Order Code RL32431
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Particulate Matter (PM ): Implementation of the
2.5
1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
Updated October 6, 2006
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Particulate Matter (PM ): Implementation of the1997
2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
Summary
Particulate matter (PM), including fine particulate matter (PM ), is one of the
2.5
six principal pollutants for which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). NAAQS are designed to protect human health within an adequate margin
of safety. After years of litigation and other delays, the EPA is moving to implement
the NAAQS for PM promulgated in 1997. This report provides information on the
2.5
designation process for PM “attainment” and “nonattainment” areas. It also
2.5
discusses issues that have been raised as EPA, the states, and nonattainment areas
develop implementation strategies.
EPA’s final designation of 39 areas, consisting of 208 counties in 20 states and
the District of Columbia, as nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM NAAQS became
2.5
effective April 2005. The EPA published a final rule on April 14, 2005, amending
designated geographical areas for 1997 PM standards, which were originally
2.5
published in January 2005. The agency’s amendments were based on a review of
supplemental 2004 air monitoring data submitted by several states.
PM nonattainment areas are required to develop comprehensive
2.5
implementation plans, referred to as State Implementation Plans (SIPs),
demonstrating how attainment will be reached by a designated deadline. SIPs
include pollution control measures that rely on models of the impact on air quality
of projected emission reductions to demonstrate attainment. EPA published a
proposed “PM implementation” rule on November 1, 2005, that provides guidance
2.5
and procedures for establishing controls to achieve and maintain attainment. States
are required to submit SIPs for how they will meet the 1997 PM NAAQS by April
2.5
2008 (three years after the effective date for the final geographic designations), and
must be in compliance by 2010, unless they are granted a five-year extension.
A number of issues will continue to be debated as the implementation of the
1997 PM NAAQS progresses. Some areas that have not been designated as
2.5
nonattainment under implementation of other NAAQS have been designated
“nonattainment” for the first time. Questions and concerns include the following:
what criteria were used to determine nonattainment; whether special provisions can
be made for meeting attainment deadlines, particularly for areas affected by upwind
pollution; what grants or other funding might be available to help areas reach
attainment; and how nonattainment designation might affect economic development
and transportation planning in an area.
Legislation and EPA rulemaking that affect aspects of regulating air quality
could influence the implementation process. Court challenges that followed the
release of the eight-hour ozone designations, and EPA’s periodic review of PM
NAAQS, as required under the CAA, could also affect implementation of the 1997
PM NAAQS. As part of the CAA review process, on September 21, 2006, the
2.5
EPA Administrator signed a final revision to NAAQS for particulate matter (both
PM and PM ) that included a strengthening of the 1997 PM standard.
2.5
10
2.5

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The 1997 PM Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.5
Geographical Area Designation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1997 PM NAAQS Geographical Area Designations: A Chronology . . . . . 7
2.5
Demonstrating Attainment with the 1997 PM NAAQS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5
The State Implementation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
EPA’s PM Implementation Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.5
Transportation Conformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Other National Air Quality Improvement Programs and Strategies . . 13
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Nonattainment Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Upwind Pollutant Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Economic Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Identifying Sources and Control Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Timely Completion of a PM Implementation Rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.5
EPA’s Review of the PM NAAQS and September 2006 Changes . . . 17
Impacts of Actions Regarding the 1997 Ozone NAAQS . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Legislation Related to PM NAAQS Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Implementation of the 1997 PM NAAQS: Timeline and Delays . . . . . . . 20
2.5
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Designations of
Nonattainment Areas for the 1997 PM National Ambient Air
2.5
Quality Standards (NAAQS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Areas Previously Identified as Nonattainment for 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS Amended to be Designated as Attaining the Standards . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 2. Estimated Schedule for Implementation of the 1997 PM NAAQS . . 21
2.5

---

Particulate Matter (PM ): Implementation of
2.5
the1997 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)
Introduction
National Ambient (outdoor) Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are a core
component of the Clean Air Act (CAA).1 The statute requires that, based on a review
of the scientific literature, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set (1)
“primary” standards at a level “requisite to protect the public health” with an
“adequate margin of safety” and (2) “secondary” standards at a level “requisite to
protect the public welfare.”2 NAAQS have been promulgated for six principal
pollutants classified by the EPA as “criteria pollutants”: sulfur dioxide (SO ),
2
nitrogen dioxide (NO ), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, lead, and particulate matter
2
(PM).
This report provides an overview of the NAAQS implementation process in the
context of the 1997 standards for fine particulate matter (PM ), which consists of
2.5
particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. It also discusses issues and
legislation that could potentially alter the PM implementation process. The EPA
2.5
is in the process of implementing the NAAQS for particulate matter promulgated in
1997,3 delayed because of court challenges and other factors. The EPA’s 1997
revisions to the particulate matter standards (also referred to as the PM NAAQS)
included separate requirements for PM for the first time. Since they were modified,
2.5
the PM NAAQS have been the source of significant concern and national debate,
which have delayed their implementation. Congress has been particularly interested
in EPA’s promulgation and implementation of the CAA standards and has held
numerous hearings on particulate matter (and the ozone NAAQS established in
1997).
A key component of implementing the 1997 PM NAAQS is EPA’s designations
of geographical areas for “attainment” or “nonattainment” of the air quality standards
1 Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment, review, and
revisions of NAAQS (42 U.S.C. 7408 and 7409). See CRS Report RL30853, Clean Air Act:
A Summary of the Act and Its Major Requirements, by James E. McCarthy (coordinator),
and CRS Report 97-722, Air Quality Standards: The Decisionmaking Process, by John E.
Blodgett and Larry B. Parker.
2 42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(1) for “primary”; 42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(2) and 7602(h) for “secondary.”
3 62 Federal Register 38652, July 18, 1997.

