because of the small
number of children and adults evaluated.
The Policy Assessment also considers short-term single-city
PM2.5 exposure studies that reported positive but
nonstatistically significant associations for cardiovascular and
respiratory endpoints in areas that would likely have met both the
current 24-hour and annual standards. The 98th percentile values
reported in these studies ranged from 31.6 to 17.2 [mu]g/m\3\ and the
long-term mean concentrations ranged from 13.0 to 7.0 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-9). These studies included consideration of
cardiovascular-related mortality effects in Phoenix (Wilson et al.,
2007), asthma medication use in children in Denver (Rabinovitch et al.,
2006), hospital admissions for hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke in
Edmonton, Canada (Villeneuve et al., 2006), and hospital admissions for
ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack in Nueces County, TX
(Lisabeth et al., 2008).
Lastly, the Policy Assessment considers single-city studies
conducted in areas that would likely have met both the current 24-hour
and annual standards that reported null findings. The 98th percentile
values reported in these studies ranged from 29.6 to 24.0 [mu]g/m\3\
and the long-term mean concentrations ranged from 10.8 to 8.5 [mu]g/
m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 2-9). These studies reported no
associations with short-term PM2.5 exposures and
cardiovascular-related hospital admissions and respiratory-related
emergency department visits (Slaughter et al., 2005) and
cardiovascular-related emergency department visits (Schreuder et al.,
2006) in Spokane; asthma exacerbation in children in Denver
(Rabinovitch et al., 2004); and hospital admissions for transient
ischemic attack in Edmonton, Canada (Villeneuve et al., 2006).
Viewing the evidence as a whole, the Policy Assessment observes a
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.
Many of these studies had significant limitations (e.g., limited
statistical power, limited exposure data) or equivocal results (i.e.,
mixed results within the same study area) as briefly identified above
and discussed in more detail in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
p. 2-88). Other studies reported positive but not statistically
[[Page 38938]]
significant results or null associations also in areas that would
likely have met the current suite of PM2.5 standards.
Overall, the entire body of results from these single-city studies is
mixed, particularly as 24-hour 98th percentile concentrations go below
35 [mu]g/m\3\.
Although a number of single-city studies report 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 greater and, thus, the
Policy Assessment concludes there is less confidence in using these
studies as a basis for setting the level of a standard. Therefore, the
Policy Assessment concludes that the multi-city short-term exposure
studies provide the strongest evidence to inform decisions on the level
of the 24-hour standard, and the single-city studies do 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 takes into account air quality information based on county-
level 24-hour and annual design values to understand the implications
of the alternative standard levels supported by the currently available
scientific evidence, as discussed in section III.E.4.b above. As
discussed in section III.A.3 above, the Policy Assessment concludes
that a policy goal which includes 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, is 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. Therefore, the Policy
Assessment considers the extent to which different combinations of
alternative annual and 24-hour standard levels based on the evidence
would support this policy goal (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 examines 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 concludes 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 represent 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
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 concludes 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 would recognize 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).
The Policy Assessment also recognizes an alternative approach to
considering the evidence that provides some support for revising the
level below 35 [mu]g/m\3\, perhaps as low as 30 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 2-92). This alternative 24-hour standard level would be more
compatible with an alternative annual standard of 13 [mu]g/m\3\ based
on placing greater weight on one multi-city short-term exposure study
(Bell et al., 2008) that reported positive and statistically
significant effects at a 98th percentile value less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\
(i.e., 34.2 [mu]g/m\3\) in conjunction with a long-term mean
concentration less than 13 [mu]g/m\3\ (i.e., 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\).
Beyond evidence-based considerations, the Policy Assessment also
considered the extent to which the quantitative risk assessment
supports consideration of retaining the current 24-hour standard level
or provides 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 provides 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
does 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 concludes that while it is
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 supports 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).
d. 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
[[Page 38939]]
``[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 and 24-hour
standards that are appropriate to consider, including consideration of
the combination of these standards supported by the available
information (Samet, 2010d, p. ii). Specifically, 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 (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, EPA staff conducted additional analyses
and modified their conclusions regarding alternative standard levels
that are appropriate to consider. The staff conclusions in the final
Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 2.3.4.4) differ 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, the EPA analyzed additional
population-level data obtained from several study investigators. In
commenting on draft staff conclusions in the second draft Policy
Assessment, CASAC did not have an opportunity to review the staff
analyses of distributional statistics to identify the broader range of
PM2.5 concentrations that were most influential in
generating health effect estimates in epidemiological studies (Rajan et
al., 2011). In addition, CASAC was not aware of the revised long-term
mean PM2.5 concentration in the WHI study as discussed in
section III.D.1.a above or the staff's inclusion of that value in its
evaluation of the evidence (i.e., in Figures 1 and 4 above and related
discussion). The WHI study is the only long-term cohort study that
provides information regarding effects classified as having evidence of
a causal or likely causal relationship associated with a long-term
PM2.5 concentration below 13 [mu]g/m\3\. Furthermore, CASAC
did not have an opportunity to review the staff's revised rationale for
the combinations of alternative standards suggested in the final Policy
Assessment.
e. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on the Primary PM2.5
Standard Levels
In reaching her conclusions regarding appropriate alternative
standard levels to consider, 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 and the advice of CASAC. As an initial matter, the
Administrator agrees with the 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. This is consistent with the approach taken in the
review completed in 1997, in contrast to considering each standard
separately, as was done in the review completed in 2006. Furthermore,
based on the evidence and quantitative risk assessment, the
Administrator provisionally concludes 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 concludes 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.
In reaching decisions on alternative standard levels to propose,
the Administrator judges that it is most appropriate to examine where
the evidence of associations observed in the epidemiological studies is
strongest and, conversely, where she has 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 recognizes 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 takes note that these
studies, along with evidence available in the last review, provide
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 recognizes 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
recognizes new U.S. multi-city studies that greatly expand and
reinforce our understanding of mortality and morbidity effects
[[Page 38940]]
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).
The newly available scientific evidence builds 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
recognizes that the weight of evidence, as evaluated in the Integrated
Science Assessment, is strongest for health endpoints classified as
having evidence of a causal relationship. These relationships include
those between long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and
mortality and cardiovascular effects. She recognizes that the weight of
evidence is also strong for health endpoints classified as having
evidence of a likely causal relationship, which include those between
long- and short-term PM2.5 exposures and respiratory
effects. In addition, the Administrator makes 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.
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 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
recognizes, in taking note of CASAC advice and the distributional
statistics analysis discussed in section III.E.4.b above and in the
Policy Assessment, that there is significantly greater confidence in
observed associations over certain parts of the air quality
distributions in the studies, and conversely, that there is
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.d above,
the Administrator generally agrees that it is appropriate to consider a
level for an annual standard that is 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 is strongest at and around the long-term average where
the data in the study are most concentrated, she understands that this
approach does not provide a bright line for reaching decisions about
appropriate standard levels. The Administrator notes that long-term
mean PM2.5 concentrations are available for each study
considered and, therefore, represent the most robust data set to inform
her decisions on appropriate annual standard levels. She also notes
that the overall study mean PM2.5 concentrations are
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 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 understands that it is appropriate to consider the weight
of evidence for the health endpoints evaluated in such studies in
giving weight to this information.
Based on the information summarized in Figure 4 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 observes 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). She observes 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 observes 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).\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 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 considers 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 understands 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 within
which the data become appreciably more sparse and, thus, where her
confidence in the associations observed in epidemiological studies
would become appreciably less. As discussed in section III.E.4.b above
and summarized in Figure 4, the Administrator takes note of additional
population-level data that are available for four studies (Krewski et
al., 2009; Miller et al., 2007; Bell et al., 2008; Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009), each of which report 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 observes that these
values range from somewhat above to somewhat below 12 [mu]g/m\3\
(Figure 4). The Administrator recognizes that these four studies
represent some of the strongest evidence available within the overall
body of scientific evidence and notes 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). However,
the Administrator also recognizes that additional population-level data
are available for only these four studies and, therefore, she believes
that these studies comprise a more limited data set than one based on
long-term mean PM2.5 concentrations for which data are
available for all studies considered, as discussed above. In
considering this information, the Administrator notes that CASAC
advised that information about the long-term PM2.5
concentrations that were most influential in generating the health
effect estimates in epidemiological
[[Page 38941]]
studies can help to inform selection of an appropriate annual standard
level.
The Administrator recognizes, as summarized in section III.B.2
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 fixed monitor sites, and the nature,
magnitude, and confidence in 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. The Administrator
also recognizes 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.
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 standard levels are appropriate to propose, the
Administrator recognizes, as did EPA staff in the Policy Assessment,
that there is no single factor or criterion that comprises the
``correct'' approach to weighing the various types of available
evidence and information, but rather there are various approaches that
are appropriate to consider. The Administrator further recognizes 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 leads the Administrator to consider various approaches
to weighing the evidence so as to identify appropriate standard levels
to propose. In so doing, the Administrator encourages 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 notes
the advice of CASAC that the currently available scientific
information, including epidemiological and toxicological evidence as
well as risk and air quality information, provides 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 recognizes that the Policy
Assessment concludes 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
concludes that the evidence most strongly supports 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
observes that CASAC did not express support for any specific levels or
combinations of standards within in these ranges, although she
recognizes that CASAC did not have an opportunity to review additional
information and analyses presented in the final Policy Assessment
prepared in response to CASAC's recommendations on the second draft
Policy Assessment. Nor did CASAC have an opportunity to review the EPA
staff's revised rationale for the combinations of alternative standards
presented in the final document.
In considering the extent to which the currently available evidence
and information provide support for specific standard levels within the
ranges identified by CASAC and the Policy Assessment as appropriate for
consideration, the Administrator initially considers standard levels
within the range of 13 to 11 [mu]g/m\3\ for the annual standard. In so
doing, the Administrator first considers 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 and discussed more broadly
above. She notes 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 notes that the evidence of an
association in any such study is 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 are available for each
study considered and, therefore, represent the most robust data set to
inform her decisions on appropriate annual standard levels. Further,
she is mindful that this approach does not provide a bright line for
reaching decisions about appropriate standard levels.
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 notes 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
notes 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 considers additional 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 notes 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
[[Page 38942]]
these studies. The Administrator also notes 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
notes that there is 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 becomes appreciably
less.
In considering mean PM2.5 concentrations and
distributional analyses from the various sets of epidemiological
studies noted above, the Administrator is 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 uses 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 is set, concentrations at appropriate maximum
monitors within an area are generally used to determine if an area
meets a given standard.
The Administrator also recognizes 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 remain in the
evidence and information being considered in this review. The
Administrator notes that the extent to which these uncertainties
influence 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 concludes that
it is 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 concludes 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 concludes 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 recognizes that
setting an annual standard level at the lower end of this range would
reflect an approach that places 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 place
more emphasis on the remaining uncertainties in the evidence to avoid
potentially overestimating public health improvements, and would
generally support a view that the uncertainties remaining in the
evidence are too great to warrant setting a lower annual standard
level.
While the Administrator recognizes that CASAC advised, and the
Policy Assessment concluded, that the available scientific information
provides support for considering a range that extended down to 11
[mu]g/m\3\, she concludes that proposing such an extended range would
reflect a public health policy approach that places more weight on
relatively limited evidence and more uncertain information and analyses
than she considers appropriate at this time. Nonetheless, the
Administrator solicits 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 recognizes 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 recognizes 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 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, 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, the
Administrator has 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 agrees 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 recognizes that to the extent these studies
were conducted in areas that likely did not meet one or both of the
current standards, such studies do 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
anticipates that additional public health protection will occur.
Therefore, the Administrator has 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 has
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, 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.
The Administrator views the single-city, short-term exposure studies as
a much
[[Page 38943]]
more limited data set providing mixed results and, therefore, she has
less confidence in using these 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
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 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 notes that, to the extent air quality distributions are
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
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 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
recognizes 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 notes that the study-wide mean concentrations are 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
believes it would be reasonable to conclude that revision to the 24-
hour standard would not be warranted in conjunction with an annual
standard within this range. Based on the above considerations related
to the epidemiological evidence, the Administrator provisionally
concludes 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 in the proposed range of 12 to 13 [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 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 has considered whether this suite of
standards would meet a public health policy goal which includes 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 concludes that this
approach is 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
recognizes that there is 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 observes
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
proposes 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 recognizes 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 is
solicited, must be clearly responsive to the issues raised by the D.C.
Circuit's remand of the 2006 primary annual PM2.5 standard.
Furthermore, the final suite of standards will reflect the
Administrator's 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.
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 solicits 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 solicits 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
plays in considering the appropriate annual and 24-hour levels, the
Administrator solicits public comment on issues related to translating
epidemiological evidence into standards, including approaches for
addressing the uncertainties and
[[Page 38944]]
limitations associated with this evidence.
F. Administrator's Proposed 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 proposes to revise the current primary PM2.5
standards. Specifically, the Administrator proposes to revise: (1) The
level of the primary annual PM2.5 standard to a level within
the range of 12.0 to 13.0 [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 allowance 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
proposes to retain the level and form of the primary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard to provide supplemental protection for areas
with high peak PM2.5 concentrations. The Administrator
provisionally concludes that such a revised suite of standards,
including a revised annual standard together with the current 24-hour
standard, could provide requisite protection against health effects
potentially associated with long- and short-term PM2.5
exposures. The Administrator is not proposing any revisions to the
current PM2.5 indicator and the annual and 24-hour averaging
times for the primary PM2.5 standards. Data handling
conventions are specified in proposed revisions to appendix N, as
discussed in section VII below. The Administrator solicits comment on
all aspects of this proposed decision.
IV. Rationale for Proposed Decision on Primary PM10 Standard
This section presents the rationale for the Administrator's
proposed decision to retain the current 24-hour PM10
standard to continue to provide public health protection against short-
term exposures to thoracic coarse particles, that is inhalable
particles which can penetrate into the trachea, bronchi, and deep lungs
and which are in the size range of 2.5 to 10 [mu]m
(PM10-2.5). As discussed more fully below, this rationale 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
thoracic coarse particles in the ambient air. This proposal also takes
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 health evidence presented in 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 and Policy Assessment at public meetings,
in separate written comments, and in CASAC's letters to the
Administrator; and (3) public comments received during the development
of these documents, either in connection with CASAC meetings or
separately. The EPA notes that the final decision for retaining or
revising the current primary PM10 standard is a public
health policy judgment made by the Administrator. The Administrator's
final decision will draw upon scientific information and analyses
related to health effects; judgments about uncertainties that are
inherent in the scientific evidence and analyses; CASAC advice; and
comments received in response to this proposal.
In presenting the rationale for the proposed decision to retain the
current primary PM10 standard, this section begins with
background information on EPA's past reviews of the PM NAAQS and the
general approach taken to review the current PM10 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), and the Administrator's proposed
conclusions regarding the adequacy of the current primary
PM10 standard (section IV.E). Section IV.F summarizes the
Administrator's proposed decision with regard to the primary
PM10 NAAQS.
A. Background
The following sections discuss previous reviews of the PM NAAQS
(section IV.A.1), the litigation of the 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). 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). Thus, the
EPA concluded that a PM10 standard could provide requisite
protection against effects associated with particles in the size range
of 2.5 to 10 [mu]m.\87\ 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, it was judged 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 newly adopted PM2.5
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 38945]]
In May 1998, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit found ``ample support'' for 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 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.\88\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 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 decision that it was requisite to provide
protection from exposure to all thoracic coarse PM, regardless of its
origin, rejecting 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 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
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 to 96, October 17, 2006). 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,
potentially increasing the toxicity of thoracic coarse particles in
urban areas (Id.). Given the evidence that the existing PM10
standard afforded requisite protection with an adequate margin of
safety, the Agency retained the level and form of the 24-hour
PM10 standard.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
[[Page 38946]]
NAAQS (71 FR 61202/3, October 17, 2006).
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 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 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 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 accorded 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 EPA's decision to revoke the annual
PM10 standard. Specifically, the court stated the following:
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 Policy Assessment for 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 basic elements of the NAAQS: Indicator, averaging time, form, and
level.
In contrast to previous reviews, where PM10 studies
conducted in locations where PM10 is comprised predominantly
of PM10-2.5 were considered (U.S. EPA, 2005, pp. 5-49 to 5-
50), the focus in the current review is on PM10-2.5 studies.
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). In light of the
considerable uncertainty in the extent to which PM10 effect
estimates reflect associations with PM10-2.5 versus
PM2.5, together with the availability in this review of a
number of studies that evaluated associations with PM10-2.5
and the fact that the Integrated Science Assessment weight of evidence
conclusions for thoracic coarse particles were based on studies of
PM10-2.5, the EPA focuses in this review on studies that
have specifically evaluated PM10-2.5.
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, section 2.4.3).
As a result, any approach to 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.
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
[[Page 38947]]
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).
B. Health Effects Related to Exposure to Thoracic Coarse Particles
The following sections discuss available information on the health
effects associated with exposures to PM10-2.5, including the
nature of such health effects (section IV.B.1), the impacts of sources
and composition on particle toxicity (section IV.B.2), ambient
PM10 concentrations in PM10-2.5 study locations
(section IV.B.3), at-risk populations (section IV.B.4), and limitations
and uncertainties (section IV.B.5).
1. Nature of Effects
Since the conclusion of the last review, the Agency has developed a
more formal framework for reaching causal inferences from the body of
scientific evidence. As discussed above in section III.B.1, this
framework uses a five-level hierarchy that classifies the overall
weight of evidence using the following categorizations: Causal
relationship, likely to be a 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, section 1.5).
Applying this framework to thoracic coarse particles, the Integrated
Science Assessment concludes 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).\90\ In
contrast, the Integrated Science Assessment concludes that available
evidence is ``inadequate'' to infer a causal relationship between long-
term PM10-2.5 exposures and various health effects (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 7.2 to 7.6). Similar to the judgment made in the
2004 AQCD regarding long-term exposures (U.S. EPA, 2004, p. 9-79), the
Integrated Science Assessment states, ``To date, a sufficient amount of
evidence does not exist in order to draw conclusions regarding the
health effects and outcomes associated with long-term exposure to
PM10-2.5'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3.4). Given these
weight of evidence conclusions in the Integrated Science Assessment,
EPA's consideration of the scientific evidence for PM10-2.5
focuses on effects that have been linked with short-term exposures. The
evidence supporting a link between short-term thoracic coarse particle
exposures and adverse health effects is discussed in detail in the
Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Chapter 6) and is
summarized briefly below for mortality (section IV.B.1.a),
cardiovascular effects (section IV.B.1.b), and respiratory effects
(section IV.B.1.c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The Integrated Science Assessment discusses the framework
for causality determinations (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 1.5). 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Short-Term PM10-2.5 Exposure and Mortality
The Integrated Science Assessment assesses a number of multi-city
and single-city epidemiological studies that have evaluated
associations between mortality and short-term PM10-2.5
concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-30 presents
PM10-2.5 mortality studies assessed in the last review and
the current review). Different studies have used different approaches
to estimate ambient PM10-2.5. Some studies have used the
difference between PM10 and PM2.5 mass, either
measured at co-located monitors (e.g., Lipfert et al., 2000; Mar et
al., 2003; Ostro et al., 2003; Sheppard et al., 2003; Wilson et al.,
2007) or as the difference in county-wide average concentrations
(Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009), while other studies have measured
PM10-2.5 directly with dichotomous samplers (e.g., Burnett
and Goldberg, 2003; Fairley et al., 2003; Burnett et al., 2004; Klemm
et al., 2004). Despite differences in the approaches used to estimate
ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations, the majority of multi- and
single-city studies have reported positive associations between
PM10-2.5 and mortality, though most of these associations
were not statistically significant (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-30).
One important PM10-2.5 study conducted since the last
review of the PM NAAQS is the U.S. multi-city study by Zanobetti and
Schwartz (2009), which reported positive and statistically significant
associations with PM10-2.5 for all-cause, cardiovascular-
related, and respiratory-related mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
6.5.2.3). In this study, effect estimates for all-cause and
respiratory-related mortality remained statistically significant in co-
pollutant models that included PM2.5, while the effect
estimate for cardiovascular-related mortality remained positive but not
statistically significant. Several other multi-city studies have
reported positive, but not statistically significant,
PM10-2.5 effect estimates for mortality (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
Figure 6-30).
When risk estimates in the study by Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009)
were evaluated by climatic region (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-28), a mix
of positive and negative PM10-2.5 effect estimates were
reported in the regions that typically have the highest ambient
PM10-2.5 concentrations (i.e., regions corresponding to the
western and southwestern U.S.). Regional effect estimates from western
regions of the United States were generally not statistically
significant. Positive and statistically significant effect estimates
were more often reported in regions that typically have lower
PM10-2.5 concentrations (i.e., regions generally
corresponding to the eastern half of the U.S.) (Schmidt and Jenkins,
2010 for PM10-2.5 concentrations). In addition, single-city
empirical Bayes-adjusted effect estimates (calculated using the methods
discussed in Le Tertre et al., 2005) for the 47 cities evaluated by
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) were generally positive, though typically
not statistically significant (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-29).
Of the available single-city PM10-2.5 mortality studies,
most reported positive, but not statistically significant,
PM10-2.5 effect estimates (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-30). Of
the three studies that did report statistically significant effect
estimates (Mar et al., 2003; Ostro et al., 2003; Wilson et al., 2007),
Ostro et al. (2003) reported that PM10-2.5 effect estimates
remained statistically significant in co-pollutant models that included
either ozone or NO2. The single-city studies by Mar et al.
(2003) and Wilson et al. (2007) did not utilize co-pollutant models.
b. Short-Term PM10-2.5 Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects
The Integrated Science Assessment assesses a number of studies that
have evaluated the link between short-term ambient concentrations of
thoracic coarse particles and cardiovascular effects. Single- and
multi-city epidemiological studies generally report positive
associations between short-term PM10-2.5 concentrations and
hospital admissions or emergency department visits for cardiovascular
causes (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.3 and 6.2.12.2). However, as is
the case for the mortality studies, most of these positive associations
are not statistically significant. In addition, most
PM10-2.5 effect estimates remained positive, but not
statistically significant, in co-pollutant models that included either
[[Page 38948]]
gaseous or particulate co-pollutants (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-5).
An important cardiovascular morbidity study published since the
last review of the PM NAAQS is the U.S. multi-city study by Peng et al.
(2008). This study evaluates hospital admissions and emergency
department visits for cardiovascular disease in Medicare patients
(MCAPS, Peng et al., 2008). The authors report a positive and
statistically significant association between 24-hour
PM10-2.5 concentrations and cardiovascular disease
hospitalizations in a single pollutant model using air quality data for
108 U.S. counties with co-located PM10 and PM2.5
monitors. The magnitude of this effect estimate was larger in counties
with higher degrees of urbanization and larger in the eastern U.S. than
the western U.S., though this regional difference was not statistically
significant (Peng et al., 2008). The PM10-2.5 effect
estimate was reduced only slightly in a co-pollutant model that
included PM2.5, but it was no longer statistically
significant (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.3, 6.2.10.9).
In addition to this U.S. multi-city study, positive associations
reported for short-term PM10-2.5 exposures and
cardiovascular-related morbidity reached statistical significance in a
multi-city study in France (Host et al., 2007) and single-city studies
in Detroit (Ito, 2003) and Toronto (Burnett et al., 1999) (U.S. EPA,
2009a, Figures 6-2 and 6-3). In contrast, associations were positive
but not statistically significant in single-city studies conducted in
Atlanta (Metzger et al., 2004; Tolbert et al., 2007) and Boston (Peters
et al., 2001) (and for some endpoints in Detroit (Ito, 2003)) (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, Figures 6-1 to 6-3, and 6-5).
The plausibility of the positive associations reported for
PM10-2.5 and cardiovascular-related hospital admissions and
emergency department visits receives some measure of support from a
small number of controlled human exposure studies that have reported
alterations in heart rate variability following short-term exposure to
PM10-2.5 (Gong et al., 2004; Graff et al., 2009); by short-
term PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies reporting positive
associations with cardiovascular-related mortality; by a small number
of recent epidemiological studies that have examined dust storm events
and reported increases in cardiovascular-related emergency department
visits and hospital admissions (see below); and by associations with
other cardiovascular effects including heart rhythm disturbances and
changes in heart rate variability (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.3 and
6.2.12.2). The few toxicological studies that examined the effect of
PM10-2.5 on cardiovascular health effects used intratracheal
instillation and, as a result, provide only limited evidence on the
biological plausibility of PM10-2.5 induced cardiovascular
effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.3 and 6.2.12.2).
c. Short-Term PM10-2.5 Exposure and Respiratory Effects
The Integrated Science Assessment also assesses a number of studies
that have evaluated the link between short-term ambient concentrations
of thoracic coarse particles and respiratory effects. This includes
recent studies conducted in the U.S., Canada, and France (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 6.3.8), including the U.S. multi-city study of Medicare
patients by Peng et al. (2008). As discussed above, Peng estimated
PM10-2.5 concentrations as the difference between
PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations measured by co-
located monitors. The authors reported a positive, but not
statistically significant, PM10-2.5 effect estimate for
respiratory-related hospital admissions. Single-city studies have
reported positive, and in some cases statistically significant,
PM10-2.5 effect estimates for respiratory-related hospital
admissions and emergency department visits (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figures 6-
10 to 6-15). Some of these PM10-2.5 respiratory morbidity
studies have reported positive and statistically significant
PM10-2.5 effect estimates in co-pollutant models that
included gaseous pollutants while others reported that
PM10-2.5 effect estimates remain positive, but not
statistically significant, in such co-pollutant models (U.S. EPA,
2009a, Figure 6-15).
A limited number of epidemiological studies have focused on
specific respiratory morbidity outcomes and reported both positive and
negative, but generally not statistically significant, associations
between PM10-2.5 and lower respiratory symptoms, wheeze, and
medication use (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.3.1 and 6.3.1.1; Figures
6-7 to 6-9). Although controlled human exposure studies have not
observed an effect on lung function or respiratory symptoms in healthy
or asthmatic adults in response to short-term exposure to
PM10-2.5, healthy volunteers have exhibited increases in
markers of pulmonary inflammation.\91\ Toxicological studies using
inhalation exposures are still lacking, but pulmonary injury and
inflammation has been reported in animals after intratracheal
instillation exposure (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.3.5.3) and, in some
cases, PM10-2.5 was found to be more potent than
PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ PM10-2.5 controlled human exposure studies have
not been conducted in children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Potential Impacts of Sources and Composition on PM10-2.5
Toxicity
In the absence of a systematic national effort to characterize
PM10-2.5 components, relatively little information (e.g.,
compared to fine particles) is available in the current review to
inform consideration of the potential for composition to impact
PM10-2.5 toxicity. Given this, the Integrated Science
Assessment concludes that currently available evidence is insufficient
to draw distinctions in 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 is associated with
adverse health effects (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.4).
As discussed above, positive associations between short-term
PM10-2.5 concentrations and mortality and morbidity have
been reported in a number of urban locations in the U.S., Canada, and
Europe. While little is known about how PM10-2.5 composition
varies across these locations or about how that variation could affect
particle toxicity (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.4.4), a
number of trace elements (e.g., chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc,
arsenic, selenium, and lead) have been detected in PM10-2.5
from urban locations (U.S. EPA, 2004, section 3.2.4).
An indication of the sources of some of these trace elements (e.g.,
metals such as lead, copper, and zinc) in ambient PM10-2.5
samples has been obtained by examining urban runoff (U.S. EPA, 2004,
section 3.2.4). Wind-abrasion on building siding and roofs (coatings
such as lead paint and building material such as brick, metal, and wood
siding); brake wear (brake pads contain significant quantities of
copper and zinc); tire wear (zinc is used as a filler in tire
production); and burning engine oil could all produce particles
containing metals (U.S. EPA, 2004, section 3.2.4). Once deposited on
the ground, these elements can be resuspended with other material as
PM10-2.5. In addition, resuspended crustal particles may
become contaminated with trace elements and other components from
previously deposited fine PM (e.g., metals from smelters or steel
mills, PAHs from automobile exhaust, pesticides from agricultural
lands) (U.S. EPA, 2004, section 8.5, p. 8-344).
In considering the potential for PM10-2.5 composition to
impact toxicity,
[[Page 38949]]
it is useful to consider studies conducted in locations where
PM10-2.5 composition is expected to be very different from
that in typical urban locations. Specifically, a small number of
studies have examined the health impacts of dust storm events (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 6.2.10.1 and 6.5.2.3). Although these studies do
not link specific particle constituents to health effects, they do
provide some information on the toxicity of particles of non-urban
crustal origin. Several of these studies have reported positive and
statistically significant associations between dust storm events and
morbidity or mortality, including the following:
(1) Middleton et al. (2008) reported that dust storms in Cyprus
were associated with a statistically significant increase in risk of
hospitalization for all causes and a non-significant increase in
hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease.
(2) Chan et al. (2008) studied the effects of Asian dust storms
on cardiovascular-related hospital admissions in Taipei, Taiwan and
reported a statistically significant increase associated with 39
Asian dust events. Evaluating the same data, Bell et al. (2008) also
reported positive and statistically significant associations between
hospitalization for ischemic heart disease and PM10-2.5.
(3) Perez et al. (2008) tested the hypothesis that outbreaks of
Saharan dust exacerbate the effects of PM10-2.5 on daily
mortality in Spain. During Saharan dust days, the
PM10-2.5 effect estimate was larger than on non-dust days
and it became statistically significant, whereas it was not
statistically significant on non-dust days.
In addition, a study in Coachella Valley by Ostro et al. (2003)
reported statistically significant associations in a location where
thoracic coarse particles are expected to be largely due to windblown
dust.
In contrast to the studies noted above, some dust storm studies
have reported associations that were not statistically significant.
Specifically, Bennett et al. (2006) reported on a dust storm in the
Gobi desert that transported PM across the Pacific Ocean, reaching
western North America in the spring of 1998. The authors reported no
excess risk of cardiovascular-related or respiratory-related hospital
admissions associated with the dust storm in the population of British
Columbia's Lower Fraser Valley (Bennett et al., 2006). In addition,
Yang et al. (2009) reported that hospitalizations for congestive heart
failure were elevated during or immediately following 54 Asian dust
storm events, though effect estimates were not statistically
significant.
3. Ambient PM10 Concentrations in PM10-2.5 Study
Locations
As discussed above, a 24-hour PM10 standard is in place
to protect public health against exposures to PM10-2.5.
Given this, the EPA considers ambient PM10 concentrations in
locations where PM10-2.5 health studies have been conducted
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1). Specifically, the Agency considers
study locations for which ambient PM10 data are available
for comparison to the current standard,\92\ including study locations
evaluated in single-city U.S. studies, in Bayes-adjusted single-city
analyses of the U.S. locations assessed by Zanobetti and Schwartz
(2009), in single-city studies conducted outside the U.S., and in
recent U.S. multi-city studies (Peng et al., 2008; Zanobetti and
Schwartz, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ As discussed in more detail in the Policy Assessment (U.S.
EPA, 2011a), these analyses are based on comparison of the one-
expected-exceedance concentration-equivalent design values in study
locations to the level of the current standard. The one-expected-
exceedance concentration-equivalent design value is used as a
surrogate concentration for comparison to the standard level in
order to gain insight into whether a particular area would likely
have met or violated the current PM10 standard.
Therefore, locations with one-expected-exceedance concentration-
equivalent design values below the level of the current
PM10 standard (i.e., 150 [mu]g/m\3\) would likely meet
that standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering 24-hour PM10 concentrations in locations
of specific PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies, the EPA has
focused primarily on U.S. study locations where single-city analyses
have been conducted (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.4). While
multi-city studies are particularly important when drawing conclusions
about health effect associations,\93\ it can be difficult to use these
studies to link air quality in a given location to health effects in
that same location. Multi-city studies often present overall effect
estimates rather than single-city effect estimates, while short-term
air quality can vary considerably across cities. Therefore, the extent
to which effects reported in multi-city studies are associated with the
short-term air quality in any particular location is uncertain,
especially when considering short-term concentrations at the upper end
of the distribution of daily concentrations for pollutants with
relatively heterogeneous spatial distributions such as
PM10-2.5 and PM10 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
2.1.1.2). In contrast, single-city studies are more limited in terms of
power and geographic coverage but the link between reported health
effects and the short-term air quality in a given city is more
straightforward to establish. As a result, in considering 24-hour
PM10 concentrations in locations of epidemiological studies,
the EPA has focused primarily on single-city studies and single-city
analyses of the locations evaluated in the multi-city study by
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections 3.2.1 and
3.3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Multi-city studies assess PM10-2.5-associated
health effects among large study populations and provide enhanced
power to detect PM10-2.5-associated health effects. In
addition, multi-city studies often provide spatial coverage for
different regions across the country, reflecting differences in
PM10-2.5 sources, composition, and potentially other
factors that could impact PM10-2.5-related effects. These
factors make multi-city studies particularly important when drawing
conclusions about health effect associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 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).\94\ 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). Amongst 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, PM10-2.5
effect estimates were both positive and negative, with most not
statistically significant (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See a previous footnote above and the Policy Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1) for an explanation of how
PM10 air quality in study locations was compared to the
current PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, PM10-2.5 effect estimates for
mortality were generally positive but not statistically significant in
Bayes-adjusted single-city analyses in the locations evaluated by
Zanobetti and Schwartz (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-30). These effect
estimates were generally similar in magnitude and precision,
particularly for cardiovascular-related mortality, across a wide range
of estimated PM10-2.5 concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
Figure 6-29). In most of the cities evaluated (37 of the 45 for which
appropriate PM10 air quality data were available for
comparison to the current standard, as described in Schmidt and Jenkins
(2010) and Jenkins (2011), PM10 concentrations were below
those that would have been allowed by the current PM10
standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1). Of these 37 cities that
would likely have met the current PM10 standard during
[[Page 38950]]
the study period, positive and statistically significant
PM10-2.5 effect estimates were reported in three locations
(Chicago, Pittsburgh, Birmingham). Of the eight cities likely to have
violated the current PM10 standard during the study period,
PM10-2.5 effect estimates were positive and statistically
significant in three (Detroit, St. Louis, Salt Lake City).
In considering PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies
conducted in Canada and elsewhere outside the U.S., the EPA notes that
PM10 air quality information beyond that published by the
study authors is generally not available. The available PM10
concentration data for these study areas is typically not appropriate
for comparison to the current PM10 standard (i.e.,
concentrations are averaged across monitors, rather than from the
highest monitor in the study area, and/or concentrations are reported
as means or medians). However, in a small number of cases it is
possible to draw conclusions based on available air quality information
about whether a study area would likely have met or violated the
current PM10 standard.
For example, Lin et al. (2002) reported positive and statistically
significant associations between PM10-2.5 and asthma
hospital admissions in children in Toronto (U.S. EPA, 2009a; Figures 6-
12 and 6-15). The authors reported a maximum PM10
concentration measured at a single monitor in the study area of 116
[mu]g/m\3\, indicating that the PM10 air quality in Toronto
during this study would have been allowed by the current 24-hour
PM10 standard.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ This is the case because the maximum monitored 24-hour
PM10 concentration (116 [mu]g/m\3\) was below the level
of the current PM10 standard (150 [mu]g/m\3\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast Middleton et al. (2008), who reported that dust storms
in Cyprus were associated with a statistically significant increase in
risk of hospitalization for all causes and a non-significant increase
in hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, reported a maximum 24-
hour PM10 concentration of 1,371 [mu]g/m\3\. Thus, the dust
storm-associated increases in hospitalizations reported in this study
occurred in an area with PM10 concentrations that were
likely well above those allowed by the current standard. Other dust
storm studies did not report maximum 24-hour PM10
concentrations from individual monitors, though the studies by Chan et
al. (2008) and Bell et al. (2008), which reported positive and
statistically significant associations between dust storm metrics and
cardiovascular-related hospital admissions, reported that 24-hour
PM10 concentrations, averaged across monitors, exceeded 200
[mu]g/m\3\. It is likely that peak concentrations measured at
individual monitors in these studies were much higher and, therefore,
24-hour PM10 concentrations in these study areas were likely
above those allowed by the current standard.
In addition to the single-city studies discussed above, multi-city
averages of PM10 one-expected-exceedance concentration-
equivalent design values \96\ for recent U.S. multi-city studies were
110 [mu]g/m\3\, for the locations evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz
(2009), and 100 [mu]g/m\3\, for the locations evaluated by Peng et al.
(2008) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1). As discussed above, the extent
to which multi-city PM10-2.5 effect estimates are associated
with the air quality in any particular location is uncertain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ The one-expected-exceedance concentration-equivalent design
value is used as a surrogate concentration for comparison to the
standard level in order to gain insight into whether a particular
area would likely have met or violated the current PM10
standard. Therefore, locations with one-expected-exceedance
concentration-equivalent design values below the level of the
current PM10 standard (i.e., 150 [mu]g/m\3\) would likely
meet that standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.2.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. At-Risk Populations
Specific groups within the general population are likely at
increased risk for suffering adverse effects following
PM10-2.5 exposures. As discussed in section III.B.3 above,
in this proposal, the term ``at-risk'' is the all encompassing term
used for groups with specific factors that increase the risk of PM-
related health effects in a population.
Although studies have primarily used exposures to PM10
or PM2.5 to investigate potential at-risk populations, the
available evidence suggests that the identified factors also increase
risk from PM10-2.5 \97\ (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.8). As
discussed in section III.B.3 above, at-risk populations include those
with preexisting heart and lung diseases (e.g., asthma), 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 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.1 and Table 8-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Although the Integrated Science Assessment notes that in
PM10-2.5 studies of respiratory-related hospital
admissions and emergency department visits, ``the strongest
relationships were observed among children'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 2.3.3.1). As discussed above (section III.B.3), children may
be more at increased risk for effects associated with ambient PM
exposures because, compared to adults, children typically spend more
time outdoors and at higher activity levels; they have exposures
that result in higher doses per body weight and lung surface area;
and there is the potential for irreversible effects on the
developing lung (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 8.1.1.2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the range of at-risk groups, the population potentially
affected by PM10-2.5 is large. In the United States,
approximately 7 percent of adults (approximately 16 million adults) and
9 percent of children (approximately 7 million children) have asthma
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 8-3; CDC, 2008 \98\). In addition,
approximately 4 percent of adults have been diagnosed with chronic
bronchitis and approximately 2 percent with emphysema (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
Table 8-3). Approximately 11 percent of adults have been diagnosed with
heart disease, 6 percent with coronary heart disease, 23 percent with
hypertension, and 8 percent with diabetes (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 8-3).
In addition, approximately 3 percent of the U.S. adult population has
suffered a stroke (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 8-3). Therefore, although
exposures to ambient PM10-2.5 have not been well
characterized on a national scale, the size of the potentially at-risk
population suggests that ambient PM10-2.5 could have a
significant impact on public health in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ For percentages, see http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/nhis/06/table4-1.htm. For population estimates, see http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/nhis/06/table3-1.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Limitations and Uncertainties Associated With the Currently
Available Evidence
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, are discussed below.
The Integrated Science Assessment concludes that an important
uncertainty in interpreting PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies
is the potential for confounding by co-occurring pollutants,
particularly PM2.5. This issue 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
[[Page 38951]]
experimental evidence (i.e., controlled human exposure and animal
toxicology studies) available to support the plausibility of
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.
Another important uncertainty is related to exposure error. The
Integrated Science Assessment concludes that ``there is greater spatial
variability in PM10-2.5 concentrations than PM2.5
concentrations, resulting in increased exposure error for the larger
size fraction'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, p. 2-8) and that 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).
In addition, there is uncertainty in the air quality estimates used
in PM10-2.5 epidemiological studies (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
sections 2.3.3, 2.3.4) and, therefore, in the ambient
PM10-2.5 concentrations that are associated with mortality
and morbidity. 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.\99\ Given these limitations in routine monitoring,
epidemiological studies have employed different approaches for
estimating PM10-2.5 concentrations. For example, several of
the studies discussed above, including the multi-city study by Peng et
al. (2008), estimated PM10-2.5 by taking the difference
between mass measured at co-located PM10 and
PM2.5 monitors while the study by Zanobetti and Schwartz
(2009) used the difference between county-wide average PM10
and PM2.5 concentrations. In addition, a small number of
studies have directly measured PM10-2.5 concentrations with
dichotomous samplers (e.g., Burnett et al., 2004; Villeneuve et al.,
2003; Klemm et al., 2004). 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 with a
dichotomous sampler or by calculating the difference using co-located
samplers (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 6.5.2.3).\100\ 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ The EPA has required PM10-2.5 mass monitoring,
as part of the NCore network, beginning January 1, 2011 at
approximately 80 stations. The NCore network is a multi-pollutant
network that includes measurements of particles, gases, and
meteorology (71 FR 61236, October 17, 2006). NCore monitoring
stations are located away from direct emissions sources that could
substantially impact the detection of area-wide concentrations. The
network is comprised of stations in both urban and rural areas.
Urban NCore stations are generally to be located at an urban or
neighborhood scale to provide exposure concentrations that are
expected to be representative of the metropolitan area. Rural NCore
stations are to be located, to the maximum extent practicable, at a
regional or larger scale away from any large local emission source,
so that they represent ambient concentrations over an extensive area
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix B, section B.4).
\100\ In addition, several sources of uncertainty can be
specifically associated with PM10-2.5 concentrations that
are estimated based on co-located monitors. For example, the
potential for differences among operational flow rates and
temperatures for PM10 and PM2.5 monitors add
to the potential for exposure misclassification. As discussed in
Appendix B of the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, sections B.2
and B.3), PM10 data are often reported at standard
temperature and pressure (STP) while PM2.5 is reported at
local conditions (LC). In these cases, the PM10 data
should be adjusted to LC when estimating PM10-2.5
concentrations. In many of the epidemiological studies that
estimated PM10-2.5 concentrations based on co-located
monitors, it is not made explicitly clear whether this adjustment
was made, adding to the overall uncertainty in the
PM10-2.5 concentrations that are associated with health
effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another uncertainty results from the relative lack of 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). As discussed above, a few recent studies have evaluated
associations between health effects and particles of non-urban, crustal
origin by evaluating the health impacts of dust storm events. Though
these studies provide some information on the health effects of ambient
particles that likely differ in composition from the particles of urban
origin that are typically studied, 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).
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 (U.S. EPA, 2009b, Appendix H). The
decision not to conduct a PM10-2.5 risk assessment for the
current review was based on consideration of several key uncertainties,
including the following:
(1) Concerns that monitoring data that would be used in a
PM10-2.5 risk assessment (i.e., for the period 2005 to
2007) would not match ambient monitoring data used in the underlying
epidemiological studies providing concentration-response functions.
(2) Uncertainty in the prediction of ambient levels under
current and alternative standard levels.
(3) Concerns that locations used in the risk assessment may not
be representative of areas experiencing the most significant 24-hour
peak PM10-2.5 concentrations (and consequently, may not
capture locations with the highest risk).
(4) Concerns about the relatively small (i.e., compared to
PM2.5) health effects database that supplies the
concentration-response relationships.
When considered together, the limitations outlined above resulted
in the conclusion that a quantitative PM10-2.5 risk
assessment would not significantly enhance the review of the NAAQS for
coarse-fraction PM. Specifically, these limitations would likely result
in sufficient uncertainty in the resulting risk estimates to
significantly limit their utility to inform policy-related questions,
including the assessment of whether the current standard is protective
of public health and characterization of the degree of additional
public health protection potentially afforded by alternative standards.
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.
C. Consideration of the Current and Potential Alternative Standards in
the Policy Assessment
The following sections discuss EPA's consideration of whether to
revise the current PM10 standard, as well as our
consideration of potential alternative
[[Page 38952]]
standards, drawing from such considerations in the Policy Assessment
(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 (section IV.C.2.a), averaging
time (section IV.C.2.b), form (section IV.C.2.c), and level (section
IV.C.2.d).
1. Consideration of the Current Standard in the Policy Assessment
As discussed above, a 24-hour PM10 standard is in place
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 EPA considers 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 EPA notes 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 notes 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 3.2.1):
(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
in 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 characterize.
(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 concludes 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 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. Although such an approach to considering the
adequacy of the current standard would recognize the positive, and in
some cases statistically significant, associations between
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 notes that, when considering the
uncertainties and limitations in the PM10-2.5 health
evidence and air quality information, the EPA judged that it would not
be 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 notes an alternative approach to
considering the evidence and its uncertainties would place emphasis on
the following:
(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
concludes 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 concludes 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
[[Page 38953]]
evidence, air quality information, and the uncertainties and
limitations associated with that evidence and information.
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. These considerations are discussed below in terms
of indicator, averaging time, form, and level.
a. Indicator
As noted above, PM10 includes both PM10-2.5
and PM2.5, with the relative contribution of each to
PM10 mass varying across locations and over time. In the
most recent review completed in 2006, the EPA concluded that the
PM10 indicator remained appropriate in large part because a
PM10 standard would provide some measure of protection
against exposures to all PM10-2.5 regardless of source or
location, while also targeting protection to urban areas, where the
evidence of effects from exposure to coarse PM is the strongest (71 FR
at 61196, October 17, 2006). As noted above, the court explicitly
endorsed this reasoning. 559 F. 3d at 535-36.
In considering the indicator in the current review, the Policy
Assessment evaluated the extent to which PM10 is comprised
of PM10-2.5 across locations and over time. Based on the air
quality analyses in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 3.5.1.1) and Schmidt and Jenkins (2010), and based on the
concentration estimates of Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009), the Policy
Assessment notes that PM10-2.5 typically makes up a larger
portion of PM10 mass in the western United States, with the
southwest region having the highest ratios of PM10-2.5 to
PM10. In addition, the ratios of PM10-2.5 to
PM10 across the U.S. tended to be higher on days with
relatively high PM10 concentrations than on days with more
typical PM10 concentrations (i.e., comparing days with
concentrations at or above the 95th percentile to all days) (U.S. EPA,
2011a, section 3.3.1, Figure 3-4). Given this, the Policy Assessment
concludes that high daily PM10 concentrations are driven, at
least in part, by elevated PM10-2.5 mass and that a
PM10 standard focusing on the upper end of the distribution
of daily PM10 concentrations could effectively control
ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-28).
The Policy Assessment also considered the appropriateness of a
PM10 standard, given that such a standard allows lower
PM10-2.5 concentrations in areas with higher fine particle
concentrations (urban areas) than areas with lower fine particle
concentrations (rural areas) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.1). In
considering this issue, the Policy Assessment notes that most of the
evidence for positive associations between PM10-2.5 and
morbidity and mortality, particularly evidence for these associations
at relatively low concentrations of PM10-2.5, comes from a
number of studies conducted in locations where the PM10-2.5
is expected to be largely of urban origin (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Chapter 6).
Although some studies have reported positive associations between
relatively high concentrations of particles of non-urban origin (i.e.,
crustal material from windblown dust in non-urban areas, see above) and
mortality and morbidity, the Policy Assessment notes that the extent to
which these associations would remain at the lower particle
concentrations more typical of U.S. and Canadian urban study locations
remains uncertain.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Other than the dust storm studies, we note that the study
in Coachella Valley by Ostro et al. (2003) reported statistically
significant associations in a location where thoracic coarse
particles are expected to be largely due to windblown dust.
Specifically, we note the CASAC conclusion in the last review that
``studies from Ostro et al. showed significant adverse health
effects, primarily involving exposures to coarse-mode particles
arising from crustal sources'' (Henderson, 2005b). In considering
this study, we also note the relatively high PM10
concentrations in the study area (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-2),
which would not have met the current PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these considerations, and given the increased potential for
coarse particles in urban areas to become contaminated by toxic
components of fine particles from urban/industrial sources (U.S. EPA,
2004 at 8-344; 71 FR 61196, October 17, 2006), the Policy Assessment
concludes that it is reasonable to consider an indicator that targets
control to areas with the types of ambient mixes generally present in
urban areas. The Policy Assessment notes that such an indicator would
focus control on areas with ambient mixes known with greater certainty
to be associated with adverse health effects and, therefore, would
provide public health benefits with the greatest degree of certainty.
Therefore, as in the last review, the Policy Assessment reaches the
conclusion that a PM10 indicator would appropriately target
protection to those locations where the evidence is strongest for
associations between adverse health effects and exposures to thoracic
coarse particles (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-29).
In contrast, the Policy Assessment notes that a PM10-2.5
indicator, for a standard set at a single unvarying level, would not
achieve this targeting, given that allowable thoracic coarse particle
concentrations would be the same regardless of the location or the
likely sources of PM. Therefore, given the currently available
evidence, one possible result of using a PM10-2.5 indicator
would be a standard that is overprotective in rural areas and/or
underprotective in urban areas (Id.).
Given all of the above considerations, the Policy Assessment
concludes that the available evidence supports consideration in the
current review of a PM10 indicator for a standard that
protects against exposures to thoracic coarse particles. The Policy
Assessment further concludes that consideration of alternative
indicators (e.g., PM10-2.5) in future reviews is desirable
and could be informed by additional research (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section
3.5).
b. Averaging Time
Based primarily on epidemiological studies that reported positive
associations between short-term (24-hour) PM10-2.5
concentrations and mortality and morbidity, the Administrator concluded
in the last review that the available evidence supported a 24-hour
averaging time for a standard intended to protect against exposures to
thoracic coarse particles. In contrast, given the relative lack of
studies supporting a link between long-term exposures to thoracic
coarse particles and morbidity or mortality (U.S. EPA, 2004, Chapter
9), the Administrator further concluded that an annual coarse particle
standard was not warranted at that time (71 FR 61198-61199, October 17,
2006).