---

CRS-2
for PM . EPA’s final designation of all or part of 208 counties4 in 20 states and the
2.5
District of Columbia for nonattainment of the 1997 PM NAAQS became effective
2.5
on April 5, 2005.5 The final designations were based, in part, on the EPA’s
consideration of recommendations previously provided by states and tribes, and
supplemental 2004 air monitoring data submitted by some states. Nonattainment
designation begins a process in which states (and tribes) must develop and adopt
emission control programs sufficient to bring air quality into compliance by a
statutorily defined deadline. States are required to submit “implementation” plans
for how they will meet the 1997 PM NAAQS by April 2008, and they must be in
2.5
compliance by 2010, unless they are granted a five-year extension.
The designation of “nonattainment” areas has raised questions and concerns,
particularly for those areas designated as such for the first time. These questions and
concerns include when and why the standards were established, what criteria were
used to determine nonattainment, what measures will be necessary to achieve or
maintain attainment by the scheduled deadlines, whether special provisions can be
made for areas affected by upwind pollution, what flexibility is available for
extending the deadline for reaching attainment, whether grants or other funding are
available to help areas reach attainment, and how designation might affect economic
development and transportation investments in an area.6 Concerns have also been
raised regarding compliance deadlines with respect to EPA’s timely provision of
implementation procedures and guidance for achieving and maintaining compliance
with the 1997 PM NAAQS. EPA published a proposed “PM implementation”
2.5
2.5
rule on November 1, 2005,7 but a final rule has not yet been published.
The CAA provisions require the EPA to consider revisions to NAAQS on a
prescribed schedule.8 To provide increased protection against potential health effects
associated with short- and long-term exposure to particulate matter, the EPA
Administrator signed revisions to the NAAQS for particulate matter (PM) on
4 All designated counties and partial counties, including Indian Country geographically
located within such areas, except as otherwise indicated by the EPA. See EPA’s PM2.5
Designations website at [http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations].
5 70 Federal Register 944-1019, Jan. 5, 2005. EPA published a final supplemental rule on
Apr. 14, 2005 (70 Federal Register 19844), amending the agency’s initial final designations
published in January, re-designating as attainment 17 counties previously designated
nonattainment. The earlier rule included a provision for EPA to withdraw a nonattainment
designation prior to the Apr. 5, 2005, effective date if a state provided 2004 air monitoring
data by Feb. 22, 2005, suggesting that a change in designation would be appropriate.
Monitoring data for 2004 was not available in time for EPA to meet its statutory deadline
for completing its designations.
6 EPA’s Apr. 15, 2004, geographical designations for a new ozone air quality standard
(promulgated the same time as the PM NAAQS in 1997) raised similar concerns. See
2.5
CRS Report RL32345, Implementation of EPA’s 8-Hour Ozone Standard, by James E.
McCarthy.
7 70 Federal Register 65984, Nov. 1, 2005.
8 Section 109(d)(1)) of the CAA. According to the statute, EPA is required to review the
latest scientific studies and either reaffirm or modify the NAAQS every five years, but
reviews have occurred less frequently in practice.

---

CRS-3
September 21, 2006.9 The new PM NAAQS include strengthening the 1997 standard
for PM but do not include several proposed changes to modify the standards for
2.5
inhalable coarse particles smaller than 10 microns but larger than 2.5 microns (PM ).
10
EPA has not predicted the number of additional counties expected to exceed the new
PM standard; however, the new areas will likely be expansions of existing areas
2.5
and other populated urban areas. State recommendations of nonattainment areas are
required by December 2007, and the EPA anticipates that it will make final
designations in December 2009. States are required to submit “implementation”
plans for how they will meet the standard by April 2008 and must be in compliance
by 2010, unless they are granted a five-year extension.
It is unclear how EPA’s revisions to the PM NAAQS will affect the immediate
PM implementation process. However, the EPA has urged States to consider
2.5
control strategies that may be useful in attaining the new 2006 PM NAAQS when
2.5
developing control strategies for the 1997 PM standards.10 Several elements of the
2.5
new 2006 PM NAAQS may prove controversial, including the exclusion of rural
sources from the coarse particle standard that EPA had initially proposed, and the
disregard of EPA’s independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee’s
(CASAC’s) recommendations11 regarding the PM standard in particular. (See CRS
2.5
Report RL33254, Air Quality: EPA’s 2006 Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM)
Standard, by Robert Esworthy and James E. McCarthy.)
These issues and others potentially affecting the implementation of the 1997
PM NAAQS are presented in the following sections of this report, which begins
2.5
with an overview of the PM standards and the geographical designation process.
The 1997 PM Standards
2.5
Beginning in 1971, regulation and monitoring of particulate matter under the
CAA focused primarily on total suspended particles (TSP) and, eventually, on coarse
particles equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM ).12 After extensive
10
analysis and review, the EPA revised the PM standards in 1997 to provide separate
requirements for fine particulate matter (PM ) based on their link to several types
2.5
of cardiovascular and respiratory health problems, including aggravated asthma and
9 The new PM standards have not appeared in the Federal Register as of this writing but are
available on EPA’s website at [http://epa.gov/pm/actions.html]. The schedule for
completion of the agency’s review of the PM NAAQS is governed by a consent decree
resolving a lawsuit filed in March 2003. The EPA was required to finalize its decision
regarding the PM NAAQS by Sept. 27, 2006 (American Lung Assn. v. Whitman [No.
1:03CV00778, D.D.C. 2003], as modified by the court). As required by consent agreement,
EPA’s proposed decision regarding potential changes to the PM NAAQS was signed by
EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson on Dec. 20, 2005.
10 EPA’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking outlining an implementation plan for
the transition to the January 17, 2006, proposed PM NAAQS (71 Federal Register 6722,
Feb. 9, 2006).
11 See the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Particulate Matter (PM)
Review Panel website [http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casacpmpanel.html].
12 52 Federal Register 24640, July 1, 1987.

---

CRS-4
bronchitis, and links to premature death.13 The EPA also revised the coarse particles
designation (PM ) to include particles larger than 2.5 but smaller than 10
10
micrometers (PM
), so as to explicitly exclude fine particles. As part of the 1997
10-2.5
rule, the EPA also promulgated the eight-hour ozone standard. The EPA’s standard
for PM , as modified by the 1997 changes, was challenged shortly after
10
promulgation. Concluding that PM was a “poorly matched indicator” for thoracic
10
coarse particles because it included the smaller PM category as well as the larger
2.5
particles, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the 1997 PM10
standards and remanded them to EPA. The 1999 U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit decision14 directed the EPA to ensure that the standard did not duplicate the
regulation of fine particles. The pre-existing 1987 PM standards remained in
10
place.15
The primary PM NAAQS requirements, which became effective on September
2.5
16, 1997,16 are the same and as the secondary requirements. The 1997 PM2.5
standards are set at
! an annual maximum concentration of 15 micrograms per cubic
meter (µg/m3), based on the three-year average of the annual
arithmetic mean PM concentrations from one or more community-
2.5
oriented monitors;17 and
! a 24-hour concentration of 65 µg/m3, based on the three-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM concentrations at each
2.5
population-oriented monitor18 within the area.
In requiring both the annual and the 24-hour PM standards in 1997, EPA reportedly
2.5
considered the “combined effect of the standards rather than an approach that
weighed short- and long-term exposure evidence, analyses, and standards
independently.”19 EPA considers the annual standard the primary requirement for
reducing total PM risk. The 24-hour standard is intended to provide supplemental
2.5
protection for days with peak PM concentrations, localized “hot spots,” and PM
2.5
2.5
risks arising from seasonal emissions.
13 For an update of EPA’s health effects and other PM-related research activities, see
[http://www.epa.gov/pmresearch/].
14 American Trucking Assns. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1054-55 (D.C. Cir. 1999).
15 65 Federal Register 80776, Dec. 22, 2000.
16 62 Federal Register 38652-38896, July 18, 1997.
17 Community-oriented monitoring zones are defined as “an optional averaging area with
well established boundaries such as county or census block” (40 CFR Part 58 Subpart A).
18 Population-oriented monitoring (or sites) applies to “residential areas, commercial areas,
recreational areas, industrial areas, and other areas where a substantial number of people
may spend a significant fraction of their day” (40 CFR Part 58 Subpart A).
19 U.S. EPA Fact Sheet, EPA’s Revised Particulate Matter Standards, July 17, 1997.