In the current review, the Policy Assessment notes the conclusions
from the Integrated Science Assessment regarding the weight of evidence
for short-term and long-term PM10-2.5 exposures as well as
the studies on which those conclusions are based. Specifically, as
discussed above, the Integrated Science Assessment concludes 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). This
conclusion is based largely on epidemiological studies which have
primarily evaluated associations between 24-hour PM10-2.5
concentrations and morbidity and
[[Page 38954]]
mortality (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 2-3), though a small number of
controlled human exposure studies have reported effects following
shorter exposures (i.e., 2-hours) to PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA,
2009a, sections 6.2.1.2 and 6.3.3.2). In contrast, with respect to
long-term exposures, the Integrated Science Assessment concludes that
available evidence is inadequate to infer a causal relationship with
all health outcomes evaluated (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.3).
Specifically, the Integrated Science Assessment states, ``To date, a
sufficient amount of evidence does not exist in order to draw
conclusions regarding the health effects and outcomes associated with
long-term exposure to PM10-2.5'' (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
2.3.4).
In considering these weight-of-evidence determinations, the Policy
Assessment concludes that, at a minimum, they suggest the importance of
maintaining a standard that protects against short-term exposures to
thoracic coarse particles. Given that the majority of the evidence
supporting the link between short-term PM10-2.5 and
morbidity and mortality is based on 24-hour average thoracic coarse
particle concentrations, the Policy Assessment concludes that the
evidence available in this review continues to support consideration of
a 24-hour averaging time for a PM10 standard meant to
protect against effects associated with short-term exposures to
PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-31).
The Policy Assessment further concludes that the available evidence
does not support consideration of an annual thoracic coarse particle
standard at this time. In reaching this conclusion, the Policy
Assessment also notes that, to the extent a short-term standard
requires areas to reduce their 24-hour ambient particle concentrations,
long-term concentrations would also be expected to decrease (Id.).
Therefore, a 24-hour standard meant to protect against short-term
exposures to thoracic coarse particles would also be expected to
provide some protection against potential effects associated with long-
term exposures to ambient concentrations.
c. 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 that standard. As discussed above, in the last review
the Administrator retained the one-expected exceedance form of the
primary 24-hour PM10 standard. This decision was linked to
the overall conclusion that ``the level of protection from coarse
particles provided by the current 24-hour PM10 standard
remains requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of
safety'' (71 FR 61202, October 17, 2006). Because revising either the
level or the form of the standard would have altered the protection
provided, the Administrator concluded that such changes ``would not be
appropriate based on the scientific evidence available at this time''
(71 FR 61202). Therefore, the decision in the last review to retain the
one-expected-exceedance form was part of the broader decision that the
existing 24-hour standard provided requisite public health protection.
In the current review, the Policy Assessment considers the form of
the standard within the context of the overall decision on whether, and
if so how, to revise the current 24-hour PM10 standard.
Given the conclusions above regarding the appropriate indicator and
averaging time for consideration for potential alternative standards,
the Policy Assessment considers potential alternative forms for a 24-
hour PM10 standard.
Although the selection of a specific form must be made within the
context of decisions on the other elements of the standard, the Policy
Assessment notes that the EPA generally favors concentration-based
forms for short-term standards. In 1997, the EPA established a 98th
percentile form for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard and, in 2010,
the EPA established a 98th percentile form for the primary 1-hour
NO2 standard (62 FR 38671, July 18, 1997; 75 FR 6474,
February 9, 2010) and a 99th percentile form for the primary 1-hour
SO2 standard (75 FR 35541, June 22, 2010).\102\ In making
these decisions, the EPA noted that, compared to an exceedance-based
form, a concentration-based form is 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. In addition, when averaged
over three years, these concentration-based forms were judged to
provide an appropriate balance between limiting peak pollutant
concentrations and providing a stable regulatory target, facilitating
the development of stable implementation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ As noted above (section IV.A.1.a), in the 1997 review the
EPA revised the form of the 24-hour PM10 standard to the
99th percentile. However, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the revised
rule, based on EPA's retention of the PM10 indicator, and
the 1987 standards remained in place (including the one-expected-
exceedance form for the 24-hour standard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These considerations are also relevant in the current review of the
24-hour PM10 standard. Specifically, the Policy Assessment
concludes that it is appropriate to consider concentration-based forms
that would provide a balance between limiting peak pollutant
concentrations and providing a stable regulatory target. To accomplish
this, it would be appropriate to consider forms from the upper end of
the annual distribution of 24-hour PM10 concentrations.\103\
However, given the potential for local sources to have important
impacts on monitored PM10 concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 2.1.1.2), the Policy Assessment also notes that it would be
appropriate to consider forms that, when averaged over three years,
would be expected to promote the stability of local implementation
programs.\104\ In considering these issues in the most recent review of
the primary NO2 NAAQS, the Policy Assessment notes that a
98th percentile form was adopted, rather than a 99th percentile form,
due to the potential for ``instability in the higher percentile
concentrations'' near local sources (75 FR 6493, February 9,
2010).105 106
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ With regard to this conclusion, the Policy Assessment also
notes that PM10-2.5 is likely to make a larger
contribution to PM10 mass on days with relatively high
PM10 concentrations than on days with more typical
PM10 concentrations (see above).
\104\ As noted in section III.E.3.b above, stability of
implementation programs has been held to be a legitimate
consideration in determining a NAAQS (American Trucking Associations
v. EPA, 283 F. 3d at 374 to 75).
\105\ See also, ATA III, 283 F. 3d at 374-75 (upholding 98th
percentile form since ``otherwise States would have to design their
pollution control programs around single high exposure events that
may be due to unusual meteorological conditions alone, rendering the
programs less stable--and hence, we assume, less effective--than
programs designed to address longer-term average conditions.''). In
contrast, in the recently completed review of the primary
SO2 NAAQS, a 99th percentile form was adopted. However,
in the case of SO2, the standard was intended to limit 5-
minute exposures and a 99th percentile form was markedly more
effective at doing so than a 98th percentile form (75 FR 35540 to
41, June 22, 2010).
\106\ Similar considerations are noted in section III.E.3.b
above, with regard to the form of the primary 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering the potential appropriateness of a 98th percentile
form in the current review, the Policy Assessment notes that, compared
to the current PM10 standard, attainment status for a
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form would be based on
a more stable air quality statistic and would be expected to be less
influenced by relatively rare events that can cause elevations in
PM10 concentrations over short periods of time (Schmidt,
2011b).
[[Page 38955]]
Specifically, the Policy Assessment notes that in areas that monitor
PM10 every six days, every three days, or every day the
PM10 concentrations that are comparable to the current
standard level are, respectively, the highest, 2nd highest, or 4th
highest 24-hour PM10 concentrations measured during a three
year period. In contrast, for the same monitoring frequencies, the
PM10 concentrations that would be comparable to the level of
a standard with a 98th percentile form would be the three-year average
of the 2nd highest, 3rd highest, or 7th/8th highest 24-hour
PM10 concentrations measured during a single year (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 3-33).
In further considering this issue the Policy Assessment notes that,
compared to the current one-expected-exceedance form, a concentration-
based form specified as a percentile of the annual distribution of
PM10 concentrations (e.g., such as a 98th percentile form)
would be expected to better compensate for missing data and less-than-
daily monitoring. This is a particularly important consideration in the
case of PM10 because, depending largely on ambient
concentrations, the frequency of PM10 monitoring differs
across locations (i.e., either daily, 1 in 2 days, 1 in 3 days, or 1 in
6 days) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 1.3 and Appendix B). As discussed in
earlier reviews of the PM NAAQS (e.g., 62 FR 38671, July 18, 1997), an
area's attainment status for a standard with a 98th percentile form
would be based directly on monitoring data rather than on a calculated
value adjusted for missing data or less-than-every-day monitoring, as
is the case with the current one-expected-exceedance form.
In light of all of the above considerations, the Policy Assessment
concludes that, 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
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-34).\107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ As noted above, local sources can have important impacts
on monitored PM10 concentrations. In the recent review of
the NO2 primary NAAQS, where this was also an important
consideration, a 98th percentile form was adopted, rather than a
99th percentile form, due to the potential for ``instability in the
higher percentile concentrations'' near local sources (75 FR 6493,
February 9, 2010). A similar conclusion in the current review led
the Policy Assessment to focus on the 98th percentile rather than
the 99th percentile, in considering potential alternative forms for
a PM10 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their review of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC noted
that such a change in form ``will lead to changes in levels of
stringency across the country'' and recommended that this issue be
explored further (Samet, 2010d). In considering this issue, the Policy
Assessment acknowledges that, given differences in PM10 air
quality distributions across locations (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 3-10), a
revised standard with a 98th percentile form would likely target public
health protection to some different locations than does the current
standard with its one-expected-exceedance form (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-
34). The final Policy Assessment notes that a further consideration
with regard to the appropriateness of revising the form of the current
PM10 standard is the extent to which, when compared with the
current standard, a revised standard with a 98th percentile form would
be expected to target public health protection to areas where we have
more confidence that ambient PM10-2.5 is associated with
adverse health effects (Id., p. 3-34 to 3-35).
In giving initial consideration to this issue, the Policy
Assessment used recent PM10 air quality concentrations
(i.e., from 2007-2009) to identify counties that would meet, and
counties that would violate, the current PM10 standard as
well as potential alternative standards with 98th percentile forms
(Schmidt, 2011b).108 109 In some cases, counties that would
violate the current standard do so because of a small number of
``outlier'' days (e.g., as few as one such day in three years) with
PM10 concentrations well-above more typical concentrations
(Schmidt, 2011b). Mean and 98th percentile PM10 and
PM10-2.5 concentrations were higher in counties that would
have violated a revised standard with a 98th percentile form but met
the current standard \110\ than in counties that violated the current
standard, but would have met a revised standard with a 98th percentile
form (Schmidt, 2011b). This analysis suggests that, to the extent a
revised PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form could
target public health protection to different areas than the current
standard, those areas preferentially targeted by a revised standard
generally have higher ambient concentrations of thoracic coarse
particles. The issue of targeting public health protection is
considered further in section 3.3.4 of the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2011a) and below, within the context of considering specific potential
alternative standard levels for a 24-hour PM10 standard with
a 98th percentile form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ Section 3.3.4 of the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a)
discusses potential alternative standard levels that would be
appropriate to consider in conjunction with a revised standard with
a 98th percentile form.
\109\ The memo by Schmidt (2011b) identifies specific counties
that are expected to meet, and counties that are not likely to meet
the current standard and potential alternative standards with 98th
percentile forms.
\110\ This analysis considered a revised PM10
standard with a 98th percentile form and a level from the middle of
the range discussed in section 3.3.4 of the Policy Assessment (i.e.,
75 [micro]g/m\3\) (U.S. EPA, 2011a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Level
As noted above, the Policy Assessment concluded that, to the extent
it is judged in the current review that the 24-hour PM10
standard does not provide adequate public health protection against
exposures to thoracic coarse particles, potential alternative standards
could be considered. The Policy Assessment considers potential
alternative levels for a 24-hour PM10 standard with a 98th
percentile form. To inform consideration of this issue, the Policy
Assessment considers the available scientific evidence and air quality
information (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4).
i. Evidence-Based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
As discussed above, in considering the evidence as it relates to
potential alternative standard levels, the Policy Assessment first
considers the relative weight to place on specific epidemiological
studies, including the weight to place on the uncertainties associated
with those studies. The Policy Assessment considers several factors in
placing weight on specific epidemiological studies including the extent
to which studies report statistically significant associations with
PM10-2.5 and the extent to which the reported associations
are robust to co-pollutant confounding, in particular confounding by
PM2.5. In addition, the Policy Assessment considers the
extent to which associations with PM10-2.5 can be linked to
the air quality in a specific location. With regard to this, as noted
above, the Policy Assessment places the greatest weight on information
from single-city analyses.
In considering PM air quality in study locations, the Policy
Assessment also notes that the available evidence does not support the
existence of thresholds, or lowest-observed-effects levels, in terms of
24-hour average concentrations (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 2.4.3).\111\
In the absence of an apparent threshold, for purposes of identifying a
range of
[[Page 38956]]
standard levels potentially supported by the health evidence, the
Policy Assessment focuses on the range of PM10
concentrations that have been measured in locations where U.S.
epidemiological studies have reported associations with
PM10-2.5 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figures 6-1 to 6-30 for studies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Most studies that have evaluated the potential for
thresholds have focused on PM10 or PM2.5.
However, there is no scientific basis for drawing different
conclusions for PM10-2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In single-city mortality studies, as well as the single-city
analyses of the locations evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009),
positive and statistically significant PM10-2.5 effect
estimates were reported in some locations with 98th percentile
PM10 concentrations ranging from 200 [mu]g/m\3\ to 91 [mu]g/
m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4). Lower PM10
concentrations were present in locations where positive, but not
statistically significant, effect estimates were reported and when
averaged across locations evaluated in the multi-city study by
Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4).
Among U.S. morbidity studies, Ito (2003) reported a positive and
statistically significant PM10-2.5 effect estimate for
hospital admissions for ischemic heart disease in Detroit, where the
98th percentile PM10 concentration (102 [mu]g/m\3\) was also
within this range (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4 and Figure 3-6).
PM10-2.5 effect estimates in this study remained positive,
and in some cases statistically significant, in co-pollutant models
with gaseous pollutants (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figures 6-5 and 6-15). Lower
PM10 concentrations were present in locations where
positive, but not statistically significant, effect estimates were
reported and when averaged across locations evaluated in the multi-city
study by Peng et al. (2008) (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4).
ii. Air Quality-based Considerations in the Policy Assessment
In addition to the evidence-based considerations described above,
the Policy Assessment estimated the level of a 24-hour PM10
standard with a 98th percentile form that would approximate the degree
of protection, on average across the country, provided by the current
24-hour PM10 standard with its one-expected-exceedance form.
The initial approach to estimating this ``generally equivalent'' 98th
percentile PM10 concentration was to use EPA's Air Quality
System (AQS)\112\ as the basis for evaluating correlations between 98th
percentile PM10 concentrations and one-expected-exceedance
concentration equivalent design values (Schmidt and Jenkins,
2010).\113\ Based on these correlations, using monitoring data from
1988 to 2008, a 98th percentile PM10 concentration of 87
[mu]g/m\3\ is, on average, generally equivalent to the current standard
level (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-7). However, given the variability in
the distributions of PM10 concentrations across locations
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, Table 3-10; Schmidt and Jenkins, 2010), the range of
equivalent concentrations varies considerably (95 percent confidence
interval ranges from 63 to 111 [mu]g/m\3\) (Schmidt and Jenkins, 2010).
As a consequence, the Policy Assessment notes that in some locations a
98th percentile standard with a level of 87 [mu]g/m\3\ would likely be
more protective than the current standard while in other locations it
would likely be less protective than the current standard.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.
\113\ As discussed above, the one-expected-exceedance
concentration-equivalent design value is used as a surrogate
concentration for comparison to the standard level in order to gain
insight into whether a particular area would likely have met or
violated the current PM10 standard. Therefore, locations
with one-expected-exceedance concentration-equivalent design values
below the level of the current PM10 standard (i.e., 150
[mu]g/m\3\) would likely meet that standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 3.2.1).
\114\ The ``generally equivalent'' concentration also differs
depending on the years of monitoring data used. For example, when
this analysis was restricted to only the most recent years available
(i.e., 2007 to 2009), the ``generally equivalent'' 98th percentile
PM10 concentration was 78 [mu]g/m\3\. Given the temporal
variability in the relationship between the current standard level
and 98th percentile PM10 concentrations, and the
potential for the ``generally equivalent'' 98th percentile
concentration to vary year-to-year, staff concluded that it remains
appropriate to consider the correlation analyses that use the
broader range of available monitoring years (i.e., 1998-2008), as
these analyses are likely to be more robust than analyses based on a
shorter period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment also evaluates regional differences in the
relationship between 98th percentile PM10 concentrations and
one-expected-exceedance concentration equivalent design values (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-8), based on air quality data from 1988 to 2008.
The 98th percentile PM10 concentrations that are, on
average, generally equivalent to the current standard level ranged from
just below 87 [mu]g/m\3\ in the Southeast, Southwest, upper Midwest,
and outlying areas (i.e., generally equivalent 98th percentile
PM10 concentrations ranged from 82 to 85 [mu]g/m\3\ in these
regions) to just above 87 [mu]g/m\3\ in the Northeast, industrial
Midwest, and southern California (i.e., generally equivalent 98th
percentile PM10 concentrations ranged from 88 to 93 [mu]g/
m\3\ in these regions) (Schmidt, 2011b). However, within each of these
regions there is considerable variability in the ``generally
equivalent'' 98th percentile PM10 concentration across
monitoring sites (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure 3-8).
To provide a broader perspective on the relationship between the
current standard and potential alternative standards with 98th
percentile forms, the Policy Assessment also compares the size of the
populations living in counties with PM10 one-expected-
exceedance concentration-equivalent design values greater than the
current standard level to the size of the populations living in
counties with 98th percentile PM10 concentrations above
different potential alternative standard levels (based on air quality
data from 2007 to 2009 \115\). Such comparisons can be considered as
surrogates for comparisons of the breadth of public health protection
provided by the current and potential alternative standards. Based on
these comparisons, a 98th percentile PM10 standard with a
level between 75 and 80 [mu]g/m\3\ would be most closely equivalent to
the current standard. That is, compared to the number of people living
in counties that would violate the current PM10 standard, a
similar number live in counties that would violate a revised 24-hour
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form and a level
between 75 and 80 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Table 3-2). However,
there is considerably more variability across regions in the potential
alternative standard that, based on this analysis, would be generally
equivalent to the current PM10 standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 3.3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ These analyses are based on three years of air quality
data in order to simulate the requirements for determining whether
areas attain or violate the current PM10 standard, which
requires consideration of 3 years of air quality data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the variability in the relationship between the current
standard and potential alternative standards with 98th percentile
forms, the Policy Assessment concludes that no single potential
alternative standard level, for a revised standard with a 98th
percentile form, would provide public health protection equivalent to
that provided by the current standard, consistently over time and
across locations.
One consequence of this variability, as noted above in the
discussion of the form of the standard, would be that a 24-hour
PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form and a revised
level would likely target public health protection to some different
locations than does the current standard. Therefore, in further
considering the appropriateness of revising the form and level of the
current PM10 standard, the
[[Page 38957]]
Policy Assessment considered the extent to which, when compared with
the current standard, a revised PM10 standard would be
expected to target public health protection to areas where we have more
confidence that PM10-2.5 is associated with adverse health
effects. To address this question, the Policy Assessment considered the
potential impact of revising the form and level of the PM10
standard in locations where health studies have reported associations
with PM10-2.5.
The Policy Assessment initially considers U.S. study locations that
would likely have met the current PM10 standard during the
study period and where positive and statistically significant
associations with PM10-2.5 were reported. Only Birmingham,
Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Detroit \116\ met these criteria. During study
periods, none of these areas would likely have met a 98th percentile
24-hour PM10 standard with a level at or below 87 [mu]g/m\3\
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4 and Table 3-3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Positive and statistically significant PM10-2.5
effect estimates for Birmingham, Chicago, and Pittsburgh are
reported in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
Figure 6-29; from cities evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz, 2009).
Effect estimates for Detroit are reported by Ito et al. (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment also considered U.S. locations where health
studies have reported positive associations (both statistically
significant and non-significant) between PM10-2.5 and
mortality or morbidity. Such positive associations were reported in 47
locations that would likely have met the current PM10
standard during the study period.\117\ Of these 47 locations, 13 would
likely not have met a 98th percentile 24-hour PM10 standard
with a level at 87 [mu]g/m\3\, 20 would likely not have met a 98th
percentile 24-hour PM10 standard with a level of 75 [mu]g/
m\3\, and 31 would likely not have met a 98th percentile 24-hour
PM10 standard with a level of 65 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA,
2011a, section 3.3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Philadelphia (Lipfert et al., 2000), Detroit (Ito et al.,
2003), Santa Clara (CA) (Fairley et al., 2003), Seattle (Sheppard et
al., 2003), Atlanta (Klemm et al., 2004), Spokane (Slaughter et al.,
2005), Bronx and Manhattan (NYS DOH, 2006), and 39 of the cities
evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure
6-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the above analyses, the Policy Assessment also
considered locations where health studies reported positive
associations with PM10-2.5 and where ambient PM10
concentrations were likely to have exceeded those allowed under the
current PM10 standard during the study period. Nine
locations met these criteria.\118\ Of these locations, all would also
likely have exceeded a 98th percentile PM10 standard with a
level at or below 87 [mu]g/m\3\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 3.3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Pittsburgh (Chock et al., 2000), Coachella Valley (CA)
(Ostro et al., 2003), Phoenix (Mar et al., 2003; Wilson et al.,
2007), and 6 of the cities evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz
(2009) (U.S. EPA, 2009a, Figure 6-29).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, among U.S. study locations where PM10-2.5-
associated health effects have been reported, some areas met the
current standard but would likely have violated a 98th percentile
PM10 standard with a level at or below 87 [mu]g/m\3\. In
contrast, the locations that violated the current standard would also
likely have violated a 98th percentile PM10 standard with a
level at or below 87 [mu]g/m\3\. Given this, the Policy Assessment
concludes that, compared to the current PM10 standard, a 24-
hour PM10 standard with a 98th percentile form could
potentially better target public health protection to locations where
we have more confidence that ambient PM10-2.5 concentrations
are associated with mortality and/or morbidity (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 3-
45 to 3-46).
iii. Integration of Evidence-Based and Air Quality-Based Considerations
in the Policy Assessment
In considering the integration of the evidence and air quality
information within the context of identifying potential alternative
standard levels for consideration, the Policy Assessment first notes
the following:
(1) Analyses of air quality correlations suggest that a 98th
percentile 24-hour PM10 concentration as high as 87
[mu]g/m\3\ could be considered generally equivalent to the current
PM10 standard, over time and across the country.
(2) A 98th percentile 24-hour PM10 standard with a
level at or below 87 [mu]g/m\3\ would be expected to maintain
PM10 and PM10-2.5 concentrations below those
present in U.S. locations where single-city studies have reported
PM10-2.5 effect estimates that are positive and
statistically significant (lowest concentration in such a location
was 91 [mu]g/m\3\). Although some single-city studies have reported
positive PM10-2.5 effect estimates in locations with 98th
percentile PM10 concentrations below 87 [mu]g/m\3\, these
effect estimates were not statistically significant.
(3) Multi-city average 98th percentile PM10
concentrations were below 87 [mu]g/m\3\ for recent U.S. multi-city
studies, which have reported positive and statistically significant
PM10-2.5 effect estimates. However, the extent to which
effects reported in multi-city studies are associated with the
short-term air quality in any particular location is highly
uncertain.
(4) Epidemiological studies have reported positive, and in a few
instances statistically significant, associations with
PM10-2.5 in some locations likely to have met the current
PM10 standard but not a PM10 standard with a
98th percentile form and a level at or below 87 [mu]g/m.\3\
To the extent the above considerations are emphasized, the Policy
Assessment notes 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. 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. Given this, when compared to the current
standard, a 24-hour PM10 standard with a 98th percentile
form and a level at or below 85 [mu]g/m\3\ could have the effect of
focusing public health protection on locations where there is more
confidence that PM10-2.5 is associated with mortality and/or
morbidity.
Given the above, the Policy Assessment concludes that a 98th
percentile standard with a level as high as 85 [mu]g/m\3\ could be
considered to the extent that more weight is placed on the
appropriateness of focusing public health protection in areas where
positive and statistically significant associations with
PM10-2.5 have been reported, and to the extent less weight
is placed on PM10-2.5 effect estimates that are not
statistically significant and/or that reflect estimates across multiple
cities. The Policy Assessment notes that it could be judged appropriate
to place less weight on PM10-2.5 effect estimates that are
not statistically significant given the relatively large amount of
uncertainty that is associated with the broader body of
PM10-2.5 health evidence, including uncertainty in the
extent to which health effects evaluated in epidemiological studies
result from exposures to PM10-2.5 itself, rather than one or
more co-occurring pollutants. This uncertainty, as well as other
uncertainties discussed above, are reflected in the Integrated Science
Assessment conclusions that the evidence is ``suggestive'' of a causal
relationship (i.e., rather than ``causal'' or ``likely causal'')
between short-term PM10-2.5 and mortality, respiratory
effects, and cardiovascular effects. In addition, the Policy Assessment
concludes that it could be appropriate to place less weight on 98th
percentile PM10 concentrations averaged across multiple
cities, given the uncertainty in
[[Page 38958]]
linking multi-city effect estimates with the air quality in any
particular location.
However, the Policy Assessment also notes that, overall across the
U.S., based on recent air quality information (i.e., 2007-2009), fewer
people live in counties with 98th percentile 24-hour PM10
concentrations above 85 [mu]g/m\3\ than in counties likely to exceed
the current PM10 standard (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Table 3-2 and p.
3-48). These results could be interpreted to suggest that a 98th
percentile standard with a level of 85 [mu]g/m\3\ would decrease
overall public health protection compared to the current standard.
Based on this 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. To the extent these
population counts are emphasized in comparing the public health
protection provided by the current and potential alternative standards,
and to the extent it is judged appropriate to set a revised standard
that provides at least the level of public health protection that is
provided by the current standard based on such population counts, the
Policy Assessment concludes that it would be appropriate to consider
standard levels in the range of approximately 75 to 80 [mu]g/m\3\
(Id.).
The Policy Assessment concludes that alternative approaches to
considering the evidence could also lead to consideration of standard
levels below 75 [mu]g/m\3\. 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.5 above), 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 multi-
city averages of 98th percentile PM10 concentrations in the
locations evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009) and Peng et al.
(2008) were 77 and 68 [mu]g/m\3\, respectively. Both of these multi-
city studies reported positive and statistically significant
PM10-2.5 effect estimates that remained positive in co-
pollutant models that included PM2.5, though only Zanobetti
and Schwartz (2009) reported PM10-2.5 effect estimates that
remained statistically significant in such co-pollutant models. Despite
uncertainties in the extent to which effects reported in these multi-
city studies are associated with the short-term air quality in any
particular location, emphasis could be placed on these multi-city
associations. The Policy Assessment concludes 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\ (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-48). A standard level of
65 [mu]g/m\3\ would be expected to provide a substantial margin of
safety against health effects that have been associated with
PM10-2.5 and, as discussed above, could better focus
(compared to the current standard) public health protection on areas
where health studies have reported associations with
PM10-2.5.
In considering potential alternative standard levels below 65
[mu]g/m\3\, the Policy Assessment notes that, as discussed above, 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\. Specifically, the Policy Assessment notes the following (Id., p.
3-49):
(1) Epidemiological studies, either single-city or multi-city,
have not reported positive and statistically significant
PM10-2.5 effect estimates in locations with 98th
percentile PM10 concentrations (multi-city average 98th
percentile concentrations in the case of multi-city studies) at or
below 65 [mu]g/m\3\.
(2) Although some single-city morbidity studies have reported
positive, but not statistically significant, associations with
PM10-2.5 in locations with 98th percentile
PM10 concentrations below 65 [mu]g/m\3\, the results of
U.S. morbidity studies were generally less consistent than those of
mortality studies, with some PM10-2.5 effect estimates
being positive while others were negative (i.e., negative effect
estimates were reported in several studies conducted in Atlanta,
where the 98th percentile PM10 concentrations ranged from
67 [mu]g/m\3\ to 71 [mu]g/m\3\).
(3) Although Bayes-adjusted single-city PM10-2.5
effect estimates were positive, but not statistically significant,
in some locations with PM10 concentrations below 65
[mu]g/m\3\, these effect estimates were based on the difference
between community-wide PM10 and PM2.5
concentrations. As discussed above, it is not clear how these
estimates of PM10-2.5 concentrations compare to those
more typically used in other studies to calculate
PM10-2.5 effect estimates. At present, few corroborating
studies are available that use other approaches (i.e., co-located
monitors, dichotomous samplers) to estimate/measure
PM10-2.5 in locations with 98th percentile
PM10 concentrations below 65 [mu]g/m\3\.
In light of these 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 concludes that while it could be judged
appropriate to consider standard levels as low as 65 [mu]g/m\3\, it is
not appropriate, based on the currently available body of evidence, to
consider standard levels below 65 [mu]g/m\3\.
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).\119\ 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). 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 current
[[Page 38959]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ With regard to limitations and uncertainties in the
evidence, CASAC endorsed the ISA 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 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).
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 notes 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 above, the
Administrator provisionally concludes that the available evidence
continues 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 PM10-2.5. In drawing
conclusions as to whether the current PM10 standard is
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 has considered:
(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, in the last review the EPA
concluded 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 an adequate margin of safety (71 FR 61197, October 17, 2006).
In that review, the EPA concluded that 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). In litigation of the decisions from the last review, the D.C.
Circuit affirmed the conclusion that it was appropriate 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 current review, the Administrator
judges that the expanded body of scientific evidence 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 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). While 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).
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
[[Page 38960]]
Integrated Science Assessment's conclusions regarding the links between
adverse health effects and PM sources and composition, the
Administrator provisionally 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.
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 notes 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 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 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 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 provisionally concludes that it remains
appropriate to maintain a standard that 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 provisionally 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.120 121
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ 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 D.C. 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.
\121\ 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 initial 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). 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 judges 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 notes that the Policy Assessment discusses 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 in detail (section IV.C.1), lead
to different
[[Page 38961]]
conclusions regarding the appropriateness of the degree of public
health protection provided by the current PM10 standard. The
Administrator further notes 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;
(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 used 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 notes that when the available
PM10-2.5 scientific evidence and its associated
uncertainties are considered, the Integrated Science Assessment
concludes 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
notes that she is proposing 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). The suggestive judgment for
PM10-2.5 reflects the greater degree of uncertainty
associated with this body of evidence, as discussed above in detail
(sections IV.B.5 and IV.C.1) 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.
(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 provisional 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.
With regard to this provisional 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 the single-city analyses for the
locations evaluated in the multi-city study by Zanobetti and Schwartz
(2009), the Administrator notes that associations in most of these
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 above, 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 with a
dichotomous sampler or by calculating the difference using co-located
samplers (U.S. EPA,
[[Page 38962]]
2009a, section 6.5.2.3).\122\ For these reasons, the Administrator
notes that there is considerable uncertainty in interpreting the
associations in these single-city analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ As noted in section IV.B.5 above and in the Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 3-16), there are also important
uncertainties in estimates of ambient PM10-2.5
concentrations based on the difference between PM10 mass
and PM2.5 mass, as measured at co-located monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 provisional conclusions:
(1) Given 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; given
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 given 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; 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.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ 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 D.C. 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 provisional 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) Given 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, the degree of public health protection provided by the
current standard is not greater than warranted.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ 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 at 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 provisional conclusions, the Administrator notes
that the Policy Assessment also discusses 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).\125\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 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
[[Page 38963]]
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 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 reaches 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 proposes to retain the current
PM10 standard in order to protect against health effects
associated with short-term exposures to PM10-2.5.
The Administrator recognizes that her proposed conclusions and
decision to retain the current PM10 standard differ 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 welcomes 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.
F. Administrator's Proposed Decision on the Primary PM10 Standard
For the reasons discussed above, and taking into account the
information and assessments presented in the Integrated Science
Assessment and the Policy Assessment and the advice and recommendations
of CASAC, the Administrator proposes to retain the current primary
PM10 standard. The Administrator solicits comment on all
aspects of this 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.
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.\126\ The
current AQI has been in use since its inception in 1999.\127\ 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 dioxide, PM and sulfur dioxide. The AQI is
also recognized internationally as a proven tool to effectively
communicate air quality information to the public. In fact, many
countries have created similar indices based on the AQI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See http://www.airnow.gov/.
\127\ 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). Decisions about the pollutant concentrations at
which to set the various AQI breakpoints that delineate the various AQI
categories for each pollutant specific sub-index within the AQI draw
directly from the underlying health information that supports the NAAQS
review.
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 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 and can
encourage the public to take actions that will reduce air pollution on
days when levels are projected to be at levels of concern to local
communities. Thus, these programs have significantly broadened the ways
in which state and local agencies can meet the nationally uniform AQI
reporting requirements, and are contributing to state and local efforts
to provide community health protection and to attain or maintain
compliance with the NAAQS. The EPA and state and local agencies
recognize that these programs are interrelated with AQI reporting and
with the information on the effects of air pollution on public health
that is generated through the periodic review, and revision when
appropriate, of the NAAQS.
In recognition of the proposed change to the primary annual
PM2.5 standard summarized in section III.F above, the EPA
proposes a conforming change to the PM2.5 sub-index of the
AQI to be
[[Page 38964]]
consistent with the proposed change to the annual standard. The health
effects information that supports the proposed decisions on the
PM2.5 standards, as discussed in section III.B above, is
also the basis for the proposed decisions on the AQI discussed below in
this section. The EPA intends to finalize conforming changes to the AQI
in conjunction with the Agency's final decisions on the primary annual
and 24-hour PM2.5 standards, if revisions to such standards
are promulgated.
With respect to an AQI value of 50, as discussed above, the
historical approach is to set it at the same level of the annual
standard, if there is one. This is consistent with the current AQI sub-
index for PM2.5, in which the current AQI value of 50 is set
at 15 [mu]g/m\3\, consistent with the level of the current primary
annual PM2.5 standard. The EPA sees no basis for deviating
from this approach in this review. Thus, the EPA proposes to set an AQI
value of 50 within a range of 12 to 13 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average,
consistent with the proposed annual PM2.5 standard level
(section III.F). The final AQI value of 50 will be set at the level of
the annual PM2.5 standard that is promulgated.
With respect to an AQI value of 100, which is the basis for
advisories to individuals in sensitive groups, there are 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 the
other sub-indices as noted above, is to set an AQI value of 100 at the
same level as the short-term standard. The EPA recognizes 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. 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 proposes to use this
approach to set the AQI value of 100 at 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average,
consistent with the proposal to retain the current 24-hour
PM2.5 standard (section III.F). If the 24-hour standard is
set at a different level, the EPA proposes to set an AQI value of 100
at the level of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard that is
promulgated.
An alternative approach is 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,\128\ 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 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. The EPA is
soliciting 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 recognizes that some state and local air quality agencies have
expressed support for this alternative approach. Using this alternative
approach could result 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
above. The EPA encourages state and local air quality agencies that use
the AQI to comment on both the approach and the level at which to set
an AQI value of 100 together with any supporting rationale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ 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 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 believe that the health effects evidence indicates that the level of
55 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, is appropriate to use \129\ in
conjunction with an AQI value of 100 set at the proposed level of 35
[mu]g/m\3\. Thus, if the EPA sets an AQI value of 100 at the
PM2.5 level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average, the Agency
proposes to set an AQI value of 150 at the PM2.5 level of 55
[mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour average. If, however, the EPA decides to set an AQI
value of 100 at a lower level, then the EPA would adjust an AQI value
of 150 proportionally. 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, EPA concludes the use of
a proportional adjustment would be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to an AQI value of 500, a review of the history of the
AQI value of 500 for PM10 and of the AQI value of 500 for
PM2.5 is useful background. The current AQI value of 500 for
PM10 was set in 1987 at the level of 600 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour
average, on the basis of increased mortality associated with historical
wintertime pollution episodes in London (52 FR 24687 to 24688, July 1,
1987). Particle concentrations during these episodes, measured by the
British Smoke method, were in the range of 500 to 1000 [mu]g/m\3\. In
the 1987 rulemaking that established the upper bound index value for
PM10, the EPA cited a generally held opinion that the
British Smoke method measures PM with a cutpoint of approximately 4.5
microns (52 FR 24688, July 1, 1987). In establishing this value for
PM10, the EPA assumed that concentrations of
PM10, which includes both coarse and fine particles, during
episodes of concern, would be about 100 [mu]g/m\3\ higher than the PM
concentration measured in terms of British Smoke (52 FR 24688, July 1,
1987). The upper bound index value of 600 [mu]g/m\3\ was developed by
selecting the lower end of the range of harmful concentrations during
the historical wintertime pollution episodes in London (500 [mu]g/m\3\)
and adding a margin of 100 [mu]g/m\3\ to account for this measurement
difference. The current PM2.5 concentration corresponding to
an AQI value of 500 set in the 1999 rulemaking is 500 [mu]g/m\3\, 24-
hour average.\130\ Because there were few PM2.5 monitoring
data available at that time, the decision was based on the stated
assumption that PM concentrations measured by the British Smoke method
were approximately equivalent to PM2.5 concentrations. In
considering whether it is appropriate to retain or revise the AQI value
of 500 for PM2.5, the EPA notes that the 1999 rulemaking was
based on an assumption of approximate equivalence between the British
Smoke
[[Page 38965]]
method and the current PM2.5 method. This assumption is not
entirely consistent with the view cited in 1987 that the British Smoke
method has a size cutpoint of 4.5 microns (52 FR 24688, July 1, 1987),
such that it would be reasonable to expect based on considering size
cutpoint alone that a level of 500 [mu]g/m\3\ based on the British
Smoke method would generally be equivalent to a somewhat lower level
based on the current PM2.5 method. Nonetheless, more recent
comparisons between British Smoke and PM2.5 measurement
methods (Heal, et al., 2005; Chaloulakou, et al., 2005) suggest that on
average British Smoke can be less than or more than PM2.5,
but generally represents a larger fraction in the seasons and locations
when PM2.5 predominantly results from directly emitted
carbonaceous particles such as from combustion sources. More generally,
the EPA recognizes that extremely high PM concentrations that would
most likely be associated with combustion sources (e.g., coal burning
in historic the London event, wildfires in contemporary U.S.
environments) are typically dominated by fine particles, such that
there may be very little difference between these measurement methods
at such high levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ We note that a level of 350 [mu]g/m\3\ is recommended for
an AQI value of 500 in the more recent EPA guidance (Harnett, 2009,
Attachment B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in considering the body of more recent health effects
evidence available in this review, the EPA concludes that there is
little information about more recent air pollution episodes similar to
the wintertime pollution episodes in London and associated impacts on
community health upon which to base a decision. Thus, the EPA concludes
that it remains appropriate to use the historical wintertime pollution
episodes in London as the basis for setting an AQI value of 500 for
PM2.5 as described above because it is still the best
available directly relevant information. Nonetheless, the EPA takes
note of a limited number of more recent studies cited in the Integrated
Science Assessment that evaluated wood smoke health impacts which found
effects such as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as
respiratory effects, albeit at much lower levels (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
sections 6.2 and 6.6). These more recent health studies may provide
some support for considering a lower PM2.5 level for an AQI
value of 500.
Based on the above considerations, the EPA concludes that it is
appropriate to propose to retain the current level of 500 [mu]g/m\3\,
24-hour average, for the AQI value of 500. The EPA solicits comment on
alternative approaches to setting a level for the AQI value of 500 and
on alternative levels that commenters believe may be appropriate as
well as supporting information and rationales for such alternative
levels. The EPA also solicits 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.
For the intermediate breakpoints in the AQI between the values of
150 and 500, the EPA proposes PM2.5 concentrations that
generally reflect a linear relationship between increasing index values
and increasing PM2.5 values. 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 suggest 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 proposed breakpoints for the
PM2.5 sub-index.\131\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ As discussed in section VII.C below, the EPA is also
proposing to update 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--Proposed Breakpoints for PM2.5 Sub-Index
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed breakpoints
AQI category Index values ([mu]g/m\3\, 24-hour
average)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good........................... 0-50 0.0-(12.0-13.0)
Moderate....................... 51-100 (12.1-13.1)-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 proposing to retain the 500 level for the AQI as described
above, we note that the EPA is not proposing to establish 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 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.
VI. Rationale for Proposed Decisions on the Secondary PM Standards
This section presents the rationale for the Administrator's
proposed decisions to revise the current suite of secondary PM
standards by adding a distinct standard for PM2.5 to address
PM-related
[[Page 38966]]
visibility impairment while retaining the current secondary
PM2.5 and PM10 standards to address the other
welfare effects considered in this review. In particular, this section
presents background information on EPA's previous and current reviews
of the secondary PM standards (section VI.A), information on visibility
impairment (section VI.B), conclusions on the adequacy of the current
secondary PM2.5 standards to protect against PM-related
visibility impairment (section VI.C), conclusions on alternative
standards to protect against PM-related visibility impairment (section
VI.D), conclusions on secondary PM standards to address other PM-
related welfare effects (section VI.E), and a summary of the
Administrator's proposed decisions on the secondary PM standards
(section VI.F).
A. Background
The current suite of secondary PM standards is identical to the
current suite of primary PM standards, 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 builds upon and broadens the approaches used in previous PM
NAAQS reviews. The following discussion focuses particularly on the
current 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 current approach 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, utilize different ways to
consider the underlying body of scientific evidence. They also reflect
an evolution in EPA's understanding of the nature of the effect on
public welfare from visibility impairment, from an approach focusing
only on Federal Class I area visibility impacts to a more multifaceted
approach that also considers PM-related impacts on non-Federal Class I
area visibility, such as in urban areas. This evolution has occurred in
conjunction with the expansion of available PM data and information
from associated studies of public perception, valuation, and personal
comfort and well-being.
In 1997, the EPA revised the identical primary and secondary 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 regional differences. These
differences included several factors that influence visibility such as
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 these considerations, the EPA assessed potential
visibility improvements in urban areas and on a regional scale that
would result from attainment of the new primary standards for
PM2.5. The agency concluded that the spatially averaged form
of the annual PM2.5 standard was well suited to the
protection of visibility, which involves effects of PM2.5
throughout an extended viewing distance across an urban area. Based on
air quality data available at that time, many urban areas in the
Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast, as well as Los Angeles, were
expected to see perceptible improvement in visibility if the annual
PM2.5 primary standard were attained. The EPA also concluded
that attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in some areas
would be expected to reduce, to some degree, the number and intensity
of ``bad visibility'' days, resulting in improvement in the 20 percent
of days having the greatest impairment over the course of a year.
Having concluded that attainment of the annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 primary standards would lead to visibility
improvements in many eastern and some western urban areas, the EPA also
considered whether these standards could provide potential improvements
to visibility on a regional scale. Based on information available at
the time, the EPA concluded that attainment of secondary
PM2.5 standards set identical to the primary
PM2.5 standards would be expected to result in 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 then considered the potential effectiveness of a regional
haze program, required by sections 169A and 169B of the CAA \132\ 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 a nationally applicable secondary NAAQS. The
regional haze visibility goal is more protective than a secondary NAAQS
since the goal addresses any anthropogenic impairment rather than just
impairment at levels determined to be adverse to 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
[[Page 38967]]
emissions of pollutants that impair visibility in many of these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ 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, 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, in conjunction with a regional haze program 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, 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 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
[[Page 38968]]
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 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 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 EPA's decision lacked a reasoned basis.
First, they asserted that EPA never determined what level of visibility
was ``requisite to protect the public welfare.'' They argued that EPA
unreasonably
[[Page 38969]]
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 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 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 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 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 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 broadens 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 is taking 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 are appropriate for consideration in this
review. As in past reviews, the EPA is also considering 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
recognizes that such an approach is the most appropriate and effective
means of addressing the public welfare effects associated with
visibility impairment in areas across the country.
The Policy Assessment draws from the qualitative evaluation of all
studies discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA,
2009a). Specifically, the Policy Assessment considers the extensive new
air quality and source apportionment information available from the
regional planning organizations, long-standing evidence of PM effects
on visibility, and public preference studies 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 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. On these bases, the Policy
Assessment again focuses assessments on visibility conditions in urban
areas.
The conclusions in the Policy Assessment reflect 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 takes into account the four basic elements of the NAAQS:
indicator, averaging time, level, and form.
B. PM-Related Visibility Impairment
As discussed below, the rationale for the Administrator's proposed
decision regarding secondary PM standards to protect against visibility
impairment focuses on those considerations most influential in the
Administrator's proposed decisions, including consideration of: (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 outlines key information contained in the Integrated
Science Assessment, the Visibility Assessment and the Policy Assessment
on: (1) 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 and (2) public
perceptions and attitudes about visibility impairment and the impacts
of visibility impairment on public welfare.
1. Nature of PM-Related Visibility Impairment
New research conducted by regional planning organizations in
support of the Regional Haze Rule, as 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
[[Page 38970]]
contributions to that effect in rural and remote locations. Additional
by-products of this research include 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.
Information from both of these sources of PM data, while useful, has
not however changed the fundamental and long understood science
characterizing the contribution of PM, especially fine particles, to
visibility impairment. This science, briefly summarized below, provides
the basis for the Integrated Science Assessment designation of the
relationship between PM and visibility impairment as causal.
a. 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. 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 is
quantified by a light extinction coefficient with units of 1/distance,
which is often expressed in the technical literature as 1/(1 million
meters) or inverse megameters (abbreviated Mm-1). When PM is
present in the air, its contribution to light extinction typically
greatly exceeds that of gases.
The amount of light extinction contributed by PM depends on the
particle size distribution and composition, as well as its particle
concentration. If details of the ambient particle size distribution and
composition (including the mixing of components) are known, Mie theory
can be used to accurately calculate PM light extinction (U.S. EPA,
2009a, chapter 9). However, routine monitoring rarely includes
measurements of particle size and composition information with
sufficient detail for such calculations. To make estimation of light
extinction more practical, visibility scientists have developed a much
simpler algorithm, known as the IMPROVE algorithm,\133\ to estimate
light extinction using routinely monitored fine particle
(PM2.5) speciation and coarse particle mass
(PM10-2.5) data. In addition, relative humidity information
is needed to estimate the contribution by liquid water that is in
solution with hygroscopic PM components (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.2.2.2; U.S. EPA, 2010b, chapter 3). 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
light extinction conditions.\134\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ 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).
\134\ 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. 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. They have been evaluated by comparing the algorithm
estimates of light extinction with coincident optical measurements.
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. The dry extinction efficiency for
particulate organic mass is larger than those for particulate sulfate
and nitrate principally because the density of the dry inorganic
compounds is higher than that assumed for the PM organic mass
components.
For the first two terms, ``sulfate'' is defined in terms of
ammonium sulfate and ``nitrate'' is defined in terms of ammonium
nitrate. Since IMPROVE does not include ammonium ion monitoring, the
assumption is made that all sulfate is fully neutralized ammonium
sulfate and all nitrate is assumed to be ammonium nitrate.\135\ Though
often reasonable, neither assumption is always true (see U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.2.3.1). In the eastern U.S. during the summer there is
insufficient ammonia in the atmosphere to neutralize the sulfate fully.
Fine particle nitrates can include sodium or calcium nitrate, which are
the fine particle fraction of generally much coarser particles due to
nitric acid interactions with sea salt at near-coastal areas (sodium
nitrate) or nitric acid interactions with calcium carbonate in crustal
aerosol (calcium nitrate). Despite the simplicity of the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ To calculate ammonium sulfate, multiply the CSN
measurement of the sulfate ion by 1.375. To calculate ammonium
nitrate, multiply the CSN measurement of the nitrate ion by 1.29
(Lowenthal and Kumar, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The f(RH) term 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
[[Page 38971]]
approximately 85 percent where their total light extinction efficiency
exceeds the 10 m\2\/g associated with elemental carbon (EC). Based on
this algorithm, particulate sulfate and nitrate are estimated to have
comparable light extinction efficiencies (i.e., the same dry extinction
efficiency and f(RH) water growth terms), so on a per unit mass
concentration basis at any specific relative humidity they are treated
as equally effective contributors to visibility effects.
As noted above, 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. 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 high relative humidity
conditions.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ The IMPROVE algorithm does not explicitly separate the
light-scattering and light-absorbing effects of elemental carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the fifth and sixth terms, the fine soil component
is based on measurement of five elements: Aluminum (Al), silicon (Si),
calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), and titanium (Ti).\137\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Consistent with calculations used in the IMPROVE network
and the Regional Haze Program, the fine soil component is calculated
using the following formula:
Fine Soil = 2.20 x [Al] + 2.49 x [Si] + 1.63 x [Ca] + 2.42 x
[Fe] + 1.94 x [Ti].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) has been
developed. It employs a more complex split-component mass extinction
efficiency to correct biases believed to be related to particle size
distributions, a sea salt term that can be important for remote coastal
areas, a different multiplier for organic carbon for purposes of
estimating organic carbonaceous material,\138\ and site-specific
Rayleigh light scattering terms in place of a universal Rayleigh light
scattering value. These features of the revised IMPROVE algorithm are
described in section 9.2.3.1 of the Integrated Science Assessment,
which also presents a comparison of the estimates produced by the two
algorithms for rural areas. Compared to the original algorithm, the
revised IMPROVE algorithm can yield higher estimates of current light
extinction levels in urban areas on days with relatively poor
visibility (Pitchford, 2010). This difference is primarily attributable
to the split-component mass extinction efficiency treatment in the
revised algorithm rather than to the inclusion of a sea salt term or
the use of site-specific Rayleigh scattering values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ The revised IMPROVE algorithm uses a multiplier of 1.8
instead of 1.4 as used in the original algorithm for the mean ratio
of organic mass to organic carbon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, particles are not the only contributor to
ambient visibility conditions. Light scattering by gases also occurs in
ambient air. Under pristine atmospheric conditions, naturally occurring
gases such as elemental nitrogen and oxygen cause what is known as
Rayleigh scattering. Rayleigh scattering depends on the density of air,
which is a function primarily of the elevation above sea level, and can
be treated as a site-dependent constant. The Rayleigh scattering
contribution to light extinction is only significant under pristine
conditions. The only other commonly occurring atmospheric gas to
appreciably absorb light in the visible spectrum is nitrogen dioxide.