---

CRS-5
In 1997, the EPA changed the “form” of the 24-hour standards to a
concentration-based percentile form, indicating the percentage of the time that a
monitoring station can exceed the standard. For example, a 98th percentile 24-hour
standard indicates that a monitoring station can exceed the standard 2% of the time
during the year. The previous form was known as the “one-expected-exceedance”
form; monitoring stations could exceed the 24-hour PM NAAQS only once per year
(averaged over three years). Although the limits of PM remained the same, the
10
form of the PM 24-hour standard was changed to be based on a three-year average
10
of the 99th percentile of 24-hour PM concentrations.
10
Geographical Area Designation Process
The designation of geographical areas failing to comply with the NAAQS, based
on monitoring and analysis of relevant air quality data, is a critical step in NAAQS
implementation. The CAA establishes a process for designating nonattainment areas
and setting their boundaries, but it allows the EPA Administrator some discretion in
determining what the final boundaries of the areas will be. Areas are identified as
“nonattainment” when they violate or contribute to the violation of NAAQS. Areas
are identified as “attainment/unclassified”20 when they meet the standard or when the
data are insufficient for determining compliance with the NAAQS.
According to the EPA’s 2003 Trends Report, 124 areas were designated as
nonattainment for at least one of the six criteria pollutants (including particulate
matter) and approximately 126 million people lived in these areas as of September
2002.21 The number of nonattainment areas and the associated population have
increased since the 2003 Trends Report; the April 15, 2004, eight-hour ozone
designated nonattainment areas alone include 159 million people.22
The designation process is intended as a cooperative federal-state-tribe process
in which states and tribes provide initial designation recommendations to the EPA
for consideration. Though not required to do so, tribes have been encouraged to
submit recommendations. The area designation requirements under the CAA
(section 107) are specific with respect to states, but not to tribes. EPA plans to
follow the same designation process for tribes per sections 110(o) and 301(d) of the
CAA and pursuant to the 1988 Tribal Authority Rule, which specifies that tribes shall
be treated as states in selected cases (40 CFR Part 49).23 In Section 107(d)(1)(A) (42
20 Section 107(d)(1)(A)(iii) of the CAA provides that any area that EPA cannot designate
on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards should be
designated unclassifiable.
21 U.S. EPA, National Air Quality Trends Report: 2003 Special Studies, Chapter 4, pp. 59-
61, September 2003, at [http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pm.html].
22 The EPA “Greenbook” lists areas of the country where air pollution levels persistently
exceed the national ambient air quality standards and may be designated as nonattainment.
Current information on the location of NAAQS nonattainment areas is available on EPA’s
website at [http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/].
23 For information regarding tribes that have participated in the PM designation
2.5
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
U.S.C. 7407), the statute states that the governor of each state shall submit a list to
EPA of all areas in the state, “designating as ... nonattainment, any area that does not
meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet)”
an air quality standard (emphasis added).
PM attainment or nonattainment designations are to be made primarily on the
2.5
basis of three-year federally referenced PM monitoring data.24 At the time the PM
2.5
NAAQS were being finalized in 1997, EPA began developing methods for
monitoring fine particles. Using funding specifically authorized for this purpose in
FY1998-FY2000 EPA appropriations,25 the agency worked closely with states and
tribes to initiate the deployment of a portion of the network of 1,200 monitors in
January 1999. The majority of the monitors were not in place until January 2000.
States and tribes were expected to rely on data collected during 2000-2002 for their
recommendations. EPA considered the 2001-2003 data to make the final PM2.5
designations published in January 2005.
In its guidance document,26 EPA identified several factors that would be
considered in determining attainment with the 1997 PM NAAQS, and specified
2.5
data and conditions that would not be acceptable. The EPA’s nonbinding guidance
also included a recommendation that states and tribes consider using the same
boundaries for nonattainment for both the PM and eight-hour ozone standards, to
2.5
facilitate consistency in future implementation plans. The EPA expected that many
of the PM nonattainment areas would overlap with the eight-hour ozone
2.5
designations.27
PM designations do not include nonattainment classifications based on
2.5
severity, as is the case with PM and ozone, which have two and seven
10
classifications, respectively. The 1990 CAA Amendments include classifications of
nonattainment based on the extent to which the NAAQS are exceeded and establish
specific pollution controls and attainment dates for each classification (Title I Part
D Sections 171-193). Under subpart 4 of the CAA, PM nonattainment designations
10
are either “moderate” or “serious,” and each of these categories is subject to specified
control requirements.28 The EPA has interpreted that those classification provisions
23 (...continued)
recommendation process, see [http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations].
24 A federally referenced monitor is one that has been accepted for use by the EPA for
comparison of the NAAQS by meeting the design specifications and certain precision and
bias (performance) specifications (40 CFR Part 58).
25 Appropriations for monitoring averaged roughly $50 million per year (P.L. 105-65, P.L.
105-226, P.L. 106-74).
26 See EPA’s NAAQS website at [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html].
27 A map showing the final designation areas for PM and for the eight-hour ozone NAAQS
2.5
is available on EPA’s website at [http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/mappm25o3.html].
28 Moderate areas require permits for new and modified major stationary sources of PM10
and must impose reasonably available control measures (RACM). Serious areas must
impose best available control measures (BACM) and reduce the defined major source of
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
in the act regarding particulate matter explicitly apply to PM , but not PM ,
10
2.5
NAAQS implementation. Based on this interpretation, PM implementation is
2.5
governed by the general nonattainment planning requirements of Title I (Part A, and
Part D subpart 1) of the act.
EPA recognized that determining the geographic extent of nearby source areas
that contribute to nonattainment would be complicated. The CAA does not
specifically require combining neighboring counties within the same nonattainment
area, but it does require the use of metropolitan statistical area boundaries in the more
severely polluted areas (Section 107(d)(4)(A)(iv)). Echoing this requirement, and
similar to the eight-hour ozone approach, EPA recommended that Metropolitan
Statistical Areas or Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas29 serve as the
“presumptive boundary” for nonattainment areas under the 1997 PM standards.
2.5
Metropolitan areas are generally treated as units, even where part of the area lies
in a separate state or where part of the area does not have readings exceeding the
standards. In the latter case, even though a specific county may not exceed the
standards, the pollution generated there is likely to influence PM levels elsewhere
2.5
in the metropolitan area. In addition, including the entire metropolitan area avoids
the creation of additional incentives for sprawl development on the fringes of urban
areas. For rural areas in violation of the 1997 PM standards, the EPA’s guidance
2.5
presumed that the full county would be designated a nonattainment area.
Following state and tribe designation submissions, the EPA Administrator has
discretion to make modifications, including to the area boundaries. As required by
statute (Section 107[d]1[B][ii]), the agency must notify the states and tribes regarding
any modifications, allowing them sufficient opportunity to demonstrate why a
proposed modification is inappropriate, but the final determination rests with EPA.
Information regarding EPA’s guidance for PM designation can be obtained
2.5
from EPA’s PM website, [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_index.html],
2.5
and its Policy and Guidance website, [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg].
1997 PM NAAQS Geographical Area Designations:
2.5
A Chronology
By the end of February 2004, 18 states and the District of Columbia had
recommended 142 counties as potential nonattainment areas for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.30 After completing its review of these attainment designation
28 (...continued)
PM from 100 tons per year to 70 tons per year. The deadline for attainment for moderate
10
areas is six years after designation; for serious areas, the deadline is 10 years after
designation. (Section 188 of Part D subpart 4 of Title I in the CAA; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7513.)
29 Defined by the Office of Management Budget. For more information on metropolitan
areas, see [http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html].
30 For EPA’s final and proposed PM geographical designation recommendations and those
2.5
(continued...)

---

CRS-8
recommendations, the EPA recommended modifications resulting in nonattainment
designations for 244 counties31 in 21 states and the District of Columbia at the end
of June 2004. As required by statute, the EPA notified each of the affected states
regarding their specific modifications to provide them with the opportunity to submit
new information and demonstrate why a proposed modification was inappropriate.
Some states responding to the EPA’s proposal continued to support their original
recommendations.
The EPA’s final PM designation rule, published on January 5, 2005 (70
2.5
Federal Register 944-1019), established the boundaries for areas designated as
“nonattainment,” “unclassifiable” (data not sufficient to make a determination
regarding compliance), or “attainment/unclassifiable.” The EPA designated 47 areas
composed of 225 counties in 20 states and the District of Columbia as nonattainment;
5 areas consisting of 7 counties as unclassifiable;32 and the remaining counties in the
United States as attainment/unclassifiable.
EPA’s designations reflected minor modifications to its June 2004 proposal.
Primarily 19 counties were removed from the list of nonattainment areas, and other
counties were redefined by designating only specified locations (“partial”) within the
county as nonattainment. In some cases, when considering factors defined in its
guidance in conjunction with the additional information provided by the states and
tribes, the EPA determined that only those portions of a county that contained the
significant sources of emissions should be considered as contributing to the
violations. In other cases, the agency determined that if emissions from a large
identifiable source in a county are contributing to the violations in a nearby area, the
portion of the county where the source is located would be designated nonattainment,
even if it is not contiguous with the remainder of the designated area. The
boundaries for these “noncontiguous” portions are based on legally recognized
government boundaries, such as townships, tax districts, and census blocks.
Some states and stakeholders continued to contend that several counties should
not be designated nonattainment, particularly when taking into account 2004 PM2.5
monitoring data. EPA’s final designations were based on monitoring data for the
three-year period from 2001-2003. Monitoring data for 2004 were not available in
time for EPA to meet its statutory deadline for PM geographical area designations
2.5
(see timeline and discussion later in this report). The final PM designation rule,
2.5
published on January 5, 2005, included provisions allowing states to submit no later
than February 22, 2005, certified, quality-assured 2004 monitoring data that suggest
a change in designation is appropriate for consideration (70 Federal Register 948).
30 (...continued)
from individual states and tribes, see EPA’s PM Designations website, at
2.5
[http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations].
31 Included seven cities: Baltimore, MD; St. Louis, MO; Alexandria, VA; Fairfax, VA; Falls
Church, VA; Manassas, VA; and Manassas Park, VA.
32 EPA concluded that there was insufficient information to designate these areas as either
nonattainment or attainment/unclassifiable. According to the January 2005 Federal Register
Notice (70 Federal Register 65984), these areas had violating monitors for the years
2000-2002, but incomplete data or other data issues for the years 2001-2003.