Nitrogen dioxide forms in the atmosphere from nitrogen oxide emissions
associated with combustion processes. These combustion processes also
emit PM at levels that generally contribute much higher light
extinction than the nitrogen dioxide (i.e., nitrogen dioxide absorption
is generally less than approximately 5 percent of the light extinction,
except where emission controls remove most of the PM prior to releasing
the remaining gases to the atmosphere). The final term in the IMPROVE
algorithm of 10 Mm-1 is known as the Rayleigh scattering
term and accounts for light scattering by the natural gases in
unpolluted air. The remainder of this section focuses on the
contribution of PM, which is typically much greater than that of gases,
to ambient light extinction, unless otherwise specified.
In the following discussions, visual air quality is characterized
in terms of both light extinction, as discussed above, and an
alternative scale for characterizing visibility--the deciview scale--
that is defined directly in terms of light extinction (expressed in
units of Mm-1) by the following equation: \139\
\139\ 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 a
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 and
regulatory 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.
b. 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).
Generally, low mixing heights at night and during the early morning
hours tend to trap locally produced emissions, which are diluted as the
mixing height increases due to heating during the day. Low temperatures
and high relative humidity at night are conducive to the presence of
ammonium nitrate particles and water growth by hygroscopic particles
compared with the generally higher temperatures and lower relative
humidity later in the day. These combine to make early morning the most
likely time for peak urban light extinction. Superimposed on such
systematic time-of-day variations are the effects of synoptic
meteorology (i.e., those associated with changing weather) and
regional-scale air quality that can generate peak light extinction
impacts any time of day. The net effects of the systematic urban- and
larger-scale variations are that peak daytime PM light extinction
levels can occur any time of day, although in many areas they most
often occur 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
[[Page 38972]]
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.
c. Periods During the Day of Interest for Assessment of Visibility
Visibility is typically associated with daytime periods because
people are outside more during the day than at night and there are more
viewable scenes at a distance during the day than at night. The Policy
Assessment recognizes, however, that physically PM light extinction
behaves the same at night as during the day, 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. These
effects produce the visual result of a reduction in the number of
visible stars and the disappearance of diffuse or subtle phenomena such
as the Milky Way. The extinction of starlight is a secondary and minor
effect also caused by increased PM scattering and absorption.
However, there are significant and important differences between
daytime and nighttime visual environments with regard to how light
extinction per se relates to visual air quality (or visibility) and
public welfare. First, daytime visibility has dominated the attention
of those who have studied the visibility effects of air pollution,
particularly in urban areas. As a result, little research has been
conducted on nighttime visibility and the state of the science is not
comparable to that associated with daytime visibility impairment. As
noted in the Policy Assessment, no urban-focused preference or
valuation studies providing information on public preferences for
nighttime visual air quality have been identified (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p.
4-17). Second, in addition to air pollution, nighttime visibility is
affected by the addition of light into the sight path from numerous
sources, including anthropogenic light sources in urban environments
such as artificial outdoor lighting, which varies dramatically across
space, and natural sources including the moon, planets, and stars.
Light sources and ambient light conditions are typically five to seven
orders of magnitude dimmer at night than in sunlight. Moonlight, like
sunlight, introduces light throughout an observer's sight path at a
constant angle. On the other hand, dim starlight emanates from all over
the celestial hemisphere while artificial lights are concentrated in
cities and illuminate the atmosphere from below. These different light
sources will yield variable changes in visibility as compared to what
has been established for the daytime scenario, in which a single
source, the sun, is by far the brightest source of light. Third, the
human psychophysical response (e.g., how the human eye sees and
processes visual stimuli) at night is expected to differ (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.2.2).
Given the above, 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). Thus, the
Policy Assessment focuses its assessments of PM visibility impacts in
urban areas on daylight hours. For simplicity, and because perceptions
and welfare effects from light extinction-related visual effects during
the minutes of actual sunrise and sunset have not been explored,
daylight hours are defined as those hours entirely after the local
sunrise time and before the local sunset time.
In so doing, the Policy Assessment notes that the 24-hour averaging
time used in the Regional Haze Program includes nighttime conditions
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-18). It also notes, however, that the goal of
the Regional Haze Program is to address any manmade impairment of
visibility without regard to distinctions between daylight and
nighttime conditions. Moreover, because of the lack of strong diurnal
patterns in most Federal Class I areas, both nighttime and daylight
visibility are strongly correlated with 24-hour average visibility
conditions, so a 24-hour averaging period is suitable for driving both
daylight and nighttime visibility towards their natural conditions.
Also, the focus on 24-hour average visibility allows the Regional Haze
Program to make use of more practically obtained ambient speciated PM
measurements of adequate accuracy than if a shorter averaging period
were used, which is an important consideration especially given the
remoteness of many Federal Class I area monitoring sites and given the
low PM concentrations that must be measured accurately in such areas.
In addition, when natural conditions such as fog and rain cause
poor visibility, it can be reasonably assumed that the light extinction
properties of the air that are attributable to air pollution are not
important from a public welfare perspective. Thus, it is appropriate to
give special treatment to such periods when considering whether current
PM2.5 standards adequately protect public welfare from PM-
related visibility impairment. In evaluating alternative sub-daily
standards, the Policy Assessment addresses this issue by screening out
hours with particularly high relative humidity. As discussed further
below, the Policy Assessment uses a relative humidity screen of 90
percent on the basis that it serves as a reasonable surrogate for
excluding hours affected by fog and rain (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-18).
d. Exposure Durations of Interest
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
has 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. A momentary glance at an image of a scene (i.e., less than
a minute) is enough for study participants to judge the acceptability
or unacceptability of the viewed visual air quality conditions.
Moreover, individual participants in general consistently judge the
acceptability of same-scene images that differed only with respect to
light extinction levels when these images were presented repeatedly for
such short periods. That is, individuals generally did not say that a
higher-light extinction image was acceptable while saying a lower-light
extinction, same-scene image was unacceptable, even though they could
not compare images side-to-side. However, the Policy Assessment does
not have information about what assumptions, if any, the participants
may have made about the duration of exposure in determining the
acceptability of the images and EPA staff 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.
In the absence of such studies, the Policy Assessment considers 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
[[Page 38973]]
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. In such circumstances, the viewer may consciously evaluate how
the visual air quality at that time either enhances or diminishes the
experience or view. However, the public also 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). These
scenes, whether iconic or generic, may not be consciously viewed for
their scenic value and may not even be noticed for periods comparable
to what would be the case during purposeful visits to scenic visits,
but their visual air quality may still affect a person's sense of
wellbeing. 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 wellbeing.''
Some people have mostly intermittent opportunities on a daily basis
(e.g., during morning and/or afternoon commutes) to experience ambient
visibility conditions because they spend much of their time indoors
without access to windows. For such people a view of poor visual air
quality during their morning commute may provide their perception of
the day's visibility conditions until the next time they venture
outside during daylight hours later or perhaps the next day. Other
people have exposure to visibility conditions throughout the day,
conditions that may differ from hour to hour. A day with multiple hours
of visibility impairment would likely be judged as having a greater
impact on their wellbeing than a day with just one such hour followed
by clearer conditions.
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 logical to conclude 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
judges 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.
This approach would recognize that at least some but not all of the
population of an area will actually be exposed to this worst hour and
that some of the people who are exposed to this worst hour may not have
an opportunity to observe clearer conditions in other hours if they
were to occur. Moreover, because visibility conditions and people's
daily activities on work/school days both tend to follow the same
diurnal pattern day after day, those who are exposed only to the worst
hour will tend to have this experience day after day.
For another group of observers, those who have access to visibility
conditions often or continuously throughout the day, the impact of the
day's visibility conditions on their welfare may be based on the
varying visibility conditions they observe 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. Based on these considerations, the Policy Assessment judges
that it would also be appropriate to use a maximum multi-hour daylight
period for evaluating the adequacy of the current suite of secondary
standards (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-20).
The above discussion is based on what people see, which is
determined by the extinction of light along the paths between observers
and the various objects they view. A related but separate issue is what
measurement period is relevant, if what will be measured is the light
extinction property or the PM concentration of the local air at a fixed
site. Light extinction conditions at a fixed site can change quickly
(i.e., in less than a minute). Sub-hourly variations in light
extinction determined at any point in the atmosphere are likely the
result of small-scale spatial pollution features (i.e., high
concentration plumes that have just been generated in the immediate
vicinity due to local sources or that have been transported by the wind
across that point). These small-scale pockets of air causing short
periods of higher light extinction at the fixed site likely do not
determine the visual effect for scenes with longer sight paths. In
contrast, atmospheric sight path-averaged light extinction which is
pertinent to visibility impacts generally changes more slowly (i.e.,
tens of minutes generally), because a larger air mass must be affected
by a broader set of emission sources or the larger air mass must be
replaced by a cleaner or dirtier air mass due to the wind operating
over time. At typical wind speeds found in U.S. cities, an hour
corresponds to a few tens of kilometers of air flowing past a point,
which is similar to sight path lengths of interest in urban areas.
Based on the above considerations, the Policy Assessment concludes
hourly average light extinction would generally be reasonably
representative of the net visibility effect of the spatial pattern of
light extinction levels, especially along site paths that generally
align with the wind direction (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-21).
2. Public Perception of Visibility Impairment
As noted in the Integrated Science Assessment, 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 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.'' 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
[[Page 38974]]
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 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.\140\ The public perception studies are
described in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 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.\141\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 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. Urban
visibility preference studies for four urban areas were reviewed in the
Visibility Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010b, chapter 2) 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 includes 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 answered while
viewing a set of images of various urban visual air quality conditions.
The approaches used in the four studies are similar and are 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
[[Page 38975]]
extinction than do images representing higher levels.
Given the similarities in the approaches used, it is 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, variations
in the specific materials and methods used in each study introduce
uncertainties that should also be considered when interpreting the
results of these comparisons. Key differences between the studies
include: (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 the criterion as a useful index for
comparison between studies. The results of each individual 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.\142\ 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.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\142\ Only 47 percent of the British Columbia participants rated
a 19.2 dv photograph as acceptable.
\143\ 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.
\144\ 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] TP29JN12.004
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. 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
[[Page 38976]]
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 4-1 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.
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 by the Policy Assessment in a
range from 20 dv to 30 dv (75 to 200 Mm-1) \145\ 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). 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 least noisy preference results and the most
representative selection of participants. Based on the currently
available information, the Policy Assessment concludes 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ 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
considers 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 reflect
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% 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,\146\
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 continues to be used in
this 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 notes that the term CPL is meant only
to indicate target levels of visibility within a range that EPA staff
feels is appropriate for consideration that could, in conjunction with
other elements of the standard, including indicator, averaging time,
and form, provide an appropriate degree of visibility protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 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 considers whether
they represent a true regional distinction in preferences for urban
visibility conditions between western and eastern U.S. There is 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.\147\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ 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 notes 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 and many areas in the eastern
U.S., and possibly some areas in the western U.S. as well. 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. Based on the
currently available information, the Policy Assessment concludes that
the high end of the CPL range (30 dv) is an appropriate level to
consider (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-27).
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 concludes 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
[[Page 38977]]
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 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 concludes
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 supports this set of CPLs for
consideration by the EPA in this review. CASAC notes 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. CASAC concludes that this range of levels is
``adequately supported by the evidence presented'' (Samet, 2010d, p.
iii).
C. Adequacy of the Current Standards for PM-Related Visibility
Impairment
As noted above, visibility impairment occurs during periods with
fog or precipitation irrespective of the presence or absence of PM.
While it is a popular notion that areas with many foggy or rainy days
are ``dreary'' places to live compared to areas with more sunny days
per year, the Policy Assessment has no basis for taking into account
how the occurrence of such days might modify the effect of pollution-
induced hazy days on public welfare. It is logical that periods with
naturally impaired visibility due to fog or precipitation should not be
treated as having PM-impaired visibility. Moreover, depending on the
specific indicator, averaging time, and measurement approach used for
the NAAQS, foggy conditions might result in measured or calculated
indicator values that are higher than the light extinction actually
caused by PM.\148\ Therefore, in order to avoid precipitation and fog
confounding estimates of PM visibility impairment, and as advised by
CASAC as part of its comments on the first draft Visibility Assessment,
the assessment of visibility conditions was restricted to daylight
hours with relative humidity less than or equal to 90 percent when
evaluating sub-daily alternative standards (U.S. EPA, 2010b, section
3.3.5, Appendix G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ One example of an indicator and measurement approach for
which indicator values could be higher than true PM light extinction
as a result of fog would be a light extinction indicator measured in
part by an unheated nephelometer, which is an optical instrument for
measuring PM light scattering from an air sample as it flows through
a measurement chamber. Raindrops would be removed by the initial
size-selective inlet device, although some particles associated with
fog may be small enough that they might pass through the inlet and
enter the measurement chamber of the instrument. This would result
in a reported scattering coefficient that does not correspond to
true PM light extinction. Direct measurement of light extinction
using an open-path instrument would be even more affected by both
fog and precipitation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA recognizes that not all periods with relative humidity
above 90 percent have fog or precipitation. Removing those hours from
consideration for a secondary PM standard would involve a tradeoff
between the benefits of not including many of the hours with
meteorological causes of visibility impacts and the loss of public
welfare protection of not including some hours with high relative
humidity without fog or precipitation, where the growth of hygroscopic
PM into large solution droplets results in enhanced PM visibility
impacts. For the 15 urban areas included in the assessment for which
meteorological data were obtained to allow an examination of the co-
occurrence of high relative humidity and fog or precipitation, a 90
percent relative humidity cutoff criterion is effective in that on
average less than 6 percent of the daylight hours are removed from
consideration, yet those hours have 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. Based on these findings, the Policy Assessment concludes that
it is appropriate that a sub-daily standard intended to protect against
PM-related visibility impairment would be defined in such a way as to
exclude hours with relative humidity greater than approximately 90
percent, regardless of measured values of light extinction or PM (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 4-29).
1. Visibility Under Current Conditions
Recent visibility conditions have been characterized in the Policy
Assessment in terms of PM-related light extinction \149\ levels for the
15 urban areas \150\ that were selected for analysis in the Visibility
Assessment. Hourly average PM-related light extinction was analyzed in
terms of both PM10 and PM2.5 light extinction.
These recent visibility conditions were then compared to the CPLs
identified above. From Figure 4-3 and Table 4-2 in the Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010b, Figure 3-8 and Table 3-7, respectively) it
can be seen that among these 14 urban areas, those in the East and in
California tend to have a higher frequency of visibility conditions
estimated to be above the high CPL compared with those in the western
U.S. Both the figure and table are based on data from the 2005 to 2007
time period and exclude hours with relative humidity greater than 90
percent. These displays indicate that all 14 urban areas have daily
maximum hourly PM10 light extinction values that are
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 are estimated to exceed the high CPL from about
20 percent to over 60 percent of the days. It is also noted that all 14
of the urban areas are estimated to exceed the low CPL from about 40
percent to over 90 percent of the days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ 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% 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% cutpoint of 2.5 [mu]m diameter.
\150\ 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.
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, is not representative of the urban area and resulted in
unrealistically large PM10-2.5 values. The EPA staff
considers these comments credible and has set aside the St. Louis
assessment results for PM10 light extinction. Thus,
results and statements in this Policy Assessment regarding
PM10 light extinction apply to only the other 14 areas.
However, results regarding PM2.5 light extinction in most
cases apply 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 repeats 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), as described in Policy Assessment Appendix F.
Figure 4-4 and Table 4-3 in the Policy Assessment present the same type
of information as do Figure 4-3 and Table
[[Page 38978]]
4-2, respectively. While the estimates of the percentage of daily
maximum hourly PM2.5 light extinction values exceeding the
CPLs are somewhat lower than for PM10 light extinction, the
patterns of these estimates across the study areas are similar. More
specifically, except for the two Texas and the non-California western
urban areas, all of the other urban areas are estimated to exceed the
high CPL from about 10 percent up to about 50 percent of the days based
on PM2.5 light extinction, while all 15 areas are estimated
to exceed the low CPL from over 10 percent to over 90 percent of the
days.
2. Protection Afforded by the Current Standards
The Policy Assessment also conducted analyses to assess the
likelihood that PM-related visibility impairment would exceed the
various CPLs for a scenario based on simulating just meeting the
current suite of PM2.5 secondary standards: 15 [mu]g/m\3\
annual average PM2.5 concentration and 35 [mu]g/m\3\ 24-hour
average PM2.5 concentration with a 98th percentile form,
averaged over three years. As described in the Visibility Assessment,
the steps needed to model meeting the current NAAQS involve explicit
consideration of changes in PM2.5 components. First, the
Policy Assessment applied proportional rollback to all the
PM2.5 monitoring sites in each study area, taking into
account policy-relevant background PM2.5 mass, to ``just
meet'' the current NAAQS scenario for the area as a whole, not just at
the visibility assessment study site. The quantitative health risk
assessment document (U.S. EPA, 2010a) describes this air quality roll-
back procedure in detail. The degree of rollback (i.e., the percentage
reduction in non-policy-relevant background PM2.5 mass) is
controlled by the highest annual or 24-hour design value, which in most
study areas is from a site other than the site used in this visibility
assessment.\151\ The relevant result from this analysis is the
percentage reduction in non-policy-relevant background PM2.5
mass needed to ``just meet'' the current NAAQS, for each study area.
These percentage reductions are shown in Table 4-4 of the Visibility
Assessment. It was noted that Phoenix and Salt Lake City meet the
current PM2.5 NAAQS under current conditions and require no
reduction. PM2.5 levels in these two cities were not
``rolled up.'' Second, for each day and hour for each PM2.5
component, the Policy Assessment subtracted the policy-relevant
background concentration from the current conditions concentration to
determine the non- policy-relevant background portion of the current
conditions concentration. Third, the Policy Assessment applied the same
percentage reduction from the first step to the non- policy-relevant
background portion of each of the five PM2.5 components and
added back the policy-relevant background portion of the component.
Finally, the Policy Assessment applied the original IMPROVE algorithm,
using the reduced PM2.5 component concentrations, the
current conditions PM10-2.5 concentration for the day and
hour, and relative humidity for the day and hour to calculate the
PM10 light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ The selection of the site used to assess visibility was
driven by the need for several types of PM data, and for most study
areas the site with the highest annual or 24-hour design value did
not have the needed types of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In these analyses, the Policy Assessment has 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 display 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 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 show 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 are estimated
to exceed the high CPL from about 8 percent up to over 30 percent of
the days and the middle CPL from about 30 percent up to about 70
percent of the days, while all areas except Phoenix are estimated to
exceed the low CPL from 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 are estimated to exceed the
high CPL from about 4 percent up to over 15 percent of the days and the
middle CPL from about 15 percent up to about 45 percent of the days,
while all areas except Phoenix are estimated to exceed the low CPL from
over 10 percent to about 75 percent of the days. A similar set of
figures and tables have been developed in terms of PM10
light extinction (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figures 4-5 and 4-6, Tables 4-4 and
4-5).
Taking into account the above considerations, the Policy Assessment
concludes that the available information in this review, as described
above and in the Visibility Assessment and Integrated Science
Assessment, clearly calls 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
supports consideration of alternative standards to provide appropriate
protection (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-39).
This conclusion is based in part on the large percentage of days,
in many urban areas, 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 is simulated to just meet the current
PM2.5 standards, greater than 10 percent of the days are
estimated to 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 exceed the highest CPL ranges from over 10 percent
to over 30 percent. Similarly, when the middle CPL of 25 dv is
considered, greater than 30 percent up to approximately 70 percent of
the days are estimated to exceed 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 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 exceeding the middle
CPL in terms of PM2.5 light extinction. For the lowest CPL
of 20 dv, the percentages of days estimated to exceed that CPL are even
higher for all cases considered. Based on all of the above, the Policy
Assessment concludes 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 exceeds 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 concludes that use of the current
indicator of PM2.5 mass, in conjunction
[[Page 38979]]
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 confounded by
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 notes 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, as
discussed above in section 4.1.2.
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 concludes 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).
3. CASAC Advice
Based on its review of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC
concludes 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 notes 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 states, 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).
4. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on the Adequacy of Current
Standards for PM-Related Visibility Impairment
In considering whether the current suite of secondary
PM2.5 standards is requisite to protect the public welfare
against PM-related visibility impairment primarily in urban areas, the
Administrator has taken 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 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. As an initial matter, the Administrator
recognizes the clear causal relationship between PM in the ambient air
and impairment of visibility. She takes note of the evidence from the
visibility preference studies, and the rationale for determining a
range of candidate protection levels based on those studies. She notes
the relatively large number of days 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 perceptions of the acceptability of
varying degree of visibility impairment and the information on the
number of days estimated to exceed the CPLs, the Administrator
concludes that such information provides 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 concludes 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 recognizes
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. She recognizes that 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 plays a
central role in determining the relationship between the mix of PM in
the ambient air and impairment of visibility. The Administrator notes
that such considerations were reflected in CASAC's advice to set a
distinct secondary standard that would more directly reflect the
relationship between ambient PM and visibility impairment. The
Administrator also notes that such considerations were reflected in the
court's remand of the current secondary PM2.5 standards.
Based on the above considerations, the Administrator provisionally
concludes that the current secondary PM2.5 standards, taken
together, are neither sufficiently protective nor are they suitably
structured to provide an appropriate degree of public welfare
protection from PM-related visibility impairment, primarily in urban
areas. Thus, the Administrator has considered alternative standards by
looking at each of the elements of the standards--indicator, averaging
time, form, and level--as discussed below.
D. Consideration of Alternative Standards for Visibility Impairment
1. Indicator
a. Alternative Indicators Considered in the Policy Assessment
As described below, the Policy Assessment considers three
indicators: The current PM2.5 mass indicator and two
alternative indicators, including directly measured PM2.5
light extinction and calculated PM2.5 light extinction (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, section 4.3.1.1).\152\ 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 speciated PM2.5 mass and measured relative
humidity.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ In the second draft Policy Assessment, the calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator was referred to as
speciated PM2.5 mass calculated light extinction.
\153\ In 2009, the D.C. Circuit remanded the secondary
PM2.5 standards to the Agency in part because the EPA did
not address the problem that a PM2.5 mass-based standard
using a daily averaging time would be confounded by regional
differences in relative humidity, although EPA had acknowledged this
problem. The EPA notes that the light extinction indicators
considered in the Policy Assessment explicitly took into account
differences in relative humidity in areas across the country (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, section 4.3.1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Policy Assessment concludes 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 characteristic that
is most relevant and directly related to PM-related visibility effects
(U.S. EPA, 2011a,
[[Page 38980]]
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, 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. Few urban areas conduct continuous PM10-2.5
monitoring. 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 the absence of PM10-2.5 air quality information
from a much larger number of urban areas across the country, it is not
possible at this time to know in how many urban areas
PM10-2.5 is a major contributor to urban visibility effects,
though 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. PM10-2.5 is generally less
homogenous in urban areas than PM2.5, making it more
challenging to select sites that would adequately represent urban
visibility conditions. 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).
The basis for considering each of these three indicators is
discussed below. The discussion also addresses monitoring data
requirements for directly measured PM2.5 light extinction
and for calculated PM2.5 light extinction. The following
discussion also takes into consideration different averaging times
since the combination of indicator and averaging time is relevant to
understanding the monitoring data requirements. Consideration of
alternative averaging times is addressed more specifically in section
VI.D.2 on averaging time.
i. PM2.5 Mass
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. Blank and loaded filters
are weighed to determine 24-hour PM2.5 mass. Continuous
PM2.5 monitoring produces hourly average mass concentrations
and is conducted at about 900 locations. About 180 of these locations
employ newer model continuous instruments that have been approved by
EPA as FEMs, although the Policy Assessment notes that FEM approval has
been based only on 24-hour average, not hourly, PM2.5 mass.
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.\154\ 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.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\154\ FRM filters are stabilized in a laboratory at fixed
temperature and relative humidity levels, which alters whatever
water content was present on the filter when removed from the
sampler. FEM instruments are designed to meet performance criteria
compared to FRM measurements, and accordingly typically manage
temperature and/or humidity at the point of measurement to levels
that are not the same as ambient conditions.
\155\ As discussed below, 24-hour average PM2.5
chemical component mass is measured at about 200 CSN sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall performance of 1-hour average PM2.5 mass as
a predictor of PM-related visibility impairment as indicated by
PM10 calculated light extinction can be seen in scatter
plots shown in Figure 4-9 of the Policy Assessment for two illustrative
urban areas, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (Similar plots for all 14
urban areas that have estimates of PM10 light extinction are
in Appendix D, Figure D-2 of U.S. EPA, 2010b). These illustrative
examples demonstrate the large variations in hourly PM10
light extinction corresponding to any specific level of hourly
PM2.5 mass concentration as well as differences in the
statistical average relationships (depicted as the best fit lines)
between cities. This poor correlation between hourly PM10
light extinction and hourly PM2.5 mass is not due to any
great extent to the contribution of PM10-2.5 to light
extinction, but rather is 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. This
contributes to the noisiness of the data on the relationship 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.
As part of the Visibility Assessment, an assessment was conducted
that estimated PM10 light extinction levels that may prevail
if areas were simulated to just meet a range of alternative secondary
standards based on hourly PM2.5 mass as the indicator.
Appendix E of the Policy Assessment contains the results of this
rollback-based assessment. This assessment quantifies the projected
uneven protection, noted qualitatively above, that would result from
the use of 1-hour average PM2.5 mass as the indicator.
ii. Directly Measured PM2.5 Light Extinction
PM light extinction is the major contributor to light extinction,
which is the property of the atmosphere that is most directly related
to visibility effects. It differs from light extinction by the nearly
constant contributions for Rayleigh (or clean air) light scattering and
the minor contributions by NO2 light absorption. The net
result is that 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. Direct
measurement of PM2.5 light extinction can be accomplished
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). 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.
As part of the Visibility Assessment, an assessment was conducted
that estimated PM10 light extinction levels that may prevail
in 14 urban study areas if the areas were simulated to just meet a
secondary standard based on directly measured hourly PM10
light extinction as the indicator (U.S. EPA, 2010b,
[[Page 38981]]
section 4.3).\156\ As would be expected, this assessment indicated that
a secondary standard based on a directly measured PM10 light
extinction indicator would provide the same percentage of days having
values above the level of the standard in each of the areas, with the
percentage being dependent on the statistical form of the standard. The
Policy Assessment considers this assessment reasonably informative for
a directly measured PM2.5 light extinction indicator as
well, because in most of the assessment study areas PM10
light extinction is dominated by PM2.5 light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ This assessment was conducted prior to staff's decision to
focus on PM2.5 light extinction indicators in the Policy
Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 produced a White Paper on
Particulate Matter (PM) Light Extinction Measurements (U.S. EPA,
2010g), and solicited comment on the White Paper from the Ambient Air
Monitoring and Methods Subcommittee (AAMMS) of CASAC. In its review of
the White Paper (Russell and Samet, 2010a), the CASAC AAMMS made the
recommendation that consideration of direct measurement should be
limited to PM2.5 light extinction as this can be
accomplished by a number of commercially available instruments and
because PM2.5 is generally responsible for most of the PM
visibility impairment in urban areas. The CASAC AAMMS indicated that it
is technically more challenging at this time to accurately measure the
PM10-2.5 component of light extinction.
The CASAC AAMMS also commented on the capabilities of currently
available instruments, and expressed optimism regarding the near-term
development of even better instruments for such measurement than are
now commercially available. 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 EPA develop performance-based approval
criteria for direct measurement methods in order to put all approaches
on a level playing field. Such criteria would necessarily include
procedures and pass/fail requirements for demonstrating that the
performance criteria have been met. For example, instruments might be
required to demonstrate their performance in a wind tunnel, where the
concentration of PM2.5 components, and thus of
PM2.5 light extinction, could be controlled to known values.
It might also be possible to devise approval testing procedures based
on operation in ambient air, although knowing the true light extinction
level (without in effect treating some particular instrument as if it
were the FRM) would be more challenging. 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.
iii. Calculated PM2.5 Light Extinction
As discussed above in section VI.B.1 above, PM2.5 light
extinction can be calculated from 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 also be
used for a NAAQS focused on protecting against PM-related visibility
impairment primarily in urban areas. This could use the type of data
that is routinely collected from the urban CSN \157\ in combination
with climatological relative humidity data as used in the Regional Haze
Program (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix G, section G.2). This calculation
procedure, using the original IMPROVE light extinction equation
presented above in section VI.B.1 on a 24-hour basis (or the revised
IMPROVE equation), does not require PM2.5 mass concentration
measurements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, a conceptually similar approach could be applied in
urban areas on an hourly or multi-hour basis. Applying this conceptual
approach on a sub-daily basis would involve translating 24-hour
speciation data into hourly estimates of species concentrations, and
using 24-hour average species concentrations in conjunction with hourly
PM2.5 mass concentrations. This translation can be made
using more or less complex alternative approaches, as discussed below.
The approach used to generate hourly PM10 light
extinction for the Visibility Assessment was a relatively more complex
method for implementing such a conceptual approach. It involved the use
of the original IMPROVE algorithm \158\ with estimates of hourly PM
2.5 components derived from day-specific 24-hour and hourly
measurements of PM 2.5 mass, 24-hour measurements of PM
2.5 composition, hourly measurements of PM 2.5
mass and (for some but not all study sites) hourly PM10-2.5
mass, along with hourly relative humidity information (U.S. EPA, 2010b,
section 3.3). The Visibility Assessment approach also involved the use
of output from a chemical transport modeling run to provide initial
estimates of diurnal profiles for PM2.5 components at
particular sites. The Visibility Assessment approach entailed numerous
and complex data processing steps to generate hourly PM2.5
composition information from these less time-resolved data, including
application of a mass-closure approach, referred to as the SANDWICH
approach \159\ (Frank, 2006), to adjust for nitrate retention
differences between FRM and CSN filters, which is a required step for
consistency with the IMPROVE algorithm and for estimating organic
carbonaceous material via mass balance.\160\ The EPA staff employed
complex custom software to do these data processing steps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ The original IMPROVE algorithm was selected for the
described analysis in the Visibility Assessment because of its
simplicity relative to the revised algorithm.
\159\ Sulfate, adjusted nitrate, derived water, inferred
carbonaceous mass (SANDWICH) approach.
\160\ Daily temperature data were also used as part of the
SANDWICH method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the complexity of the approach used in the Visibility
Assessment was reasonable for assessment purposes at 15 urban areas,
the Policy Assessment recognizes that a relatively more simple approach
would be more straightforward and have greater transparency, and thus
should be considered for purposes of a national standard.\161\
Therefore, the Policy Assessment evaluated the degree to which simpler
approaches would correlate with the results of the highly complex
method used in the Visibility Assessment. This evaluation of two
specific simpler approaches (described briefly below and in more detail
in U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix F, especially Table F-1) demonstrated that
the PM2.5 portions of the PM10 light extinction
[[Page 38982]]
values developed for the Visibility Assessment can be well approximated
using the same IMPROVE algorithm applied to hourly PM2.5
composition values that were much more simply generated than with the
method used in the Visibility Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The simplified approaches examined were aimed at calculating hourly
PM2.5 light extinction using the original IMPROVE algorithm
(see section VI.B.1.a. above) excluding the Rayleigh term for light
scattering by atmospheric gases and the term for
PM10-2.5.\162\ These approaches, including a description of
the sources of the data and steps required to determine calculated
PM2.5 light extinction for these simplified approaches, are
described in more detail in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp.
4-46 to 48, Appendix F, Table F-2). Also, Table F-1 of Appendix F of
the Policy Assessment compares and contrasts each of these approaches
with the Visibility Assessment approach and with each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ The original IMPROVE algorithm was the basis for the
approaches considered in the Policy Assessment to maintain
comparability to the estimates developed in the Visibility
Assessment. This allowed the effects of other simplifications
relative to the Visibility Assessment approach to be better
discerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hourly PM2.5 light extinction values generated by
using either simplified approach are comparable to those developed for
use in the Visibility Assessment as indicated by the regression
statistics for scatter plots of the paired data (i.e., the slopes of
the regression equation and the R\2\ values are near 1 as shown in U.S.
EPA, 2011a, Appendix F, Tables F-3 and F-4). Appendix F notes that both
approaches underestimate PM2.5 light extinction on some days
in a few study areas, which the Policy Assessment attributes to the
occurrence of very high nitrate concentrations and the failure of the
FRM-correlated/adjusted FEM instrument to report the entire nitrate
mass. Nevertheless, the Policy Assessment concludes that each of these
simplified approaches provides reasonably good estimates of
PM2.5 light extinction and each is appropriate to consider
as the indicator for a distinct hourly or multi-hour secondary standard
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-48).
In addition, the Policy Assessment notes that there are variations
of these simplified approaches that may also be appropriate to
consider. For example, some variations that may improve the correlation
with actual ambient light extinction in certain areas of the country
include the use of the split-component mass extinction efficiency
approach from the revised IMPROVE algorithm,\163\ the use of more
refined value(s) for the organic carbon multiplier (see U.S. EPA,
2011a, Appendix F),\164\ and 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. Other variations may
serve to simplify the calculation of PM2.5 light extinction
values, such as those suggested by CASAC for consideration, including
the use of historical monthly or seasonal speciation averages as well
as speciation estimates on a regional basis (Samet, 2010d, p. 11). Some
of these variations would also be appropriate to consider in
conjunction with a 24-hour average calculated PM2.5 light
extinction indicator, including the use of the revised IMPROVE
algorithm, the use of an alternative value for the organic carbon
multiplier (e.g., 1.6), and the use of historical monthly or seasonal,
or regional, speciation averages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 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.
\164\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mentioned above, as part of the Visibility Assessment, an
assessment was conducted of PM10 light extinction levels
that would prevail if areas met a standard based on directly measured
hourly PM10 light extinction as the indicator. This
assessment indicated that a standard based on a directly measured
PM10 light extinction indicator would provide the same
percentage of days having indicator values above the level of the
standard across areas, with the percentage being dependent on the
statistical form of the standard. This assessment was based on the more
complex Visibility Assessment approach to estimating PM10
light extinction, rather than the simpler approaches for estimating
PM2.5 light extinction. Nevertheless, the generally close
correspondence between design values for PM2.5 light
extinction developed consistent with the Visibility Assessment approach
and design values based on the simplified approaches (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
Appendix F, Figure F-5) suggest that the findings regarding the
protection offered by alternative PM10 light extinction
standards using directly measured light extinction would also hold
quite well for standards based on the simplified indicators.\165\ Thus,
the Policy Assessment concludes that the use of a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator would provide a much higher
degree of uniformity in terms of the visibility levels across the
country than is possible using PM2.5 mass as the indicator
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-49). This is due to the fact that the
PM2.5 mass indicator does not account for the effects of
humidity and PM2.5 composition differences between various
regions, while a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator
directly incorporates those effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ The degree of emission reduction needed to meet a standard
is tightly tied to the degree to which the design value exceeds the
level of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inputs that would be necessary to use either simplified
approach to calculate a sub-daily PM2.5 light extinction
indicator (e.g., 1- or 4-hour averaging time) include PM2.5
chemical speciation, relative humidity, and hourly PM2.5
mass measurements. In defining a standard in terms of calculated light
extinction, the criteria for allowable protocols for these calculations
would need to be specified. It would be appropriate to base these
criteria on the protocols utilized in the IMPROVE \166\ and CSN
networks, as well as sampling and analysis protocols for ambient
relative humidity sensors, and approved FEM mass monitors for
PM2.5. Any approach to approving methods for use in
calculating a light extinction indicator should take advantage of the
existing inventory of monitoring and analysis methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ Several monitoring agencies utilize IMPROVE in urban areas
to meet their chemical speciation monitoring needs. These sites are
known as IMPROVE-protocol stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CSN measurements have a strong history of being reviewed by
CASAC technical committees, both during their initial deployment about
ten years ago (Mauderly 1999a,b) and during the more recent transition
to carbon sampling that is consistent with the IMPROVE protocols
(Henderson, 2005c). Because the methods for the CSN are well documented
in a nationally implemented Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and
accompanying standard operating procedures (SOPs), are validated
through independent performance testing, and are used to meet multiple
data objectives (e.g., source apportionment, trends, and as an input to
health studies), consideration
[[Page 38983]]
should be given to an approach that utilizes the existing methods as
the basis for criteria for allowable sampling and analysis protocols
for purposes of a calculated light extinction indicator. Such an
approach of basing criteria on the current CSN and IMPROVE methods
provides a nationally consistent way to provide the chemical species
data used in the light extinction calculation, while preserving the
opportunity for improved methods for measuring the chemical species.
For relative humidity, in conjunction with either hourly, multi-hour,
or 24-hour average calculated PM2.5 light extinction,
consideration should be given to simply using criteria based on
available relative humidity sensors such as already utilized by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at routine
weather stations. These relative humidity sensors are already widely
used by a number of monitoring agencies and can be easily compared to
other relative humidity measurements.\167\ Finally, the simplified
approaches for a sub-daily averaging period depend on having values of
hourly PM2.5 mass, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ For the purposes of using relative humidity measurements
to derive multi-hour or 24-hour average PM2.5 calculated
light extinction, the non-linear f(RH) enhancement factor should be
developed separately for each hour and then averaged over the
desired multi-hour period. This averaging approach is consistent
with derivation of climatological f(RH) factors used by the IMPROVE
program and for the Regional Haze rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2008, EPA has approved several PM2.5 continuous
mass monitoring methods as FEMs.\168\ These methods have several
advantages over filter-based FRMs, such as producing hourly data and
the ability to report air quality information in near real-time.
However, initial assessments of the data quality as operated by state
and local monitoring agencies have had mixed results. A recent
assessment of continuous FEMs and collocated FRMs conducted by EPA
staff (Hanley and Reff, 2011) found some sites and continuous FEM
instruments to have an acceptable degree of comparability of 24-hour
average PM2.5 mass values derived from continuous FEMs and
filter-based FRMs, while others had poor data quality that would not
meet current data quality objectives. The EPA is working closely with
the monitoring committee of the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies (NACAA), instrument manufacturers, and monitoring agencies to
document and communicate best practices on these methods to improve
quality and consistency of resulting data. It should be noted that
performance testing submitted to EPA for purposes of designating the
PM2.5 continuous methods as FEMs, and the recent assessment
of collocated FRMs and continuous FEMs, are both based on 24-hour
sample periods. Therefore, the EPA does not have similar performance
data for continuous PM2.5 FEMs for 1-hour or 4-hour
averaging periods, nor is there an accepted practice to generate
performance standards for these time periods.\169\ Until issues
regarding the comparability of 24-hour PM2.5 mass values
derived from continuous FEMs and filter-based FRMs 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
and speciated PM2.5 mass values from 24-hour filter-based
samplers. Section 4.3.2.1 of the Policy Assessment discusses another
reason for such caution, based on a preliminary assessment of hourly
data from continuous FEMs (U.S. EPA, 2011a, pp. 4-52 to 4-54).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ The EPA maintains a list of designated Reference and
Equivalent Methods on its Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/files/ambient/criteria/reference-equivalent-methods-list.pdf.
\169\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section has addressed the types of measurements that would be
necessary to support a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator for either 24-hour or sub-daily (e.g., 1-hour and 4-hour)
averaging periods. Considerations related specifically to each of these
alternative averaging times, in conjunction with a standard defined in
terms of a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator, are
discussed further in section 4.3.2 of the Policy Assessment.
iv. Conclusions in the Policy Assessment
Taking the above considerations and CASAC's advice into account,
the Policy Assessment concludes that consideration should be given to
establishing a new calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-51). This conclusion takes into
consideration the available evidence that demonstrates 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. While a secondary standard that uses a
PM2.5 mass indicator could be set to provide additional
protection from PM2.5-related visibility impairment, the
Policy Assessment concludes that the advantages of using a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator make it the preferred
choice (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-51). In addition, the Policy Assessment
recognizes 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, it concludes
that 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).
Further, the Policy Assessment concludes 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). In either case, it would be appropriate to base criteria for
allowable monitoring and analysis protocols to obtain PM2.5
speciation measurements on the protocols utilized in the IMPROVE and
CSN networks. Further, in the case of a calculated PM2.5
light extinction indicator defined on a sub-daily basis, it would be
appropriate to consider using the simplified approaches described, or
some variations on these approaches. In reaching this conclusion, as
discussed above, the Policy Assessment notes that while it is possible
to utilize data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs on a 1-hour or
multi-hour (e.g., 4-hour) basis, the mixed results of data quality
assessments on a 24-hour basis, as well as the near absence of
performance data for sub-daily averaging periods, increases 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.
b. CASAC Advice
Based on its review of 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 concludes 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
[[Page 38984]]
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 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).\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Indicator
In reaching a proposed conclusion on the appropriate indicator for
a standard intended to protect against PM-related visibility
impairment, as an initial matter, the Administrator concurs 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. However, she also recognizes that while instruments
currently exist that can directly measure PM2.5 light
extinction, they are not an appropriate option in this review because a
suitable specification of the equipment or performance-based
verification procedures cannot be developed in the time frame of this
review.
Taking the above considerations and CASAC advice into account, the
Administrator provisionally concludes 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), is an appropriate indicator to replace the current
PM2.5 mass indicator. Such an indicator, referred to as a
PM2.5 visibility index, appropriately reflects the
relationship between ambient PM and PM-related light extinction, based
on the analyses discussed above and incorporation of factors based on
measured PM2.5 speciation concentrations and relative
humidity data. In addition, this addresses, in part, the issues raised
in the court's remand of the 2006 PM2.5 standards. The
Administrator also notes 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 the above considerations, the Administrator proposes 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 proposes that such an index
be based on the original IMPROVE algorithm in conjunction with
climatological relative humidity data as used in the Regional Haze
Program. A more detailed discussion of the steps involved in the
calculation of PM2.5 visibility index values is presented in
section VII.A.5 below.
The Administrator solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed
indicator. In particular, the Administrator solicits comment on the
proposed use of a PM2.5 visibility index rather than a
PM10 visibility index which would include an additional term
for coarse particles. The Administrator also solicits comment on
alternatively using the revised IMPROVE algorithm rather than the
original IMPROVE algorithm the use of alternative values for the
organic carbon multiplier in conjunction with either the original or
revised IMPROVE algorithm; the use of historical monthly, seasonal, or
regional speciation averages; and on alternative approaches to
determining relative humidity, as discussed above. Further, in
conjunction with an hourly or multi-hour indicator, comment is
solicited on variations on the simplified approaches discussed above
and on other approaches that may be appropriate to consider for such an
indicator.
2. Averaging Times
a. Alternative Averaging Times
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, as discussed above in
section VI.B.1 and in section 4.2.1 of the Policy Assessment, and the
nature of inputs to the calculation of PM2.5 light
extinction, as discussed above in section VI.D.1 and in section 4.3.1
of the Policy Assessment. Based on this information, the Policy
Assessment considered both sub-daily (1- and 4-hour averaging times)
and 24-hour averaging times, as discussed below. In considering sub-
daily averaging times, the Policy Assessment also addressed what
diurnal periods and ambient relative humidity conditions would be
appropriate to consider in conjunction with such an averaging time.
i. Sub-daily
As an initial matter, in considering sub-daily averaging times, the
Policy Assessment took 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. While perception of
change in visibility can occur in less than a minute, meaningful
changes to path-averaged light extinction occur more slowly. As
discussed above and in section 4.2.1 of the Policy Assessment, one hour
is a short enough averaging period to result in indicator values that
are close to the maximum one- or few-minute visibility impact that an
observer could be exposed to within the hour. Further, a 1-hour
averaging time could reasonably characterize the visibility effects
experienced by the segment of the population that experiences
infrequent short-term exposures during peak visibility impairment
periods in each area/site. Based on the above considerations, the
initial analyses conducted in the Policy Assessment as part of the
Visibility Assessment to support consideration of alternative standards
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 notes
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 concludes
that since a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator
relies in part on measured PM2.5 mass, as discussed above
and in section 4.3.1 of the Policy Assessment, it is also appropriate
to consider a multi-hour averaging time in
[[Page 38985]]
conjunction with such an indicator (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-53).
Thus, the Policy Assessment has considered multi-hour averaging
times, on the order of a few hours as illustrated by a 4-hour averaging
time. Such averaging times 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 recognizes 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 recognizes 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 concludes 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).
Additionally, as part of the review of data from all continuous FEM
PM2.5 instruments operating at state/local monitoring sites,
as discussed above, the Policy Assessment notes that the occurrence of
questionable outliers in 1-hour data submitted to AQS from continuous
FEM PM2.5 instruments has been observed at some of these
sites (Evangelista, 2011). Some of these outliers are questionable
simply by virtue of their extreme magnitude, as high as 985 [micro]g/
m\3\, whereas other values are questionable because they are 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.\171\ The nature and frequency of questionable 1-hour FEM
data collected in the past two years are being investigated. At this
time, the Policy Assessment notes 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 notes 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In considering an appropriate diurnal period for use in conjunction
with a sub-daily averaging time, the Policy Assessment recognizes that
nighttime visibility impacts, described in the Integrated Science
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.2.2) are significantly different
from daytime impacts and are not sufficiently well understood to be
included at this time. As a result, consistent with CASAC advice
(Samet, 2010c, p. 4), the Policy Assessment concludes that it would be
appropriate to define a sub-daily standard in terms of only daylight
hours at this time (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-54). In the Visibility
Assessment, daylight hours were defined to be those morning hours
having no minutes prior to local sunrise and afternoon hours having no
minutes after local sunset. This definition ensures the exclusion of
periods of time where the sun is not the primary outdoor source of
light to illuminate scenic features.
In considering the well-known interaction of PM with ambient
relative humidity conditions, the Policy Assessment recognizes that PM
is not generally the primary source of visibility impairment during
periods with fog or precipitation. In order to reduce the probability
that hours with a high degree of visibility impairment caused by fog or
precipitation are unintentionally used for purposes of determining
compliance with a standard, the Policy Assessment determined that a
relative humidity screen that excludes daylight hours with average
relative humidity above approximately 90 percent is appropriate (U.S.
EPA, 2001, pp. 4-54 to 4-55; see also U.S. EPA, 2010b, section 3.3.5,
Appendix G). For example, for the 15 urban areas \172\ included in the
Visibility Assessment, a 90 percent relative humidity cutoff criterion
proved effective in that on average less than 6 percent of the daylight
hours were removed from consideration, yet those same hours had on
average 10 times the likelihood of rain, 6 times the likelihood of
snow/sleet, and 34 times the likelihood of fog compared with hours with
90 percent or lower relative humidity. However, not all periods with
relative humidity above 90 percent have fog or precipitation. The
Policy Assessment recognizes that removing those hours from
consideration involves a tradeoff between the benefits of avoiding many
of the hours with meteorological causes of visibility impacts and not
counting some hours without fog or precipitation in which high humidity
levels (e.g., greater than 90 percent) lead to the growth of
hygroscopic PM to large solution droplets resulting in larger PM
visibility impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ The 90 percent relative humidity cap assessment was
conducted as part of the Visibility Assessment on all 15 of the
urban areas, including St. Louis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. 24-Hour
As discussed in section 4.3.1 of the Policy Assessment and below,
there are significant reasons to consider using PM2.5 light
extinction calculated on a 24-hour basis to reduce the various data
quality concerns over relying on continuous PM2.5 monitoring
data. However, the Policy Assessment recognizes 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, as
discussed above and in section 4.3.2.1 of the Policy Assessment. Thus,
consideration of a 24-hour averaging time depends 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, as discussed below in this
section. Further, since a 24-hour averaging time combines daytime and
nighttime periods, the Policy Assessment recognizes that the public
preference studies do not directly provide a basis for identifying an
appropriate level of protection, in terms of 24-hour average light
extinction, based on judgments of acceptable daytime visual air quality
obtained in
[[Page 38986]]
those studies. Thus, consideration of a 24-hour averaging time also
depends upon developing an approach to translate the candidate levels
of protection derived from the public preference studies, which the
Policy Assessment has interpreted on an hourly or multi-hour basis, to
a candidate level of protection defined in terms of a 24-hour average
calculated light extinction, as discussed in section.VI.D.4 below.
To determine whether 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, the
Policy Assessment performed comparative analyses of 24-hour and 4-hour
averaging times in conjunction with a calculated PM2.5
indicator.\173\ These analyses are presented and discussed in Appendix
G, section G.4 of the Policy Assessment. 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 calculations used the original
IMPROVE algorithm and long-term (1988 to 1997) average relative
humidity conditions, to calculate monthly average values of the
relative humidity term in the IMPROVE algorithm, consistent with the
approach used for the Regional Haze Program. Similar to the approach
used to assess a sub-daily visibility index discussed in section
VI.2.a.i above, these 1988-1997 humidity data are similarly screened to
remove the effect of high hourly relative humidity. In this case, any
relative humidity value great than 95 percent was treated as 95
percent. Because 10-years of hourly data were used to produce a single
humidity term for each month, the EPA believes that the resulting
monthly average of the humidity term is sufficient and appropriate to
reduce the effects of fog or precipitation. Based on these analyses,
scatter plots comparing 24-hour and 4-hour calculated PM2.5
light extinction are shown 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). It can be seen, as expected, that there is
some scatter around the regression line for each city, because the
calculated 4-hour light extinction includes day-specific and hour-
specific influences that are not captured by the simpler 24-hour
approach. The Policy Assessment notes that this scatter could be
reduced by the use of same-day hourly relative humidity data to
calculate a 24-hour average value of the relative humidity term in the
IMPROVE algorithm. In the Policy Assessment, scatter plots are also
shown for the annual 90th percentile values, based on data from 2007 to
2009, for 4-hour and 24-hour calculated PM2.5 light
extinction across all 15 cities (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure G-7) and for
the 3-year design values across all 15 cities (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Figure
G-8). These analyses 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.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ 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).
\174\ The EPA staff note that the R\2\ value (0.44) for Houston
was notably lower than for the other cities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iii. Conclusions in the Policy Assessment
Taking the above considerations and CASAC's advice into account,
the Policy Assessment concludes that it is appropriate to consider in
this review a 24-hour averaging time, in conjunction with a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator and an appropriately
specified standard level (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-57). This conclusion
reflects the judgment 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 average
basis. This conclusion is also predicated on consideration of a 24-hour
average standard level, as discussed below and in section 4.3.4 of the
Policy Assessment, that is appropriately translated from the CPLs
derived from the public preference studies, which the Policy Assessment
has interpreted as providing information on the acceptability of
daytime visual air quality over an hourly or multi-hour exposure
period.
A 24-hour average calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator would avoid data quality uncertainties that have recently
been associated with currently available instruments for measurement of
hourly PM2.5 mass. The particular 24-hour indicator
considered by the Policy Assessment uses the original IMPROVE algorithm
and long-term relative humidity conditions to calculate
PM2.5 light extinction. 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.
Further, the Policy Assessment concludes 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 that have been raised by the
recent EPA study of continuous FEMs (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-58). 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 concludes 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 concludes 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).
b. CASAC Advice
As noted above, in its review of the first draft Policy Assessment,
CASAC concludes 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
[[Page 38987]]
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 indicator when calculated on a sub-daily basis.
In considering this advice, the Policy Assessment first notes that
CASAC did not have the benefit of EPA's recent assessment of the data
quality issues associated with the use of continuous FEMs as the basis
for hourly PM2.5 mass measurements. The Policy Assessment
also notes that since earlier drafts of this Policy Assessment did not
include 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.
c. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Averaging Time
In reaching a proposed conclusion on the appropriate averaging time
for a standard intended to protect against PM-related visibility
impairment, the Administrator has taken into account the information
discussed above with regard to analyses and conclusions presented in
the final Policy Assessment as well as the views of CASAC based on its
reviews of the first and second drafts of the Policy Assessment. As an
initial matter, the Administrator recognizes 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 recognizes 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 recognizes the desirability of a sub-
daily averaging time, she has 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 recognizes
that the Policy Assessment concludes 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 (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-57). In
light of this finding, the Administrator proposes to set a distinct
secondary standard with a 24-hour averaging time in conjunction with a
PM2.5 visibility index.
Further, in light of the desirability of a sub-daily averaging
time, the Administrator solicits comment on a sub-daily (e.g., 4-hour)
averaging time and related data quality issues associated with
currently available monitoring instrumentation. In so doing, the
Administrator notes that CASAC's advice on averaging times was
predicated in part on the capabilities of available monitoring
instrumentation as CASAC understood them when it provided its advice.
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
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 concludes it is 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
concludes 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 notes 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 finds no basis to
conclude that it would be appropriate to consider limiting the
occurrence of days with peak PM-
[[Page 38988]]
related light extinction in urban areas to a greater degree.
Another aspect of the form that was considered in the Visibility
Assessment for a sub-daily (i.e., 1-hour) averaging time is whether to
include all daylight hours or only the maximum daily daylight hour.
This consideration would also be relevant for a multi-hour (e.g., 4-
hour) averaging time, although such an analysis was not included in the
Visibility Assessment. The maximum daily daylight 1-hour or multi-hour
form is 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 does not have information regarding the
fraction of the public that has only one or a few opportunities to
experience visibility during the day, nor does 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 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 Visibility Assessment
analyses included both the maximum daily hour and the all daylight
hours forms. The Policy Assessment observed a close correspondence
between the level of protection afforded for all 15 urban areas in the
assessment by the maximum daily daylight 1-hour approach using the 90th
percentile form and the all daylight hours approach combined with the
98th percentile form (U.S. EPA, 2010b, section 4.1.4). On this basis,
the Policy Assessment notes that the 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). The Policy Assessment also notes that 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 concludes that it is 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 concludes that it
is 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.
Based on its review of the second draft Policy Assessment, CASAC
did not provide advice as to a specific form that would be appropriate,
but 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, the Administrator provisionally concludes that a 90th
percentile form, averaged over 3 years, is appropriate, and proposes
such a form in conjunction with a PM2.5 visibility index and
a 24-hour averaging time.
4. Level
In considering alternative levels for a new standard that would
provide requisite protection against PM-related visibility impairment
primarily in urban areas, the Policy Assessment has taken into account
the evidence- and impact-based considerations discussed above and in
section 4.2.1 of the Policy Assessment, 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 this information in the context of a standard
defined in terms of a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator, discussed above and in the Policy Assessment section 4.3.1;
with alternative averaging times of 24-hours or multi-hour, sub-daily
periods (e.g., 4-hours), discussed above and in Policy Assessment
section 4.3.2; and a 90th percentile-based form, discussed above and in
section 4.3.3 of the Policy Assessment.
As part of the Policy Assessment's assessment of the adequacy of
the current standards, summarized in section VI.B. above and in Policy
Assessment section 4.2.1, it 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 Policy Assessment notes that
CASAC agreed that this was an appropriate range of levels to consider
for such a standard (Samet, 2010d, p. 11).\175\ The Policy Assessment
also recognizes 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 is 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ In 2009, the D.C. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, in considering alternative levels for a sub-
daily standard based directly on the four preference study results, the
Policy Assessment notes that the individual
[[Page 38989]]
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. As discussed above and in section 4.2.1 of the Policy
Assessment, the Phoenix study was by far the best of the studies,
providing somewhat more support for the middle CPL. In considering the
results from these studies, the Policy Assessment recognizes that the
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 recognizes 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 concludes, as did
CASAC, that these studies are appropriate to use for this purpose (U.S.
EPA, 2011a, p. 4-61).
In considering potential alternative levels for a 24-hour standard,
the Policy Assessment explores various approaches to adjusting the CPLs
derived directly from the preference studies, as presented and
discussed in Appendix G of the Policy Assessment, especially section G-
5. 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 so doing, staff recognized that there are
multiple approaches for estimating generally equivalent levels on a
city-specific or national basis, and that the inherent spatial and
temporal variability in relative humidity and fine particle composition
across cities leads to a set of alternative estimates of levels that
may be construed as being generally equivalent on a national basis.
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 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 Table G-6 of Appendix G,\176\
in considering estimates aggregated or averaged over all 15 cities as
well as the range of city-specific estimates for the various approaches
considered, 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.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ 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.
\177\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the approaches used in these analyses focused on comparing
24-hour and 4-hour light extinction values in each of the 15 urban
areas, whereas other approaches focused on comparisons based on using
aggregated data across the urban areas. Two of these approaches, which
used regressions of city-specific annual 90th percentile light
extinction values or 3-year light extinction design values, gave nearly
identical results and were considered by staff to be most appropriate
for further consideration. These approaches (shown in U.S. EPA, 2011a,
Appendix G, Figures G-7 and G-8, referred to as Approaches A and B)
were preferred by staff based on the high R\2\ values of the
regressions and because the regressions were determined by data from
days with PM2.5 light extinction conditions in the range of
20 to 40 dv. This contrasted with the other approaches that were
influenced by PM2.5 light extinction conditions well below
this range. Based on these analyses (presented in Appendix G of the
Policy Assessment), the Policy Assessment notes that the single
approach thought by staff to be more appropriate for further
consideration (referred to as Approach B in Appendix G) yielded
adjusted 24-hour CPLs of 21, 25, and 28 dv as being levels that are
generally equivalent in an aggregate or central tendency sense to 4-
hour CPLs of 20, 25, and 30 dv.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ To provide some perspective in considering these results
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix G, Table G-6), the Policy Assessment
notes that 1 dv is about the amount that persons can distinguish
when viewing scenic vistas, and that a difference of 1 dv is
equivalent to about a 10 percent difference in light extinction
expressed in Mm-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the approaches yielded not only estimates of generally
equivalent levels on an aggregated basis but also city-specific
estimates (referred to as Approaches C and E in Appendix G) that showed
greater variability than the aggregated estimates. 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
shown in Tables G-7 and G-8, Appendix G of the Policy Assessment, for
Approaches C and E, respectively). 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.
In more broadly considering alternative standard levels that would
be appropriate for a nationally applicable secondary standard focused
on protection from PM-related urban visibility impairment based on
either a 24-hour or multi-hour, sub-daily (e.g., 4-hour) averaging
time, the Policy Assessment was mindful of the important limitations in
the available evidence from public preference studies. While the Policy
Assessment concluded, consistent with CASAC advice, that it is
appropriate to consider a distinct secondary PM2.5 standard
to address PM-related visibility impairment focused primarily in urban
areas based on the evidence from public preference studies, it also
recognized that there are a number of uncertainties and limitations
associated with the preference studies that have served as a basis for
selecting an appropriate range of levels to consider, as discussed
above
[[Page 38990]]
in section VI.B.2. 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 Policy Assessment was mindful 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, and that there is the possibility that there could
be regional differences in individual preferences for VAQ.
Given the uncertainties and limitations noted above, the EPA
broadly solicits comment on the strengths and limitations associated
with these 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). In particular, the EPA solicits comment on the following
specific aspects of the public preference studies and on how these
studies should appropriately be considered in this review. Recognizing
that all of these studies evaluated a 50 percent acceptability
criterion as the basis for reaching judgments in the context of each
study, the EPA requests comment on the extent to which this 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. Recognizing that these
studies vary in the extent to which the study participants may be
representative of the broader study area population, the EPA requests
comment on how this aspect of the study designs should appropriately be
weighed in the context of considering these studies in reaching
proposed conclusions on a distinct secondary NAAQS. The EPA also
solicits comment on 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.
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.
Based on the above considerations, the Policy Assessment concludes
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 concludes 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 judges
that such standards would provide appropriate protection against PM-
related visibility impairment primarily in urban areas. The Policy
Assessment notes 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 concludes 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 above considerations, taking into account the
conclusions in the Policy Assessment and the extent to which those
conclusions reflected consideration of CASAC advice during the
development of the Policy Assessment, as an initial matter, the
Administrator provisionally concludes that it is 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 concludes 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 is supported by the
available information and is generally consistent with the advice of
CASAC. The option of setting such a 24-hour standard 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.
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.
In light of these provisional conclusions, the Administrator
proposes to set 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 based on one of two options. One option is to set
the level of such a standard at 30 dv and the other option is to set
the level at 28 dv. In so doing, the
[[Page 38991]]
Administrator solicits comment on each of these levels and on the
various approaches to identifying generally equivalent levels discussed
above upon which the alternative proposed levels are based. Recognizing
that there was some support for consideration of a broader range of
levels, the Administrator also solicits comment on a range of levels
down to 25 dv in conjunction with a 24-hour averaging time. Further,
having solicited comment on a sub-daily (e.g., 4-hour) averaging time,
the Administrator also solicits comment on a range of alternative
levels from 30 to 25 dv in conjunction with such a sub-daily averaging
time.
Finally, as we have indicated, 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). We invite comment on how the Administrator should weigh
those uncertainties as well as any additional comments and information
to inform her consideration of these uncertainties.
E. Other PM-Related Welfare Effects
In the 2006 review, the Administrator 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. To provide
a level of protection for 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).
In that review, the 2004 AQCD concluded that regardless of size
fraction, particles containing nitrates and sulfates have the greatest
potential for widespread environmental significance (U.S. EPA, 2004,
sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.1). Considerable supporting evidence was
available that indicated a significant role of oxides of nitrogen and
sulfur, and their transformation products in acidification and nutrient
enrichment of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (71 FR 61209, October
17, 2006). The recognition of these ecological effects, coupled with
other considerations detailed below, led EPA to initiate a joint review
of the secondary NO2 and SO2 NAAQS that is
considering the gaseous and particulate species of oxides of nitrogen
and sulfur with respect to the ecosystem-related welfare effects that
result from the deposition of these pollutants and transformation
products.
This section presents the Policy Assessment's conclusions with
regard to the current suite of secondary PM standards to protect
against non-visibility PM-related welfare effects. Specifically, the
Policy Assessment has assessed the relevant information related to
effects of atmospheric PM on the environment, including effects on
climate, ecological effects, and materials. Non-visibility welfare-
based effects of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur are divided between two
NAAQS reviews; (1) PM NAAQS review and, (2) the joint secondary NAAQS
review for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of sulfur
(SOX).\179\ The scope of each document and the compounds of
nitrogen and sulfur considered in each review are summarized in this
section and in Table 5-1 of the Policy Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ For the purposes of this discussion, NOX and
SOX refers to all oxides of nitrogen and all oxides of
sulfur, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reviewing the current suite of secondary PM standards, the
Policy Assessment considers all PM-related effects that are not being
covered in the ongoing NOX/SOX review, including
visibility impairment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, chapter 4), climate forcing
effects (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 5.2), ecological effects (U.S. EPA,
2011a, section 5.3), and materials damage (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section
5.4). By excluding the effects associated with deposited particulate
matter components of NOX and SOX and their
transformation products which are addressed fully in the
NOX/SOX secondary review, the discussion of
ecological effects of PM has been narrowed to focus on effects
associated with the deposition of metals and, to a lesser extent,
organics (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 5.3). With regard to the materials
section, because the NOX/SOX review is not
considering materials, the discussion includes particles and gases that
are associated with the presence of ambient NOX and
SOX, as well as reduced forms of nitrogen such as ammonia
and ammonium ions for completeness.
In contrast, the proposed rulemaking for the joint NOX/
SOX secondary review (76 FR 46084, August 1, 2011) focuses
on the welfare effects associated with exposures from deposited
particulate and gaseous forms of oxides of nitrogen and sulfur and
related nitrogen- and sulfur-containing compounds and transformation
products on ecosystem receptors, including effects of acidifying
deposition associated with particulate nitrogen and sulfur. In
addition, the NOX/SOX secondary review includes
evidence related to direct ecological effects of gas-phase
NOX and SOX.
1. Climate
Information and conclusions about what is currently known about the
role of PM in climate is summarized in Chapter 9 of the Integrated
Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a). The Integrated Science Assessment
concludes ``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). The Policy Assessment summarizes and synthesizes the policy-
relevant science in the Integrated Science Assessment for the purpose
of helping to inform consideration of climate aspects in the review of
the secondary PM NAAQS (U.S. EPA, 2011a, section 5.2). This discussion
is summarized below.
Atmospheric PM (referred to as aerosols \180\ in the remainder of
this section to be consistent with the Integrated Science Assessment)
affects multiple aspects of climate. These include absorbing and
scattering of incoming solar radiation, alterations in terrestrial
radiation, effects on the hydrological cycle, and changes in cloud
properties (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.1). Major aerosol components
that contribute to climate processes include black carbon (BC),
[[Page 38992]]
organic carbon (OC), sulfates, nitrates, and mineral dusts. There is a
considerable ongoing research effort focused on understanding aerosol
contributions to changes in global mean temperature and precipitation
patterns. The Climate Change Research Initiative identified research on
atmospheric concentrations and effects of aerosols as a high research
priority (National Research Council, 2001) and the IPCC 2007 Summary
for Policymakers states that anthropogenic contributions to aerosols
remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing (IPCC, 2007). The
current state of the science of climate alterations attributable to PM
is in flux as a result of continually updated information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ In the sections of the Integrated Science Assessment
included from IPCC AR4 and CCSP SAP2.3 (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.3), the term ``aerosols'' is more frequently used than ``PM'' and
that word is retained in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a,
section 5.2) and in this section of the preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global climate change has increasingly been the focus of intense
international research endeavors. As discussed in chapter 5 of the
Policy Assessment, major efforts are underway to understand the
complexities inherent in atmospheric aerosol interactions and to
decrease uncertainties associated with climate estimations.
Aerosols have direct and indirect effects on climate processes. The
direct effects of aerosols on climate result mainly from particles
scattering light away from Earth into space, directly altering the
radiative balance of the Earth-atmosphere system. This reflection of
solar radiation back to space decreases the transmission of visible
radiation to the surface of the Earth and results in a decrease in the
heating rate of the surface and the lower atmosphere. At the same time,
absorption of either incoming solar radiation or outgoing terrestrial
radiation by particles, primarily BC, results in an increased heating
rate in the lower atmosphere. Global estimates of aerosol direct
radiative forcing (RF) were recently summarized using a combined model-
based estimate (Forster et al., 2007). The overall, model-derived
aerosol direct RF was estimated in the IPCC AR4 as -0.5 (-0.9 to -0.1)
watts per square meter (W/m\2\), with an overall level of scientific
understanding of this effect as ``medium low'' (Forster et al., 2007),
indicating a net cooling effect in contrast to greenhouse gases (GHGs)
which have a warming effect.
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). The direct effect of radiative
scattering by atmospheric particles exerts an overall net cooling of
the atmosphere, while particle absorption of solar radiation leads to
warming. For example, the presence of OC and sulfates decrease warming
from sunlight by scattering shortwave radiation back into space. Such a
perturbation of incoming radiation by anthropogenic aerosols is
designated as aerosol climate forcing, which is distinguished from the
aerosol radiative effect of the total aerosol (natural plus
anthropogenic). The aerosol climate forcing and radiative effect are
characterized by large spatial and temporal heterogeneities due to the
wide variety of aerosol sources, the spatial non-uniformity and
intermittency of these sources, the short atmospheric lifetime of
aerosols (relative to that of the greenhouse gases), and processing
(chemical and microphysical) that occurs in the atmosphere. For
example, OC can be warming (positive forcer) when deposited on or
suspended over a highly reflective surface such as snow or ice but, on
a global average, is a negative forcer in the atmosphere.
More information has also become available on indirect effects of
aerosols. Particles in the atmosphere indirectly affect both cloud
albedo (reflectivity) and cloud lifetime by modifying the cloud amount,
and microphysical and radiative properties (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.3.6.4). The RF due to these indirect effects (cloud albedo effect) of
aerosols is estimated in the IPCC AR4 to be -0.7 ( -1.8 to -0.3) W/m\2\
with the level of scientific understanding of this effect as ``low''
(Forster et al., 2007). Aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
for cloud formation. Increased particulates in the atmosphere available
as CCN with no change in moisture content of the clouds have resulted
in an increase in the number and decrease in the size of cloud droplets
in certain clouds that can increase the albedo of the clouds (the
Twomey effect). Smaller particles slow the onset of precipitation and
prolong cloud lifetime. This effect, coupled with changes in cloud
albedo, increases the reflection of solar radiation back into space.
The altitude of the clouds also affects cloud radiative forcing. Low
clouds reflect incoming sunlight back to space but do not effectively
trap outgoing radiation, thus cooling the planet, while higher
elevation clouds reflect some sunlight but more effectively can trap
outgoing radiation and act to warm the planet (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.3.3.5).
The total negative RF due to direct and indirect effects of
aerosols computed from the top of the atmosphere, on a global average,
is estimated at -1.3 (-2.2 to -0.5) W/m\2\ in contrast to the positive
RF of +2.9 (+3.2 to +2.6) W/m\2\ for anthropogenic GHGs (IPCC 2007, p.
200).
The understanding of the magnitude of aerosol effects on climate
has increased substantially in the last decade. Data on the atmospheric
transport and deposition of aerosols indicate a significant role for PM
components in multiple aspects of climate. Aerosols can impact
glaciers, snowpack, regional water supplies, precipitation, and climate
patterns (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.9). Aerosols deposited on ice or
snow can lead to melting and subsequent decrease of surface albedo
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.9.2). Aerosols are potentially important
agents of climate warming in the Arctic and other locations (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.3.9). Carbonaceous aerosols emitted from intermittent
fires can occur at large enough scales to affect hemispheric aerosol
concentrations. In addition to incidental fires, routine biomass
burning, usually associated with agriculture in eastern Europe, has
also been shown to contribute to hemispheric concentrations of
carbonaceous aerosols and is therefore recognized as having a
significant impact on PM2.5 concentrations and climate
forcing (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.7).
A series of studies available since the last review examines the
role of aerosols on local and regional scale climate processes (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.9.3). Studies on the South Coast Air Basin
(SCAB) in California indicate aerosols may reduce near-surface wind
speeds, which, in turn reduce evaporation rates and increase cloud
lifetimes. The overall impact can be a reduction in local precipitation
(Jacobson and Kaufmann, 2006). Conditions in the SCAB impact
ecologically sensitive areas including the Sierra Nevadas.
Precipitation suppression due to aerosols in California (Givati and
Rosenfield, 2004) and other similar studies in Utah and Colorado found
that mountain precipitation decreased by 15 to 30 percent downwind of
pollution sources. Evidence of regional-scale impacts of aerosols on
meteorological conditions in other regions of the U.S. is lacking.
Advances in the understanding of aerosol components and how they
contribute to climate change have enabled refined global forcing
estimates of individual PM constituents. The global mean radiative
effect from individual components of aerosols was estimated for the
first time in the IPCC AR4 where they were reported to be (all in W/
m\2\ units): -0.4 (+0.2) for sulfate, -0.05 (+0.05) for fossil fuel-
derived OC, +0.2 (+0.15) for fossil fuel derived BC, +0.03 (+0.12) for
biomass burning, -0.1
[[Page 38993]]
(+0.1) for nitrates, and -0.1 (+0.2) for mineral dust (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 9.3.10). Sulfate and fossil fuel-derived OC cause negative
forcing whereas BC causes positive forcing because of its highly
absorbing nature (U.S. EPA, 2009a, 9.3.6.3). Although BC comprises only
a small fraction of anthropogenic aerosol mass load and aerosol optical
depth (AOD), its forcing efficiency (with respect to either AOD or
mass) is an order of magnitude stronger than sulfate and particulate
organic matter (POM), so its positive shortwave forcing largely offsets
the negative direct forcing from sulfate and POM (IPCC, 2007; U.S. EPA,
2009a, 9.3.6.3). Global loadings for nitrates and anthropogenic dust
remain very difficult to estimate, making the radiative forcing
estimates for these constituents particularly uncertain (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.3.7).
Improved estimates of anthropogenic emissions of some aerosols,
especially BC and OC, have promoted the development of improved global
emissions inventories and source-specific emissions factors useful in
climate modeling (Bond et al. 2004). Recent data suggests that BC is
one of the largest individual warming agents after carbon dioxide
(CO2) and perhaps methane (CH4) (Jacobson 2000;
Sato et al., 2003; Bond and Sun 2005). There are several studies
modeling BC effects on climate and/or considering emission reduction
measures on anthropogenic warming detailed in section 9.3.9 of the
Integrated Science Assessment. In the U.S., most of the warming
aerosols are emitted by biomass burning and internal engine combustion
and much of the cooling aerosols are formed in the atmosphere by
oxidation of SO2 or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 3.3). Fires release large amounts of BC,
CO2, CH4 and OC (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.3.7).
Based on the above newly available scientific information on
climate-aerosol relationships, the Policy Assessment concludes that
aerosols alter climate processes directly through radiative forcing and
by indirect effects on cloud brightness, changes in precipitation, and
possible changes in cloud lifetimes (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-10).
Further, the Policy Assessment notes 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). In light of this information, the
Policy Assessment considered the appropriateness of the current
secondary standards defined in terms of PM2.5 and
PM10 indicators, for providing protection against potential
climate effects of aerosols. 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 Policy Assessment concludes that 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).
Further, in light of the uncertainties associated with the spatial
and temporal heterogeneity of PM components that contribute to climate
forcing and the uncertainties associated with measurement of aerosol
components, the inadequate consideration of aerosol impacts in climate
modeling and the insufficient data on local and regional microclimate
variations and the heterogeneity of cloud formations, the Policy
Assessment concludes 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). Based on these considerations, the Policy Assessment concludes
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).\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ This conclusion would apply for both the secondary
(welfare-based) and the primary (health-based) standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Ecological Effects
Information on what is currently known about ecological effects of
PM is summarized in Chapter 9 of the Integrated Science Assessment
(U.S. EPA, 2009a). Four main categories of ecological effects are
identified in the Integrated Science Assessment: Direct effects,
effects of PM-altered radiative flux, indirect effects of trace metals,
and indirect effects of organics. Exposure to PM for direct effects
occurs via deposition (e.g., wet, dry or occult) to vegetation
surfaces, while indirect effects occur via deposition to ecosystem
soils or surface waters where the deposited constituents of PM then
interact with biological organisms. Both fine and coarse-mode particles
may affect plants and other organisms; however, PM size classes do not
necessarily relate to ecological effects (U.S. EPA, 1996). More often,
the chemical constituents drive the ecosystem response to PM (Grantz et
al., 2003). The trace metal constituents of PM considered in the
ecological effects section of the Integrated Science Assessment are
cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni) and
zinc (Zn). Ecological effects of lead (Pb) in particulate form are
covered in the Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead (U.S. EPA, 2006).
The organics included in the ecological effects section of the PM
Integrated Science Assessment are persistent organic pollutants (POPs),
polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polybromiated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs).
Ecological effects of PM 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.
The Integrated Science Assessment states that overall, 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 based on information from the
previous review and limited new findings in this review (U.S. EPA,
2009a, sections 2.5.3 and 9.4.7). However the Integrated Science
Assessment also finds, in many cases, it is 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.
Ecological effects of PM must then be evaluated to determine if
they are known or anticipated to have an adverse impact on public
welfare. Characterizing a known or anticipated adverse effect to public
welfare is an important component of developing any secondary NAAQS.
The most recent secondary NAAQS reviews have assessed changes in
ecosystem structure or processes using a weight-of-evidence approach
that uses both quantitative and qualitative data. A paradigm useful in
evaluating ecological adversity is the concept of ecosystem services.
Ecosystem services consist of the varied and numerous ways that
ecosystems are important to human welfare. Ecosystems provide many
goods and services that are of vital importance for the functioning of
the biosphere and
[[Page 38994]]
provide the basis for the delivery of tangible benefits to human
society. An EPA initiative to consider how ecosystem structure and
function can be interpreted through an ecosystem services approach has
resulted in the inclusion of ecosystem services in the NOX/
SOX Risk and Exposure Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009h). The
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) defines these to include
supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (Hassan et
al., 2005).
An important consideration in evaluating biologically adverse
effects of PM and linkages to ecosystem services is that many of the
MEA categories overlap and any one pollutant may impact multiple
services. For example, deposited PM may alter the composition of soil-
associated microbial communities, which may affect supporting services
such as nutrient cycling. Changes in available soil nutrients could
result in alterations to provisioning services such as timber yield and
regulating services such as climate regulation. If enough information
is available, these alterations can be quantified based upon economic
approaches for estimating the value of ecosystem services. Valuation
may be important from a policy perspective because it can be used to
compare the benefits of altering versus maintaining an ecosystem.
Knowledge about the relationships linking ambient concentrations and
ecosystem services can be used to inform a policy judgment on a known
or anticipated adverse public welfare effect.
The Policy Assessment seeks to build upon and focus this body of
science using the concept of ecosystem services to qualitatively
evaluate linkages between biologically adverse effects and particulate
deposition. This approach is similar to that taken in the
NOX/SOX Risk and Exposure Assessment in which the
relationship between air quality indicators, deposition of nitrogen and
sulfur, ecologically relevant indicators, and effects on sensitive
receptors are linked to changes in ecosystem structure and services
(U.S. EPA, 2009h). This approach considers the benefits received from
the resources and processes that are supplied by ecosystems. Several
ecosystem components (e.g., plants, soils, water, and wildlife) are
impacted by PM air pollution, which may alter the services provided by
the ecosystems in question. Key scientific evidence regarding PM
effects on plants, soil and nutrient cycling, wildlife, and water
available since the last review is summarized below to evaluate how
this information has improved understanding of ecosystem responses to
PM.
a. Plants
As primary producers, plants play a pivotal role in energy flow
through ecosystems. Ecosystem services derived from plants include all
of the categories (supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural)
identified in the MEA (Hassan et al., 2005). Vegetation supports other
ecosystem processes by cycling nutrients through food webs and serving
as a source of organic material for soil formation and enrichment.
Trees and plants provide food, wood, fiber, and fuel for human
consumption. Flora help to regulate climate by sequestering
CO2, and control flooding by stabilizing soils and cycling
water via uptake and evapotranspiration. Plants are significant in
aesthetic, spiritual, and recreational aspects of human interactions.
Particulate matter can adversely impact plants and ecosystem
services provided by plants by deposition to vegetative surfaces (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.3). Particulates deposited on the surfaces of
leaves and needles can block light, altering the radiation received by
the plant. PM deposition can obstruct stomata limiting gas exchange,
damage leaf cuticles, and increase plant temperatures. This level of PM
accumulation is typically observed near sources of heavy deposition
such as smelters and mining operations (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.4.3). Plants growing on roadsides exhibit impact damage from near-
road PM deposition, having higher levels of organics and heavy metals,
and accumulate salt from road de-icing during winter months (U.S. EPA,
2009a, sections 9.4.3.1 and 9.4.5.7).
In addition to damage to plant surfaces, deposited PM can be taken
up by plants from soil or foliage. The ability of vegetation to take up
heavy metals and organics is dependent upon the amount, solubility, and
chemical composition of the deposited PM. Uptake of PM by plants from
soils and vegetative surfaces can disrupt photosynthesis, alter
pigments and mineral content, reduce plant vigor, decrease frost
hardiness, and impair root development. The Integrated Science
Assessment indicates that there are little or no effects on foliar
processes at ambient levels of PM (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 9.4.3 and
9.4.7). However, damage due to atmospheric pollution can occur near
individual point sources or under conditions where plants are subjected
to multiple stressors.
Although all heavy metals can be directly toxic at sufficiently
high concentrations, only Cu, Ni, and Zn have been documented as being
frequently toxic to plants (U.S. EPA, 2004), while toxicity due to Cd,
Co, and Pb has been observed less frequently (Smith, 1990; U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.4.5.3). In general, plant growth is negatively
correlated with trace metal and heavy metal concentration in soils and
plant tissue (Audet and Charest, 2007). Trace metals, particularly
heavy metals, can influence forest growth. Growth suppression of foliar
microflora has been shown to result from iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), and
Zn. These three metals can also inhibit fungal spore formation, as can
Cd, Cr, magnesium (Mg), and Ni (see Smith, 1990). Metals cause stress
and decreased photosynthesis (Kucera et al., 2008) and disrupt numerous
enzymes and metabolic pathways (Strydom et al., 2006). Excessive
concentrations of metals result in phytotoxicity.
New information since the last review provides additional evidence
of plant uptake of organics (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.6). An area
of active study is the impact of PAHs on provisioning ecosystem
services due to the potential for human and other animal exposure via
food consumption (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.6 page 9-190). The
uptake of PAHs depends on the plant species, site of deposition,
physical and chemical properties of the organic compound, and
prevailing environmental conditions. It has been established that most
bioaccumulation of PAHs by plants occurs via leaf uptake, and to a
lesser extent, through roots. Differences between species in uptake of
PAHs confound attempts to quantify impacts to ecosystem provisioning
services.
Plants as ecosystem regulators can serve as passive monitors of
pollution (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.2.3). Lichens and mosses are
sensitive to pollutants associated with PM and have been used with
limited success to show spatial and temporal patterns of atmospheric
deposition of metals (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.2.3). A limitation
to employing mosses and lichens to detect for the presence of air
pollutants is the difference in uptake efficiencies of metals between
species. Thus, quantification of ecological effects is not possible due
to the variability of species responses (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.4.2.3).
A potentially important regulating ecosystem service of plants is
their capacity to sequester contaminants (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.4.5.3). Ongoing research on the application of plants to
environmental remediation efforts are
[[Page 38995]]
yielding some success in removing heavy metals and organics from
contaminated sites (phytoremediation) with tolerant plants such as the
willow tree (Salix spp.) and members of the family Brassicaceae (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.3). Tree canopies can be used in urban
locations to capture particulates and improve air quality (Freer-Smith
et al., 2004). Plant foliage is a sink for Hg and other metals and this
regulating ecosystem service may be impacted by atmospheric deposition
of trace metals.
An ecological endpoint (phytochelatin concentration) associated
with presence of metals in the environment has been correlated with the
ecological effect of tree mortality (Grantz et al., 2003). Metal stress
may be contributing to tree injury and forest decline in the
Northeastern U.S. where red spruce populations are declining with
increasing elevation. Quantitative assessment of PM damage to forests
potentially could be conducted by overlaying PM sampling data and
elevated phytochelatin levels. However, limited data on phytochelatin
levels in other species currently hinders use of this peptide as a
general biomarker for PM.
The presence of PM in the atmosphere affects ambient radiation as
discussed in the Integrated Science Assessment which can impact the
amount of sunlight received by plants (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.4).
Atmospheric PM can change the radiation reaching leaf surfaces through
attenuation and by converting direct radiation to diffuse radiation.
Diffuse radiation is more uniformly distributed in a tree canopy,
allowing radiation to reach lower leaves. The net effect of PM on
photosynthesis depends on the reduction of photosynthetically active
radiation (PAR) and the increase in the diffuse fraction of PAR.
Decreases in crop yields (provisioning ecosystem service) have been
attributed to regional scale air pollution, however, global models
suggest that the diffuse light fraction of PAR can increase growth
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.4).
b. Soil and Nutrient Cycling
Many of the major indirect plant responses to PM deposition are
chiefly soil-mediated and depend on the chemical composition of
individual components of deposited PM. Major ecosystem services
impacted by PM deposition to soils include support services such as
nutrient cycling, products such as crops and regulating flooding and
water quality. Upon entering the soil environment, PM pollutants can
alter ecological processes of energy flow and nutrient cycling, inhibit
nutrient uptake to plants, change microbial community structure and,
affect biodiversity. Accumulation of heavy metals in soils depends on
factors such as local soil characteristics, geologic origin of parent
soils, and metal bioavailability. It can be difficult to assess the
extent to which observed heavy metal concentrations in soil are of
anthropogenic origin (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.1). Trace element
concentrations are higher in some soils that are remote from air
pollution sources due to parent material and local geomorphology.
Heavy metals such as Zn, Cu, and Cd and some pesticides can
interfere with microorganisms that are responsible for decomposition of
soil litter, an important regulating ecosystem service that serves as a
source of soil nutrients (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections 9.4.5.1 and
9.4.5.2). Surface litter decomposition is reduced in soils having high
metal concentrations. Soil communities have associated bacteria, fungi,
and invertebrates that are essential to soil nutrient cycling
processes. Changes to the relative species abundance and community
composition can be quantified to measure impacts of deposited PM to
soil biota. A mutualistic relationship exists in the rhizophere (plant
root zone) between plant roots, fungi, and microbes. Fungi in
association with plant roots form mycorrhizae that are essential for
nutrient uptake by plants. The role of mychorrizal fungi in plant
uptake of metals from soils and effects of deposited PM on soil
microbes is discussed in section 9.4.5.2 of the Integrated Science
Assessment.
c. Wildlife
Animals play a significant role in ecosystem function including
nutrient cycling and crop production (supporting ecosystem service),
and as a source of food (provisioning ecosystem service). Cultural
ecosystem services provided by wildlife include bird and animal
watching, hunting, and fishing. Impacts on these services are dependent
upon the bioavailability of deposited metals and organics and their
respective toxicities to ecosystem receptors. Pathways of PM exposure
to fauna include ingestion, absorption and trophic transfer.
Bioindicator species (known as sentinel organisms) can provide evidence
of contamination due to atmospheric pollutants. Use of sentinel species
can be of particular value because chemical constituents of deposited
PM are difficult to characterize and have varying bioavailability (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.5). Snails readily bioaccumulate contaminants
such as PAHs and trace metals. These organisms have been deployed as
biomonitors for urban pollution and have quantifiable biomarkers of
exposure including growth inhibition, impairment of reproduction,
peroxidomal proliferation, and induction of metal detoxifying proteins
(metallothioneins) (Gomet-de Vaufleury, 2002; Regoli, et. al, 2006).
Earthworms have also been used as sensitive indicators of soil metal
contamination.
Evidence of deposited PM effects on animals is limited (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.4.5.5). Trophic transfer of pollutants of atmospheric
origin has been demonstrated in limited studies. PM may also be
transferred between aquatic and terrestrial compartments. There is
limited evidence for biomagnifications of heavy metals up the food
chain except for Hg which is well known to move readily through
environmental compartments (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.6).
Bioconcentration of POPs and PBDEs in the Arctic and deep-water oceanic
food webs indicates the global transport of particle-associated
organics (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.6). Salmon migrations are
contributing to metal accumulation in inland aquatic systems,
potentially impacting the provisioning and cultural ecosystem service
of fishing (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.6). Stable isotope analysis
can be applied to establish linkages between PM exposure and impacts to
food webs however, the use of this evaluation tool is limited for this
ecological endpoint due to the complexity of most trophic interactions
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.6). Foraging cattle have been used to
assess atmospheric deposition and subsequent bioaccumulation of Hg and
trace metals and their impacts on provisioning services (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.4.2.3).
d. Water
New limited information on impacts of deposited PM on receiving
water bodies indicate that the ecosystem services of primary
production, provision of fresh water, regulation of climate and floods,
recreational fishing and water purification are adversely impacted by
atmospheric inputs of metals and organics (U.S. EPA, 2009a, sections
9.4.2.3 and 9.4.5.4). Deposition of PM to surfaces in urban settings
increases the metal and organic component of storm water runoff (U.S.
EPA, 2009a, sections 9.4.2.3). This atmospherically-associated
pollutant burden can then be toxic to aquatic biota.
[[Page 38996]]
Atmospheric deposition can be the primary source of some organics
and metals to watersheds. The contribution of atmospherically deposited
PAHs to aquatic food webs was demonstrated in high elevation mountain
lakes with no other anthropogenic contaminant sources (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 9.4.6). Metals associated with PM deposition limit
phytoplankton growth, impacting aquatic trophic structure. Long-range
atmospheric transport of 47 pesticides and degradation products to the
snowpack in seven national parks in the Western U.S. was recently
quantified indicating PM-associated contaminant inputs to receiving
waters during spring snowmelt (Hageman et al., 2006).
The recently completed Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment
Project (WACAP) is the most comprehensive database on contaminant
transport and PM depositional effects on sensitive ecosystems in the
U.S. In this project, the transport, fate, and ecological impacts of
anthropogenic contaminants from atmospheric sources were assessed from
2002 to 2007 in seven ecosystem components (air, snow, water, sediment,
lichen, conifer needles and fish) in eight core national parks (Landers
et al., 2008). The goals of the study were to identify where the
pollutants were accumulating, identify ecological indicators for those
pollutants causing ecological harm, and to determine the source of the
air masses most likely to have transported the contaminants to the
parks (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.6). The study concluded that
bioaccumulation of semi-volatile organic compounds was observed
throughout park ecosystems (Landers et al., 2008). Findings from this
study included the observation of an elevational gradient in PM
deposition with greater accumulation at higher altitude areas of the
parks. Furthermore, specific ecological indicators were identified in
the WACAP that can be useful in assessing contamination on larger
spatial scales.
In the WACAP study, bioaccumulation and biomagnification of
airborne contaminants were demonstrated on a regional scale in remote
ecosystems in the Western United States. Contaminants were shown to
accumulate geographically based on proximity to individual sources or
source areas, primarily agriculture and industry (Landers et al.,
2008). Although this assessment focuses on chemical species that are
components of PM, it does not specifically assess the effects of
particulates versus gas-phase forms; therefore, in most cases it is
difficult to apply the results to this assessment based on particulate
concentration and size fraction (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.6). There
is a need for ecological modeling of PM components in different
environmental compartments to further elucidate links between PM and
ecological indicators.
Europe and other countries are using the critical load approach to
assess pollutant effects at the level of the ecosystem. This type of
assessment requires site-specific data and information on individual
species responses to PM. In respect to trace metals and organics, there
are insufficient data for the vast majority of U.S. ecosystems to
calculate critical loads. However, a methodology is being presented in
the NOX/SOX Secondary Risk and Exposure
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2010h) to calculate atmospheric concentrations
from deposition that may be applicable to other environmental
contaminants.
e. Effects Associated With Ambient PM Concentrations
As reviewed above, there is considerable data on impacts of PM on
ecological receptors, but few studies that link ambient PM
concentrations to observed effect. This is due, in part, to the nature,
deposition, transport and fate of PM in ecosystems. PM is not a single
pollutant, but a heterogeneous mixture of particles differing in size,
origin and chemical composition (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.1). The
heterogeneity of PM exists not only within individual particles or
samples from individual sites, but to even a greater extent, between
samples from different sites. Since vegetation and other ecosystem
components are affected more by particulate chemistry than size
fraction, exposure to a given mass concentration of airborne PM may
lead to widely differing plant or ecosystem responses, depending on the
particular mix of deposited particles. Many of the PM components
bioaccumulate over time in organisms or plants making correlations to
ambient concentrations of PM difficult.
Bioindicator organisms demonstrated biological effects including
growth inhibition, metallothionein induction and reproductive
impairment when exposed to complex mixtures of ambient air pollutants
(U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.5). Other studies quantify uptake of
metals and organics by plants or animals. However, due to the
difficulty in correlating individual PM components to a specific
physiological response, these studies are limited. Furthermore, there
may be differences in uptake between species such as differing
responses to metal uptake observed in mosses and lichens (U.S. EPA,
2009a, section 9.4.2.3). PM may also biomagnify across trophic levels
confounding efforts to link atmospheric concentrations to physiological
endpoints (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.6).
Evidence of PM effects that are linked to a specific ecological
endpoint can be observed when ambient levels are exceeded. 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).
Extensive research on biota near point sources provide some of the best
evidence of ecosystem function impacts and demonstrates that deposited
PM has the potential to alter species composition over long time
scales. The Integrated Science Assessment indicates at 4 km distance,
species composition of vegetation, insects, birds, and soil microbiota
changed, and within 1 km only the most resistant organisms were
surviving (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section 9.4.5.7).
f. Conclusions in the Policy Assessment
Based on the above discussions, the Policy Assessment made the
following observations:
(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.
Taking into consideration the responses to specific questions
regarding the adequacy of the current secondary PM standards for
ecological effects, the Policy Assessment concludes that the available
information is insufficient to assess the adequacy of the protection
for ecosystems afforded by the current suite of PM secondary standards
(U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 5-24). Ecosystem effects linked to PM are
difficult to determine because the changes may not be observed until
[[Page 38997]]
pollutant deposition has occurred for many decades. Because the high
levels necessary to cause injury occur only near a few limited point
sources and/or on a very local scale, protection against these effects
alone may not provide sufficient basis for considering a separate
secondary NAAQS based on the ecological effects of particulate metals
and organics. Data on ecological responses clearly linked with
atmospheric PM is not abundant enough to perform a quantitative
analysis although the WACAP study may represent an opportunity for
quantification at a regional scale. The Policy Assessment further
concludes that available evidence is not sufficient for 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).
The Policy Assessment considered the appropriateness of continuing
to use the PM2.5 and PM10 size fractions as the
indicators for protection of ecological effects of PM. The chemical
constitution of individual particles can be strongly correlated with
size, and the relationship between particle size and particle
composition can be quite complex, making it difficult in most cases to
use particle size as a surrogate for chemistry. At this time it remains
to be determined as to what extent PM secondary standards focused on a
given size fraction would result in reductions of the ecologically
relevant constituents of PM for any given area. Nonetheless, in the
absence of information that provides a basis for specific standards in
terms of particle composition, the Policy Assessment concludes that
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).
3. Materials Damage
Welfare effects on materials associated with deposition of PM
include both physical damage (materials damage effects) and impaired
aesthetic qualities (soiling effects). Because the effects of PM are
exacerbated by the presence of acidic gases and can be additive or
synergistic due to the complex mixture of pollutants in the air and
surface characteristics of the material, this discussion will also
include those particles and gases that are associated with the presence
of ambient oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur, as well as reduced
forms of nitrogen (such as ammonia and ammonium ions) for completeness.
Building upon the information presented in the last PM Staff Paper
(U.S. EPA, 2005), and including the limited new information presented
in Chapter 9 of the PM Integrated Science Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2009a)
and Annex E. Effects of NOY, NHX, and
SOX on Structures and Materials of the Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen and Sulfur-Ecological Criteria (U.S.
EPA, 2008c) the following sections consider the policy-relevant aspects
of physical damage and aesthetic soiling effects of PM on materials
including metal and stone.
The Integrated Science Assessment concludes 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). Particles contribute to these physical effects because of their
electrolytic, hygroscopic and acidic properties, and their ability to
sorb corrosive gases (principally sulfur dioxide). In addition, the
deposition of ambient PM can reduce the aesthetic appeal of buildings
and objects through soiling. Particles consisting primarily of
carbonaceous compounds cause soiling of commonly used building
materials and culturally important items such as statues and works of
art. Soiling is the deposition of particles on surfaces by impingement,
and the accumulation of particles on the surface of an exposed material
that results in degradation of its appearance (U.S. EPA, 2009a, section
9.5). Soiling can be remedied by cleaning or washing, and depending on
the soiled material, repainting.
The majority of available new studies on materials effects of PM
are from outside the U.S., however, they provide limited new data for
consideration of the secondary standard.
Metal and stone are also susceptible to damage by ambient PM.
Considerable research has been conducted on the effects of air
pollutants on metal surfaces due to the economic importance of these
materials, especially steel, Zn, Al, and Cu. Chapter 9 of the PM
Integrated Science Assessment and Annex E of the NOX/
SOX Integrated Science Assessment summarize the results of a
number of studies on the corrosion of metals (U.S. EPA, 2009a; U.S.
EPA, 2008c). Moisture is the single greatest factor promoting metal
corrosion, however, deposited PM can have additive, antagonistic or
synergistic effects. In general, sulfur dioxide is more corrosive than
oxides of nitrogen although mixtures of oxides of nitrogen, sulfur
dioxide and other particulate matter corrode some metals at a faster
rate than either pollutant alone (U.S. EPA, 2008c, Annex E.5.2).
Information from both the PM Integrated Science Assessment and
NOX/SOX Integrated Science Assessment suggest
that the extent of damage to metals due to ambient PM is variable and
dependent upon the type of metal, prevailing environmental conditions,
rate of natural weathering and presence or absence of other pollutants.
The PM Integrated Science Assessment and NOX/
SOX Integrated Science Assessment summarize the results of a
number of studies on PM and stone surfaces. While it is clear from the
available information that gaseous air pollutants, in particular sulfur
dioxide, will promote the deterioration of some types of stones under
specific conditions, carbonaceous particles (non-carbonate carbon) and
particles containing metal oxides may help to promote the decay
process. Studies on metal and stone summarized in the Integrated
Science Assessment do not show an association between particle size,
chemical composition and frequency of repair.
A limited number of new studies available on materials damage
effects of PM since the last review consider the relationship between
pollutants and biodeterioration of structures associated with microbial
communities that colonize monuments and buildings (U.S. EPA, 2009a,
section 9.5). Presence of air pollutants may synergistically enhance
microbial deterioration processes. The role of heterotrophic bacteria,
fungi and cyanobacteria in biodeterioration varied by local
meterological conditions and pollutant components.
Particulate matter deposition onto surfaces such as metal, glass,
stone and paint can lead to soiling. Soiling results when PM
accumulates on an object and alters the optical characteristics
(appearance). The reflectivity of a surface may be changed or presence
of particulates may alter light transmission. These effects can impact
the aesthetic value of a structure or result in reversible or
irreversible damage to statues, artwork and architecturally or
culturally significant buildings. Due to soiling of building surfaces
by PM, the frequency and duration of cleaning may be increased. Soiling
affects the aesthetic appeal of painted surfaces. In addition to
natural
[[Page 38998]]
factors, exposure to PM may give painted surfaces a dirty appearance.
Pigments in works of art can be degraded or discolored by atmospheric
pollutants, especially sulfates (U.S. EPA, 2008c, Annex E-15).
Formation of black crusts due to carbonaceous compounds and buildup
of microbial biofilms results in discoloration of surfaces. Black crust
includes a carbonate component derived from building material and OC
and EC. In limited new studies quantifying the organic carbon and
elemental contribution to soiling by black crust, organic carbon
predominated over elemental carbon at almost all locations (Bonazza et
al., 2005). Limited new studies suggest that traffic is the major
source of carbon associated with black crust formation (Putaud et al.,
2004) and that soiling of structures in Oxford, UK showed a
relationship with traffic and nitrogen dioxide concentrations (Viles
and Gorbushina, 2003). These findings attempt to link atmospheric
concentrations of PM to observed damage. However, no data on rates of
damage are available and all studies were conducted outside of the U.S.
Based on the above discussion, the Policy Assessment makes 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 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.
Revisiting the overarching policy question as to whether the
available scientific evidence supports or calls into question the
adequacy of the protection for materials afforded by the current suite
of secondary PM standards, the Policy Assessment concludes that no new
evidence in this review calls into question the adequacy of the
protection for materials afforded by the current standard (U.S. EPA,
2011a, p. 5-29). PM effects on materials can play no quantitative role
in considering whether any revisions of the secondary PM NAAQS are
appropriate at this time. Nonetheless, in the absence of information
that provides a basis for establishing a different level of control,
the Policy Assessment concludes 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).
4. CASAC Advice
Regarding the other 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 concludes 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 notes 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
notes 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 concludes that the
published literature is insufficient to support a national standard for
PM effects on ecosystem services (Samet, 2010c, p.23). CASAC notes 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 concludes 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 notes 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.