---

CRS-9
A nonattainment designation could be withdrawn if the EPA agreed that the
additional data warranted such a change.
On April 14, 2005, EPA published a final supplemental rule amending the
agency’s initial final designations published in January 2005 (70 Federal Register
19844). After reviewing 2002-2004 air quality monitoring data provided by several
states, the EPA determined that 8 areas comprising 17 counties previously identified
as not meeting the 1997 PM NAAQS should be designated as “in attainment” (see
2.5
Table 1 below). The EPA also changed four of the five areas designated as
unclassifiable to attainment, based on 2002-2004 data. The EPA does not consider
the modifications for these areas “re-designations” because the changes were made
prior to the April 5, 2005, effective date of the initial designations.
Table 1. Areas Previously Identified as Nonattainment for 1997
PM NAAQS Amended to be Designated as Attaining the
2.5
Standards
State
Area Name
County
Alabama
Columbus, GA-AL
Russell
California
San Diego, CA
San Diego
Georgia
Athens, GA
Clarke
Columbus, GA-AL
Muscogee
Indiana
Elkhart, IN
Elkhart
St. Joseph
Kentucky
Lexington, KY
Fayette
Mercer (partial)
Ohio
Toledo, OH
Lucas
Wood
Youngstown-Warren, OH-PA
Columbiana
Mahoning
Trumbull
Pennsylvania
Youngstown-Warren, OH-PA
Mercer
West Virginia
Marion, WV
Marion
Monongalia (partial)
Harrison (partial)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 5, 2005, at [http://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/documents/Apr05/changes.htm].
As a result of the changes, nonattainment designations are in effect for the
remaining 39 areas, comprising 208 counties within 20 states (and the District of
Columbia) nationwide, with a combined population of roughly 90 million. The
designated nonattainment areas are primarily concentrated in the central, mid-
Atlantic, and southeastern states east of the Mississippi River, as well as in
California.33 Figure 1, obtained from EPA’s website ([http://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/nonattaingreen.htm]), highlights the PM nonattainment designation
2.5
33 California has established its own PM standards; for more information, see CRS Report
2.5
RL31531, Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards: Background and Current
Developments, by Robert Esworthy, or access the California Air Resources Board website
at [http://www.arb.ca.gov/pm/pmmeasures/pmmeasures.htm].

---

CRS-10
areas. More than 2,900 counties in 30 states have been designated as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 1997 PM NAAQS. Some public interest groups maintain that
2.5
at least 150 additional counties warranted nonattainment designations on the basis
of emission sources in those areas.34 Any area initially designated attainment/
unclassifiable may be subsequently re-designated to nonattainment if ambient air
quality data in future years indicate that such a re-designation is appropriate.
Figure 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Designations of
Nonattainment Areas for the 1997 PM National Ambient Air Quality
2.5
Standards (NAAQS)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 5, 2005, at [http://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/nonattaingreen.htm]. Based primarily on 2001-2003 monitoring data and 2002-2004
data for a subset of states.
In letters dated January 20, 2006, the EPA denied six petitions submitted to the
agency requesting reconsideration of the previous designations of one or more full
or partial counties as nonattainment for the 1997 PM NAAQS. The petitions were
2.5
for counties in Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and West Virginia.35
34 American Lung Association, Dec. 17, 2004, press release, “No One Should Have to
Breathe Unsafe Air,” available at [http://www.lungusa.org], accessed October 2005.
35 See EPA’s website [http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/regs.htm#7] for additional
information.