5. Administrator's Proposed Conclusions on Secondary Standards for
Other PM-related Welfare Effects
Based on the above considerations and the advice of CASAC, the
Administrator provisionally concludes that it is not appropriate to
establish any distinct secondary PM standards to address other non-
visibility PM-related welfare effects. Nonetheless, the Administrator
concurs 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, including
ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate impacts. In the
absence of information that would support any different standards, the
Administrator proposes generally to retain the current suite of
secondary PM standards\182\ to address non-visibility welfare effects.
These secondary standards were set identical to the primary PM
standards in the last review. More specifically, the Administrator
proposes 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 proposes to retain the
level of the current standard and to revise the form of the standard by
removing the option for spatial averaging for the reasons discussed
below in section VII.A. 2. In so doing, she 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Administrator's Proposed Decisions on Secondary PM Standards
With regard to the secondary PM standards, the Administrator
proposes 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
distinct secondary standard is defined
[[Page 38999]]
in terms of a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator,
translated into the deciview scale, which is referred to as a
PM2.5 visibility index; a 24-hour averaging time; a 90th
percentile form, averaged over 3 years; and a level set at one of two
options--either 30 dv or 28 dv. The Administrator solicits comment on a
range of levels for such a standard down to 25 dv, as well as on
alternative standards to address PM-related visibility impairment,
including a sub-daily averaging time (e.g., 4 hours) and associated
alternative levels in the range of 30 to 25 dv. To address other non-
visibility welfare effects, the Administrator proposes to revise the
form of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard to remove the
option for spatial averaging and to retain all other elements of the
current suite of secondary PM standards.
VII. Interpretation of the NAAQS for PM
With regard to the NAAQS for PM2.5, this section
discusses EPA's proposed revisions to the data handling procedures in
40 CFR part 50, appendix N, for the proposed primary and secondary
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (referred to as
PM2.5 standards) and for the proposed distinct secondary
standard for PM2.5 to address PM-related visibility
impairment (referred to as the PM2.5 visibility index
standard).\183\ Appendix N describes the computations necessary for
determining when these standards are met and also addresses which
measurement data are appropriate for comparison to the proposed
standards, as well as data reporting protocols, data completeness
criteria, and rounding conventions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ With regard to the PM10 NAAQS, as summarized in
sections IV.F and VI.F, the EPA is proposing to retain the current
primary and secondary PM10 standards. Data handling
procedures for these PM10 standards would remain as
presented in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in sections III and VI above, the EPA is proposing 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); (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 non-visibility-
related welfare protection (section VI.F); and (3) establish a distinct
secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard (section VI.F).
The EPA proposes to revise appendix N to conform to the proposed
revisions to the standards. The Agency also proposes to make additional
changes in the appendix N data handling provisions to codify existing
practices currently included in guidance documents or implemented as
EPA standard operating procedures as well as to provide greater clarity
and consistency in the application of these provisions. The proposed
revisions to appendix N are discussed in section VII.A below.
Section 1(b) of appendix N refers to special considerations that
may be given to data resulting from exceptional events. An exceptional
event is defined in 40 CFR 50.1 as an event that affects air quality,
is not reasonably controllable or preventable, is an event caused by
human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a
natural event, and is determined by the Administrator in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.14 to be an exceptional event. Air quality data that are
determined to have been affected by an exceptional event under the
procedural steps, substantive criteria, and schedule specified in
section 50.14 may be excluded from consideration when EPA makes a
determination that an area is meeting or violating the associated
NAAQS. Proposed revisions to the schedule specified in section 50.14
for data flagging and submission of demonstrations for exceptional
events data considered for initial area designations under the proposed
revised primary and secondary PM standards are discussed in section
VII.B below.
Several proposed updates and clarifications to the data handling
provisions associated with AQI reporting in 40 CFR part 58, Appendix G
are discussed in section VII.C below. These modifications reflect the
proposed changes to the AQI sub-index for PM2.5 as discussed
in section V above and harmonize reporting procedures for AQI sub-
indices for other criteria pollutants.
A. Proposed Amendments to Appendix N: Interpretation of the NAAQS for
PM2.5
As discussed below, the proposed revisions to appendix N
corresponding to proposed changes in the standards addressed in
sections III and VI above are: (1) Modification of the level of the
primary annual PM2.5 standard (sections VII.A.1 and
VII.A.4); (2) modification of the form of the primary and secondary
annual PM2.5 standards to remove the option for spatial
averaging (sections VII.A.2 and VII.A.4); and (3) addition of data
handling procedures that detail how to make comparisons to the proposed
secondary standard for PM2.5 that addresses PM-related
visibility impairment (section VII.A.5), as well as to summarize
associated changes proposed in other sections of appendix N to
accommodate this proposed standard (sections VII.A.1, VII.A.2, and
VII.A.3). In addition to these three proposed appendix modifications
that are discussed in depth in sections III and VI above, the EPA also
proposes additional revisions to appendix N in order to: (1) Better
align appendix N language and requirements with proposed 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 EPA standard operating procedures;
and (4) provide enhanced clarity and consistency in the articulation
and application of appendix N provisions. Key elements of the proposed
revisions to appendix N are summarized in sections VII.A.1 through
VII.A.5 below, where each of these preamble sections corresponds to the
similarly numbered section in appendix N.
1. General
The EPA proposes to modify section 1.0 of appendix N to provide
additional clarity regarding the scope and interpretation of the NAAQS
for PM2.5. This section would reference the proposed
revisions to the primary annual PM2.5 standard and the
proposed revision to the form of the secondary annual PM2.5
standard (40 CFR 50.18) and the proposed addition of a distinct
secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard (40 CFR 50.19). As
summarized in section VI.F, the proposed secondary standard is defined
in terms of a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator,
which would use 24-hour average speciated PM2.5 mass
concentration data, along with associated relative humidity
information, to calculate light extinction, which would then be
translated to the deciview scale (referred to as a PM2.5
visibility index); a 24-hour averaging time; a 90th percentile form
averaged over 3 years; and a level of either 30 dv or 28 dv. The result
(i.e., the PM2.5 visibility index design value) would be
compared to the level of the standard. As noted earlier, the NAAQS
indicator and proposed data handling procedures are similar to those of
the Regional Haze Program. The EPA proposes to add to section 1.0 of
appendix N, a reference to section 2.9 of appendix C to 40 CFR part 58
which identifies the acceptable methods for the speciated
PM2.5 mass concentration data. With regard to the appendix N
term definitions which are delineated in this initial section, the EPA
proposes to
[[Page 39000]]
add, modify, or eliminate term definitions, as appropriate, in
accordance with the proposed data handling rule revisions such as the
addition of terms associated with the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard and the modification of
terms that referenced spatial averaging. Additional term definitions
are also being added to reference otherwise unchanged appendix N logic
in an effort to streamline the appendix text, enhance clarity and thus
improve readability and understanding.
2. Monitoring Considerations
The EPA proposes revisions to section 2.0 of appendix N consistent
with the proposed modification of the form of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard to remove the option for spatial averaging.
As described in more detail in section III.E.3.a above, the EPA is
proposing to remove this option as part of the form of the primary
annual PM2.5 standard. This proposed change is based on an
analysis that indicates 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, while, as discussed in section VI.E.5 above, the EPA is
proposing to retain the current secondary annual PM2.5
standard to provide protection for non-visibility welfare effects, the
EPA believes it would be reasonable and appropriate to align the data
handling procedures for the primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 standards. Therefore, the EPA proposes to remove the
option for spatial averaging for the secondary annual PM2.5
standard consistent with the proposed change in the form of the primary
annual PM2.5 standard. The EPA 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.
Consistent with the proposed change to revise the forms of the
primary and secondary annual PM2.5 standards, the levels of
the standards would be compared to measurements from each appropriate
(i.e., ``eligible'') monitoring site in an area operated in accordance
with the network technical requirements specified in 40 CFR 58.11, the
operating schedule described in 40 CFR 58.12, and the special
considerations for data comparisons to the NAAQS 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 this proposed change, the EPA proposes to remove all references to
the spatial averaging option throughout appendix N.
3. Requirements for Data Use and Reporting for Comparisons With the
NAAQS for PM2.5
The EPA proposes to make changes to section 3.0 of appendix N to
correspond with the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility
index standard, to improve consistency with procedures used for other
NAAQS, and to improve consistency with current standard operating
procedures. Specifically, the EPA proposes revisions to this section
regarding: (1) Requirements for reporting monitored aggregated
PM2.5 and speciated PM2.5 mass concentration
data; (2) clarification of monitoring data appropriate to compare to
the PM2.5 and PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS; (3)
clarification of procedures for using hourly concentrations to
calculate 24-hour concentrations; and (4) clarification of procedures
for combining monitoring data from collocated instruments into a single
``combined site'' record. Further, the EPA proposes to codify, in this
same section, modifications to the PM2.5 data handling
provisions to make them consistent with recent changes made for other
criteria pollutants. For example, data for which the certification
deadline has passed, and the monitoring agency has not requested
certification of the data, can nevertheless be used to determine
compliance with the PM2.5 NAAQS and the PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS when EPA judges the data to be complete and
accurate.
With regard to the criteria for reporting PM2.5
concentrations, section 3.0 of appendix N specifies that
PM2.5 mass concentrations used for NAAQS comparisons shall
be reported in units of [micro]g/m\3\ with the values truncated (not
rounded) to one digit to the right of the decimal point (i.e.,
truncated to one decimal place). Since, to date, appendix N has dealt
only with PM2.5 mass concentrations, intrinsically these
requirements have dealt only with that particular set of data.
With regard to the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility
index standard, the EPA already has a requirement in 40 CFR 58.16 to
report speciated PM2.5 mass concentration data. This
includes the nine required speciated PM2.5 mass
concentration inputs (i.e., sulfate, nitrate, OC (and related
PM2.5 OC which is reported OC with an adjustment for the
organic carbon artifact present on a filter), EC, Al, Si, Ca, Fe, and
Ti) used to calculate PM2.5 visibility index values as
described in section VII.A.5 below. Specifically, the EPA proposes to
require that all nine parameters be used in the appendix N procedures
in units of [micro]g/m\3\ with the values rounded to four decimal
places (or three significant digits if the value is 0.1 [micro]g/m\3\
or larger). These rounding conventions are consistent with the AQS
reporting protocols used in the CSN program, discussed in section
VIII.A.2 below, which is proposed to be a major source of ambient data
used in calculating PM2.5 visibility index design values to
compare to the level of proposed secondary NAAQS.
Monitoring sites eligible for comparison to the NAAQS for
PM2.5 include those following the network technical
requirements specified in 40 CFR 58.11 as well as following the
eligibility criteria specified in 40 CFR 58.30.\184\ However, as
discussed in section VIII.A.1 below, an analysis of the quality of data
from two different methods used by FEMs has indicated that some sites
with continuous PM2.5 FEMs have an acceptable degree of
comparability with collocated FRMs, while other FEMs have less
acceptable data comparability that would not meet the performance
criteria originally used to approve the FEMs (Hanley and Reff, 2011).
Therefore, as explained in more detail in section VIII.B.3.b.ii below,
the EPA is proposing to allow monitoring agencies to identify
PM2.5 FEMs that are not providing data of sufficient
comparability to the FRM and, with EPA approval, to exclude the use of
these data in making comparisons to the NAAQS for
PM2.5.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ As discussed in more detail in section VIII.B.2.b below,
the EPA is proposing to change the current presumption in 40 CFR
58.30 that micro- and middle-scale monitoring sites are ``unique''
and are comparable only to the 24-hour PM2.5 standards,
unless approved by the Regional Administrator to collectively
identify a larger region of localized high ambient PM2.5
concentrations. Today's proposal, if finalized, would change this
presumption, such that micro- and middle-scale monitoring sites
would not be presumed to be unique and, therefore, would be
comparable to the annual PM2.5 standards as well as the
24-hour PM2.5 standards, unless the Regional
Administrator determines that the micro- or middle-scale site is
unique.
\185\ 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 would also be allowed to
exclude these data in making comparisons to the PM2.5 and
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS. Currently, there are no
designated ARMs for PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39001]]
With regard to data handling procedures for using hourly mass
concentrations to calculate 24-hour average mass concentrations,
current procedures are specific for handling aggregated
PM2.5 mass concentrations and are not currently relevant for
handling the speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations that would
be used for calculating PM2.5 visibility index design values
for the proposed secondary standard. In considering data handling
procedures for hourly speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations,
the EPA notes that the vast majority of speciation data collected
across the country are from filter-based sampling methods which
typically operate on a 24-hour sampling period. There are several
monitoring sites reporting hourly speciation data, but even in these
cases the methods employed only provide for a small number of
speciation parameters (e.g., EC, OC, sulfate) to be reported. However,
in anticipation that such continuous methods might be more widely
implemented for the speciated PM2.5 mass components in the
future, the EPA proposes to add clarifying language to section 3.0(a)
to indicate that the data handling procedures for using hourly
concentration data to calculate 24-hour average concentration data
would be applicable to both aggregated PM2.5 mass
concentrations and speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations.
With respect to the procedures for combining monitored data from
collocated instruments into a single ``combined site'' data record, the
EPA proposes 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).
The EPA is not proposing to change the procedures for calculating a
combined site record \186\ but rather the subsequent evaluation of
whether the specific measurements are considered ``creditable'' or
``extra'' samples. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before the introduction of continuous PM2.5 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 continuous PM2.5 FEMs to FRMs operated in
some monitoring agency networks, and as briefly discussed above and in
more detail in section VIII.A.1 below, many monitoring agencies have
kept the FRM as the ``primary'' monitor while continuing to evaluate
the continuous FEM monitor. In cases where the FRM either does not have
a scheduled measurement or has a measurement that is invalidated and
the continuous FEM data are available for use, and the continuous FEM
data are not identified as not to be used (i.e., a special purpose
monitor (SPM) in its first 24 months of operation) the FEM data will be
substituted into the site record. In cases where the continuous FEM
measurements are reported on the FRM ``off'' days, these data are
technically considered ``extra'' samples.
In light of this practice, the EPA modified standing operating
procedures and now proposes a conforming revision to section 3.0(e)
whereby 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, consistent with current practices, if data
from a collocated FEM are missing on an FRM ``off'' day (and no
unscheduled FRM data are reported that day), the EPA proposes not to
identify these as ``scheduled'' samples. Thus, reported data generated
from the collocated continuous FEMs can only help increase data capture
rates. The EPA specifically solicits comment on whether ``non-primary''
(i.e., collocated) FEM data should be combined with the primary data as
part of the comparison to the NAAQS for PM2.5.
The EPA proposes to utilize the same general procedures for
combining speciated PM2.5 mass concentration data from
collocated monitors into a single ``combined site'' record as those
specified for the PM2.5 mass measurements.
4. Comparisons With the Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
Section 4.0 of appendix N specifies the procedures for comparing
monitored data to the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
The EPA proposes 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.F) and to retain
the current level of the secondary annual PM2.5 standard
(section VI.F), the EPA proposes to modify section 4.1(a) of appendix N
to separately list the levels of the primary and secondary annual
PM2.5 standards. Additionally, consistent with the proposed
decision 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
proposes to amend section 4.4 of appendix N to remove equations and
associated instructions that relate to spatial averaging.
With regard to assessments of data completeness, the EPA proposes
to include two additional data substitution tests \187\ (making a total
of three data substitution tests) 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
checks). Data substitution tests are diagnostic in nature; that is;
they are only used in an illustrative manner to
[[Page 39002]]
show that the NAAQS status based on incomplete data is reasonable. If
an ``incomplete'' design value using substituted data passes the
diagnostic test, this ``incomplete'' design value (without the data
substitutions) is then considered the true actual ``complete'' design
value. If an incomplete design value does not pass any stipulated data
substitution test, then the original design value is still considered
incomplete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ 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'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, section 4.1(c) specifies one data substitution test for
validating an otherwise incomplete design value. This diagnostic test
is only applicable to the primary and secondary annual PM2.5
standard and only applies in instances of a violation. The EPA proposes
to modify the data completeness requirements by adding two additional
data substitution tests for handling incomplete data sets in order to
make the data handling procedures for PM2.5 more consistent
with the procedures used for other NAAQS pollutants and to codify
existing practices currently included in guidance documents (U.S. EPA,
1999) and implemented as EPA standard operating procedures. The
proposed additional data substitution tests would be applicable for
making comparisons to the primary and secondary annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards. One of these tests uses collocated
PM10 data to fill in ``slightly incomplete'' \188\ data
records, and the other uses quarter-specific maximum values to fill in
``slightly incomplete'' data records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ ``Slightly incomplete'' is defined as less than 75 percent
but greater than or equal to 50 percent data capture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to identifying annual 98th percentile concentrations
for comparison to the primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5
standards, the EPA proposes to simplify the procedures used with an
approved seasonal sampling schedule. Specifically, the EPA proposes to
eliminate the use of a special formula for calculating annual 98th
percentile concentrations with a seasonal sampling schedule and
proposes to use only one method for calculating annual 98th percentile
concentrations at all sites.
Currently, with an approved seasonal sampling schedule, a site
typically samples as required 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. 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 (U.S. EPA, 1999), and, where
appropriate, with official OAQPS design value calculations (71 FR
61211, October 17, 2006). In cases where there is a balanced \189\ (or
near-balanced) data record, the special formula yields the same result
as the regular procedure for calculating annual 98th percentile
concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ 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 collocate 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. The end result of
combining collocated FRM and FEM data is effectively an ``every day''
site-based sampling frequency, resulting 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'' FEM data
and there would be no need for the special formula for calculating
annual 98th percentile concentrations on the combined site data.
The EPA notes that currently there are very few PM2.5
FRM monitors that actually operate on an approved seasonal sampling
schedule (only 15 sites out of approximately 1,000 total sites in 2010)
and that almost half of these sites have a collocated PM2.5
FEM monitor. For the most recent 3-year period (2008-2010), the annual
98th percentile concentrations calculated with the special formula at
these 15 sites were approximately five percent lower than if the
regular procedure was used. The EPA also notes that, in the last
review, the Agency modified the monitoring requirements for areas with
an FRM operating on a non-daily schedule such that, if the design
values were within five percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS,
such areas are 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). Thus, the EPA proposes to simplify the data handling
procedures for sites operating on a seasonal sampling schedule by
eliminating the special formula and all references to it based on: (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
requirements for every day sampling in areas with design values that
are within five percent of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS; and (3)
the EPA requirement that FRMs operating on an approved seasonal
sampling schedule 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). Thus, the EPA proposes to use
only one method for calculating annual 98th percentile concentrations
for all sites, that being the ``regular'' table look-up method
specified in section 4.5(a)(1) of appendix N. The EPA solicits comment
on the proposal to eliminate the special formula for sites operating on
a seasonal sampling schedule.
5. Data Handling Procedures for the Proposed Secondary PM2.5
Visibility Index NAAQS
As summarized in section VI.F above, the EPA is proposing to
establish a distinct secondary standard for PM2.5 to address
PM-related visibility impairment. The EPA is proposing to define this
standard in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index (section
VI.D.1.c), which would use 24-hour average speciated PM2.5
mass concentration and historic monthly average relative humidity data
to calculate PM2.5 light extinction, translated into the
deciview scale, similar to the Regional Haze Program.
The EPA proposes to add a new section 5.0 to appendix N to detail
the data handling procedures for calculating PM2.5
visibility index design values and comparing these design values to the
level of the proposed PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS. These
proposed procedures are drawn from and are generally consistent with
the original approach used in the Regional Haze Program [U.S. EPA,
2003] and discussed
[[Page 39003]]
in the Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, chapter 4, Appendix G).
As discussed in section VI.B.1.a above, visibility impairment is
caused by the scattering and absorption of light by suspended particles
and gases in the atmosphere. The combined effect of light scattering
and absorption by both particles and gases is characterized as light
extinction. The amount of light extinction contributed by PM depends on
the particle size distribution and composition, as well as the
concentrations of speciated components of ambient PM. To make
estimation of light extinction more practical, visibility scientists
have developed simple algorithms, referred to as the IMPROVE algorithms
to relate speciated PM2.5 concentrations to light
extinction. 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.
The EPA proposes to define the PM2.5 visibility index
using a PM2.5 light extinction indicator calculated on a 24-
hour basis using the original IMPROVE algorithm without the terms for
coarse mass and Rayleigh scatter. As discussed in section VI.D.1.c
above, using such an index appropriately reflects the relationship
between ambient PM and PM-related light extinction. When converting
PM2.5 light extinction values in Mm-\1\ to the
deciview scale, the Rayleigh scattering term must be included to avoid
the possibility of negative values.
Consistent with the analyses and terminology used in the Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, chapter 4, Appendix G), PM2.5
light extinction (PM2.5 bext) is defined as
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.017
The above formula is implemented using 24-hr speciated PM2.5
concentration data together with monthly climatological relative
humidity factors as outlined below. The six steps involved in the
calculation of the PM2.5 visibility index values are as
follows:
(1) As discussed in Section VI.B.1.a above, ``sulfate'' is
defined as ammonium sulfate and ``nitrate'' is defined as ammonium
nitrate. Multiply 24-hour average speciation measurements of sulfate
and nitrate ions by factors 1.375 and 1.29, respectively, to convert
the reported ion concentrations into sulfate and nitrate ammonium
concentrations (appendix N, equations 5a and 5b).
(2) Convert artifact adjusted measured OC, which is termed
``PM2.5 OC'', into an estimate of organic mass (OM). The
PM2.5 OC is derived by subtracting the sampler-dependent
OC measurement artifact from the measured OC.\190\ The
PM2.5 OC is then multiplied by 1.4 to account for the
additional mass of hydrogen, oxygen and other elements associated
with the carbon in measured OC (appendix N, equation 5c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\190\ In the IMPROVE program, artifact adjusted OC (i.e.,
PM2.5 OC) is simply reported as OC. That is the value
used to produce OM for haze calculations. For the CSN measurements,
the OC artifact needed to convert measured OC into PM2.5
OC is estimated from sampler-specific network-wide field blanks
(Frank, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Calculate fine soil/crustal PM2.5 (FS) component
based on measurements of five soil derived elements (i.e., Al, Si,
Ca, Fe, and Ti) together with multipliers to account for their
normal oxides \191\ (appendix N, equation 5d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Fine Soil = 2.2[Al] + 2.49[Si] + 1.63[Ca] + 2.42[Fe] +
1.94[Ti]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Determine a representative long-term monthly average of
hourly relative humidity hygroscopic growth factors, referred to as
f(RH) values, at the speciation monitoring site, for each month of
the year. There will be 12 such values for any monitoring site. The
EPA proposes that the f(RH) values be selected using historical
data. A spatial interpolation of historical relative humidity data
is available which presents a gridded field of f(RH) values across
the U.S. at a resolution of 0.25 degrees (SAIC, 2001). As discussed
in section VI.D.2.a.ii above, these monthly average values were
developed to support the Regional Haze Program and are based on
considering any hour with relative humidity greater than 95 percent
as 95 percent. Because 10 years of hourly data were used to produce
a single humidity term for each month, the EPA believes that the
resulting monthly average of the humidity term is sufficient and
appropriate to reduce the effects of fog or precipitation. The EPA
proposes that the 10-year climatological data base be used to
specify the f(RH) value associated with the grid-point closest in
distance to the speciation monitoring site.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ To facilitate the use of relative humidity data, the EPA
would make this ten-year climatological data base publically
available on its Web site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) Apply the original IMPROVE algorithm without the terms for
coarse mass and Rayleigh scatter (appendix N, equation 6) to
calculate a daily average PM2.5 light extinction
(PM2.5 bext, in units of Mm-\1\).
(6) To translate PM2.5 light extinction to the
deciview scale for making comparisons to the level of the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard, the following
equation, which includes the term for Rayleigh scattering term, is
used:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.018
The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the calculation of the
PM2.5 visibility index, PM2.5 bext.
As discussed in section VI.D.3 above, the EPA is proposing a 90th
percentile form, averaged over 3 years, for the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard. Thus, 3 years of valid 24-
hr speciated PM2.5 mass concentration data would be required
to calculate PM2.5 visibility index design values. The
proposed new section 5.0 for appendix N addresses data completeness
requirements for speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations
(section 5.0(b)), specifically that PM2.5 visibility index
values be present for at least 11 creditable days of each quarter, for
each of the three consecutive years. The 11 sample minimum is
consistent with criteria specified for the current and proposed primary
and secondary annual PM2.5 standards (i.e., 40 CFR part 50,
appendix N 4.1(b)) and, furthermore, has been used extensively for
various PM characterization exercises (e.g., U.S. EPA, 2009a; U.S. EPA,
2011a). In addition, the proposed new section 5.0 outlines procedures
for identifying annual 90th percentile PM2.5 visibility
index values (section 5.0(d)(3)) similar to procedures used to identify
annual 98th percentile values for the primary
[[Page 39004]]
and secondary 24-hour PM2.5 standards. In situations where a
year does not contain the minimum 11 creditable samples in each
quarter, the EPA proposes (in section 5.0) to still consider the
identified 90th percentile index value to be valid if it, or a 3-year
average of 90th percentile index values (i.e., a visibility impairment
design value) including it, exceeds the level of the NAAQS. The EPA is
not proposing any data substitution tests for PM2.5
visibility index design values like those codified and proposed for the
aggregated PM2.5 mass standard design values; however, the
EPA solicits comment on the inclusion of such data substitution tests.
With regard to rounding conventions, the EPA proposes that all
decimal digits be retained in the intermediate steps of the calculation
of the PM2.5 light extinction indicator and that the
PM2.5 visibility index values be rounded to the nearest
tenth deciview. Furthermore, the EPA proposes to round the 3-year
average 90th percentile PM2.5 visibility index design values
to the nearest 1 dv for comparison to the level of the proposed
secondary standard.
Consistent with current procedures for PM and the other criteria
pollutants, the EPA plans to calculate design values for the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS using the procedures
described above. The EPA plans to post these design values on its Web
site.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ Design values calculated by the EPA are computed and
published annually by EPA's OAQPS and reviewed in conjunction with
the EPA Regional Offices. These values are available at: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Exceptional Events
States \194\ are responsible for identifying air quality data that
they believe warrant special consideration, including data affected by
exceptional events. States identify such data by flagging (making a
notation in a designated field in the electronic data record) specific
values in the AQS database. States must flag the data and submit
supporting documentation showing that the data have been affected by
exceptional events if they wish the EPA to consider excluding the data
in regulatory decisions, including determining whether or not an area
is attaining the proposed revised PM NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ References to ``state'' are meant to include state, local
and tribal agencies responsible for implementing the Exceptional
Events Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All states and areas of Indian country that include areas that
could exceed the proposed PM NAAQS and could therefore be designated as
nonattainment for the proposed PM NAAQS have the potential to be
affected by this rulemaking. Therefore, this action would apply to all
states; to local air quality agencies to which a state has delegated
relevant responsibilities for air quality management including air
quality monitoring and data analysis; and to tribal air quality
agencies where appropriate.
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 a
state to submit to EPA specified information about exceptional events
and associated air pollutant concentration data. A state must initially
notify the EPA that data have been affected by an event by July 1 of
the calendar year following the year in which the event occurred. This
is done by flagging the data in AQS and providing an initial event
description. The state must also, after notice and opportunity for
public comment, submit a demonstration to justify any claim within
three years after the quarter in which the data were collected.
However, if a regulatory decision based on the data (for example, a
designation action) is anticipated, the schedule to flag data in AQS
and submit complete documentation to EPA for review may be shortened
and all information must be submitted to the EPA no later than one year
before the decision is to be made.
These generic deadlines in the Exceptional Events Rule are suitable
after initial designations have been made under a NAAQS or when an area
is to be redesignated, either from attainment to nonattainment or from
nonattainment to attainment, and the redesignation status may depend on
the excluded data. However, these same generic deadlines may need to be
adjusted to accommodate the initial area designation process and
schedule under a newly revised NAAQS. Until the level and form of the
NAAQS have been promulgated, a state does not know whether the criteria
for excluding data (which are tied to the level and form of the NAAQS)
were met for a given event. In some cases, the generic deadlines,
especially the deadlines for flagging some relevant data, may have
already passed by the time the new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. In
addition, it may not be feasible for information on some exceptional
events that may affect final designations decisions to be collected and
submitted to EPA at least one year in advance of the final designation
decision. This scheduling constraint could have the unintended
consequence of the EPA designating an area nonattainment because of
uncontrollable natural or other qualified exceptional events.
The Exceptional Events Rule at section 50.14(c)(2)(vi) indicates
``when EPA sets a NAAQS for a new pollutant or revises the NAAQS for an
existing pollutant, it may revise or set a new schedule for flagging
exceptional event data, providing initial data descriptions and
providing detailed data documentation in AQS for the initial
designations of areas for those NAAQS.''
The EPA intends to promulgate the revised PM NAAQS in December
2012. State Governors (and tribes, if they choose) should submit
designations recommendations by December 2013, based on air quality
data from the years 2010 to 2012 or 2011 to 2013, if there are
sufficient data for these years. Initial designations under the revised
NAAQS would be made by December 2014 based on air quality data from the
years 2011 to 2013. (See section IX.A for a more detailed discussion of
the designation schedule.) Assuming this schedule, all events to be
considered during the designations process would need to be flagged and
fully documented by states one year prior to designations, or by
December 2013, under the existing generic deadline in the Exceptional
Events Rule. Without revision to 40 CFR 50.14, a state would not be
able to flag and submit documentation regarding events that occurred in
December 2013 by one year before designations are made in December
2014. The EPA believes this is not an appropriate restriction, and
therefore is proposing revisions to 40 CFR 50.14.
The EPA proposes revisions to 40 CFR 50.14 only to change
submission dates for information supporting claimed exceptional events
affecting PM data for initial area designations under the proposed new
and revised PM NAAQS. The proposed rule language at the end of this
notice shows the changes that would apply assuming promulgation of the
new and revised PM NAAQS in December 2012 and initial area designations
by December 2014. For air quality data collected in 2010 or 2011, the
EPA proposes 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 proposes to retain 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 proposes to revise to December 12, 2013 the deadline
for submitting
[[Page 39005]]
documentation to justify PM-related exceptional events occurring in
2010 through 2012. The EPA believes these revisions/extensions will
provide adequate time for states to review the impact of exceptional
events from 2010 through 2012 on any revised standards, 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.
If a state intends the EPA to consider in the PM designations
decisions whether PM data collected during 2013 have been affected by
exceptional events, the EPA proposes that these data must be flagged by
the generic Exceptional Event Rule deadline of July 1, 2014. The EPA
proposes to revise to August 1, 2014 the deadline for submitting
documentation to justify PM-related exceptional events occurring in
2013. The EPA believes that these deadlines provide states with
adequate time to review and identify potential exceptional events that
occur in calendar year 2013.
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
proposes to modify the schedule for data flagging and submission of
demonstrations for exceptional events data considered for initial area
designations under the proposed PM primary and secondary NAAQS as
presented in Table 3. If the promulgation date for a revised PM NAAQS
occurs on a different date than in December 2012, the EPA will revise
the final PM exceptional event flagging and documentation submission
deadlines accordingly, consistent with the logic of this proposal, to
provide states with reasonably adequate opportunity to review,
identify, and document exceptional events that may affect an area
designation under a revised NAAQS. The EPA invites comment on these
proposed changes, shown in Table 3, to the exceptional event data
flagging and documentation submission deadlines for the proposed
revised PM NAAQS.
Table 3--Revised Schedule for Exceptional Event Flagging and Documentation Submission for Data To Be Used in
Initial Area Designations for the 2012 PM NAAQS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air quality data
NAAQS pollutant/standard/ collected for calendar Event flagging & initial Detailed documentation
(level)/ promulgation date year description deadline submission deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5/24-Hour Standard 2010 to 2011.............. July 1, 2013.............. December 12, 2013.
(final level and 2012...................... \a\ July 1, 2013.......... December 12, 2013.
promulgation date TBD). 2013...................... \a\ July 1, 2014.......... August 1, 2014.
PM2.5/Annual Standard (final 2010 to 2011.............. July 1, 2013.............. December 12, 2013.
level and promulgation date 2012...................... \a\ July 1, 2013.......... December 12, 2013.
TBD). 2013...................... \a\ July 1, 2014.......... August 1, 2014.
Secondary PM (final level 2010 to 2011.............. July 1, 2013.............. December 12, 2013.
and promulgation date TBD). 2012...................... \a\ July 1, 2013.......... December 12, 2013.
2013...................... \a\ July 1, 2014.......... 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 final initial area designations for revised NAAQS. The
general schedule applies for all other purposes, most notably, for data used by the EPA for redesignations to
attainment. TBD = to be determined.
C. Proposed Updates for Data Handling Procedures for Reporting the Air
Quality Index
The EPA is proposing to update appendix G of 40 CFR part 58 to
clarify units, breakpoint precision, and truncation methods for AQI
sub-indices. These changes are intended to harmonize the AQI reporting
requirements with data handling provisions expressed elsewhere in 40
CFR part 50. Currently, the breakpoints for NO2 and
SO2 in Table 2 of appendix G of 40 CFR part 58 are expressed
in parts per million (ppm). The EPA proposes to change the sub-indices
for NO2 and SO2 to be based on parts per billion
(ppb) rather than ppm to be consistent with the units used for defining
the current levels of the primary NO2 and SO2
NAAQS (75 FR 6474, February 9, 2010; 75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010). In
addition, in modifying the sub-index for NO2 to express the
breakpoints in units of ppb, the EPA proposes to clarify the
breakpoints for NO2 in the Very Unhealthy and Hazardous
ranges to include four rather than three significant digits to increase
precision. Finally, the EPA proposes to modify appendix G to explicitly
identify truncation methods for using ambient measured concentrations
in AQI calculations.
VIII. Proposed Amendments to Ambient Monitoring and Reporting
Requirements
The EPA proposes 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 proposing to
support the proposed PM NAAQS summarized in sections III.F, IV.F, and
VI.F above.
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
In 2006, the EPA finalized new testing and performance criteria for
Class II and Class III FEMs (71 FR 61281 to 61289, October 17, 2006).
Class II methods are equivalent methods for PM2.5 or
PM10-2.5
[[Page 39006]]
that utilize a PM2.5 sampler or PM10-2.5 sampler
in which integrated PM2.5 samples or PM10-2.5
samples are obtained from the atmosphere by filtration and are then
subjected to a filter conditioning process followed by gravimetric mass
determination. Class II equivalent methods are different from Class I
equivalent methods because of substantial deviations from the design
specifications of the sampler specified for reference methods in
appendix L or appendix O (as applicable) of 40 CFR part 50. 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. These new testing and performance
criteria were developed by the EPA and reviewed through consultation
with the CASAC AAMMS \195\ and then through proposal (71 FR 2710 to
2808, January 17, 2006) and final rulemaking in 2006 (71 FR 61236 to
61328, October 17, 2006). The performance criteria were designed to
ensure enough stringency in testing that subsequently deployed monitors
would provide data of expected quality (i.e., they would meet the data
quality objectives), but not so stringent that instrument manufacturers
would be discouraged from testing their instrument and seeking approval
as a Class II or III equivalent method. At the time of this proposal,
the EPA has approved two PM10-2.5 Class II manual methods,
one Class III PM10-2.5 continuous method, and six Class III
PM2.5 continuous methods.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ The EPA consulted with the CASAC AAMMS on several PM
monitoring topics in a public meeting on September 21 and 22, 2005.
Materials from this meeting can be found on EPA's Web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/casacinf.html.
\196\ A list of designated Reference and Equivalent methods is
available on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA has approved these PM2.5 Class III
continuous FEMs, only two of those methods are deployed on a wide-
enough basis across the country to support initial analyses of data
quality and comparability to collocated FRM samplers. The Policy
Assessment discusses an analysis of the quality of data from these two
FEMs (U.S. EPA, 2011a, p. 4-50). This initial analysis found that some
sites with continuous PM2.5 FEMs have an acceptable degree
of comparability with collocated FRMs, while others had less acceptable
data comparability that would not meet the performance criteria used to
approve the FEMs.
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-
approved continuous PM2.5 monitors and approved Class III
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. 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, reduce the use of manual, filter-based
samplers to improve operational efficiency and 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.
The EPA believes that progress is being made to implement well
performing PM2.5 continuous FEMs across the nation. As noted
earlier, 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 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 some agencies are achieving
acceptable data comparability and others are not, the EPA wants to
ensure that all monitoring agencies have the appropriate information to
maximize data quality from their PM2.5 continuous FEMs
before considering any changes to regulatory testing requirements
intended to demonstrate equivalency of candidate Class III FEMs. Since
we are still early in the process of learning the data comparability
between approved PM2.5 continuous methods and collocated
FRMs (assessments across the country are only available for two of the
six methods), and some of the agencies operating those methods are
achieving acceptable data comparability, the EPA does not believe it is
appropriate at this time to propose any modifications to either the
performance or testing criteria in 40 CFR part 53 used to approve
PM2.5 continuous FEMs.
While EPA is not proposing any changes to the performance or
testing criteria in 40 CFR part 53 used to approve PM2.5
continuous FEMs, the EPA proposes an administrative change to part
53.9--``Conditions of designations.'' 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 methods work within performance criteria,
which includes methods for PM2.5 and PM10-2.5;
however, there is no specific reference to performance criteria for
Class II and III PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 methods.
Therefore, the EPA proposes 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.
2. Use of CSN Methods To Support the Proposed New Secondary
PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
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 initial CSN began with a pilot of 13 sites in
2000 and grew rapidly over the next two years. Since 2006, the size of
the CSN has remained relatively stable at approximately 200 stations.
The methods employed in the CSN are well documented and uniformly
implemented across the country. However, between May 2007 and
[[Page 39007]]
October 2009, the CSN transitioned to a new method of sampling and
analyses for carbon that is consistent with the IMPROVE network
methodology.\197\ The CSN measurements have a strong history of being
reviewed by CASAC technical committees, both during their initial
deployment about ten years ago, and during the more recent transition
to carbon sampling that is consistent with the IMPROVE protocols
(Henderson, 2005c). The CSN network is described in the Policy
Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix B, section B.1.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\197\ In the IMPROVE program, artifact adjusted OC (i.e.,
PM2.5 OC) is simply reported as OC. That is the value
used to produce OM for haze calculations. For the CSN measurements,
the OC artifact needed to convert measured OC into PM2.5
OC is estimated from sampler-specific network-wide field blanks
(Frank, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in section VI.D.1.c above, the proposed new secondary
standard for PM2.5 to address PM-related visibility
impairment is defined in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index,
which would use PM2.5 speciation measurement data. The EPA
proposes that measurements using either the CSN or IMPROVE methods
\198\ be eligible for use to calculate PM2.5 visibility
index values. The EPA believes this proposed approach is appropriate
because the methods for CSN and IMPROVE are well documented \199\ in
nationally implemented Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) and
accompanying Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) are validated through
independent performance testing, and because numerous state, local, and
tribal agencies are already experienced in the use of these methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ Appendix C to 40 CFR part 58--Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring Methodology is where EPA specifies the criteria pollutant
monitoring methods which must be used at SLAMS and NCore, which are
a subset of SLAMS.
\199\ CSN documents are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/speciepg.html; IMPROVE documents are available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Data/QA_QC/qa_qc_Branch.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With reference to CSN methods, the EPA is specifically not
proposing to include testing or performance criteria for approval of
CSN measurements as FRMs. The EPA believes that the proposed framework
of using the current, well-documented set of CSN and IMPROVE methods
provides a nationally consistent way to provide the chemical species
data used in calculating PM2.5 visibility index values,
while preserving the flexibility for timely improvements to methods for
measuring chemical species. Monitoring programs wishing to establish
methods for chemical speciation in support of the proposed
PM2.5 visibility index would do so by following the methods
and SOP's publically available on both the IMPROVE or the EPA (for CSN)
Web sites.\200\ The EPA solicits comment on this approach to include
the CSN and IMPROVE measurements by reference and not require that such
methods be approved as FRMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ SOP's for the CSN program are available in Docket number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492 and on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/specsop.html. SOP's for the IMPROVE program are available
in Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492 and on the IMPROVE Web site
at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/IMPROVE_SOPs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section VII.A.5 above, the calculation of the
PM2.5 visibility index values would use historic monthly
average relative humidity data based on a ten-year climatological data
base. This data base would be based on measurements of relative
humidity reported through NOAA at routine weather stations and not
relative humidity measurements specific to the SLAMS stations.
B. Proposed Changes to 40 CFR Part 58 (Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance)
1. Proposed Terminology Changes
The EPA proposes 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.
The EPA proposes to revoke the term ``community-oriented'' and
replace it 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 proposes to
replace this functional 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. The EPA
proposes 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 proposes to revoke the term ``Community Monitoring Zone''
(CMZ) and 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
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 proposes to revoke this
term and references to it since, as discussed in section VII.A.2 above,
the EPA is proposing to eliminate all references to the spatial
averaging option throughout appendix N.
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 a monitor that provides data for
comparison to the NAAQS, only in the PM2.5 monitoring
requirements are additional restrictions prescribed within the
monitoring rules.\201\ 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 additionally be sited to represent area-wide locations.
There is a related provision that provides for comparing sites at
smaller scales to the annual NAAQS when the (micro- or middle-scale)
site collectively identifies a larger region of localized high ambient
PM2.5 concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ These are referenced in 40 CFR 58.30 (Special
considerations for data comparisons to the NAAQS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The inclusion of these provisions in the PM2.5
monitoring requirements since the 1997 promulgation of the
PM2.5
[[Page 39008]]
NAAQS and associated monitoring requirements has resulted in
substantial ambiguity when the EPA and state, local, and tribal
agencies consider the design of PM2.5 monitoring networks as
NAAQS are revised as well as how unmonitored locations should be
treated in modeling exercises.\202\ Accordingly, the EPA proposes to
revise these particular PM2.5 requirements for consistency
with long-standing practices in all other NAAQS pollutant monitoring
networks, and to ensure interpretation of the monitoring rules does not
cause ambiguity in considering treatment of unmonitored areas. Each of
these topics and our proposal to revoke or modify the requirements is
described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Modeling can be associated with either PSD or
transportation conformity as discussed in sections IX.F and IX.G,
respectively, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Revoking Use of Population-Oriented as a Condition for Comparability
of PM2.5 Monitoring Sites to the NAAQS
The EPA proposes to revoke the requirement that PM2.5
monitoring sites be ``population-oriented'' for comparison to the
NAAQS. This requirement is inconsistent with our definition of ambient
air which the NAAQS employ. 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 EPA's intention in proposing to revoke the
requirement that PM2.5 monitoring sites be ``population-
oriented'' for comparison to the NAAQS is to ensure that the monitoring
rules do not create an ambiguity in the use of data by having a
different definition from the definition of ambient air in 40 CFR 50.1
itself. Also, EPA's proposal to revoke this term in no way changes the
requirements in the PM2.5 network design criteria, which
will continue to focus on sites representing ``area-wide'' locations;
thus continuing to represent locations with population exposure. While
the use of the term ``population-oriented'' has little effect on how
data from existing sites are treated (as explained below there are no
remaining sites designated as not being ``population-oriented''), the
inclusion of this requirement in the monitoring rules creates
substantial ambiguity in how to treat potential locations of exposure
such as in applying modeling across an area. By reverting to the long-
standing definition of ambient air, the EPA will be able to more
clearly define how to treat potential exposure receptors, regardless of
whether monitoring exists or not.
In reviewing the impact that this proposed change might have on the
nation's PM2.5 monitoring network, the EPA notes that there
are no remaining sites operating affirmatively as ``non population-
oriented.'' 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. While a
monitoring agency could still set up a new site in any area, including
one in an area that does not meet the definition of population-
oriented, which the EPA is proposing to revoke, there are other
monitoring options that may provide more useful information and still
result in data that are not comparable to the NAAQS; for instance,
using a chemical speciation network sampler that provides chemical
species information or continuous PM2.5 monitor that
provides high time-resolution data, but is not approved as an FEM. Even
if a monitoring agency wanted to use an FRM, an agency could still
operate a monitor for up to 24 months as an SPM without any risk of
data being used for comparison to the NAAQS.
b. Applicability of Micro- and Middle-scale Monitoring Sites to the
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
The EPA is clarifying language used to determine when
PM2.5 monitoring sites at micro- and middle-scale locations
are comparable to the annual NAAQS. EPA's intent in clarifying this
language is to provide consistency and predictability in the
interpretation of the monitoring regulations to minimize the burden on
state monitoring programs as they plan and implement their monitoring
programs. The EPA's current rules, as specified in 40 CFR 58.30, 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.'' The EPA is clarifying 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. Mobile sources are rather
ubiquitous and, as such, there are many locations throughout an urban
area where elevated exposures could occur. Therefore, any potential
location for a PM2.5 monitoring site, even micro- and
middle-scale sites near roadways would be eligible for comparison to
the annual NAAQS. The EPA's existing definition of middle-scale for
PM2.5, as specified in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58, already
states, ``(2) Middle scale--People moving through downtown areas, or
living near major roadways, encounter particle concentrations that
would be adequately characterized by this spatial scale. Thus,
measurements of this type would be appropriate for the evaluation of
possible short-term exposure public health effects of particulate
matter pollution. In many situations, monitoring sites that are
representative of micro- or middle-scale impacts are not unique and are
representative of many similar situations. This can occur along traffic
corridors or other locations in a residential district. In this case,
one location is representative of a number of small scale sites and is
appropriate for evaluation of long-term or chronic effects. This scale
also includes the characteristic concentrations for other areas with
dimensions of a few hundred meters such as the parking lot and feeder
streets associated with shopping centers, stadia, and office
buildings.'' With the reference to ``traffic corridors'' and related
text, the EPA emphasizes that this type of location, which is referred
to as near-road, should not be considered ``unique.''
EPA and monitoring agencies already have a process for approving
PM2.5 monitoring sites as described in the Annual Monitoring
Network Plan due to the applicable EPA Regional Office by July 1 of
each year (described in 40 CFR 58.10). This existing process provides
for identification of sites that are suitable and sites that are not
suitable for comparison against the annual PM2.5 NAAQS
(Sec. 58.10(b)(7)). This clarifying language will provide consistency
between the PM2.5 design criteria described in appendix D to
40 CFR part 58 and the example provided in the special considerations
for data comparisons to the NAAQS network design (Sec. 58.30). This
clarifying
[[Page 39009]]
language will help to ensure a more consistent identification and
approval of sites, and therefore a reduction in burden to monitoring
agencies and EPA as annual monitoring network plans are prepared,
reviewed, public comments are considered, plans are approved and
implemented, and data are ultimately used.
3. Proposed 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) \203\ 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. (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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. To summarize some of these sites, here 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; (b) sites located to measure typical concentrations in areas
of high population density; (c) sites located to determine the impact
of significant sources or source categories on air quality; (d) sites
located to determine general background concentration levels; and (e)
sites located to determine the extent of regional pollutant transport
among populated areas; and in support of secondary standards.
b. Primary PM2.5 NAAQS
In this section, the EPA proposes 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.
i. Proposed Addition of a Near-road Component to the PM2.5
Monitoring Network
The EPA believes 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, with the largest numbers of impacted populations in the
largest CBSAs in the country (Ntziachristos et al., 2007; Ross et al.,
2007; Yanosky et al., 2008; Zwack et al., 2011). To better understand
the potential health impacts of these exposures, the EPA proposes to
add a near-road component to the compliance network design for
PM2.5 monitoring. The EPA believes 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 recognizes that there are limitations in the
ability of some of these PM 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 recognizes 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 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 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). EPA believes that
by allowing State monitoring agencies to choose the FRM, FEM, or ARM
method(s) that best fits their needs, whether filter-based or
continuous, that the data will still be able to meet the objectives
cited above while ensuring maximum flexibility for the States in the
operation of their network.
Additionally, the EPA recognizes that the near-road sites would
provide a valuable platform for evaluating emerging monitoring
technologies and for measuring other pollutants besides
PM2.5 mass to enhance knowledge of exposure in the near road
environment and to support the characterization and comparison of
specific method readings in an emission-rich environment. Further, in
its response to the EPA on a ``Review of the ``Near-road Guidance
Document--Outline'' and ``Near-road Monitoring Pilot Study Objectives
and Approach'' (U.S. EPA, 2010i), the CASAC AAMMS cited several other
measurements that may be useful or potentially linked to health and
welfare effects such as BC, ultrafine particles,
[[Page 39010]]
and particle size distribution (Russell and Samet, 2010b, pp. xi and
xii). The EPA agrees with these recommendations and encourages
monitoring agencies to include these measurements, and others cited in
the Subcommittee letter, where possible, in addition to the
PM2.5 mass measurement. The EPA also encourages monitoring
agencies to explore partnerships with instrument manufacturers and
researchers to use the sites to evaluate the performance of emerging
PM2.5 methods in the near-road environment, especially
potential or current FEMs able to provide temporally resolved data and
capture the semi-volatile components of PM2.5. Such emerging
PM2.5 methods could be operated as SPMs to provide
comparisons to the EPA approved methods supporting compliance to
advance the understanding of instrument performance in the near-road
environment. Monitoring agencies are also encouraged to partner with
instrument manufacturers and researchers to operate monitors able to
measure other PM properties relevant for the near-road environment
(e.g., ultrafine particles, BC) to provide additional information about
exposure to PM in this environment. The EPA is interested in supporting
monitoring agencies willing to operate and report the data from these
supplemental monitors. EPA notes that the implementation of additional
measurements, while encouraged, is completely voluntary to ensure
maximum flexibility for state monitoring programs. The EPA solicits
comment on the best way to support such research efforts.
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. These
long-term monitors will supplement shorter-term networks operated by
researchers to support the tracking of long-term trends of near-road
PM2.5 mass concentrations and other pollutants in near-road
environments. Therefore, the EPA proposes 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, this
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 have redundant monitors that could be
relocated to the near-road environment, reducing costs for equipment
and ongoing operation.\204\ While only a single PM2.5
monitor is required within each of the CBSAs, agencies may elect to add
additional PM2.5 monitoring sites in near-road environments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ EPA Regional Administrator approval would be required
prior to the discontinuation of SLAMS monitors, based on the
criteria described in paragraph 58.14(c) to 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the EPA recognizes that the location of maximum concentration
of PM2.5 from roadway sources might differ from the maximum
location of NO2 or other pollutants, the EPA proposes 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 (e.g., average annual daily traffic and fleet mix by
road segment) and significant thought and review has gone into its
design, including pilot studies at two 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. Therefore, while
there may be limitations to collocating the proposed 52 near-road
PM2.5 monitors with the NO2 stations that will
also host CO monitors, on balance, EPA believes this is the most
efficient and beneficial approach for deployment of this component of
the network. ThU.S. EPA is seeking to maximize the utility of the
network while also reducing the burden on monitoring agencies that have
already put significant effort into designing their near-road stations
for NO2 and CO.
The EPA notes that the 52 proposed near-road monitors represent a
small number of the total approximate 900 operating PM2.5
monitoring stations across the country. The EPA could consider
proposing 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 corresponding less travelled
roads, is expected to be very small. The EPA could also consider
proposing 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 measurements to serve the
monitoring objectives noted above. Since EPA has already finalized
requirement of CO monitoring at near-road stations in CBSAs 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). Also, EPA wants to ensure there is minimal
disruption to the existing network and moving more than the proposed 52
PM2.5 monitors may lead to losing some valuable existing
PM2.5 stations. Therefore, EPA believes the 52 proposed near
road monitoring stations represent the least burdensome, but most
useful number of near-road monitoring stations to meet the monitoring
objectives cited above for deployment across the country.
Ideally, near-road sites would be located at the elevation and
distance from the road where maximum concentration of PM2.5
occurs in this environment, and within reasonable proximity to an area-
wide PM2.5 compliance monitoring site at which a similar PM
monitor is used (i.e., for comparison purposes). Although the EPA is
not proposing that the near-road PM2.5 monitors be located
within a specific distance of area-wide sites, 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.
The timeline to implement the proposed near-road PM2.5
monitors should be as minimally disruptive to on-going operations of
monitoring agency programs as possible, while still meeting the need to
collect for near-road PM2.5 data in a timely fashion. Since
the near-road PM2.5 monitors are proposed to be collocated
with the emerging near-road NO2 network that is scheduled to
be operational by January 1, 2013, the EPA believes it is appropriate
to wait
[[Page 39011]]
until after the near-road NO2 network is established before
implementing the near-road PM2.5 monitors. Therefore, the
EPA proposes that each PM2.5 monitor planned for collocation
with a near-road NO2 monitoring site be implemented no later
than January 1, 2015. The EPA believes this proposed deadline provides
an appropriate amount of time for monitoring agencies to select
existing PM2.5 monitors suitable for relocation, receive EPA
approval, and physically relocate the PM2.5 monitor to the
near-road NO2 site. Based on this proposed timeline,
complete data sets (i.e., 3-years representing 2015-2017), from
PM2.5 monitors in the near-road environment would be
available to calculate site-level design values in 2018.
In summary, the EPA proposes to specifically include a near-road
component in the PM2.5 network design criteria for CBSA's of
1 million persons or greater, with at least one PM2.5
monitor collocated with a near-road NO2 and CO monitors by
January 1, 2015. EPA believes that the 52 proposed PM2.5
monitors to be collocated with NO2 and CO monitors in the
near-road environment represent the minimal number of sites needed to
characterize PM2.5 in representative near road environments
of large population CBSA's. EPA believes that a number of
PM2.5 monitors can be moved from single pollutant locations
to multi-pollutant locations in the near-road environment, thus
encouraging efficiencies in operation by monitoring agencies and
reducing the burden of continuing to support some of the existing
single pollutant PM2.5 stations. The EPA solicits comment on
this approach, especially the proposed network design requirements; any
alternative strategies that would provide comparable long-term
characterization of PM2.5 in area-wide locations of maximum
concentration in the absence of a specific near-road compliance
requirement for monitoring of PM2.5; priorities for the
collection of supplemental data at a small subset of near-road
monitoring sites to enhance knowledge of particle exposure (e.g., non-
compliance SPMs); and the interest of monitoring agencies (or other
parties) in the collection of supplemental (e.g., non-compliance)
measurements relevant for the near-road environment.
ii. Use of PM2.5 Continuous FEMs at SLAMS
The EPA proposes that each agency specify their 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. The
proposal also provides 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.
The EPA has already approved six PM2.5 continuous FEMs 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 section VI.D.1.a.iii above, 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.
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 utilized, particularly for the
objective of determining NAAQS compliance. Accordingly, we propose 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; 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).
The EPA believes 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 believe it is 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 comparability. Accordingly, in the first year after this rule
becomes effective, we propose 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.\205\ Annual
monitoring network plans in subsequent years would only need to cover
new data for the period of time that the plan covers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ 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, as evidenced by a prior
collocation with an FRM) to ensure a data record is available for
comparison to the NAAQS. In cases where a PM2.5 continuous
FEM was not
[[Page 39012]]
meeting the expected performance criteria, and the Regional
Administrator has approved that the FEM data will 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 stored separately
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 method 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 method across all seasons, assess the data quality, and in
some cases resolve operational issues with the instrument, it may still
leave some agencies with methods 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 is near the level of
the NAAQS. With the proposed provision where a monitoring agency can
recommend not having data from PM2.5 continuous FEMs as
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.
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 versus how instrument
manufacturers conduct required FRM and FEM testing protocols. The
details below summarize these issues. The EPA proposes 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 as comparable to the
NAAQS. To accommodate how routine monitoring networks operate, the EPA
proposes that agencies seeking to demonstrate insufficient data
comparability in an assessment base the analysis 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 [mu]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 were helpful for understanding whether an
intercept or slope was driving a potential bias in an instrument.
Therefore, the EPA proposes that agencies may include low concentration
data (i.e., below 3 [mu]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 propose 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 proposes 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 as 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 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
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.
The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of this proposed approach
of allowing monitoring agencies to recommend that PM2.5
continuous FEM data should not be compared to the NAAQS, when
demonstrated to not meet the performance criteria used to approve FEMs
based on data in their own network, and as appropriate, approved by the
EPA Regional Administrators as ineligible for comparison to the NAAQS.
c. Revoking PM10-2.5 Speciation Requirements at NCore
Sites
The EPA issued revisions to the Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations
(40 CFR parts 53 and 58) on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61236). In the 2006
final rule, the EPA required that PM10-2.5 speciation be
conducted at NCore multi-pollutant monitoring stations by January 1,
2011. PM10-2.5 speciation at NCore was intended to support
further research in the understanding of the chemical composition and
sources of PM10, PM10-2.5 and PM2.5 at
a variety of urban and non-urban NCore locations.
[[Page 39013]]
Subsequent to the completion of the 2006 final monitoring rule, several
technical issues were raised concerning the readiness of
PM10-2.5 speciation monitoring methodologies to support such
a nation-wide deployment strategy. Based on these issues and as
explained in detail below, the EPA proposes 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. Monitoring was 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). At
that time, 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 2006 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 plan and implement a
small pilot monitoring project to evaluate the available monitoring and
analytical technologies and supplement the PM10-2.5
speciation measurements that have mostly been done as part of other
research efforts. The EPA expects that this field study will address
the issues needed to develop a more robust, long-term
PM10-2.5 speciation monitoring plan.
The EPA pilot monitoring project will be completed in 2011, with
plans to analyze the data and prepare a final report on findings and
recommendations in 2012. At that time, the EPA will consider what
PM10-2.5 speciation sampling techniques, analytical
methodologies, and network 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 targets such measurements in areas with higher
levels of coarse particles. This latter type of strategy would be
consistent with CASAC AAMMS members written comments that not all NCore
sites would be adequate for PM10-2.5 speciation and that
more flexibility in PM10-2.5 speciation network design would
allow for a geographically diverse network to support health studies
and research (Russell, 2009).
The EPA may consider reintroducing some PM10-2.5
speciation monitoring requirements in a subsequent monitoring
rulemaking or as part of a future review of the PM NAAQS. Until that
time, the EPA believes it is appropriate to propose to revoke the
current set of PM10-2.5 speciation monitoring requirements.
The EPA solicits comment on this proposed revision to monitoring
requirements.
d. Measurements for the Proposed New PM2.5 Visibility Index
NAAQS
The EPA proposes requirements for sampling of PM2.5
chemical speciation in states with large CBSAs. The CSN has been
operating for approximately 10 years and as described earlier in this
proposal already supports a number of important monitoring objectives.
Since the CSN network is already well established in states with large
CBSAs, the EPA believes that using the data from these existing sites
as an input for calculating PM2.5 visibility index values
will help ensure that the network can continue to support existing
objectives, while also supporting the proposed new secondary standard.
To ensure the CSN network can support its existing network
objectives while also supporting the proposed new secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard (section VI.F), the EPA
proposes that each state with a CBSA over 1 million have measurements
based on the methods in CSN (or IMPROVE), as discussed in section
VII.A.5 above, in at least one of its CBSAs. For states with urban or
suburban NCore Stations, their existing CSN measurements at all NCore
sites would be appropriate to meet this proposed requirement. For
states with multiple high population CBSAs, the EPA proposes that each
CBSA with a population over 2.5 million people be required to have CSN
measurements. The EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to
require multiple cities in the same state to have CSN measurements for
purposes of supporting the proposed new secondary PM2.5
visibility index standard when these cities have relatively smaller
populations (i.e., less than 2.5 million people) as the chemical
species data may be similar across cities in the same state. The
exception to this will be the most highly populated states and cities,
which are either already covered by requirements for multiple NCore
stations or the proposed population threshold of 2.5 million people.
For example, the following high population states are already required
to have multiple NCore stations: California, Florida, Illinois,
Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The
EPA also proposes that states be allowed to request alternative CBSAs
to locate their CSN measurements, when the alternative location is
better suited to support providing data for multiple monitoring
objectives, including for the proposed new secondary PM2.5
visibility index standard. For example, in some cases a large CBSA with
a marine influence may have relatively cleaner air than a smaller
inland CBSA in the same state with a lower population. In these cases,
states may request an alternative location for their CSN measurements.
The EPA solicits comment of these proposed requirements and on
alternative requirements for CSN measurements to support the proposed
new secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard.
The EPA proposes that the network design criteria for CSN
measurements focus on area-wide locations that are generally
representative of long distances throughout a CBSA. For most CBSAs,
this will mean that the existing inventory of CSN measurements can be
used where the location of the sampling equipment is at an NCore
station or other station(s) sited at the neighborhood or urban scale of
representation. The EPA points out that while the existing
PM2.5 network design criteria established to support the
primary PM2.5 NAAQS focuses on the area-wide locations of
expected maximum concentration, there would not necessarily be the same
focus for the proposed new secondary PM2.5 visibility index
standard. One reason for this difference is that for urban visibility,
we are interested in the impact of visibility degradation over as
representative a location as possible as the impact of the aerosol is a
function of an entire site path and not just one monitoring location
within a CBSA. Also, the EPA is interested in leveraging as much of the
existing inventory of CSN and IMPROVE measurements operating in CBSAs
where they can support the proposed new secondary PM2.5
visibility index standard.
The EPA considered the issue of siting measurements to support a
new secondary standard to address PM-related visibility impairment
during a consultation with the CASAC AAMMS (75 FR 4069, January 26,
2010). In its letter to the EPA, the CASAC AAMMS stated that ``the
Subcommittee strongly favored collocation of extinction measurements
with PM mass, PM speciation, and precursor gas measurements,
identifying continuous
[[Page 39014]]
PM mass and speciation measurements as being of particular value. NCore
multi-pollutant monitoring sites were identified as worth considering
even though these would not necessarily capture maximum concentrations
and visibility impairment in an urban area'' (Russell and Samet, 2010a,
p. 18). The EPA notes that the Subcommittee also identified that
``[t]here was general support for making public communication an
important consideration in network design, for example by selecting a
monitoring site that can be associated with a vista that is recognized
by a significant fraction of the local population'' (Russell and Samet,
2010a, p. 18). While the EPA agrees that siting associated with a
recognizable vista would be a useful consideration for establishing new
sites, the EPA does not believe it would be appropriate to include such
a requirement for cities with existing sites as this may disrupt the
use of data to meet other important monitoring objectives. The EPA also
notes existing long-standing public communication tools such as the
``Haze-Cam'' network are already well suited for public communications
of important vistas.\206\ In addition to collocation with several
important measurements at NCore as cited by the Subcommittee, the EPA
is also encouraging monitoring agencies to add other important
measurements such as commercially available technologies for light
absorption and light scattering; however, the EPA does not believe
these technologies should be specified by regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\206\ See http://www.hazecam.net/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since EPA's proposal to require CSN (or IMPROVE) sampling is
consistent with a network that is largely already in place, there is no
expectation new sites will be needed. However, from time to time there
is a disruption of sampling due to loss of a sites lease agreement or
other circumstances. Therefore, for any state that does not have a
minimally required CSN (or IMPROVE) set of measurements in place, the
EPA proposes that these measurements be in place and sampling by
January 1, 2015.
4. Proposed Revisions to the Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS,
SPMs, and PSD
a. Quality Assurance Weight of Evidence
The EPA believes that the process by which monitoring organizations
and the EPA use the appendix A of 40 CFR part 58 regarding quality
assurance requirements in regulatory decision making needs to be
articulated. Prior interpretations of appendix A have led to
disqualification of data for noncompliance with a particular appendix A
requirement. The proposed language described below, provides the
interpretation the EPA would use moving forward.
The appendix A to 40 CFR part 58 requirements represent a portion
of the quality control activities that are implemented by monitoring
organizations to control data quality. The EPA believes that while 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
does not preclude the EPA from determining that data are of acceptable
quality to be used for regulatory decision-making purposes. The EPA
proposes to use a weight-of-evidence approach for determining whether
the quality of data is appropriate for regulatory decision-making
purposes. Furthermore, the suitability of data for any regulatory
purpose also relies, in part, on several other quality-related
requirements found elsewhere in 40 CFR part 58. These requirements
include air monitoring methodology (appendix C), network design
criteria (appendix D) and network design plans for SLAMS, probe siting
criteria (appendix E), the reporting of data to AQS, data completeness,
and data certification by the reporting organization. This weight of
evidence approach recognizes that all measurement systems have
uncertainty and there are numerous factors that can affect data quality
at a particular monitoring site. The specific appendix A criteria are
designed to provide a quantification of this uncertainty, support a
framework for assessing such uncertainty against known data quality
goals and to support corrective actions when necessary to control
uncertainty back to acceptable levels. Accordingly, the EPA proposes
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.
b. Quality Assurance Requirements for the Chemical Speciation Network
The EPA proposes to include requirements for flow rate
verifications and flow rate audits for the PM2.5 CSN. These
audits are currently being performed so, although they will 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 proposes that PSD sites would not be required to
collocate a second set of instruments for speciated PM2.5
mass monitoring.
The EPA performed an assessment of measurement uncertainty from the
collocated CSN and IMPROVE stations using the proposed visibility index
(Papp, 2012) and concluded that the current data quality goals for the
PM2.5 mass can be achieved for the proposed calculated light
extinction indicator.
c. Waivers for Maximum Allowable Separation of Collocated
PM2.5 Samplers and Monitors
The EPA proposes to allow waivers for the maximum allowable
distance associated with collocated PM2.5 samplers and
monitors. As described in section VIII.A.1 of this proposal, the EPA
has already approved six Class III PM2.5 continuous FEMs.
Several of these approved FEMs are required to be installed in a
shelter with sufficient control of heating and air conditioning to
ensure stable operation of the instrument. In many cases monitoring
agencies are installing these approved continuous FEMs in shelters
where they already have gas analyzers operating. Some agencies operate
filter-based samplers (e.g., PM2.5 FRMs) on top of their
shelter, while others operate platforms next to their shelter. In
either case, 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, some installed in the shelter and some installed on a
platform, are being sited at the same station.
The EPA believes that maintaining the current requirement of 1 to 4
meters for PM2.5 samplers with flow rates of less than 200
liters/minute is useful since it ensures consistency with long-standing
practices of collocation and ensures that any air drawn through
collocated samplers is well within the operational precision of the
instruments. However, the EPA also believes that instruments spaced
farther apart could also be within the operational precision of the
instruments, especially at sites located at larger scales of
representation (e.g., neighborhood scale and larger). The EPA already
defines a collocated scale in its document ``Guidance for Network
Design and Optimum Site Exposure for PM2.5 and
PM10 (U.S. EPA, 1997). In this document, the EPA defines a
collocated scale as 1 to 10 meters. The EPA believes that almost all
agencies would
[[Page 39015]]
be able to site collocated PM samplers and monitors within 10 meters.
Therefore, the EPA proposes 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 solicits comment on this proposed
change to allow waivers of the maximum allowable distance for
collocated PM2.5 samplers and monitors.
5. Proposed Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria
a. Near-Road Component to the PM2.5 Monitoring Network
The EPA proposes that the probe and siting criteria for the near-
road component to 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
solicits comment on this proposed probe and siting criteria for the
proposed near-road component to the PM2.5 monitoring network
design.
b. CSN Network
The EPA proposes to extend the existing probe and monitoring path
siting criteria described in appendix E to 40 CFR part 58 for
PM2.5 FRMs and FEMs to the CSN measurements. The EPA
believes that monitoring agencies are already following the probe and
siting criteria for PM2.5 when conducting CSN measurements;
that is, at neighborhood, urban, and regional scale sites the probe
height must be 2 to 15 meters above ground level. All other aspects of
the existing PM2.5 probe and siting criteria would also
apply including minimum distances from horizontal supporting structures
(i.e., greater than 2 meters) and minimum distance to the drip-line of
a tree (i.e., greater than 10 meters). The IMPROVE program SOP
(IMPROVE, 1996) on site selection already provides for meeting probe
and siting criteria described in Appendix E. The EPA solicits comment
on extending the existing probe and siting criteria for PM to the
speciation measurements used to support the proposed new secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard.
c. Reinsertion of Table E-1 to Appendix E
The EPA is proposing 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 EPA
is utilizing this proposed rule to reinsert 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 submitted to EPA Regional
Offices on or before July 1, 2010. The assessments are intended to
provide a comprehensive look at each monitoring agencies 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.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ 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 state has completed their 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
thinks it is 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 solicits comment
on ways to either streamline or add additional criteria for future
assessments. Even if no changes to the requirements are recommended by
any commenters, the EPA is especially interested in learning from
monitoring agencies that may have ideas on how to improve future
assessments. Such ideas may not necessarily have to be incorporated
into regulation, but could be referred to in our guidance on network
assessments (U.S. EPA, 2007b).
The EPA proposes 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
proposes to remove these references since, as discussed in section
VII.A.2 above, the EPA is proposing to remove all references to the
spatial averaging option throughout 40 CFR part 50 appendix N.
Consistent with these changes, the EPA also proposes to remove
references to community monitoring zones under the annual monitoring
network plans described in 40 CFR 58.10.
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 a site that has a
collocated continuous operating PM2.5 monitor.\208\ 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 proposing
to revise the level of the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Accordingly, she is now considering whether this proposed change should
result in any changes to sampling frequency requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ 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 proposed
strengthening of the primary annual
[[Page 39016]]
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 should be 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 proposes to revise this requirement in the following ways: (1) The
EPA proposes that monitors would only be required to operate on a daily
schedule if their 24-hour design values are within five percent of the
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the site has a design value that is
not above the level of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS. (2) The EPA
proposes 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
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. The EPA solicits comment on these proposed changes to
the required operating schedule for PM2.5 SLAMS.
c. Data Reporting and Certification for CSN and IMPROVE Data
The EPA solicits comment on minor changes to reporting and
certification of data associated with CSN and IMPROVE data. The
chemical analyses of filters associated with CSN measurements results
in reporting of data that are usually within three months of the sample
collection. This fits within the existing reporting requirements for
most ambient air measurements that data be reported within 90 days past
the end of the previous quarterly reporting period (40 CFR 58.15).
However, some agencies also use IMPROVE or their own internal
laboratory for processing of chemical analyses. IMPROVE is known to
validate and report its data on a schedule that is approximately 12 to
18 months after sample collection. At least one state laboratory
continues to provide chemical analysis of filters associated with sites
that are not NCore (Note: All NCore stations use either IMPROVE or the
CSN National Laboratory contractor for their speciation laboratory
analysis). Therefore, the EPA solicits comment on including the
existing reporting requirements when reporting CSN measurements. In
addition, the EPA also solicits comment on a longer reporting and
certification \209\ schedule specifically for CSN and IMPROVE that
appropriately balances having sufficient time to analyze, validate, and
report data with the need to have the data in sufficient time to use in
assessments including calculating the proposed PM2.5
visibility index values discussed in section VII.A.5 above. Since 2010,
the EPA has required states to certify their data by May 1 of each
year. Since in some cases chemical speciation data may not be fully
validated and submitted to EPA by May 1 of a given year, the EPA
solicits comment on having data certification of these speciation
measurements take place by May 1 of the following year. For example, if
the fourth quarter chemical speciation data were not fully available to
certify by May 1 of the following year, it would be certified another
12 months after that. The EPA solicits comment on the reporting and
certification schedules for chemical speciation data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ Data certification requirements are described in 40 CFR
58.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Requirements for Archiving Filters
The EPA proposes 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 tool 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 current requirement of one-
year is not sufficiently long for retrospective analysis of important
episodes and for use in long-term epidemiology research. Since first
requiring filter archival of low-volume PM filters in 1997, the EPA has
always recommended longer filters archives 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 proposes to minimize the
costs of retaining filters by only requiring cold storage during the
first year after sample collection. Therefore, the EPA solicits comment
on this proposal to extend the filter archival requirement from one to
five years, but only require cold storage during the first year.
IX. Clean Air Act Implementation Requirements for the PM NAAQS
The proposed revisions to the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS
discussed in sections III.F and VI.F above, if finalized, would trigger
a process under which states \210\ will make recommendations to the
Administrator regarding area designations, and the EPA will take final
action on these designations. States will also be required to review,
modify, and supplement their existing implementation plans. The
proposed PM NAAQS revisions would also affect the applicable air
permitting requirements and the transportation conformity and general
conformity processes. This section provides background information for
understanding the possible implications of the proposed NAAQS changes,
and describes the EPA's plans for providing states necessary guidance
or rules in a timely manner to clarify how they are affected and to
assist their implementation efforts. This section also describes
existing EPA interpretations of CAA requirements and other EPA guidance
relevant to implementation of new or revised NAAQS. Relevant CAA
provisions that provide potential flexibility with regard to meeting
implementation timelines are also discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ This and all subsequent references to ``state'' are meant
to include state, local and tribal agencies responsible for the
implementation of a PM2.5 control program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section also contains a discussion of several requirements of
the stationary source construction permit programs under the CAA that
may be affected by the proposed revisions of the PM NAAQS. These are
[[Page 39017]]
the PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs. To
facilitate implementation of the PSD requirements, which would be the
first of the implementation requirements to become applicable upon the
effective date of the final NAAQS rule, the EPA proposes as part of
this rulemaking to add a grandfathering provision to its regulations
that would apply to certain PSD permit applications that are pending on
the effective date of the revised PM NAAQS. If the proposed NAAQS
revisions are finalized, this rule could be finalized at the same time
as the revised NAAQS. This section also discusses other possible
actions under consideration to facilitate implementation of the PSD and
NNSR programs (see section IX.F).
The EPA intends to propose additional appropriate regulations or
issue guidance related to the implementation requirements for the
revised PM NAAQS at a later date or dates. These may include additional
revisions to both the PSD and NNSR regulations, as well as the
promulgation of rules or development of guidance related to NAAQS
implementation. These actions will be taken on a schedule that provides
timely assistance to responsible states. Accordingly, in this section,
the EPA solicits comment on several issues that the Agency anticipates
will need to be addressed in future guidance or regulatory actions.
Because these issues are not relevant to the establishment of the
NAAQS, the EPA does not expect to respond, nor is the Agency required
to respond, to these comments in the final action on this proposal, but
the EPA expects these comments will be helpful as future guidance and
regulations are developed.
A. Designation of Areas
After the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the CAA requires the
EPA and the 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.\211\ 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 boundaries as the EPA may deem
necessary. States then have an opportunity to comment on the EPA's
tentative decision. 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 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ While the CAA says ``designating'' with respect to the
Governor's letter, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring data are currently available from numerous existing
PM2.5 mass and PM2.5 speciation sites to
determine compliance with the proposed revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and with the proposed PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS. As discussed in sections III and VI above, the
EPA is proposing 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); (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
non-visibility-related welfare protection (section VI.F); and (3)
establish a distinct secondary PM2.5 visibility index
standard (section VI.F). The EPA's examination of air quality
monitoring data current at the time of this proposal indicates that,
for the proposed levels for primary standards and the secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard, it is likely that the vast
majority of monitors violating this secondary standard would overlap
with monitors violating the primary standards. Since the same types of
emissions sources contribute to concentrations affecting attainment
status for both the proposed primary and secondary NAAQS, the EPA
expects that the nonattainment area boundaries in locations with such
overlap would be identical. The EPA will, consistent with previous area
designations, use area-specific factor analysis \212\ to support area
boundary decisions for both the primary and secondary standards. The
EPA intends to more fully address issues affecting area designations in
designations guidance that will be issued around the same time as any
revised PM2.5 NAAQS are finalized. The EPA solicits comment
related to establishing nonattainment area boundaries for the proposed
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, including any
relevant technical information that should be considered by the EPA,
and any input on the extent to which different considerations may be
relevant to establishing boundaries for a secondary PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ The EPA has used area-specific factor analyses to support
boundary determinations by evaluating factors such as air quality
data, emissions data, population density and degree of urbanization,
traffic and commuting patterns, meteorology, and geography/
topography.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons stated above, upon promulgation of the revised
NAAQS, the EPA currently intends to move forward on the same schedule
with the initial area designations for both the revised primary annual
PM2.5 standard and the secondary PM2.5 visibility
index standard. The EPA notes that promulgating initial area
designations for these standards on the same schedule will provide
early regulatory certainty for states. The EPA intends to promulgate
the revised PM NAAQS in December 2012 and complete initial designations
for both the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS by December 2014
using available air quality data from the current PM2.5 and
speciation monitoring networks. These designations would follow the
standard 2-year process described previously and would be based on 3
consecutive years of certified air quality monitoring data from the
years 2010 to 2012, or 2011 to 2013. (Note, as discussed in sections
IV.F and VI.F above, the EPA is proposing to retain the current primary
24-hour PM10 standard and to revise the form of the
secondary annual PM2.5 standard to
[[Page 39018]]
remove the option for spatial averaging and to retain all other
elements of the current suite of secondary PM standards to address non-
visibility welfare effects. A new round of mandatory designations for
these standards would occur only if these standards change.\213\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ As discussed in section in VII.A.2 above, the EPA is
proposing to remove the option for spatial averaging from the form
of the secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS consistent with the
proposed change in the form of the primary annual PM2.5
standard. The EPA does not consider this change to trigger a new
round of non-discretionary designations for this standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In today's action, as discussed in section VIII.B.3.b.i above, the
EPA is proposing to add requirements for establishing near-road
PM2.5 monitors in certain cities. If these requirements are
finalized, the EPA anticipates that it will take up to 3 years to
establish new monitoring sites for PM2.5 mass, plus an
additional 3 years of monitoring thereafter to determine compliance
with the mass-based primary and secondary PM2.5 NAAQS based
on these new monitors. This means that a complete set of air quality
data for use in designations from any near-road monitoring sites would
not be available until 2018. Also, as discussed in section VIII.B.3.d
above, the EPA is proposing that each state with a CBSA over 1 million
in population would need to have a 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. This proposal may require the addition of new
monitors, or the relocation of existing monitors, in some CBSAs. The
EPA is also proposing in today's action to extend the data
certification period for speciation measurements by 12 months. Thus,
even if EPA were to consider taking an additional year to complete the
designations process (i.e., in December 2015 instead of in December
2014), data from new PM2.5 near-road monitoring sites would
not be available prior to the extended CAA designation deadline; and
data from certain CSN (or IMPROVE) monitors also may not be available
prior to the extended CAA designation deadline. For these reasons, the
EPA does not currently intend to delay designations based on
unavailability of data for either the revised primary or distinct
secondary standards in order to be able to include data from these new
monitors. 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.
The EPA recognizes that the number of PM2.5 speciation
monitoring sites available to support the state Governors' designation
recommendations and EPA's decisions for the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS will be much smaller than the
number of PM2.5 FRM/FEM/ARM sites available to support
designation recommendations and decisions for the revised annual
primary PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, it may well be that more
areas of the nation are designated unclassifiable (or unclassifiable/
attainment) for the proposed PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS
than for the proposed revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, if
finalized. At this time the EPA does not believe that taking an
additional year to complete designations for the secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS would change this outlook.
However, the EPA intends to remain flexible with regard to the
designation schedule for the proposed revised PM2.5 NAAQS
and will reassess the potential need for an extended schedule upon
issuance of the final NAAQS rule and thereafter.
In summary, the EPA intends to provide designation guidance to the
states at the time of the promulgation of revised NAAQS or very shortly
thereafter, to assist them in formulating these recommendations. In
accordance with section 107(d)(4) of the CAA, the EPA currently
believes that state Governors (and tribes, if they choose) should
submit their initial designation recommendations for both the revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the distinct secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS to the EPA no later than 1 year
following promulgation of any revised NAAQS (e.g., in December 2013
assuming promulgation of the revised PM NAAQS in December 2012). If the
Administrator intends to modify any state area recommendation, the EPA
would notify the appropriate state Governor no later than 120 days
prior to making final designation decisions. A state that believes the
Administrator's modification is inappropriate would have an opportunity
to demonstrate to EPA why it believes its original recommendation (or a
revised recommendation) is more appropriate before designations are
promulgated. The Administrator would take any additional input from the
state into account in making final designation decisions.
As previously stated, the EPA plans to issue guidance regarding
designations for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS at or very shortly
after the time of their final promulgation. The EPA invites preliminary
comment on all aspects of the designation process at this time, which
the Agency will consider in developing that guidance.
B. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure SIP Requirements
The CAA directs states to address basic SIP requirements to
implement, maintain, and enforce the standards. States are to develop
and maintain an air quality management infrastructure that includes
enforceable emission limitations, a permitting program, an ambient
monitoring program, an enforcement program, air quality modeling
capabilities, and adequate personnel, resources, and legal authority.
Under CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2), states are to submit these
SIPs within 3 years after promulgation of a new or revised primary
standard. 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.
Section 110(b) of the CAA provides that the EPA may extend the deadline
for the ``infrastructure'' SIP submission for a new secondary standard
by up to 18 months beyond the initial 3 years. If both the revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the distinct secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS are finalized, the EPA
currently believes it would be more efficient for states and the EPA if
each affected state submits a single section 110 infrastructure SIP
that addresses both standards at the same time (i.e., within 3 years of
promulgation of any revisions to the NAAQS for PM), because the EPA
does not at present discern any need for there to be any substantive
difference in the infrastructure SIPs for the two standards. However,
the EPA also recognizes that states may prefer the flexibility to
submit the secondary NAAQS infrastructure SIP at a later date. The EPA
solicits comment on these infrastructure SIP submittal timing
considerations. The EPA intends to provide guidance regarding the
required date(s) for submission of infrastructure SIPs at the same time
as or very shortly after promulgation of the revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA includes the following paragraphs
describing specific requirements of infrastructure SIPs: (A) Emission
limits and other control measures, (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/
data system, (C) Programs for enforcement of control measures and for
construction or modification of stationary sources, (D)(i) Interstate
pollution transport and (D)(ii) Interstate and international pollution
abatement, (E) Adequate resources and authority, conflict of interest,
and oversight of local governments and
[[Page 39019]]
regional agencies, (F) Stationary source monitoring and reporting, (G)
Emergency episodes, (H) SIP revisions, (I) Plan revisions for
nonattainment areas, (J) Consultation with government officials, public
notification, PSD and visibility protection, (K) Air quality modeling
and submission of modeling data, (L) Permitting fees, and (M)
Consultation and participation by affected local entities.
The EPA interprets the CAA such that for two of the section
110(a)(2) elements, both of which pertain to nonattainment area
requirements in part D, title I of the CAA, the required submittal date
should not be governed by the 3-year submission deadline of section
110(a)(1). Therefore, for the reasons explained below, the following
section 110(a)(2) elements are considered by EPA to be outside the
scope of infrastructure SIP actions: (1) Section 110(a)(2)(C) to the
extent it refers to permit programs (known as ``nonattainment new
source review'') under part D; and (2) section 110(a)(2)(I) (plan
revisions for nonattainment areas) in its entirety. The EPA does not
expect infrastructure SIP submittals to include regulations or emission
limits developed specifically for attaining the relevant standard in
areas designated nonattainment for the proposed revised
PM2.5 NAAQS. Infrastructure SIPs for any final revised
PM2.5 NAAQS will be due before PM2.5 SIPs are due
to demonstrate attainment with the same NAAQS. (New emissions
limitations and other control measures to attain a revised
PM2.5 NAAQS will be due 3 years from the effective date of
nonattainment area designation as required under CAA section 172(c) and
will be reviewed and acted upon through a separate process.) For this
reason, the EPA does not expect infrastructure SIP submissions to
identify new nonattainment area emissions controls.
It is the responsibility of each state to review its air quality
management program's infrastructure SIP provisions in light of each
revised NAAQS. Most states have revised and updated their
infrastructure SIPs in recent years to address requirements associated
with revised NAAQS. It may be the case that for a number of
infrastructure elements, the state may believe it has adequate state
regulations already adopted and approved into the SIP to address a
particular requirement with respect to the revised PM NAAQS. For such
portions of the state's infrastructure SIP submittal, the state may
provide a ``certification'' specifying that certain existing provisions
in the SIP are adequate. Although the term ``certification'' does not
appear in the CAA as a type of infrastructure SIP submittal, the EPA
sometimes uses the term in the context of infrastructure SIPs, by
policy and convention, to refer to a state's minimal SIP submittal
(e.g., in the form of a letter to the EPA from the state Governor or
her/his designee).
If a state determines that its existing SIP-approved provisions are
adequate in light of the revised PM NAAQS with respect to a given
infrastructure SIP element (or sub-element), then the state may make a
``certification'' that the existing SIP contains provisions that
address those requirements of the specific section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements. In the case of a certification, the submittal
does not have to include a copy of the relevant provision (e.g., rule
or statute) itself. Rather, the submittal may provide citations to the
SIP-approved state statutes, regulations, or non-regulatory measures,
as appropriate, which meet the relevant CAA requirement. Like any other
SIP submittal, such certification can be made only after the state has
provided reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing. This
``reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing'' requirement
for infrastructure SIP submittals appears at section 110(a), and it
comports with the more general SIP requirement at section 110(l) of the
CAA. Under the EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 51, if a public hearing
is held, an infrastructure SIP submittal must include a certification
by the state that the public hearing was held in accordance with the
EPA's procedural requirements for public hearings. See 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, paragraph 2.1(g), and 40 CFR 51.102.
In consultation with its EPA Regional Office, a state should follow
applicable EPA regulations governing infrastructure SIP submittals in
40 CFR part 51--e.g., subpart I (Review of New Sources and
Modifications), subpart J (Ambient Air Quality Surveillance), subpart K
(Source Surveillance), subpart L (Legal Authority), subpart M
(Intergovernmental Consultation), subpart O (Miscellaneous Plan Content
Requirements), subpart P (Protection of Visibility), and subpart Q
(Reports). For the EPA's general criteria for infrastructure SIP
submittals, refer to 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Criteria for
Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions. A recent EPA guidance
memorandum identifies a number of alternatives that are available to
states to reduce the administrative burden, cost, and time required to
complete the CAA-required steps that are part of submitting
infrastructure and other SIP revisions to EPA (McCabe, 2011). The EPA
also notes that many of the infrastructure SIP provisions are not
NAAQS-specific, and therefore are likely to have been approved as part
of SIP actions associated with other recently promulgated NAAQS (e.g.,
2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS).
The EPA intends to issue a separate guidance document on section
110 infrastructure SIP requirements for any revised PM NAAQS. The
target date for issuing such guidance would be no later than 1 year
after the revised PM NAAQS are finalized (2 years before state
submittals are due). The EPA invites preliminary comment on all aspects
of infrastructure SIPs at this time, which the Agency will consider in
developing future guidance.
C. Implementing the Proposed Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in
Nonattainment Areas
Part D of the CAA describes the various program requirements that
apply to nonattainment areas for different NAAQS. Section 172 (found in
subpart 1 of part D) includes the general SIP requirements that govern
the PM2.5 program. Under section 172, states are required to
submit SIPs within 3 years of the effective date of area designations
by the EPA. These plans need to show how the nonattainment area will
attain the primary PM2.5 standards ``as expeditiously as
practicable,'' but presumptively no later than within 5 years from the
effective date of designations. However, in certain cases, the EPA can
approve attainment dates up to 10 years from the effective date of
designations, as appropriate, considering the severity of the air
quality concentrations in the area, and the availability and
feasibility of emission control measures per section 172(a)(2)(C).
Section 172(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to establish
classification categories for areas designated nonattainment for the
primary or secondary PM NAAQS, but does not require the EPA to do so.
The implementation program for the 1997 and 2006 primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards did not include a tiered classification
system. This provided a relatively simple implementation structure and
flexibility for states to implement control programs tailored to the
specific nature of the problem and source mix in each area. For this
same reason, the EPA also does not intend to establish classifications
for nonattainment areas for the proposed revised primary annual
PM2.5 standard (or for a revised primary 24-hour standard if
one is promulgated). However, the EPA solicits comment on
[[Page 39020]]
whether a classification system would be appropriate and how a
classification system could be designed.
In April 2007, the EPA issued a detailed PM2.5
implementation rule (72 FR 20586; April 25, 2007) to provide guidance
to states regarding development of SIPs to attain the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA believes that the overall framework and
policy approach of the implementation rule for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS provides effective and appropriate guidance on
the general approach for states to follow in planning for attainment of
the revised primary annual PM2.5 standard. The EPA intends
to develop and propose a revised implementation rule that will address
any new implementation requirements as a result of the proposed revised
primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed revised
monitoring regulations. The EPA intends to propose this implementation
rule within 1 year after the revised PM NAAQS are promulgated, and
finalize the implementation rule by no later than the time the area
designations process is finalized (approximately 1 year later). The EPA
believes that for many issues, regulatory text similar to that of the
existing implementation rule for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS can be
included in this new implementation rule. In the implementation rule
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, there are a few specific
references to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS or associated
implementation dates; in a proposed implementation rule for any revised
PM2.5 NAAQS, such references would be updated as
appropriate. In addition, the EPA expects to consider options for
potentially updating certain policies in the existing implementation
rule based on new information or implementation experience. The EPA
solicits preliminary comment on the implementation issues that the
Agency should consider for updating.
Under the approach outlined in the implementation rule for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS, the state begins the development of an
attainment demonstration with the evaluation of the air quality
improvements the nonattainment area can expect in the future due to
``on the books'' existing federal, state, and local emission reduction
measures. The state then must conduct a further assessment of emission
sources in the nonattainment area, and the additional reasonably
available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control
technology (RACT) that can be implemented by these sources, in
determining how soon the area can attain the standard. (Under the
current implementation rule, the sources for consideration would be
those emitting SO2, direct PM2.5, and
presumptively NOX. Sources of the other PM2.5
precursors, VOC and ammonia, presumptively do not need to be evaluated
for control measures unless demonstrated by the state or the EPA as
significant contributors to PM2.5 concentrations in the
relevant nonattainment area.) Under section 172 of the CAA as
interpreted by the EPA, attainment demonstrations must include a RACM
analysis showing that no additional reasonably available measures could
be adopted and implemented such that the SIP could specify an
attainment date that is 1 or more years earlier.
The evaluation of these potential emission reductions and
associated air quality improvement is commonly performed with
sophisticated air quality modeling tools. Given that fine particle
concentrations are affected both by regionally-transported pollutants
(e.g., SO2 and NOX emissions from power plants)
and emissions of direct PM2.5 from local sources in the
nonattainment area (e.g., steel mills, rail yards, and highway mobile
sources), the EPA recommends the use of regional grid-based models
(such as CMAQ and CAMx) in combination with source-oriented dispersion
models (such as AERMOD) to develop PM2.5 attainment
strategies for the revised annual primary NAAQS. Although the EPA
projects significant improvements in PM2.5 concentrations
regionally from a number of recently promulgated rules such as the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) and the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule (77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012)
that will result in SO2 and NOX reductions from
many geographically dispersed sources, local reductions of direct
PM2.5 emissions also result in important health benefits. On
a per ton basis, reductions of direct PM2.5 emissions are
more effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations than
reductions of precursor emissions. Therefore, reductions of direct
PM2.5 emissions should play a key role in attainment
planning as well.
Each nonattainment area needs to ensure that it will make
``reasonable further progress'' (RFP) in accordance with section
172(c)(2) of the CAA from the time of SIP submittal to its attainment
date. Under the approach outlined in the implementation rule for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, for an area that can demonstrate it will
attain the standard within the presumptive 5-year period from
designation, its attainment demonstration will be considered to meet
the RFP requirement. The EPA believes it is appropriate to apply this
same approach for the revised annual primary PM2.5 standard.
The EPA believes there should be no additional RFP requirements for
such an area because the SIP and attainment demonstration would be due
3 years after designations and its attainment date will be only 2 years
after that date. An area that cannot demonstrate attainment within the
presumptive 5-year period would be required to provide a separate RFP
plan showing that the area will achieve emission reductions by certain
interim milestone dates which provide for ``generally linear'' progress
over the course of the implementation period. All PM2.5
attainment plans must also include contingency measures which would
apply without significant delay in the event the area fails to attain
by its attainment date.
The EPA expects that the same general approach for determining
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 primary standard by the
attainment deadline would be followed for determining attainment with
any primary PM2.5 standard. Attainment would be evaluated
based on the 3 most recent years of certified, complete, and quality-
assured air quality data in the nonattainment area. The EPA also would
expect to include similar flexibility provisions for an area to be able
to obtain two 1-year attainment date extensions under certain
circumstances. In the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS implementation rule,
an area whose design value based on the most recent 3 years of data
exceeds the standard could receive a 1-year attainment date extension
if the air quality concentration for the third year alone does not
exceed the level of the standard. Similarly, an area that has received
a 1-year extension could receive a second 1-year extension if the
average of the area's air quality concentration in the ``extension
year'' and the previous year does not exceed the level of the standard.
The EPA notes that in other sections of today's proposal, the EPA
describes new requirements for deploying near-road monitors and
clarifies certain existing monitoring provisions. As discussed in the
designations section, the EPA would not expect that data from any new
near-road PM2.5 monitors would be available in time to
consider during the initial area designations process, and therefore
such monitoring data would not be the basis for designating a new
nonattainment area at the time of initial designations. The EPA plans
to address any potential implications of the proposed monitoring
[[Page 39021]]
changes on attainment planning and development of attainment
demonstrations by states in the future implementation rule. The EPA
requests comment on any specific attainment planning considerations for
future SIPs that may be associated with today's proposed changes to
monitoring provisions.
With regard to implementation of the pre-existing standards for
PM2.5, the EPA's current opinion is that the changes in the
monitoring regulations, if finalized, should not result in any new
requirements with respect to attainment plans or maintenance plans for
the 1997 or the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS during some specified
transition period.\214\ For example, if the proposed PM NAAQS revisions
and revised monitoring regulations are finalized in December 2012, many
states will have recently submitted, or will be close to submitting
their implementation plans to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS (also due in December 2012). In addition, state and EPA actions
are still under way with regard to adopting and approving certain
attainment plans and maintenance plans for nonattainment areas under
the 1997 PM2.5 standards. The EPA does not believe it would
be reasonable for requirements applicable to such attainment plans and
maintenance plans to change beginning immediately upon any revision of
the monitoring regulations. It could be very burdensome on state air
quality programs to revise SIPs that have already been submitted to EPA
or that have been under development for some time and are about to be
submitted. The EPA believes that a more reasonable approach would be to
provide for a transition period before the revised monitoring network
and data comparability provisions would affect implementation plan and
maintenance plan requirements. The EPA believes it would be important
for the transition period to provide enough time for the EPA to
complete action on attainment and maintenance SIPs for the 1997 or 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS that were initiated and completed (or that are
close to completion) by states before finalization of the proposed
changes to the monitoring regulations. The EPA believes that if a SIP
for the 1997 or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS has been approved during
the transition period, the state would not be under an obligation to
revise it unless the EPA has made a SIP call. The EPA invites
preliminary comment on this transition period concept, and on an
appropriate date by which the transition period should be concluded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ For example, it may be possible that a new near-road
monitoring site has collected 3 years of data and shown a violation
before final EPA action has been taken on an attainment plan or
maintenance plan for the 1997 or 2006 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Implementing the Primary and Secondary PM10 NAAQS
As summarized in sections IV.F and VI.F above, the EPA is proposing
to retain the current primary and secondary 24-hour PM10
standards to protect against the health effects associated with short-
term exposures to thoracic coarse particles and against welfare
effects. If this approach is finalized, the EPA would retain the
existing implementation strategy for meeting the CAA requirements for
PM10. States and emission sources would continue to follow
the existing guidance and regulations for implementing the current
standards.
E. Implementing the Proposed Secondary PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS in
Nonattainment Areas
In past actions, the EPA has set the secondary PM standards
identical to the primary PM standards. In this action, as summarized in
section VI.F above, the EPA is proposing a distinct secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS. In addition, as also
summarized in section VI.F above, the EPA is proposing to retain the
current annual and 24-hour secondary PM2.5 standards to
provide protection against non-visibility welfare effects. Although the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS would differ
from the primary PM2.5 NAAQS (and existing secondary
PM2.5 NAAQS) with respect to indicator/index, statistical
form, and level, attainment of this standard would, like the
PM2.5 mass-based standards, depend on ambient measurements
(i.e., specifically speciated PM2.5 mass concentrations).
The EPA expects that implementation of emission reduction measures that
will help to achieve the mass-based 1997 and 2006 primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards and the proposed revised primary annual
PM2.5 standard will also provide important improvements in
visibility and substantial progress toward meeting the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard because these
emission reduction measures will address the same sources and
pollutants which also contribute to PM-related visibility impairment.
In fact, as discussed below in section IX.F.1, an analysis of the
relationships between recent design values for the proposed primary
(annual and 24-hour) PM2.5 standards and coincident design
values for the proposed PM2.5 visibility index standard
indicates that all or nearly all areas in attainment of the proposed
primary PM2.5 standards would also likely be in attainment
of the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard
(Kelly, et al. 2012).\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ This analysis was based on 2008 to 2010 air quality data
and for illustrative purposes used an alternative standard level of
12 [micro]g/m\3\ for the primary annual PM2.5 standard
and the proposed level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ level for the primary 24-
hour PM2.5 standard together with the proposed levels of
30 and 28 dv in conjunction with a 24-hour averaging time and a 90th
percentile form for the secondary PM2.5 visibility index
standard. The relationships between design values as characterized
here are dependent upon the specific level and form of each of the
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 172(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the EPA to establish
classification categories for areas designated nonattainment for the
primary or secondary PM NAAQS, but does not require the EPA to do so.
The implementation program for the 1997 and 2006 primary and secondary
PM2.5 standards did not include a tiered classification
system. This provided a relatively simple implementation structure and
flexibility for states to implement control programs tailored to the
specific nature of the problem and source mix in each area. For this
same reason, the EPA also does not intend to establish classifications
for nonattainment areas for the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index standard.
Section 172(a)(2) of the CAA provides the same statutory framework
for implementing secondary standards in nonattainment areas as it does
for primary standards, except that it provides different attainment
date requirements for secondary standards. The attainment date for the
proposed revised primary annual PM2.5 standard is as
expeditiously as practicable, but presumptively within 5 years of the
date of designation, with the possibility of an attainment date of up
to 10 years for certain areas with more severe air quality problems.
For secondary NAAQS, however, section 172(a)(2)(B) defines the
attainment date for an area designated nonattainment as ``the date by
which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable'' but
with no maximum limitation. Thus, it is possible for the EPA to approve
an implementation plan that provides for attainment of the secondary
standards by a date more than 10 years after the date of designation
with an appropriate demonstration.
As noted in the above section on implementing the primary
PM2.5 standard, the EPA expects that the same general
approach for providing two possible 1-year extensions to the
[[Page 39022]]
attainment date would also apply to any revised secondary
PM2.5 standard. Attainment would be evaluated based on the 3
most recent years of certified, complete, and quality-assured air
quality data in the nonattainment area. The EPA also would expect to
include similar flexibility provisions for an area to be able to obtain
two 1-year attainment date extensions under certain circumstances. An
area whose design value based on the most recent 3 years of data
exceeds the standard could receive a 1-year attainment date extension
if the deciview index for the third year alone does not exceed the
level of the standard. Similarly, an area that has received a 1-year
extension could receive a second 1-year extension if the average of the
area's deciview index in the ``extension year'' and the previous year
does not exceed the level of the standard.