---

CRS-11
Demonstrating Attainment with the 1997 PM NAAQS
2.5
The State Implementation Plan. Following designation of an area as
nonattainment, the state where the area is located must develop a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how attainment with the PM2.5
standards will be achieved. Under Section 110 of the CAA, states must submit their
SIPs to the EPA within three years of designation; PM SIPs are due April 5, 2008.
2.5
To be approved, a SIP must demonstrate that the area will reach attainment of the
standards by a specified deadline — 2010 for PM unless a five-year extension
2.5
allowed under the CAA is granted. SIPs include pollution control measures that will
be implemented by federal, state, and local governments, and rely on models of the
impact on air quality of projected emission reductions to demonstrate attainment.
EPA’s PM Implementation Rule. On November 1, 2005, EPA published
2.5
a proposed rule (70 Federal Register 65984) that describes the requirements that
states and tribes must meet in their implementation plans to achieve and maintain
attainment of the 1997 PM NAAQS.36 The proposal includes guidance for
2.5
submitting a SIP demonstrating that reaching attainment within the five-year
requirement is impractical. The rulemaking proposes allowing eastern states that
fulfill their emission reductions under the CAIR federal cap-and-trade program
entirely by reducing emissions from electrical generating units to satisfy SO and
2
NOx RACT requirements under NAAQS for those sources in the states’ PM2.5
nonattainment areas. This proposal has raised concerns among some environmental
and public interest groups, as well as the national associations of air pollution control
agencies — the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the
Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO).37 The
EPA has yet to finalize this implementation rule.
Transportation Conformity. If new or revised SIPs for PM attainment
2.5
establish or revise a transportation-related emissions allowance (“budget”), or add or
delete transportation control measures (TCMs), they will trigger “conformity”
determinations. Transportation conformity is required by the CAA, Section 176(c)
(42 U.S.C. 7506(c)), to prohibit federal funding and approval for highway and transit
projects unless they are consistent with (“conform to”) the air quality goals
established by a SIP and will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.38
The initial conformity rule was promulgated by EPA November 24, 1993 (58 Federal
Register 62188), and has subsequently been amended several times. The most
36 The rule addresses attainment demonstration and modeling; local emission reduction
measures, including reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available
control measures (RACM), and reasonable further progress (RFP); regional emission
reduction strategies; innovative program guidance; emission inventory requirements;
transportation conformity; and stationary source test methods.
37 Testimony of John Paul on behalf of the STAPPA/ALAPCO on the EPA’s Proposed Rule
to Implement the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Nov. 30, 2005, at
[http://www.4cleanair.org/FinaltestimonyimplementationruleNSR11302005.pdf].
38 For additional information on conformity, see CRS Report RL32106, Transportation
Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of Reform? by James E. McCarthy.

---

CRS-12
comprehensive amendments, clarifying and streamlining the 1993 rule, were
published on August 15, 1997 (62 Federal Register 43780).
Transportation conformity, under EPA’s previous rules, applied to ozone, PM ,
10
CO, and NOx, but did not include PM . On July 1, 2004, EPA published a final rule
2.5
(69 Federal Register 40004) making transportation conformity regulations explicitly
applicable to PM nonattainment areas and including criteria and procedures for the
2.5
new PM and eight-hour ozone NAAQS. Conformity determinations must be
2.5
submitted to EPA within one year of the effective date of designating an area as
nonattainment. Since the conformity requirements could apply in PM2.5
nonattainment areas prior to the availability of SIP emission budgets, the EPA
included provisions for interim emissions tests for conformity determinations (69
Federal Register 40014-40015).
Given the complexities associated with the final conformity rule, the EPA
provided guidance to accompany the rule. The guidance, entitled Companion
Guidance for the July 1, 2004, Final Transportation Conformity Rule: Conformity
Implementation in Multi-Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas for
Existing and New Air Quality Standards,39 expands on the final conformity rule by
including additional detailed examples and interpretations for generic scenarios that
are present in the field and that are expected to occur under the 1997 standards. The
EPA has provided other fact sheets and summary tables, and has conducted training
sessions for implementers, to further assist understanding of the requirements of the
rule.40
On May 6, 2005, EPA published a final rule (70 Federal Register 24280) further
amending the transportation conformity regulations by adding transportation-related
PM “precursors” and specifying when these precursors must be considered in
2.5
conformity determinations before and after PM SIPs are submitted.41 Precursors
2.5
are pollutants that react chemically in the atmosphere to form other pollutants. The
transportation-related PM precursors identified in the May 2005 rule are nitrogen
2.5
oxides (NO ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur oxides (SO ), and
x
2
ammonia (NH ).
3
The EPA established the criteria for determining which transportation projects
must be analyzed for local particle emissions (referred to as “hot spots”) in PM2.5
nonattainment and maintenance areas, and revised existing requirements for projects
in PM areas, in a final rule published on March 10, 2006.42 The CAA defines
10
“hot-spot analysis” as an estimation of likely future localized pollutant concentrations
39 EPA, July 2004, EPA420-B-04-012, Transportation and Regional Programs Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, available at [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/
conform/420b04012.pdf].
40 For EPA fact sheets, Q&As, and training and training material regarding the July 2004
conformity rule, see EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality website
[http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/2004training.htm], accessed Nov. 22, 2005.
41 See EPA’s website at [http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/conform/conf-regs-d.htm].
42 71 Federal Register 12468, Mar. 10, 2006.