As noted previously, the EPA expects that implementation of control
measures to achieve the 1997 and 2006 primary annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards and the proposed revised primary annual
PM2.5 standard will address the same sources and pollutants
that contribute to PM-related visibility impairment, and, thus, great
progress can be achieved toward attaining the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard as a result of clean air
programs designed principally to improve public health by attaining the
primary PM2.5 standards. However, because the proposed
secondary PM2.5 standard is based on a visibility index
rather than a mass concentration, implementation can be expected to
present new challenges when developing part D SIPs. For example, while
the proposed revision to the level and form of the primary annual
PM2.5 standard does not pose any new issues with respect to
air quality modeling methods, the speciated nature of the index for the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard does pose
new modeling issues. For this reason, the EPA invites commenters to
present information concerning air quality modeling and other issues
that are expected to be unique to implementing the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard in nonattainment areas and
that should be considered by EPA in the development of the future
implementation rule and related guidance. The EPA particularly seeks
input on how implementation planning for the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard can be integrated as much as
possible with implementation planning for the proposed revised primary
annual PM2.5 standard to increase the efficiency of the
process and reduce administrative burden on state agencies and
stakeholders. The EPA will consider these comments in developing a
proposed implementation rule and related guidance for the revised
standards.
F. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review Programs for the Proposed Revised Primary Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
the Proposed Secondary PM2.5 Visibility Index 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 nonattainment for that pollutant. Parts C and
D of title I of the CAA contain specific requirements for the
preconstruction review and permitting of new major stationary sources
and major modifications, referred to as the PSD program and the NNSR
program, respectively. Collectively, those permit requirements are
commonly referred to as the ``major NSR program.''
The proposed revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, if
finalized, would affect certain PSD permitting actions as of the
effective date for those NAAQS and would affect certain NNSR permitting
actions on and after the effective date of an area designation as
``nonattainment'' for PM2.5. In order to minimize the
potential for disruption to NSR permitting, the EPA is proposing, in
section IX.F.1.a of this preamble, a grandfathering provision for
certain PSD permits that are already in process, and is also proposing,
in section IX.F.1.c, a surrogacy approach for implementing PSD
permitting requirements for the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS. These provisions will assure that NSR
permitting will be able to continue using provisions and processes
virtually identical to those already in place for the existing
PM2.5 NAAQS, except that, in evaluating whether a source
causes or contributes to a NAAQS violation, an applicant would need to
compare the source's impacts to a different level and form of the
primary annual standard, if finalized as proposed. As discussed in more
detail in the following sections, the EPA is not now proposing to
change the PM2.5 increments, nor are we proposing to revise
screening tools that are now used to implement PSD for
PM2.5, such as the significant emission rate, 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, 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; or the significant monitoring
concentration, 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.
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 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 construction 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).
[[Page 39023]]
PSD permitting requirements first became applicable to
PM2.5 in 1997 when EPA established a NAAQS for
PM2.5 (Seitz, 1997). The EPA's regulations define the term
``regulated NSR pollutant'' to include ``[a]ny pollutant for which a
national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any
pollutant identified [in EPA regulations] as a constituent or precursor
to such pollutant'' (40 CFR 51.166(b)(49); 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)).\216\
In addition, on May 16, 2008, the EPA amended its rules 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). States were required to revise their
SIPs by May 16, 2011 to incorporate the required elements of the 2008
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 20, 2010, the EPA again amended the PSD rules at 40 CFR
51.166 and 52.21 to add PSD increments as well as two screening tools
for PM2.5--significant impact levels (SILs) and a
significant monitoring concentration (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, 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 are required to submit
the necessary SIP revisions (at least as stringent as the PSD
requirements at 40 CFR 51.166) to EPA for approval within 21 months
from the date on which the EPA promulgated the new PM2.5
increments--by July 20, 2012. This particular schedule is prescribed by
the CAA specifically for the adoption of new PSD increments in state
PSD programs. Sources for which PSD permits are issued pursuant to the
federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 after October 20, 2011, must
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 with the ambient air indicators for PM that the EPA
currently uses in 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 themselves, for which proposed
and other possible implementation approaches are described further
below, the EPA is proposing certain clarifications to the existing
monitoring regulations codified at 40 CFR 58.30 (Special considerations
for data comparisons to the NAAQS). These proposed 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 used the principles for making these determinations for
monitoring sites to also 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. The EPA will continue to use these principles in guiding PSD
modeling analysis design. Accordingly, if the proposed PM NAAQS
revisions and monitoring regulation clarifications described previously
are finalized, the EPA will advise permitting agencies to qualify or
disqualify specific receptor locations used in PSD air quality analyses
consistent with those final provisions, and we will do so ourselves
when we are the permitting authority.
With regard to the specific revisions being proposed to the PM
NAAQS, today's action, if finalized as proposed, would affect sources
applying for PSD permits in several ways. We first discuss the
implications for PSD with respect to the proposed revised primary
annual PM2.5 standard (some of which also apply to the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard), and
then the unique implications for PSD with respect to the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard.
a. Grandfathering Provision
As discussed previously in this preamble, the EPA is proposing to
revise the level of the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
establish a secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS.\217\
Longstanding EPA policy interprets the CAA and EPA regulations at 40
CFR 52.21(k)(1) and 51.166(k)(1) to generally require that PSD permit
applications must include a demonstration that new sources and
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, if the proposed revision to the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS are promulgated, any proposed new and modified
sources with permits pending at the time those PM2.5 NAAQS
changes take effect would be expected to demonstrate compliance with
them, absent some type of transition provision exempting such
applications from the new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ The EPA is also proposing to revise 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 proposed revision of
the primary annual NAAQS, the proposed addition of a distinct secondary
NAAQS for visibility protection, and the changes to the monitoring
requirements discussed earlier, the EPA proposes 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 PM NAAQS. The EPA proposes
that the grandfathering provision would apply specifically to pending
PSD permit applications for which the proposed permit (draft permit or
preliminary determination) has been noticed for public comment before
the effective date of the revised NAAQS.
The proposed grandfathering provision would not be the first such
grandfathering provision adopted by the EPA. The Agency 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). As discussed in more
detail in these referenced actions, section 165(a)(3) of the CAA
requires that a permit applicant demonstrate that its proposed project
will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. At the same
time, section 165(c) of the CAA requires that a PSD permit be
[[Page 39024]]
granted or denied within 1 year after the permitting authority
determines the application for such permit to be complete. In addition,
section 301 of the CAA authorizes the Administrator ``to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
chapter.'' When read in combination, these three provisions 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 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 59587 to 59588, Oct. 12, 2005). The reasoning of those prior EPA
actions is also applicable to the promulgation of revised PM
NAAQS.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ 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 through
adjudication respecting a specific source, 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 EPA generally believes the preferred approach is to
enable grandfathering through express regulatory exemptions of the
type proposed in this action (U.S. EPA, 2011c, p. 68).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA provides the EPA with discretion to establish the
appropriate milestone within the permitting process for determining
that a permit application is eligible for grandfathering (U.S. EPA,
2011c, p. 81). For example, in 1987, the EPA used the date of submittal
of a complete permit application as the milestone upon which to base
the grandfathering of a source from new permitting requirements
associated with the revisions made to the PM NAAQS at that time (52 FR
24672, July 1, 1987 at 24703). In the context of the implementation of
the revisions to the PM NAAQS that are being proposed today, the EPA is
proposing to use a different milestone to establish the date before
which permits may be grandfathered. Accordingly, to avoid unreasonable
delays in permit processing and issuance, and based on basic principles
of fairness and equity, we believe that it is appropriate to allow
pending permit applications that have reached the notice and comment
period on a proposed permit (that is, a notice has been issued for
public comment on the proposed permit action) by the effective date of
the revised PM NAAQS to continue being processed in accordance with the
PM NAAQS requirements in place as the time of the public notice on the
proposed permit.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ There may be proposed permits 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 grandfathering provision proposed today
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before a proposed permit is issued for public comment, the
applicant still has a reasonable opportunity to amend its permit
application to address new or revised NAAQS that become effective while
the reviewing authority's preliminary consideration of the application
is underway. Furthermore, the reviewing authority has the opportunity
to review additional material and revise its fact sheet or statement of
basis before beginning the public comment period on such a permit.
However, if the EPA and other reviewing authorities were to apply new
permitting requirements based on 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 additional work by the reviewing authority at a time
when it should be focused on considering public comments and preparing
a final permit decision in order to conclude its review of a permit
application in a timely manner. Through this proposal, the EPA is
providing notice to current and future permit applicants that they may
have to provide an analysis showing that their facility will not cause
or contribute to a violation of the revised NAAQS for PM if a proposed
permit is not issued for public comment before such NAAQS become
effective.
Accordingly, the EPA proposes to amend the federal PSD regulations
at 40 CFR 52.21 to provide a grandfathering provision to allow for the
continued review of permits proposed before a revision to the 2006 p.m.
NAAQS under the PM NAAQS that applied at the time of the public notice
on the proposed permit. The EPA also proposes that states that issue
PSD permits under a 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 proposes to revise
section 40 CFR 51.166 to provide a comparable exemption applicable to
SIP-approved PSD programs.
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 action would no longer be grandfathered from PSD permitting
requirements associated with a revised PM NAAQS. Consistent with past
grandfathering actions described above, the EPA is not proposing to
include a sunset clause for the proposed grandfathering provision.
Permit applicants and reviewing authorities already have strong
incentives to process applications and issue draft permits in a timely
manner, and the EPA does not believe that the addition of a sunset
clause to the proposed grandfathering provision would add meaningful
additional incentive for sources or permitting authorities to expedite
permitting processes. Furthermore, the EPA believes 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 draft permit
issuance and public notice to lapse beyond the sunset date. In such
cases, the already delayed permit action would be further delayed to
address PSD permitting requirements associated with the revised PM
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.
However, the EPA solicits comment on whether a sunset clause would be
appropriate under certain circumstances, and if so, what time limits
would be placed on the grandfathering period associated with the
revised PM NAAQS.
b. Recent Guidance Applicable to the Proposed Revised Primary Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS
Today's proposal to revise the level of the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS from 15.0 [micro]g/m\3\ to a level within the
range of 12.0 and 13 [micro]g/m\3\ and to establish a distinct
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS generally will
require proposed new major stationary sources and modifications to take
these changes into
[[Page 39025]]
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. If the PM NAAQS are revised as proposed, and
when effective, proposed sources that are not grandfathered from the
new requirements (as described in section IX.F.1.a) would be required
to demonstrate compliance with the suite of PM NAAQS, including the
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index 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 their impact on the
revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS, if finalized. 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.
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 for the existing
PM2.5 NAAQS, 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.
(As discussed in the next section, these recommended approaches may be
extended to the proposed secondary NAAQS as well under a surrogacy
approach). To this end, the EPA discussed this draft guidance in March
2012 at the EPA's 10th Modeling Conference.\220\ Based on its review of
public comments received and further technical analyses, the EPA
intends to issue final guidance by the end of calendar year 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ The presentation on this draft guidance was posted on the
EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/10thmodconf.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Surrogacy Approach for the Proposed Secondary PM2.5
Visibility Index NAAQS
As summarized in section VI.F of this preamble, the EPA is
proposing a distinct secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 that will
provide protection against visibility impairment, measured in terms of
a visibility index using a calculated PM2.5 light extinction
indicator (see section VI.D.1 above). The PM2.5 visibility
index values are determined using a six-step procedure involving 24-
hour speciated PM2.5 concentration data together with
climatological relative humidity factors. The EPA plans to calculate
design values for the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS using the procedures described in section VII.A.5 above,
relying upon ambient PM2.5 speciation measurement data
available through the CSN or IMPROVE methods and spatial interpolation
of historical relative humidity data.
As explained above, the PSD program requires individual new or
modified stationary sources to carry out an air quality analysis to
demonstrate that their proposed emissions increases will not cause or
contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. Such a demonstration for the
proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS could
require each PSD applicant to predict, via air quality modeling, the
visibility impairment that will result from its proposed emissions in
conjunction with an assessment of existing air quality (visibility
impairment) conditions. Under 40 CFR 51.166(l)(1) and 40 CFR
52.21(l)(1), all applications of air quality modeling for purposes of
determining whether a new or modified source will cause or contribute
to a NAAQS violation, including a violation of the proposed secondary
visibility index NAAQS for PM2.5, must be based upon air
quality models specified in appendix W to 40 CFR part 51. Currently
there are no air quality models identified in Appendix W that are
recommended for regulatory applications (Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51,
Section 3.1.1(b)) for addressing the atmospheric chemistry associated
with secondary formation of PM2.5. Thus, if this
demonstration were to be attempted using the six-step procedure that
the EPA is proposing to use for calculating PM2.5 visibility
index design values, significant technical issues with the modeling
procedures could arise. Those technical difficulties include the
current limitations on speciated source-specific emissions data for
model input; the lack of an EPA-approved air quality model with the
capability to address the atmospheric chemistry associated with
secondary formation of PM2.5; and the lack of PSD screening
tools for streamlining the air quality analysis process. In addition,
due to the limited monitoring network for speciated PM2.5,
some sources may not be able to rely on existing speciated monitoring
data to adequately represent the background air quality and thereby
satisfy preconstruction monitoring requirements. Consequently, those
prospective PSD sources could be required to collect new data in order
to determine the representative background concentrations of
PM2.5 species (i.e., those required for calculating the
PM2.5 visibility index values as described in section
VII.A.5 above).
Recognizing these difficult technical issues, the EPA believes that
there is an essential need to provide alternative approaches to enable
prospective PSD sources to demonstrate that they will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the secondary PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS, if finalized as proposed. To meet this need, the EPA
believes that it is reasonable to allow the use of a surrogacy
approach, as discussed below, for at least the interim period while
technical issues are being resolved, but which could potentially be
continued beyond such time if shown to be appropriate. The EPA is
providing notice of its intent to follow such an approach and is asking
for comments on the approach as discussed in the remainder of this
section. The Agency believes that following this approach will
facilitate the transition to a workable PSD permitting approach under
the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS.
To support consideration of alternative approaches that could be
used by prospective PSD sources, the EPA conducted a two-pronged
technical analysis of the relationships between the proposed
PM2.5 visibility index standard and the 24-hour
PM2.5 standards (Kelly, et al., 2012). 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 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
analysis indicated that small increases in PM2.5
concentrations caused by individual
[[Page 39026]]
sources produce similarly small changes in visibility impairment for
ambient conditions near the proposed standard level of either 30 dv or
28 dv. The second prong of the analysis addressed aspects of a PSD
cumulative impact analysis by exploring the relationship between the 3-
year design values for the primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 standards and coincident design values for the
proposed PM2.5 visibility index standard based on recent air
quality data. This analysis showed that visibility generally decreases
when daily PM2.5 concentrations increase, and vice versa.
This analysis further explored the appropriateness of using a
demonstration that a source will not cause or contribute to a violation
of the 24-hour PM2.5 standards as a surrogate for a
demonstration that a source will not cause or contribute to a violation
of the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard.
The Kelly, et al. (2012) analysis was based on 2008 to 2010 air quality
data and on the proposed retention of the 24-hour PM2.5
standards with a level of 35 [micro]g/m\3\ in conjunction with a 98th
percentile form (sections III.F and IV.F) and the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard with a level of either 30 dv
or 28 dv in conjunction with 24-hour averaging time and a 90th
percentile form (see section VI.F).\221\ This analysis indicated that
all or nearly all areas in attainment of the 24-hour PM2.5
standards would also likely be in attainment of the proposed secondary
PM2.5 visibility index standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ As identified in section IX.E above, the relationships
between design values characterized in the Kelly, et al. (2012)
analysis and summarized here are dependent upon the specific level
and form of each of these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA believes that this technical analysis is robust and will
have broad national application. Based on this technical analysis, the
EPA currently believes that there is sufficient evidence that, for the
purposes of making a demonstration under the PSD program that a new or
modified source will not cause or contribute to a violation of the
proposed secondary 24-hour PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, a
demonstration that the source will not cause or contribute to a
violation of the mass-based 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS serves as a
suitable surrogate. As such, many or all sources undergoing PSD review
for PM2.5 would be able to rely upon their analysis
demonstrating that they will not cause or contribute to a violation of
the mass-based 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to also demonstrate that
they will not cause or contribute to a violation of the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, if finalized. The
described surrogate approach would thus serve to overcome the technical
challenges discussed above and minimize otherwise burdensome and costly
air quality analyses associated with individual sources being required
to perform separate and distinct analyses with regard to the proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index standard. The EPA believes
this surrogacy approach is appropriate to fulfill PSD requirements for
individual sources in PSD areas, which, by definition, will not have
been designated as nonattainment for the PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS. However, our proposed surrogacy approach for PSD should
not be construed as a proposal to use a surrogacy approach for
designating nonattainment areas or for implementing programs to attain
the visibility index NAAQS in those areas.
The surrogacy approach is not intended to replace or otherwise
undermine the validity of the analytical techniques employed for air
quality related value (AQRV) assessments, including visibility,
required under 40 CFR 51.166(p) and 40 CFR 52.21(p). The federal land
managers (FLM)--federal officials with direct responsibility for
management of Federal Class I parks and wilderness areas--have an
affirmative responsibility to protect the AQRVs of such lands, and to
provide the appropriate procedures and analysis techniques for
assessing AQRVs (Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51, Sections 6.1(b) and
6.2.3(a)). The FLMs have developed specific modeling approaches for
AQRV assessments that are not specifically governed under the
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.166(l)(1) and 40 CFR 52.21(l)(1),
thus the surrogacy approach is not applicable to the AQRV assessments
under the PSD program.
The surrogate approach could be incorporated into the PSD program
in any of three alternative ways. First, the decision as to whether the
surrogate approach is adequate could be handled on a case-by-case basis
in consultation with the permitting authority, similar to the existing
consultation process under the EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models
for ozone and secondary PM2.5 impacts (40 CFR part 51,
appendix W, section 5.2.1.c), with no presumption regarding its
adequacy. Second, the EPA could establish a rebuttable presumption that
the surrogate approach is applicable for all permits through either
guidance or a notice-and-comment rulemaking. In either the first or
second alternative, there would be a possibility that reliance on a
surrogate-based demonstration could be subjected to challenge for any
particular permit analysis. Third, the EPA could establish that the
surrogate approach is applicable for all permits, also through a
notice-and-comment rulemaking. The EPA seeks comment on all of the
identified issues and proposed alternative implementation mechanisms
associated with the proposed surrogate approach. It is the Agency's
intention to issue either guidance or new regulatory provisions as just
described for a surrogacy approach by the time any final revisions to
the PM NAAQS become effective, so that sources seeking permits will not
be unnecessarily delayed.
While noting the importance of the surrogacy approach as an
essential initial strategy due to limitations on data and analytical
tools, the EPA also notes that when a technically robust surrogate
relationship exists there may not be a need to apply an end date for
the use of a surrogacy approach. Without an end date, PSD applicants
would always have the option of relying upon such a demonstration if
they would so choose. This would offer long-term benefits in terms of
simplification and resource savings for applicants and reviewing
authorities. Accordingly, based on the technical analysis for the
standards analyzed (Kelly, et al, 2012) which supports the surrogacy
approach for demonstrating that a source will not cause or contribute
to a violation of the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS, the EPA may determine that it is not necessary to announce
an end date for using it. The EPA invites comment on this aspect of the
proposal as well.
For context, the EPA notes that with regard to sources being
required to demonstrate that they would not cause or contribute to a
violation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the EPA has previously
issued an interim policy (Seitz, 1997). Under the 1997 policy, which is
no longer in effect,\222\ the EPA stated that demonstrating compliance
with the NSR requirements for controlling PM10 emissions and
for analyzing impacts on PM10 air quality could be used to
demonstrate compliance with the PM2.5 NSR requirements. This
approach was designed to control PM2.5 emissions and protect
PM2.5 air quality until certain technical difficulties
concerning PM2.5 were resolved. At that time, however, we
did not support the policy with any technical analysis to show how a
demonstration of compliance with the PM10 NAAQS would
satisfy the PM2.5
[[Page 39027]]
requirements and support the issuance of a PSD permit. Consequently,
the EPA later concluded that, in keeping with numerous court opinions
regarding the use of surrogates, PSD applicants and reviewing
authorities seeking to rely specifically on the 1997 PM10
Surrogate Policy should consider certain overarching legal principles,
including that a surrogate may be used only after it has been shown to
be reasonable (such as where the surrogate is a reasonable proxy for
the pollutant or has a predictable correlation to the pollutant) and
that the relationship between the regulated pollutant and the surrogate
pollutant can be shown to apply in the specific instance where an
applicant or reviewing authority seeks to rely upon it. In keeping with
these principles, the Agency believes that the surrogate approach now
being proposed for use in demonstrating that a source will not cause or
contribute to a violation of the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS is supported by a robust technical analysis. The
EPA invites comment on this analysis, which is provided in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ The 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy formally ended
on May 16, 2011. See 76 FR 28646 (May 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA notes that the analysis supporting the surrogacy approach
for the PSD program is distinct from and serves a different purpose
than the analyses conducted to inform the Administrator's proposed
conclusion on the appropriate indicator for a standard intended to
protect against PM-related visibility impairment. As discussed in
section VI.A above, the EPA has long recognized that the determination
of a single, appropriate national level for a secondary standard to
address PM-related visibility impairment is complicated by regional
differences in several factors that influence visibility, such as
background and current PM2.5 concentrations,
PM2.5 composition, 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 the appropriate degree of
protection in a different region. Although the analysis upon which the
surrogacy approach is based (Kelly, et al., 2012) generally shows that
daily PM2.5 visibility index values decrease when daily
PM2.5 mass concentrations decrease, and vice versa, there is
nonetheless considerable variability in that relationship across the
range of ambient fine particle concentrations. As a result, as
discussed in section VI.D.1.d above, the Administrator provisionally
concludes that a calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator
is an appropriate indicator to replace the current PM2.5
mass indicator and that such an indicator 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.
d. PSD Screening Provisions: Significant Emissions Rates, Significant
Impact Levels, and Significant Modeling 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 a significant emissions rate (SER), significant
impact levels (SILs), and a significant monitoring concentration (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.\223\ 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 time of any NAAQS for a particular pollutant. At this time,
the EPA is not proposing any change to the existing PM2.5
SER as a result of the proposed revisions to the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS. However, the EPA intends to consider this issue
in a subsequent rulemaking that will specifically address various PSD
implementation issues that are being described herein. The EPA will
solicit comment on any proposed changes to the SERs for
PM2.5 and its precursors at that time, but also invites
preliminary suggestions at this time that we may consider in developing
that proposed rulemaking. 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 in existing
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ 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 the proposed new source or modification
is significant for PM2.5, the permit applicant must complete
an air quality analysis. 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 SMC for PM2.5 (75 FR 64890 to 64894,
October 20, 2010). A separate PM2.5 SIL is defined for each
averaging period for which PM2.5 NAAQS and increments
currently exist, as well as for each of the three area classifications,
i.e., Class I, II and III, that Congress established in the CAA for PSD
purposes.
Historically, sources have been allowed to model their proposed
emissions increase to predict ambient impacts associated with that
emissions increase, and to compare this predicted 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. At this time, the EPA is
not proposing to revise the annual SIL for PM2.5 as a result
of the proposed revision to the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
However, the EPA intends to review this issue and will consider any
potential need to revise the existing SIL in a separate rulemaking
addressing PSD implementation issues. The EPA welcomes preliminary
comments concerning this issue, but will also provide an additional
opportunity for comments at a later date in the event that a subsequent
proposal is made to revise the annual PM2.5 SIL.
While the proposed secondary PM2.5 visibility index
NAAQS is a 24-hour standard for which no PM2.5 SIL is
currently defined, there is a question as to whether the existing 24-
hour PM2.5 SIL, expressed on a PM2.5 mass basis
([micro]g/m\3\), would be appropriate for this proposed secondary
NAAQS, expressed in terms of a PM2.5 visibility index. As
discussed in section IX.F.1.c above, the EPA conducted an analysis to
evaluate whether an individual source's impact resulting in a small
increase in PM2.5 concentration would produce a comparably
small increase in visibility impairment (Kelly et al., 2012). The
[[Page 39028]]
analysis indicates that small increases in PM2.5
concentrations caused by individual sources produce similarly small
changes in visibility impairment for ambient conditions near the
proposed standard level of either 30 dv or 28 dv.
The EPA is not proposing any possible alternatives to the existing
24-hour PM2.5 SIL in this proposed rule, but instead intends
to issue a separate rulemaking to assess this and other related PSD
implementation issues. The EPA also wishes to note 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 existing PM2.5 SILs have not
been adequately demonstrated to represent de minimis values. Sierra
Club v. EPA, No. 10-1413 (D.C. Circuit filed December 17, 2010). In the
course of this litigation, the EPA has recognized the need to correct
the text of two PM2.5 SILs provisions in the regulations,
and the EPA has asked the court to vacate those provisions so that the
EPA may correct them. However, the EPA does not believe this corrective
action would preclude use of the PM2.5 SILs in the interim,
and the EPA intends to provide guidance on continued use of the
PM2.5 SILs (in a manner consistent with principles
articulated by the EPA in the rulemaking and litigation) pending this
correction of the regulatory text. The proposed revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS do not affect the continued used of the
PM2.5 SILs in accordance with the forthcoming guidance
described above. As a separate matter, the EPA intends to consider the
need for a new SIL specifically for implementing any secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS under the PSD program. In the
event that we do proceed, the EPA now welcomes preliminary comments as
to how such a SIL could be developed. The EPA will also provide an
additional opportunity for comments at a later date in the event that a
subsequent proposal is made to establish a separate SIL for the
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, if such a secondary
NAAQS is finalized.
Finally, the SMC, also measured as an ambient pollutant
concentration ([micro]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. In a future NSR implementation rulemaking
that will follow this rulemaking, the EPA intends to evaluate the types
of additional ambient data, if any, that may need to be collected by a
proposed source concerning the proposed secondary PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS, and the feasibility of individual sources being
required to gather such additional information. The EPA welcomes
preliminary comments concerning this issue, but will provide additional
opportunity for comment when a subsequent NSR implementation rulemaking
is proposed concerning the proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS.
e. 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 \224\ (75 FR 64864,
October 20, 2010). The proposed revision to the primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS raises the question of whether the EPA should
consider revising the annual PM2.5 increments. Similarly,
the EPA's proposed action to establish a distinct secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS raises the question of whether
revisions to the PM2.5 increments are appropriate to address
public welfare considerations protected by the proposed secondary
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\224\ The primary and secondary NAAQS for PM2.5 have
been the same up until this time where EPA is proposing a distinct
secondary NAAQS for PM-related visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proposal, the EPA is not proposing to revise the
PM2.5 increments. The EPA will consider whether it is
appropriate to propose such an action in the future, and if so, would
undertake the necessary rulemaking. The EPA invites preliminary
comments at this time on such a need, and on issues we should consider
if we undertake a rule 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.
2. Nonattainment New Source Review
The requirements under part D of the CAA pertain 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.''
Thus, the NNSR program applies 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.\225\ 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 a precursor of PM2.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ 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 rules rely upon SERs described
previously in the PSD discussion in section IX.F.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 that results in a significant net emissions
increase of that nonattainment 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 the existing values. Any decision to
propose
[[Page 39029]]
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. While no formal policy has yet been developed to address this
situation, 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.\226\ Looking
forward, the EPA proposes that areas would be designated for a proposed
secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS independently of
designations for the mass-based annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA intends to address this issue in a future
NSR rulemaking, but invites comments now 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ However, transportation conformity requirements discussed
in section IX.G below are dependent upon the averaging period(s) for
which an area is designated nonattainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New major stationary sources or major modifications 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; 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 NNSR requirements as of the effective date of
the nonattainment designation; therefore states lacking the appropriate
NNSR program requirements at that time will be allowed to issue such
permits during the SIP revision period 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 PM NAAQS upon their effective date.
The EPA is not proposing any type of PM2.5 grandfathering
provision at this time for purposes of NNSR. The timetable for adopting
new provisions under the state 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. Further
consideration of the need for a grandfathering provision for purposes
of NNSR for the revised NAAQS for PM2.5 will be made and
addressed in the future, as appropriate.
G. 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 revised NAAQS for PM2.5 does not apply until 1 year
after the effective date of the nonattainment designation for that
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 proposing changes to the transportation conformity rule in
this proposed rulemaking. The EPA notes that the transportation
conformity rule already addresses the PM2.5 and
PM10 NAAQS. However, in the future, the EPA will review the
need to issue or revise guidance describing how the current conformity
rule applies in nonattainment and maintenance areas for any revised
primary or distinct secondary PM NAAQS, as needed.
As discussed in section VIII above, the EPA is proposing certain
clarifying changes to PM2.5 air quality monitoring
regulations These proposed changes are designed to align different
elements of the monitoring regulations for consistency, which will help
facilitate the interpretation of modeling results from quantitative
PM2.5 conformity hot-spot analyses for the annual standards
by clarifying which receptors are comparable to the NAAQS.
If the EPA finalizes these changes to the monitoring regulations,
the EPA will update its guidance on quantitative PM2.5 hot-
spot analyses as appropriate to make it consistent with the revised
monitoring requirements (U.S. EPA, 2010j). If the proposed revisions to
the monitoring requirements are finalized, the EPA intends that the
current quantitative PM2.5 hot spot guidance would continue
to apply to any quantitative PM2.5 hot-spot analysis that
was begun before the effective date of these proposed revisions to the
monitoring regulations. Revised guidance on receptors to be compared to
the annual PM2.5 standards 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
regarding whether or not a receptor can be compared to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to 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 allows 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.
H. General Conformity Program
General conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). This section
requires that federal agencies do not adopt, accept, approve, or fund
activities that are not consistent with state air quality goals.
General conformity applies to any federal action
[[Page 39030]]
(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 any revised PM NAAQS would 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 any revision to the primary or secondary
standards, a federal agency would be expected to continue to estimate
emissions for conformity analyses in the same manner as they are
estimated for conformity analyses for the current PM NAAQS. 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 emission estimation techniques available (40
CFR 93.159(b)), and EPA would expect that this same principle would be
followed for analyses needed with respect to any revised PM NAAQS. When
updated and improved emissions estimation techniques become available,
EPA would expect the federal agency to use these techniques. The EPA is
not proposing changes to the general conformity rule in this proposed
rulemaking. The general conformity rule already addresses the
PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS. 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 and secondary PM 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. 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.
In addition, 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 Proposed 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 alternative levels (in
[mu]g/m\3\) of the primary annual/24-hour PM2.5 standards
including: 13/35, 12/35, 11/35, and 11/30. Table 4 provides a summary
of the estimated costs, monetized benefits, and net benefits associated
with full attainment of these alternative standards.
Table 4--Total Costs, Monetized Benefits and Net Benefits in 2020 a (millions of 2006$) b Full Attainment
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs Monetized benefits \c\ Net benefits \c\
Alternate PM2.5 Standards (annual/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24-hour, in [mu]g/m\3\) 3% Discount 7% Discount
rate rate 3% Discount rate 7% Discount rate 3% Discount rate \d\ 7% Discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13/35.............................. $2.9 $2.9 $88 to $220 $79 to $200 $85 to $220 $76 to $200
12/35.............................. 69 69 $2,300 to $5,900 $2,100 to $5,400 $2,300 to $5,900 $2,000 to $5,300
11/35.............................. 270 270 $9,200 to $23,000 $8,300 to $21,000 $8,900 to $2300 $8,000 to $21,000
11/30.............................. 390 390 $14,000 to $36,000 $13,000 to $33,000 $14,000 to $36,000 $13,000 to $33,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values are rounded to two significant figures.
\b\ Using a 2010$ year increases estimated costs and benefits by approximately 8%.
\c\ The reduction in premature death each year accounts for over 90 percent 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.
\d\ Due to data limitations, we were unable to discount compliance costs for all sectors at 3%. As a result, the net benefit calculations at 3% were computed by subtracting the monetized
benefits at 3% minus the costs at 7%.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.S. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). There are no information
collection requirements directly associated with revisions to a NAAQS
under section 109 of the CAA.
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 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.
[[Page 39031]]
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed 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. 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 proposed 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. Therefore, in the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically
solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
The action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. The Tribal Authority
Rule gives Tribes the opportunity to develop and implement CAA programs
such as the PM NAAQS, but it leaves to the discretion of the Tribe
whether to develop these programs and which programs, or appropriate
elements of a program, they will adopt. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule.
Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule, the EPA
consulted with tribal officials or other representatives of tribal
governments in developing this action.
The EPA specifically solicits additional comments on this proposed
rule from tribal officials.
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 may be especially important for
children because childhood represents a lifestage associated with
increased susceptibility to PM-related health effects. Because children
have been identified as a susceptible 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 children
are contained in sections III.B, III.D, IV.B, and IV.C of this
preamble. A listing of documents that contain the evaluation of
scientific evidence and policy considerations that pertain to children
is found in the section on Children's Environmental Health in the
Supplementary Information section of this preamble, and a copy of all
documents have been placed in the public docket for this action.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of early life exposure to PM.
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.
[[Page 39032]]
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 proposed 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. The EPA also proposes to add a distinct secondary
standard for PM2.5 defined in terms of a calculated
PM2.5 light extinction indicator, which would use
PM2.5 mass species and relative humidity data to calculate
PM2.5 light extinction.
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.\227\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ A list of designated reference and equivalent methods is
available on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/criteria.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the proposed secondary standard defined in terms of a
calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator, the EPA
proposes to use existing monitoring technologies that are already
deployed in the CSN and IMPROVE monitoring programs as well as relative
humidity data from sensors already deployed at routine weather
stations. The sampling and analysis protocols in use in the CSN program
are the result of substantial input and recommendations from CASAC both
during their initial deployment about ten years ago, and during the
more recent transition to carbon sampling that is consistent with
IMPROVE protocols (Henderson 2005c). Monitoring agencies also played a
strong role in directing the sampling technologies used in the CSN.
During the first few years of implementing the CSN there were up to
four different sampling approaches used in the network. Over time as
monitoring agencies shared their experiences and data with each other,
several agencies shifted their network operations to the sampling
technology used today. By 2008, the EPA was working closely with all
remaining monitoring agencies to transition to the current CSN sampling
for ions and elements. All carbon sampling was fully transitioned to
the current method by October of 2009 for consistency with the IMPROVE
program. Therefore, while the current CSN sampling methods were not
developed or adopted by a voluntary consensus standard body, they are
the result of harmonizing the network by monitoring agency users and
EPA. The CSN network and methods are described in more detail in the
Policy Assessment (U.S. EPA, 2011a, Appendix B, section B.1.3).
The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed rulemaking
and, specifically, invites the public to identify potentially
applicable voluntary consensus standards for any of the proposed
indicators with an explanation as to why such standards should be used
in this regulation.
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. The EPA has identified
potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and/
or low-income populations from this proposed rule.
The EPA has identified persons from lower socioeconomic strata as a
susceptible 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. The Agency expects this proposed rule would lead to the
establishment of uniform NAAQS for PM. The Integrated Science
[[Page 39033]]
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.
The public is invited to submit comments or identify peer-reviewed
studies and data that assess effects of PM on low-income populations
and minority populations.
References
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.
Audet P; Charest C (2007). Heavy metal phytoremediation from a meta-
analytical perspective. Environ Pollut, 147: 231-237.
Barregard L; Sallsten G; Andersson L; Almstrand AC; Gustafson P;
Andersson M; Olin AC (2008). Experimental exposure to wood smoke:
effects on airway inflammation and oxidative stress. Occup Environ
Med, 65: 319-324.
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.
Bennett CM; McKendry IG; Kelly S; Denike K; Koch T (2006). Impact of
the 1998 Gobi dust event on hospital admissions in the Lower Fraser
Valley, British Columbia. Sci Total Environ, 366: 918-925.
Bonazza A; Sabbioni C; Ghedini N (2005). Quantitative data on carbon
fractions in interpretation of black crusts and soiling on European
built heritage. Atmos Environ, 39: 2607-2618.
Bond TC; Streets DG; Yarber KF; Nelson SM; Woo J-H; Klimont Z
(2004). A technology-based global inventory of black and organic
carbon emissions from combustion. J Geophys Res, 109.
Bond TC; Sun H (2005). Can reducing black carbon emissions
counteract global warming? Environ Sci Technol, 39: 5921-5926.
Burnett RT; Smith-Doiron M; Stieb D; Cakmak S; Brook JR (1999).
Effects of particulate and gaseous air pollution on
cardiorespiratory hospitalizations. Arch Environ Occup Health, 54:
130-139.
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.
CCSP (2009). Atmospheric Aerosol Properties and Climate Impacts, A
Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. [Mian Chin, Ralph A. Kahn,
and Stephen E. Schwartz (eds.)]. National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
CDC (2008). National Health Interview Survey, National Center for
Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Atlanta, GA. Table 3-1 Current Population Estimates, in thousands by
age, and Table 4-1 Current Asthma Prevalence Percents by Age, United
States: National Health Interview Survey, 2006: Compiled March 18,
2008. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/nhis/06/table3-1.htm and
http://www.cdc.gov/ASTHMA/nhis/06/table4-1.htm.
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.
Curl C (2009). Personal communication with Cynthia Curl, MESA Air
Project Manager, University of Washington; email to Beth Hassett-
Sipple, U.S. EPA, OAQPS regarding request for PM air quality data.
August 10, 2009. Docket No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0113.
Delfino RJ, Murphy-Moulton AM, Burnett RT, Brook JR, Becklake MR
(1997). Effects of air pollution on emergency room visits for
respiratory illnesses in Montreal, Quebec. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med, 155: 568-576.
Delfino R; Brummel S; Wu J; Stern H; Ostro B; Lipsett M; Winer A;
Street D; Zhang L; Tjoa T (2009). The relationship of respiratory
and cardiovascular hospital admissions to the southern California
wildfires of 2003. Occup Environ Med, 66: 189.
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 US 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.
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.
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.
Evangelista M (2011). Investigation of 1-hour PM2.5 Mass
Concentration Data from EPA-Approved Continuous Federal Equivalent
Method Analyzers. Memorandum to PM NAAQS review docket EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0492-0331. April 5, 2011. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Chaloulakou A; Kassomenos P; Grivas G; Spyrellis N (2005).
Particulate matter and black smoke concentration levels in central
Athens, Greece. Environ Int 31(5): 651-9.
Fairley D (2003). Mortality and air pollution for Santa Clara
County, California, 1989-
[[Page 39034]]
1996, In: Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution
and health. Special report. Health Effects Institute. Boston, MA.
Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf.
Forster P; Ramaswamy V; Artaxo P; Betss R; Fahey DW; Haywood J; Lean
J; Lowe DC; Myhre G; Nganga J; Prinn R; Raga G; Schultz M; Van
Dorland R (2007). Changes in atmospheric constituents and in
radiative forcing. In Solomon, S; Qin, D; Manning, M; Chen, Z;
Marquis, M; Averyt, KB; Tignor, M; Miller, HL (Ed.), Climate Change
2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel.
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 (2012). Recommendations for sampling artifact correction for
PM2.5 organic carbon. Memorandum to the PM NAAQS review
docket. Docket number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492.
Franklin M; Zeka A; Schwartz J (2007). Association between
PM2.5 and all-cause and specific-cause mortality in 27 US
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.
Freer-Smith PH; El-khatib A; Taylor G (2004). Capture of particulate
pollution by trees: a comparison of species typical of semi-arid
areas (Ficus nitida and Eucalyptus globulus) with European and North
American species. Water Air Soil Pollut, 155: 173-187.
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.
Givati A; Rosenfeld D (2004). Quantifying precipitation suppression
due to air pollution. J Appl Meteorol, 43: 1038-1056.
Gomot-De Vaufleury A; Pihan F (2002). Methods for toxicity
assessment of contaminated soil by oral or dermal uptake in land
snails: Metal bioavailability and bioaccumulation. Environ Toxicol
Chem, 21: 820-827.
Gong H; Linn WS; Terrell SL; Clark KW; Geller MD; Anderson KR;
Cascio WE; Sioutas C (2004). Altered heart-rate variability in
asthmatic and healthy volunteers exposed to concentrated ambient
coarse particles. Inhal Toxicol, 16: 335-343.
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.
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.
Graff D; Cascio W; Rappold A; Zhou H; Huang Y; Devlin R (2009).
Exposure to concentrated coarse air pollution particles causes mild
cardiopulmonary effects in healthy young adults. Environ Health
Perspect, 117: 1089-1094.
Grantz DA; Garner JHB; Johnson DW (2003). Ecological effects of
particulate matter. Environ Int, 29: 213-239.
Hageman KJ; Simonich SL; Campbell DH; Wilson GR; Landers DH (2006).
Atmospheric deposition of current-use and historic-use pesticides in
snow at national parks in the western United States. Environ Sci
Technol, 40: 3174-3180
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_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.
Hassan R; Scholes R; Ash N (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being:
current state and trends, volume 1. United Kingdom: Shearwater
Books.
Hassett-Sipple B and Stanek L (2009). Email to study authors of
recent U.S, and Canadian epidemiological studies evaluating health
effects associated with exposure to fine and thoracic coarse
particles. May 2, 2009 and October 20, 2009. Docket ID numbers EPA-
HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0050 and EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517-0104.
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.
Heal MR; Hibbs, LR; Agius, RM; Beverland IJ (2005). Interpretation
of variations in fine, coarse and black smoke particulate matter
concentrations in a northern European city. Atmospheric Environment.
39, 3711-3718.
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
[[Page 39035]]
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.
Herrera LK; Videla HA (2004). The importance of atmospheric effects
on biodeterioration of cultural heritage constructional materials.
Int Biodeterior Biodegradation, 54: 125-134.
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.
Host S; Larrieu S; Pascal L; Blanchard M; Declercq C; Fabre P; Jusot
JF; Chardon B; Le Tertre A; Wagner V; Prouvost H; Lefranc A (2007).
Short-term Associations between Fine and Coarse Particles and
Cardiorespiratory Hospitalizations in Six French Cities. Occup
Environ Med, 18: S107-S108.
IMPROVE (1996). Improve Standard Operating Procedures, SOP 126, Site
Selection. September 12, 1996. Available: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/SOPs/ucdavis_sops/sop126.pdf.
IPCC (2007): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.
Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
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 (2003). Associations of particulate matter components with
daily mortality and morbidity in Detroit, Michigan. In: Revised
analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health. Special
report. Health Effects Institute. Boston, MA. R828112. Available:
http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/TimeSeries.pdf.
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.
Ito K; Thurston G; Silverman RA (2007). Characterization of
PM2.5 gaseous pollutants and meteorological interactions
in the context of time-series health effects models. J Expo Sci
Environ Epidemiol. 17: 45-60.
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.
Jacobson MZ (2000). A physically-based treatment of elemental carbon
optics: implications for global direct forcing of aerosols. Geophys
Res Lett, 27: 217-220.
Jacobson MZ; Kaufman YJ (2006). Wind reduction by aerosol particles.
Geophys Res Lett, 33 ARLN 24814.
Jenkins SM (2011). Supplemental Analysis of PM10 Air
Quality from Locations Evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz (2009).
Memorandum to PM NAAQS review docket. February 3, 2011. Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0335. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Jerrett M; Burnett RT; Ma R; Pope CA; Krewski D; Newbold KB;
Thurston G; Shi Y; Finkelstein N; Calle N; Thun MJ (2005). Spatial
analysis of air pollution and mortality in Los Angeles.
Epidemiology, 16: 727-36.
Kelly J; Schmidt M; Frank N; Timin B; Solomon D; Rao V (2012).
Technical Analyses to Support Surrogacy Policy for Proposed
Secondary PM2.5 NAAQS under NSR/PSD Program. Memorandum
to EPA Docket 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.
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.
Kucera T; Horakova H; Sonska A (2008). Toxic metal ions in
photoautotrophic organisms. Photosynthetica, 46: 481-489.
Laden F; Neas LM; Dockery DW; Schwartz J (2000). Association of fine
particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in
six US 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.
Landers DH; Simonich SL; Jaffe DA; Geiser LH; Campbell DH; Schwindt
AR; Schreck CB; Kent ML; Hafner WD; Taylor HE; Hageman KJ; Usenko S;
Ackerman LK; Schrlau JE; Rose NL; Blett TF; Erway MM (2008). The
Fate, Transport and Ecological Impacts of Airborne Contaminants in
Western National Parks (USA). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Western Ecology
Division. Corvallis, Oregon. EPA/600/R-07/138.
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.
Le Tertre A; Schwartz J; Touloumi G (2005). Empirical Bayes and
adjusted estimates approach to estimating the relation of mortality
to exposure of PM10. Risk Anal, 25: 711-718.
Lin M; Chen Y; Burnett RT; Villeneuve PJ; Krewski D (2002). The
influence of
[[Page 39036]]
ambient coarse particulate matter on asthma hospitalization in
children: case-crossover and time-series analyses. Environ Health
Perspect, 110: 575-581.
Lipfert FW; Morris SC; Wyzga RE (2000). Daily mortality in the
Philadelphia metropolitan area and size-classified particulate
matter. J Air Waste Manag Assoc, 50: 1501-1513.
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.
Lisabeth LD; Escobar JD; Dvonch JT; Sanchez BN; Majersik JJ; Brown
DL; Smith MA; Morgenstern LB (2008). Ambient air pollution and risk
for ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. Ann Neurol, 64:
53-59.
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.
Lowenthal D; Kumar N (2006). Light scattering from sea-salt aerosols
at Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
sites. J Air & Waste Manage Assoc, 56: 636-642.
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.
Mar TF; Norris GA; Koenig JQ; Larson TV (2000). Associations between
air pollution and mortality in Phoenix, 1995-1997. Environ Health
Perspect, 108: 347-353.
Mar TF; Norris GA; Larson TV; Wilson WE; Koenig JQ (2003). Air
pollution and cardiovascular mortality in Phoenix, 1995-1997. In:
Revised analyses of time-series studies of air pollution and health.
Special report. May 2003. Boston, MA: Health Effects Institute, pp.
177-182. Available: http://www.healtheffects.org/news.htm.
Mar TF; Larson TV; Stier RA; Claiborn C; Koenig JQ (2004). An
analysis of the association between respiratory symptoms in subjects
with asthma and daily air pollution in Spokane, Washington. Inhal
Toxicol, 16: 809-815.
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.
Mauderly J (1999a). Letter from Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to Honorable Carol M. Browner,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) Advisory on the PM2.5 Monitoring Program. January
28, 1999. EPA-SAB-CASAC-ADV-99-002. Available: http://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
BF851CC61D5D1D80852571930057E4EC/$File/casa9902.pdf.
Mauderly J (1999b). Letter from Dr. Joe L. Mauderly, Chair, Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee to Honorable Carol M. Browner,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Notification of a Consultation on the
PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Network and the Supersites
Program Plan. July 30, 1999. EPA-SAB-CASAC-CON-99-007. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
16FD6FAFB180FF88852571930061AD6C/$File/casccon7.pdf.
McCabe J (2011). Regional Consistence for the Administrative
Requirements of State Implementation Plan Submittals and the Use of
Letter Notices. Memorandum from Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant
Administrator, EPA Office of Air and Radiation to Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X. April 6, 2011. Available: http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/mccabeLltrRAs.pdf.
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.
Metzger KB; Tolbert PE; Klein M; Peel JL; Flanders WD; Todd KH;
Mulholland JA; Ryan PB; Frumkin H (2004). Ambient air pollution and
cardiovascular emergency department visits. Epidemiology, 15: 46-56.
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.
Molenar JV; Malm WC; Johnson CE (1994). Visual air quality
simulation techniques. Atmos Environ, 28(5): 1055-1063.
National Research Council (2001). Climate change science: an
analysis of some key questions. National Research Council. National
Academy Press. Washington, DC.
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.
NYS DOH (2006). A study of ambient air contaminants and asthma in
New York City, Final Report Part B: Air contaminants and emergency
department visits for asthma in the Bronx and Manhattan. Prepared
for: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for
Toxic Substance and Disease Registry.
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 (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.
Papp M (2012). Documentation of Measurement Uncertainty Estimates of
Collocated Chemical Speciation Network and IMPROVE Data for Use in
the Secondary PM2.5 Standard for Visibility. Memorandum
to the PM2.5 NAAQS Review Docket June 13, 2012. Docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0387. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/pmspec.html.
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.
Parrish ZD; White JC; Isleyen M; Gent MPN; Iannucci-Berger W; Eitzer
BD; Kelsey JW; Mattina MI (2006). Accumulation of weathered
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by plant and earthworm
species. Chemosphere, 64: 609-618.
Patra M; Bhowmik N; Bandopadhyay B; Sharma A (2004). Comparison of
mercury, lead and arsenic with respect to genotoxic effects on plant
systems and the development of genetic tolerance. Environ Exp Bot,
52: 199-223.
Peng RD; Chang HH; Bell ML; McDermott A; Zeger SL; Samet JM;
Dominici F (2008). Coarse particulate matter air pollution and
hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases
among Medicare patients. JAMA, 299: 2172-2179.
Penttinen P; Vallius M; Tiittanen P; Ruuskanen J; Pekkanen J (2006).
Source-
[[Page 39037]]
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 3rd; Burnett RT; Thurston GD; Thun MJ; Calle EE; Krewski D;
Godleski JJ (2004). Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure
to particulate air pollution: epidemiological evidence of general
pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation, 109: 71-77.
Pope CA 3rd; Ezzati M; Dockery DW (2009). Fine-particulate air
pollution and life expectancy in the United States. N Engl J Med,
360: 376-386.
Pryor SC (1996). Assessing public perception of visibility for
standard setting exercises. Atmos Environ, 30: 2705-2716.
Putaud J-P; Raes F; Van Dengenen R; Bruggemann E; Facchini M-C;
Decesari S; Fuzzi S; Gehrig R; Huglin C; Laj P; Lorbeer G; Maenhaut
W; Mihalopoulos N; Muller K; Querol X; Rodriguez S; Schneider J;
Spindler G; ten Brink H; Torseth K; Wiedensohler A (2004). A
European aerosol phenomenology--2: chemical characteristics of
particulate matter at kerbside, urban, rural and background sites in
Europe. Atmos Environ, 38: 2579-2595.
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.
Rabinovitch N; Strand M; Gelfand EW (2006). Particulate levels are
associated with early asthma worsening in children with persistent
disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 173: 1098-1105.
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 EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0333.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Regoli F; Gorbi S; Fattorini D; Tedesco S; Notti A; Machella N;
Bocchetti R; Benedetti M; Piva F (2006). Use of the land snail Helix
aspersa sentinel organism for monitoring ecotoxicologic effects of
urban pollution: An integrated approach. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol
Integr Physiol, 114: 63-69.
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.
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. (2010a). 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 White Paper on Particulate
Matter (PM) Light Extinction Measurements. April 29, 2010. EPA-
CASAC-10-010. Docket ID number. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0189.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/92C9F5AA09A76A93852577150004A782/
$File/EPA-CASAC-10-010-unsigned.pdf.
Russell, A; Samet, J.M. (2010b). Letter from the Clean Air Science
Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring and Methods
Subcommittee (AAMMS) to the Honorable Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator, U.S. EPA. Review of the ``Near-road Guidance
Document-Outline'' and ``Near-road Monitoring Pilot Study Objectives
and Approach.'' November 24, 2010. EPA-CASAC-11-001. Available:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
ACD1BD26412312DC852577E500591B37/$File/EPA-CASAC-11-001-
unsigned.pdf.
Salemaa M; Derome J; Helmisaari HS; Nieminen T; Vanha-Majamaa I
(2004). Element accumulation in boreal bryophytes, lichens and
vascular plants exposed to heavy metal and sulfur deposition in
Finland. Sci Total Environ, 324: 141-160.
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
[[Page 39038]]
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.
Schilling JS; Lehman ME (2002). Bioindication of atmospheric heavy
metal deposition in the Southeastern U.S. using the moss Thuidium
delicatulum. Atmos Environ, 36: 1611-1618.
Schmidt M; Jenkins SM (2010). PM10 and
PM10-2.5 Air Quality Analyses. Memorandum to PM NAAQS
review docket. July 22, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-
0128. Available: http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/
s_pm_2007_td.html.
Schmidt M (2011a). 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:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_
td.html.
Schmidt M (2011b). PM10 and PM10-2.5 Air
Quality Analyses. Memorandum to PM NAAQS review docket. April 14,
2011. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0334. Available:
http:[sol][sol]www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_
td.html.
Schreuder AB; Larson TV; Sheppard L; Claiborn CS (2006). Ambient
woodsmoke and associated respiratory emergency department visits in
Spokane, Washington. Int J Occup Environ Health, 12: 147-153.
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 (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:[sol][sol]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.
Smith WH (1990). Forest nutrient cycling: Toxic ions. In Air
pollution and forests: Interactions between air contaminants and
forest ecosystems. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Stanek L; Hassett-Sipple B; Yang R (2010). Particulate Matter Air
Quality Data Requested From Epidemiologic Study Authors. Memorandum
to PM NAAQS Review dockets EPA-HQ-ORD-2007-0517 and EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0492. July 22, 2010. Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0492-0130.
Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_2007_td.html.
Stieb DM; Beveridge RC; Brook JR; Smith-Doiron M; Burnett RT; Dales
RE; Beaulieu S; Judek S; Mamedov A (2000). Air pollution,
aeroallergens and cardiorespiratory emergency department visits in
Saint John, Canada. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 10: 461-477.
Strydom C; Robinson C; Pretorius E; Whitcutt JM; Marx J; Bornman MS
(2006). The effect of selected metals on the central metabolic
pathways in biology: A review. Water SA, 32: 543-554.
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.
Tolbert PE; Klein M; Peel JL; Sarnat SE; Sarnat JA (2007).
Multipollutant modeling issues in a study of ambient air quality and
emergency department visits in Atlanta. J Expo Sci Environ
Epidemiol, 17: S29-S35.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW). (1969). Air
Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington DC, AP-49.
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.
[[Page 39039]]
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 (2004). 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 (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 (2006). 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 (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 (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). US 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.
[[Page 39040]]
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 (2010g). White Paper on PM Light Extinction Measurements.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 2010.
Available: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/264cb1227d55e02c85257402007446a4/823a6c8842610e768525764900659b22!OpenDocument
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--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 (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.
Viles HA; Gorbushina AA (2003). Soiling and microbial colonisation
on urban roadside limestone: A three year study in Oxford, England.
Building Environ, 38: 1217-1224.
Villeneuve PJ; Chen L; Stieb D; Rowe BH (2006). Associations between
outdoor air pollution and emergency department visits for stroke in
Edmonton, Canada. Eur J Epidemiol, 21: 689-700.
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.
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.
Wilson WE; Mar TF; Koenig JQ (2007). Influence of exposure error and
effect modification by socioeconomic status on the association of
acute cardiovascular mortality with particulate matter in Phoenix. J
Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol, 17: S11-S19.
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.
Yang CY; Cheng MH; Chen CC (2009). Effects of Asian Dust Storm
Events on Hospital Admissions for Congestive Heart Failure in
Taipei, Taiwan. J Toxicol Environ Health A Curr Iss, 72: 324-328.
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.
Yogui G; Sericano J (2008). Polybrominated diphenyl ether flame
retardants in lichens and mosses from King George Island, maritime
Antarctica. Chemosphere, 73: 1589-1593.
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; McDermott A; Dominici F; Samet J (2007). Mortality in the
Medicare population and chronic exposure to fine particulate air
pollution. Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore. http://www.bepress.com/jhubiostat/paper133.
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.
Zhang Z; Whitsel E; Quibrera P; Smith R; Liao D; Anderson G; Prineas
R (2009). Ambient fine particulate matter exposure and myocardial
ischemia in the Environmental Epidemiology of Arrhythmogenesis in
the Women's Health Initiative (EEAWHI) study. Environ Health
Perspect, 117: 751-756.
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, 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: June 14, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, chapter I of title 40 of
the
[[Page 39041]]
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 50--NATIONAL PRIMARY AND SECONDARY AMBIENT AIR QUALITY
STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. 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 [micro]g/ 2004-2006.............. October 1, 2007........ April 15, 2008.
m\3\) 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.
PM2.5/24-Hour Standard (final level 2010 to 2011........... July 1, 2013........... December 12, 2013.
and promulgation date TBD). 2012................... July 1, 2013\a\........ December 12, 2013.
2013................... July 1, 2014\a\........ August 1, 2014.
PM2.5/Annual Standard (final level 2010 to 2011........... July 1, 2013........... December 12, 2013.
and promulgation date TBD). 2012................... July 1, 2013\a\........ December 12, 2013.
2013................... July 1, 2014\a\........ August 1, 2014.
PM2.5 Visibility Index (final level 2010 to 2011........... July 1, 2013........... December 12, 2013.
and promulgation date TBD). 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 EPA will use to establish the final initial area
designations for new NAAQS. The general schedule applies for all other purposes, most notably, for data used
by EPA for redesignations to attainment. TBD = to be determined.
* * * * *
3. 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 to 13.0] micrograms per cubic meter
([micro]g/m\3\) annual arithmetic mean concentration and 35 [micro]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 of 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 to 13.0]
[micro]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 [micro]g/m\3\.
4. Add Sec. 50.19 to read as follows:
Sec. 50.19 National secondary ambient air quality standard for
PM2.5
(a) The following national secondary ambient air quality standard
for PM is in addition to the national secondary ambient air quality
standards for PM10 specified in Sec. 50.6 and for
PM2.5 specified in Sec. 50.13.
(1) [30 or 28] deciviews (dv), 24-hour average concentration, based
on a calculated PM2.5 visibility index using methods based
on appendix C of part 58 of this chapter.
(2) [Reserved].
(b) The 24-hour secondary PM2.5 visibility index
standard is met when the 90th percentile 24-hour calculated
PM2.5 visibility index, as determined in accordance with
appendix N of this part, is less than or equal to [30 or 28] dv.
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
[[Page 39042]]
necessary for determining when the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 are met, including the
primary and secondary annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
specified in Sec. 50.7, 50.13, and 50.18, and the secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS specified in Sec. 50.19.
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. Chemically speciated PM2.5 mass
concentrations are derived from ambient air measurements using the
methods specified in appendix C of part 58 of this chapter. The data
handling and computation procedures to be used to construct annual
and 24-hour 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. The data
handling and computation procedures to be used to construct the
PM2.5 visibility index metric from reported speciated
PM2.5 concentrations (and related climatological relative
humidity hygroscopic growth factors), and the associated
instructions for comparing these computed metrics to the level of
the PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, are specified in
sections 2.0, 3.0, and 5.0 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.
The collocated PM10 data substitution test substitutes reported
same-day PM10 FRM/FEM daily values from the same site for
missing scheduled PM2.5 samples in data capture deficient
quarters.
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 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 or 90th
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 for the annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
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. Daily
values for the PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS refer to the
24-hour average PM2.5 visibility index values derived
from reported speciated PM2.5 measurements and
corresponding f(RH) factors using the formulae specified in section
5.0 of this appendix.
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 that metric, which is
otherwise judged incomplete (via the applicable 75 percent data
capture or 11 creditable samples per quarter minimum data
completeness options), shall nevertheless be deemed complete and
valid for NAAQS comparisons, or alternatively, shall still be
considered incomplete and not valid for NAAQS comparisons. There are
three data substitution tests, the ``maximum quarterly value'' test,
the ``minimum quarterly value'' test, and the ``collocated
PM10'' test. Only one of the three tests needs to
``pass'' in order to validate the DV in question. These tests
substitute actual same-site extreme daily values for missing data in
an incomplete year(s), calculate a revised ``test DV'' using the
original plus substituted data, and, if the test DV relays the same
NAAQS status (i.e., meets or not meets) as the original (otherwise
incomplete) DV, the test is deemed to have ``passed'' and since only
one passing test is needed, the original DV (without the diagnostic
data substitutions) is then considered complete and valid for NAAQS
comparisons. If the test DV relays a different NAAQS status as the
original (otherwise incomplete) DV, the test is deemed to have
``failed,'' and if all applicable substitution tests are ``failed''
then the original DV will still be considered incomplete and not
valid for NAAQS comparisons.
Deciview is the unit of measure for the level of the secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS. This metric describes
changes in uniform light extinction that can be perceived by a human
observer. One deciview represents the minimal perceptible change in
visibility to the human eye. Daily calculated PM2.5 light
extinction values in units of Mm-\1\ are translated to
PM2.5 visibility index values in terms of deciviews
according to equation 7 in section 5(d)(3) of this appendix.
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 sections
4.0 and 5.0 of this appendix. There are three 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 PM 2.5 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.''
(3) The 3-year average of annual 90th percentile 24-hour average
PM2.5 visibility index values calculated for each
eligible monitoring site is referred to as the ``PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS DV.''
Elemental carbon (EC) is the reported concentration of
PM2.5 elemental carbon from the speciation methods
identified in appendix C to part 58 of this chapter.
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 and the PM2.5
visibility index 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 or 90th
percentile value, but are not used to determine which value in the
sorted list represents the 98th or 90th percentile.
Fine soil (FS) is the calculated measure of PM2.5
crustal material. It is derived from the reported speciated
PM2.5 concentrations of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si),
calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), and titanium (Ti) using formula 5d in
5(d)(1) of this appendix. FS data is generated from the speciation
methods identified in appendix C to part 58 of this chapter.
f(RH) is a unitless water growth factor used to relate a given
relative humidity (RH) to its impact on PM2.5 light-
scattering.
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
values (year non-specific) contained in the combined site record for
the evaluated 3-year period) for missing daily values.
[[Page 39043]]
The minimum quarterly value data substitution test substitutes
actual ``low'' reported daily PM2.5 values from the same
site (specifically, the lowest reported quarterly values (year non-
specific) contained in the combined site record for the evaluated 3-
year period) for missing daily values.
98th percentile [90th percentile] is the smallest daily value
out of a year of PM2.5 mass monitoring data
[PM2.5-related visibility indices] below which no more
than 98 [90] percent of all daily values fall using the ranking and
selection method specified in section 4.5(a) [5.0(d)(4)] of this
appendix.
Nitrate is the fully neutralized PM2.5 nitrate ion
(NO332.5
organic carbon (PM2.5 OC) multiplied by a factor (1.4) to
adjust the OC for other elements (e.g., hydrogen and oxygen) assumed
to be associated with the PM2.5 OC. See equation 5c in
5(d)(1) of this appendix. Organic mass data is generated from the
speciation methods identified in appendix C to part 58 of this
chapter.
PM2.5 bext is a calculated measure of the total fraction of
light that is attenuated by PM2.5 particles per unit
distance (e.g., per inverse megameter, Mm-1). The
estimate is derived from daily average speciated PM2.5
mass concentrations and climatological monthly average relative
humidity data via equation 6 in 5(d)(2) of this appendix.
PM2.5 organic carbon (PM2.5 OC) refers to the measured organic
carbon with an adjustment for adsorbed organic vapors (known as the
organic carbon artifact). PM2.5 organic carbon data is
generated from the speciation methods identified in Appendix C to
Part 58.
PM2.5 visibility index is the indicator used for the secondary
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS. The index is computed on a
24-hour average basis from PM2.5 bext using equation 7 in
5(d)(3) of this appendix.
Primary monitors are suitable monitors designated by a state or
local agency in their annual network plan (and in AQS) to be 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 3.0(e).
Seasonal sampling is the practice of collecting data at a
reduced frequency during a season of expected low concentrations.
Speciation methods refer to the PM2.5 chemical
speciation methods identified in section 2.9.2 of appendix C to part
58 of this chapter which include those used by the Chemical
Speciation Network (CSN) and the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environment (IMPROVE) network.
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 per Sec. 58.11 of this
chapter. For the PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS, suitable
monitors include the speciation methods specified in section 2.9.2
of appendix C of part 58 of this chapter which include those used by
the CSN and the IMPROVE network.
Sulfate is the fully neutralized PM2.5 sulfate ion
(SO2-4) concentration. It is the reported
concentration of SO2-4 multiplied by a factor
(1.375) to account for full neutralization with ammonium. See
equation 5a in 5(d)(1) of this appendix. Sulfate data are generated
from the speciation methods identified in appendix C to part 58 of
this chapter.
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. All speciation samplers using the
speciation methods specified in section 2.9.2 of appendix C of part
58 of this chapter are deemed suitable for comparisons to the
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS.
(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 and speciated
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 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 ([mu]g/m\3\) to at least one decimal place, with additional
digits to the right being 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 PM2.5
mass data are submitted to AQS with less precision than specified
above, these data shall nevertheless still be deemed appropriate for
NAAQS usage. For the purpose of calculating PM2.5
visibility index values, the speciated PM2.5 component
concentrations of sulfate, nitrate, PM2.5 OC, EC, Al, Si,
Ca, Fe, and Ti, the AQS will convert (if necessary) reported
concentrations into units of [mu]g/m\3\ rounded to four decimal
places (0.xxxx5 rounds up), or three significant digits when the
concentration value is 0.1 or more. In situations where fewer
decimal places or significant digits than specified above are
reported to AQS, such data shall nevertheless still be deemed
appropriate for NAAQS usage.
(c) Block 24-hour average concentrations will be computed in AQS
from submitted hourly PM2.5 concentration data (mass or
species) 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). For
PM2.5 mass concentrations, 24-hour periods with seven or
more missing hours shall 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; twenty-four-
hour average PM2.5 speciated mass concentrations that are
averaged in AQS from hourly values will be rounded to four decimal
places (or three significant digits if the average is greater than
0.1), consistent with the data handling procedures 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 and speciated
concentrations for a site shall
[[Page 39044]]
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 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 for aggregated PM2.5 mass. The exception
is, if a collocated continuous FEM 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
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. For the PM2.5 visibility
index NAAQS, creditable samples are based on daily values of
PM2.5 bext (which essentially require non-missing values
for the nine required input speciated PM2.5 parameters,
all reported on the same scheduled sampling days). Section 5.0 of
this appendix specifies in further detail the procedure for
calculating PM2.5 visibility index values and the ensuing
determination of whether they are creditable or not.
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 to
13.0] [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 (and complete) if it passes at
least one of the three 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 (and complete) if one (or
more) of the test conditions specified in 4.1(c)(i), 4.1(c)(ii), and
4.1(c)(iii) is met.
(1) 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
matching 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 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 exceeded in that 3-
year period.
(2) 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 are at least 30 days across
the three matching quarters of the three years under consideration
from which to select the quarter-specific high value. 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 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 months 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 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.
(3) An annual PM2.5 NAAQS DV that is equal to or
below the level of the NAAQS can be validated if it passes the
collocated PM10 data substitution test. 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 data capture), available collocated FRM/FEM
PM10 values reported for each PM2.5 scheduled
day that is missing a valid daily PM2.5 value. If there
is more than one collocated daily PM10 value present for
a particular day (that is scheduled for measuring PM2.5
but does not have a corresponding valid daily PM2.5
value), then the highest of those multiple daily PM10
values will be used as the substituted value. If, after substituting
the available collocated daily PM10 values for as many as
possible missing daily PM2.5 values in the deficient
quarter(s), the procedure yields recalculated data capture rates of
75 percent or more, and a recalculated annual PM2.5 NAAQS
test DV 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.
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 [micro]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
[[Page 39045]]
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
data capture requirement is not met, the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS DV shall still be considered valid (and complete) if it passes
one (or both) of two applicable data substitution tests (i.e., the
maximum quarterly value or collocated PM10 data
substitution tests).
(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 ``complete and valid'' if
either of the test conditions specified in 4.2(c)(i) or 4.2(c)(ii)
are met.
(1) 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 are at least 30 days across
the three matching quarters of the three years under consideration
from which to select the quarter-specific high value.
Procedure: Identify for each deficient quarter (i.e., those with
less than 75 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 Administrator, looking across those three months 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 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.
(2) A 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS DV that is equal to or
below the level of the NAAQS can be validated if it passes the
collocated PM10 data substitution test. 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, available
collocated FRM/FEM daily PM10 values reported for each
PM2.5 scheduled day that is missing a valid daily
PM2.5 value. If there is more than one collocated daily
PM10 value present for a particular day (that is
scheduled for measuring PM2.5 but doesn't have a
corresponding valid daily PM2.5 value), then the highest
of those daily PM10 values will be used as the
substituted daily PM2.5 value. If, after substituting the
available collocated daily PM10 values for as many as
possible missing daily PM2.5 values in the deficient
quarter(s), the procedure yields recalculated data capture rates of
75 percent or more, and a recalculated 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS test DV 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 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 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 [micro]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 [micro]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] TP29JN12.005
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] TP29JN12.006
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] TP29JN12.007
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 39046]]
Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P 0.98, y is the
nth maximum for
Annual number of creditable samples for year y (cny) 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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.008
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.
5.0 Comparisons With the Secondary PM2.5 Visibility Index NAAQS
(a) The secondary PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS is met
when the PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS DV at each eligible
monitoring site is less than or equal to [30 or 28] deciviews.
(b) Three years of valid annual 90th percentile concentrations
of 24-hour average PM2.5 visibility index values are
required to produce a valid PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS
DV. A year meets data completeness requirements when there are at
least 11 creditable daily values of PM2.5 visibility
indices in each quarter (all four of the year); a daily value is
defined as one that contains valid estimates for all five major
speciation PM2.5 components: Sulfate, nitrate, OM, EC,
and FS. In order to derive these five major components, 24-hour
average concentrations are needed for the following nine parameters:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.009
EC, Al, Si, Ca, Fe, and Ti, and PM2.5 OC. Years with less
than 11 creditable samples in each quarter shall still be considered
complete and the corresponding identified 90th percentile deemed
valid, if the 90th percentile value for that year or a resulting 3-
year average 90th percentile value (i.e., a PM2.5
visibility index NAAQS DV) encompassing that annual value exceeds
the NAAQS level (i.e., [30 or 28] deciviews). The use of less than
complete data (i.e., data not meeting the criteria stated in this
subsection) is subject to the approval of the EPA Administrator, who
may consider factors such as monitoring site closures/moves,
monitoring diligence, and nearby concentrations in determining
whether to use such data.
(c) Rounding Conventions: For the purposes of calculating
PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS DVs to compare to the level
of the standard, it is necessary to round the final results of the
calculations described in sections 5(d) of this appendix as noted
below. Results for all intermediate calculations shall not be
rounded unless otherwise specified.
(1) Daily deciview values shall be rounded to the nearest 0.1
deciview (decimals 0.x5 and greater are rounded up to the next
tenth, and any decimal lower than 0.x5 is rounded down to the stated
tenth).
(2) The PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS DV shall be
rounded to the nearest 1 deciview (decimal values x.5 and greater
are rounded up to the nearest whole number, and any decimal values
lower than x.5 are rounded down to the nearest whole number).
(d) Procedures and Equations for the Secondary PM2.5
Visibility Index NAAQS
(1) The five major speciation components (Sulfate, Nitrate, OM,
EC, and FS) are derived from reported concentrations of
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.010
EC, Al, Si, Ca, Fe, and Ti, and reported/adjusted concentrations of
PM2.5 OC, according to the equations below:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.011
[[Page 39047]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.012
Where:
OMi = organic mass for day i; and
PM2.5 OCi = measured organic carbon with an
adjustment for adsorbed organic vapors
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.013
Where:
FSi = fine soil for day i; and
Ali = the reported aluminum concentration for day i; and
Sii = the reported silicon concentration for day i; and
Cai = the reported calcium concentration for day i; and
Fei = the reported iron concentration for day i; and
Tii = the reported titanium concentration for day i
(2) Daily estimates of PM2.5-related calculated light-
extinction, PM2.5 bext (expressed in units of inverse
megameters (Mm-1)), are derived by equation 6. The
components sulfate, nitrate, OM, and FS are derived using formulae, 5a,
5b, 5c, and 5d. The component EC is the reported concentration of
PM2.5 elemental carbon. The f(RH) value corresponding to
each site-day shall be identified from the most recent 10-year average
climatological database. This database contains spatially gridded
monthly values of f(RH). The database record for the grid-point closest
in distance to the monitoring site shall be selected for utilization in
calculating PM2.5 bext. The monthly value
identified from the database record for the selected grid location will
be the one corresponding to the sample month of the reported input
speciation concentrations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.014
(3) Daily estimates of PM2.5 bext, in units of
Mm-1, are converted to PM2.5 visibility index
values, in units of deciviews, according to equation 7.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.015
Where:
PM2.5 -- visibility -- indexi =
PM2.5 visibility index value (in deciview units) for day
i; and
PM2.5 -- Bext i = PM2.5-related light
extinction (in Mm-1 units) for day i
(4) Identification of annual 90th percentile PM2.5
visibility index values is accomplished by the steps provided in this
subsection. Table 2 of this appendix shall be used to identify annual
90th percentile values according to the creditable number of 24-hour
PM2.5 visibility index values calculated for the year.
Procedure: Sort all the daily PM2.5 visibility index
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
[[Page 39048]]
and x[n] is the smallest value.) The 90th percentile is determined from
this sorted series of values which is ordered from the highest to the
lowest number. Using the left column of Table 2, determine the
appropriate range for the annual creditable number of samples for year
y (ny) (e.g., for 35 creditable samples in a year, the
appropriate range would be 31 to 40). The corresponding ``nth'' value
in the right column identifies the rank of the annual 90th percentile
value in the descending sorted list of PM2.5 visibility
index values for year y (e.g., for the range of 31 to 40, n is equal to
4). Thus, P0.90, y = the nth largest value (e.g., for the
range of 31 to 40, the 90th percentile value would be the fourth
highest value in the sorted series of PM2.5 visibility index
values).
(5) The PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS DV is then
calculated by averaging the annual 90th percentile PM2.5
visibility index values for three consecutive years using equation 8 of
this appendix:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JN12.016
Where:
P0.90 = the PM2.5 visibility index NAAQS DV; and
P0.90.y = the annual 90th percentile PM2.5 visibility
index value for year y
Table 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
P 0.90, y is the nth
Annual number of creditable samples for year maximum for the year
``y'' (cny) where n is the listed
number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 to 10........................................ 1
11 to 20....................................... 2
21 to 30....................................... 3
31 to 40....................................... 4
41 to 50....................................... 5
51 to 60....................................... 6
61 to 70....................................... 7
71 to 80....................................... 8
81 to 90....................................... 9
91 to 100...................................... 10
101 to 110..................................... 11
111 to 120..................................... 12
121 to 130..................................... 13
131 to 140..................................... 14
141 to 150..................................... 15
151 to 160..................................... 16
161 to 170..................................... 17
171 to 180..................................... 18
181 to 190..................................... 19
191 to 200..................................... 20
201 to 210..................................... 21
211 to 220..................................... 22
221 to 230..................................... 23
231 to 240..................................... 24
241 to 250..................................... 25
251 to 260..................................... 26
261 to 270..................................... 27
271 to 280..................................... 28
281 to 290..................................... 29
291 to 300..................................... 30
301 to 310..................................... 31
311 to 320..................................... 32
321 to 330..................................... 33
331 to 340..................................... 34
341 to 350..................................... 35
351 to 360..................................... 36
361 to 366..................................... 37
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
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]
7. In Sec. 51.166, add paragraph (i)(10) to read as follows:
Sec. 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.
* * * * *
(i) Exemptions. * * *
(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 as in effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] if the
reviewing authority has first published before that date public notice
that a preliminary determination for the permit subject to this section
has been issued. Instead, the requirements in paragraph (k)(1) shall
apply with respect to the national ambient air quality standards for
PM2.5 as in effect at the time of the public notice on the
proposed permit.
* * * * *
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATIONS OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
8. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
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 as in
effect on [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] if the Administrator has first
published before that date a public notice that a draft permit subject
to this section has been prepared. Instead, the requirements in
paragraph (k)(1) shall apply with respect to the national ambient air
quality standards for PM2.5 as 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
10. The authority citation for part 53 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Section 301(a) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
1857g(a)), as amended by sec. 15(c)(2) of Pub. L. 91-604, 84 Stat.
1713, unless otherwise noted.
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
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.
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)''.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 58.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *
14. Section 58.10 is amended as follows:
[[Page 39049]]
a. By adding paragraph (a)(8).
b. By adding paragraph (b)(13).
c. By revising paragraph (c).
d. By revising paragraph (d).
The additions and revisions read as follows:
Sec. 58.10 Annual monitoring network plan and periodic network
assessment.
(a) * * *
(8) A plan for establishing near-road PM2.5 monitoring
sites in accordance with the requirements of appendix D to this part
shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator by July 1, 2014. The
plan shall provide for all required monitoring stations to be
operational by January 1, 2015.
(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 collected for the period of time that
the plan covers (i.e., the next 18 months or until a new plan is
submitted addressing this issue) 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. 58.10 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.
* * * * *
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, for any case where the data are identified as not of
sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM, such that the FEM or ARM
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)(13) for any case where the FEM or ARM is
identified as not of sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM. The
performance criteria apply with the following provisions to accommodate
how monitoring agencies operate their collocated PM2.5
methods:
(1) The acceptable concentration range (Rj), [micro]g/m\3\ may
include values down to 0 [micro]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 apply; the precision
statistic requirement does not apply, even if precision data are
available.
(5) All seasons must be covered with no more than three years in
total aggregated together.
16. Section 58.12 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(1)(iii) and
by removing and reserving paragraph (f)(2).
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 58.12 Operating schedules.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Required SLAMS stations whose measurements determine the
design value for their area and that are within plus or minus 5 percent
of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS must have an FRM or FEM operate
on a daily schedule if the 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.
* * * * *
17. Section 58.13 is amended by adding paragraphs (f) and (g) 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 no
later than January 1, 2015, and at that time, must be operating under
all of the requirements of this part, including the requirements of
appendices A, C, D, and E to this part.
(g) CSN (or IMPROVE) monitoring stations required as described in
appendix D to this part not already operational, must be physically
established no later than January 1, 2015, and at that time must be
operating under all of the requirements of this part, including the
requirements of appendices A, C, D, and E to this part.
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
[[Page 39050]]
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 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.
* * * * *
Subpart C--Special Purpose Monitors
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.
* * * * *
Subpart D--Comparability of Ambient Data to the NAAQS
20. The heading for Subpart D is revised to read as set forth
above.
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.
(1) PM2.5 measurement data from all eligible monitors
are compared to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
(2) PM2.5 measurement data from all eligible monitors
that are representative of area-wide air quality are compared to the
annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 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. As specified in appendix D to this
part, section 4.7.1, when micro- or middle-scale PM2.5
monitoring sites are presumed to collectively identify a larger region
of localized high ambient PM2.5 concentrations; for example,
a PM2.5 monitoring site located in a near-road environment
where there are many other similar locations in the same CBSA, these
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 relatively unique middle-scale
impact sites are not eligible for comparison to the annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. As specified in Sec. 58.30(a)(1),
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.
* * * * *
22. Appendix A to part 58 is amended as follows:
a. By redesignating the existing introductory paragraph in section
1 as paragraph (c) in section 1 and revising it.
b. By adding paragraph (a) to section 1.
c. By adding paragraph (b) to section 1.
d. By revising paragraph 1.1.3.
e. By revising paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5.6, and 3.2.6.3.
f. By adding paragraph 3.2.9.
g. By revising paragraphs 3.3.2 and 3.3.3.
h. By adding paragraph 3.3.9.
i. By revising paragraphs (b) and (c) in section 4.
j. By adding paragraph (c)(6) in section 4.
k. By revising paragraph 4.3 and 4.3.1.
l. By revising Tables A-1 and A-2.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 58--Quality Assurance Requirements for SLAMS, SPMs
and PSD Air Monitoring
* * * * *
1. * * *
(a) For this Appendix, the term ``PM2.5'' refers to
PM2.5 mass measurements used in determining whether areas
meet the primary and secondary PM2.5 standards and
``PM2.5 CSN'' refers to the chemically speciated
PM2.5 mass measurements used to calculate
PM2.5 light extinction to determine if areas meet the
secondary PM standard to address visibility impairment.
(b) 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, the checks and procedures required in this appendix shall be
used in combination with other data quality information, reports,
and similar documents showing overall compliance with part 58 by the
monitoring agencies and by EPA, and using 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.
(c) 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, PM2.5 CSN, PM10 and
PM10-2.5 submitted to EPA. This appendix also applies to
all SPM stations using FRM, FEM, or ARM methods
[[Page 39051]]
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, part 1 (see reference 10 of this
appendix) and at a national level in references 1, 2, and 3 of this
appendix.
* * * * *
1.1.3 The requirements for precision assessment for the
automated methods are the same for both SLAMS and PSD. However, for
manual methods, only one collocated site is required for PSD.
PM2.5 CSN collocation is not required for PSD sites.
* * * * *
3. * * *
3.2 * * *
3.2.3 Flow Rate Verification for Particulate Matter. A one-point
flow rate verification check must be performed at least once every
month on each automated analyzer used to measure PM10,
PM10-2.5, PM2.5, and PM2.5 CSN. The
verification is made by checking the operational flow rate of the
analyzer. If the verification is made in conjunction with a flow
rate adjustment, it must be made prior to such flow rate adjustment.
Randomization of the flow rate verification with respect to time of
day, day of week, and routine service and adjustments is encouraged
where possible. For the standard procedure, use a flow rate transfer
standard certified in accordance with section 2.6 of this appendix
to check the analyzer's normal flow rate. Care should be used in
selecting and using the flow rate measurement device such that it
does not alter the normal operating flow rate of the analyzer.
Report the flow rate of the transfer standard and the corresponding
flow rate measured by the analyzer. The percent differences between
the audit and measured flow rates are used to assess the bias of the
monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix
(using flow rates in lieu of concentrations).
3.2.4 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Particulate Matter. Every
6 months, audit the flow rate of the PM10,
PM10-2.5, PM2.5, and PM2.5 CSN
particulate analyzers. Where possible, EPA strongly encourages more
frequent auditing. The audit should (preferably) be conducted by a
trained experienced technician other than the routine site operator.
The audit is made by measuring the analyzer's normal operating flow
rate using a flow rate transfer standard certified in accordance
with section 2.6 of this appendix. The flow rate standard used for
auditing must not be the same flow rate standard used to calibrate
the analyzer. However, both the calibration standard and the audit
standard may be referenced to the same primary flow rate or volume
standard. Great care must be used in auditing the flow rate to be
certain that the flow measurement device does not alter the normal
operating flow rate of the analyzer. Report the audit flow rate of
the transfer standard and the corresponding flow rate measured
(indicated) by the analyzer. The percent differences between these
flow rates described in section 4.2.3 of this appendix are used to
validate the one-point flow rate verification checks described in
section 4.2.2 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 of up to 10 meters between a primary and collocated sampler
may be approved by the Regional Administrator for sites at a
neighborhood or larger scale of representation. 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 of up to 10 meters 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.
Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be the same for all the
collocated samplers in each agency's network.
* * * * *
3.2.9 Collocated Sampling Procedures for PM2.5 CSN.
PM2.5 CSN Collocation is not required for PSD sites. A
minimum of six collocated sites are required nationally for the CSN
monitoring network. Sites selected for collocation should reflect
spatial, temporal, and constituent variability of the chemical
speciation network. Collocated sites may be rotated within the
network at 3 year intervals. Decisions on rotations will be made by
the Regional Administrator taking into consideration geographic
coverage, chemical species, and capabilities of the monitoring
agency. Data from the collocated sites will be used to estimate
precision of the secondary PM standard to address visibility
impairment. For each pair of collocated monitors, designate one
sampler as the primary monitor whose concentrations will be used to
report air quality for the site, and designate the other as the
audit monitor.
3.2.9.1 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.
Calibration, sampling, and analysis must be the same for all the
collocated samplers in each agency's network.
3.2.9.2 Sample the collocated audit monitor on a 12-day
schedule. Report the measurements from both primary and collocated
audit monitors at each collocated sampling site. The calculations
for evaluating precision between the two collocated monitors are
described in section 4.3.1 of this appendix.
3.3 * * *
3.3.2 Flow Rate Verification for Particulate Matter. Follow the
same procedure as described in section 3.2.3 of this appendix for
PM2.5, PM2.5 CSN, PM10 (low-volume
instruments), and PM10-2.5. High-volume PM10
and TSP instruments can also follow the procedure in section 3.2.3
but the audits are required to be conducted quarterly. The percent
differences between the audit and measured flow rates are used to
assess the bias of the monitoring data as described in section 4.2.2
of this appendix.
3.3.3 Semi-Annual Flow Rate Audit for Particulate Matter. Follow
the same procedure as described in section 3.2.4 of this appendix
for PM2.5, PM2.5 CSN, PM10,
PM10-2.5 and TSP instruments. The percent differences
between these flow rates described in section 4.2.3 of this appendix
are used to validate the one-point flow rate verification checks
described in section 4.2.2 of this appendix.
Great care must be used in auditing high-volume particulate
matter samplers having flow regulators because the introduction of
resistance plates in the audit flow standard device can cause
abnormal flow patterns at the point of flow sensing. For this
reason, the flow audit standard should be used with a normal filter
in place and without resistance plates in auditing flow-regulated
high-volume samplers, or other steps should be taken to assure that
flow patterns are not perturbed at the point of flow sensing.
* * * * *
3.3.9 Collocated Sampling Procedures for PM2.5 CSN.
PM2.5 CSN Collocation is not required for PSD sites.
Follow the same procedure as described in Section 3.2.9
4. * * *
(b) The EPA will provide annual assessments of data quality
aggregated by site and primary quality assurance organization for
SO2, NO2, O3 and CO; by primary
quality assurance organization for PM10,
PM2.5, and Pb; and by primary quality assurance
organization and nationally for PM10-2.5, Pb at NCore,
and PM2.5 CSN.
(c) At low concentrations, agreement between values
(measurements or calculations) of collocated samplers, expressed as
relative percent difference or percent difference, may be relatively
poor. For this reason, collocated pairs are selected for use in the
precision and bias calculations only when both values are equal to
or above the following limits:
* * * * *
(6) PM2.5 CSN: 5 deciviews
* * * * *
4.3 Statistics for the Assessment of PM2.5, PM2.5 CSN, and PM10-2.5
4.3.1 Precision Estimate. Precision for collocated instruments
for PM2.5, PM2.5 CSN, and PM10-2.5
may be estimated where both the primary and collocated instruments
are the same method designation and when the
[[Page 39052]]
method designations are not similar. Follow the procedure described
in section 4.2.1 of this appendix. In addition, one may want to
perform an estimate of bias when the primary monitor is an FEM and
the collocated monitor is an FRM. Follow the procedure described in
section 4.1.3 of this appendix in order to provide an estimate of
bias using the collocated data.
* * * * *
Table A-1 of Appendix A to Part 58--Difference and Similarities Between
SLAMS and PSD Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Topic SLAMS PSD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requirements................ 1. The development, Same as SLAMS.
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 participation
in EPA performance
evaluations and the
permission for EPA
to conduct system
audits.
Monitoring and QA State/local agency Source owner/
Responsibility. via the ``primary operator.
quality assurance
organization''.
Monitoring Duration......... Indefinitely........ Usually up to 12
months.
Annual Performance Standards and Personnel, standards
Evaluation (PE). equipment different and equipment
from 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 on 100% per quarter.
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 on One site: 1 every 6
pollutant. See days or every third
Table A-2 of this day for daily
appendix. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A-2 of Appendix A to Part 58--Minimum Data Assessment Requirements for SLAMS Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameters
Method Assessment method Coverage Minimum frequency reported
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automated Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-Point QC for SO2, NO2, O3, CO. Response check at Each analyzer..... Once per 2 weeks.. Audit
concentration concentration \1\
0.01-0.1 ppm SO2, and measured
NO2, O3, and 1-10 concentration
ppm CO. \2\.
Annual performance evaluation See section 3.2.2 Each analyzer..... Once per year..... Audit
for SO2, NO2, O3, CO. of this appendix. concentration \1\
and measured
concentration \2\
for each level.
Flow rate verification PM10, Check of sampler Each sampler...... Once every month.. Audit flow rate
PM2.5, PM2.5 CSN PM10-2.5. flow rate. and measured flow
rate indicated by
the sampler.
Semi-annual flow rate audit Check of sampler Each sampler...... Once every 6 Audit flow rate
PM10, PM2.5, PM2.5 CSN PM10-2.5. flow rate using months. and measured flow
independent rate indicated by
standard. the sampler.
Collocated sampling PM2.5, PM10- Collocated 15%............... Every 12 days..... Primary sampler
2.5. samplers. concentration and
duplicate sampler
concentration.
PM2.5 CSN....................... Collocated 6 per national Every 12 days..... Primary sampler
samplers. network. concentration and
duplicate sampler
concentration.
Performance evaluation program Collocated 1. 5 valid audits Over all 4 Primary sampler
PM2.5, PM10-2.5. samplers. for primary QA quarters. concentration and
orgs, with <=5 performance
sites. evaluation
2. 8 valid audits sampler
for primary QA concentration.
orgs, with >5
sites.
3. All samplers in
6 years..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manual Methods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collocated sampling PM10, TSP, Collocated 15%............... Every 12 days PSD-- Primary sampler
PM10-2.5, PM2.5, Pb-TSP, Pb- samplers. every 6 days. concentration and
PM10. duplicate sampler
concentration.
PM2.5 CSN....................... Collocated 6 per network..... Every 12 days..... Primary sampler
samplers. concentration and
duplicate sampler
concentration.
Flow rate verification PM10 (low- Check of sampler Each sampler...... Once every month.. Audit flow rate
vol), PM10[dash]2.5, PM2.5, flow rate. and measured flow
PM2.5 CSN, Pb-PM10. rate indicated by
the sampler.
[[Page 39053]]
Flow rate verification PM10 Check of sampler Each sampler...... Once every quarter Audit flow rate
(high-vol), TSP, Pb-TSP. flow rate. and measured flow
rate indicated by
the sampler.
Semi-annual flow rate audit Check of sampler Each sampler, all Once every 6 Audit flow rate
PM10, TSP, PM10-2.5, PM2.5, flow rate using locations. months. and measured flow
PM2.5 CSN, Pb[dash]TSP, Pb-PM10. independent rate indicated by
standard. the sampler.
Pb audit strips Pb[dash]TSP, Pb- Check of Analytical........ Each quarter...... Actual
PM10. analytical system concentration and
with Pb audit audit
strips. concentration.
Performance evaluation program Collocated 1. 5 valid audits Over all 4 Primary sampler
PM2.5, PM10-2.5. samplers. for primary QA quarters. concentration and
orgs, with <=5 performance
sites. evaluation
2. 8 valid audits sampler
for primary QA concentration.
orgs, with >5
sites.
3. All samplers in
6 years..
Performance evaluation program Collocated 1. 1 valid audit Over all 4 Primary sampler
Pb-TSP, Pb-PM10. samplers. and 4 collocated quarters. concentration and
samples for performance
primary QA orgs, evaluation
with >5 sites. sampler
2. 2 valid audits concentration.
and 6 collocated Primary sampler
samples for concentration and
primary QA orgs, duplicate sampler
with >5 sites. concentration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective concentration for open path analyzers.
\2\ Corrected concentration, if applicable, for open path analyzers.
* * * * *
23. Appendix C to part 58 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph 2.9.
b. In section 6.0 by adding references 8 through 13.
Appendix C to Part 58--Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Methodology
* * * * *
2.9 Use of Chemical Speciation Methods at SLAMS
PM2.5 chemical speciation network (CSN) stations
include analysis for elements, selected anions and cations, and
carbon. Descriptions of the CSN standard operating procedures and
QAPP are available in references 10 and 11. Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) station methods also
provide analysis for elements, selected anions and cations, and
carbon, and in addition include a PM10 mass channel.
Descriptions of the IMPROVE samplers and the data they collect are
available in references 4, 5, and 6 of this appendix. The CSN
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) (which include field SOPs),
and laboratory SOPs are available in references 8 through 13.
2.9.1 Use of IMPROVE Samplers at a SLAMS Site. IMPROVE samplers
may be used in SLAMS for monitoring of regional background and
regional transport concentrations of fine particulate matter. The
IMPROVE samplers were developed for use in the IMPROVE network to
characterize all of the major components and many trace constituents
of the particulate matter that impair visibility in Federal Class I
Areas.
2.9.2 Use of CSN or IMPROVE sampling methods at a SLAMS site to
provide chemical species data used in the PM2.5 light
extinction calculation. Chemical species data resulting from CSN or
IMPROVE sampling methods used at SLAMS are eligible for use in the
PM2.5 light extinction calculation defined in Appendix N
to 40 CFR Part 50.
* * * * *
6.0 References
* * * * *
8. Quality Assurance Project Plan: PM2.5 Chemical
Speciation Sampling at Trends, NCore, Supplemental and Tribal Sites.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711. EPA-454/B-12-003. June 2012.
9. Standard Operating Procedure for the X-Ray Fluorescence
Analysis of Particulate Matter Deposits on Teflon Filters, RTI
International, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 19, 2009.
10. Standard Operating Procedure for PM2.5 Cation
Analysis, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 25,
2009.
11. Standard Operating Procedure for PM2.5 Anion
Analysis, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 26,
2009.
12. Standard Operating Procedure for Cleaning Nylon Filters Used
for the Collection of PM2.5 Material, RTI International,
Research Triangle Park, NC. August 25, 2009.
13. DRI Standard Operating Procedure 2-216r2--DRI Model
2001 Thermal/Optical Carbon Analysis (TOR/TOT) of Aerosol Filter
Samples--Method IMPROVE--A, Reno, NC, Revised July 2008.
24. Appendix D to part 58 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraphs 4.7.1(b), 4.7.1(c)(1), and 4.7.4
b. By removing paragraph 4.7.5
c. By removing and reserving paragraph 4.8.2
Appendix D to Part 58--Network Design Criteria for Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring
* * * * *
4. * * *
4.7 * * *
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 in an area of
expected maximum concentration.
(2) For MSAs with a population over 1,000,000, at least one
PM2.5 FRM, FEM, or ARM is to be collocated at a near-road
NO2 station described 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.
* * * * *
4.7.4 PM2.5 Chemical Speciation Site Requirements.
[[Page 39054]]
(a) Each state shall continue to conduct chemical speciation
monitoring and analysis at sites designated to be part of the
PM2.5 Speciation Trends Network (STN). The selection and
modification of these STN sites must be approved by the
Administrator. The PM2.5 chemical speciation urban trends
sites shall include analysis for elements, selected anions and
cations, and carbon. Samples must be collected using the monitoring
methods and the sampling schedules approved by the Administrator.
Chemical speciation is encouraged at additional sites where the
chemically resolved data would be useful in developing state
implementation plans and supporting atmospheric or health effects
related studies.
(b) For purposes of supplying chemical species data for use in
the calculated PM2.5 light extinction indicator, states
shall be required to operate CSN or IMPROVE monitoring stations at
SLAMS under the following provisions:
(1) Operation of CSN or IMPROVE measurements is only required in
states having at least one CBSA with a population of 1,000,000 or
more people; however, multiple CBSAs with a population of 1,000,000
or more people in the same state are not each required to have CSN
or IMPROVE methods operating at SLAMS unless specified below.
(2) The requirement to operate at least one CSN or IMPROVE
monitoring station in a CBSA at a SLAMS shall be considered met by
any approved NCore or STN station operating in a CBSA within the
state.
(3) All CBSAs with a population of 2,500,000 or more people
shall be required to have at least one CSN or IMPROVE monitoring
station at a SLAMS within the CBSA; alternatively, the CSN or
IMPROVE monitoring station may be sited in another CBSA adjacent to
or downwind of the CBSA with a population of 2,500,000 or more
people, when the alternative CBSA is expected to have a higher
design value for the secondary PM NAAQS for visibility impairment.
(4) When siting additional CSN or IMPROVE monitoring equipment
at SLAMS, the location of the monitoring site can be either a
representative area-wide location for the CBSA or in an area-wide
location of expected maximum concentration.
* * * * *
25. Appendix E to part 58 is amended as follows:
a. By adding paragraph (d) to section 1.
b. By adding table E-1 to section 6 after paragraph (c)
introductory text.
c. By revising table E-4 in section 11.
Appendix E to Part 58--Probe and Monitoring Path Siting Criteria for
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring
* * * * *
1. * * *
(d) PM2.5 CSN measurement equipment sited at SLAMS to
provide data for use in the calculation for comparison to the
secondary PM standard to address visibility impairment follow the
same probe and siting criteria as prescribed for PM samplers in this
appendix.
* * * * *
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
Roadway average daily traffic, vehicles per Minimum distance\1\
day distance\1\ \2\
(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, middle (300 m), 3\1/2\: 2-15.......... >1................... >10.................. 2-10; see Table E-2
Neighborhood (1 km). of this appendix for
middle and
neighborhood scales.
O3 \3\ \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 meters for near-
300 m]). road 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 PM10-2.5); 2- horizontal distance Figure E-1 of this
and Regional. 7 for near-road; 2-15 only). appendix for all
(all other scales). other scales. <=50
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 39055]]
\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.
26. Appendix G to Part 58 is amended:
a. By revising sections 9 and 10.
b. By revising paragraph 12.i.a and table 2 in 12.i.d.
c. By revising section 13.
The revisions read as follows:
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 of this
appendix.
* * * * *
12. * * *
i. * * *
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
d. * * *
Table 2--Breakpoints for the AQI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These breakpoints Equal these AQI's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM10
O3 (ppm) 1- PM2.5 ([mu]g/ ([mu]g/ CO (ppm) 8- SO2 (ppb) 1- NO2 (ppb) 1-
O3 (ppm) 8-hour hour \1\ m\3\) 24-hour m\3\) 24- hour hour hour AQI Category
hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.000-0.059...................... ........... 0.0--(12.0-13.0) 0-54 0.0-4.4 0-35 0-53 0-50 Good.
0.060-0.075...................... ........... (12.1-13.1)--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 55.5--150.4 255-354 12.5-15.4 186-304 361-649 151-200 Unhealthy.
0.116-0.374...................... 0.205-0.404 150.5--250.4 355-424 15.5-30.4 305-604 650-1249 201-300 Very Unhealthy.
(\2\)............................ 0.405-0.504 250.5--350.4 425-504 30.5-40.4 605-804 1250-1649 301-400 Hazardous.
(\2\)............................ 0.505-0.604 350.5--500.4 505-604 40.5-50.4 805-1004 1650-2049 401-500 ....................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 O3 values do not define higher AQI values (>= 301). AQI values of 301 or greater are calculated with 1-hour O3 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 (AMTIC) Web
site, http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/.
[FR Doc. 2012-15017 Filed 6-19-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P