---

CRS-13
resulting from a new transportation project and a comparison of those concentrations
to the relevant air quality standard.43 The March 2006 final rule requires quantitative
PM hot-spot analyses only for projects of air quality concern. These projects are
2.5
further defined in the final rule as highway and transit projects that involve
significant levels of diesel vehicle traffic, or any other project that is identified in the
PM SIP as a localized concern.
2.5
Other National Air Quality Improvement Programs and Strategies.
According to a December 2004 EPA report entitled The Particle Pollution Report:
Current Understanding of Air Quality and Emissions through 2003, monitored
concentrations of PM have decreased 10% and PM concentrations have decreased
2.5
10
7% since 1999, primarily in areas with the highest concentrations.44 The EPA
attributes a large portion of these decreases to the Acid Rain Program.
EPA has concluded that in many cases, PM attainment will be reached by
2.5
implementing national strategies developed under the 1999 visibility protection
regulations (Regional Haze Rule; 64 Federal Register 35714);45 voluntary diesel
engine retrofit programs; new federal standards, scheduled to be implemented
between 2004 and 2010, on cars, light trucks, and heavy-duty diesel engines; and the
1998 regional strategy to reduce nitrogen oxides from eastern states, referred to as the
“NOx SIP Call” (63 Federal Register 57356, October 27, 1998, and 69 Federal
Register 21604, April 21, 2004). The EPA predicts that the NOx SIP Call, primarily
designed to meet the ozone NAAQS, will also provide benefits in terms of reduced
levels of nitrate fine particles. (For background on the NOx SIP Call, see CRS
Report 98-236, Air Quality: EPA’s Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126
Petitions — A Hazy Situation? by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.)
In May 2005, EPA published a final rule, the Rule to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone, or “Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR),” to address the interstate transport of pollutants (SO and NOx) that are
2
hindering downwind states from attaining the eight-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.46 The final rule covers 28 states in the eastern United States and the
District of Columbia; it uses a cap-and-trade approach to reduce target pollutants by
up to 70%.
Based on air quality analyses in support of the CAIR, the EPA predicted that 17
of 36 areas in the eastern United States designated as nonattainment (out of
compliance) with the 1997 PM NAAQS would reach attainment (come into
2.5
43 40 CFR 93.101.
44 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 454-R-04-002, December 2004. Revised
report posted on EPA’s website at [http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/pm.html].
45 On July 6, 2005, EPA revised the regional haze rule, providing guidelines for determining
best available retrofit technology (BART) intended to provide guidelines used by state and
tribal air quality agencies to determine how to set air pollution limits (70 Federal Register
39172 ). See CRS Report RL32483 Visibility, Regional Haze, and the Clean Air Act: Status
of Implementation, by Larry Parker.
46 70 Federal Register 25162, May 12, 2005.

---

CRS-14
compliance) by 2010 as a result of implementing CAIR in conjunction with other
existing national programs.47 On the other hand, the EPA analyses recognized that
as many as 19 of the areas would remain in nonattainment, highlighting the
importance of local and state emission reduction efforts. The extent of pollution
reduction projected as a result of this rule has been the subject of considerable debate
among stakeholders and some Members of Congress. For more information on the
CAIR, see CRS Report RL32927, Clean Air Interstate Rule: Review and Analysis,
by Larry B. Parker, and CRS Report RL32273, Air Quality: EPA’s Proposed
Interstate Air Quality Rule, by Larry B. Parker and John E. Blodgett.
Issues
Nonattainment Boundaries. EPA has generally used its discretion to
expand the size of nonattainment areas or to combine areas that a state listed as
separate areas into a single larger unit. As it did in implementing other NAAQS, the
EPA has also combined nonattainment counties across state lines into the same
nonattainment area, if the counties are part of the same metropolitan area. Although,
according to EPA, staff in the regions and the agency’s Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards were available for assistance and consultation throughout the
designation process pursuant to the statutory requirements for working with states,
some states continue to disagree with EPA’s final designations relative to the states’
own recommendation.
Upwind Pollutant Contributions. One of the more frequently raised issues
in nonattainment areas is whether any special consideration can be given to areas
whose air quality is adversely affected by pollution from upwind areas. Unlike the
larger coarse particles, which generally settle more rapidly and fall near their source
of emission, the smaller PM particles frequently remain in the atmosphere longer
2.5
and can travel significant distances from their original source. The transport of PM2.5
can contribute to, and in some cases be the primary cause of, nonattainment in areas
downwind of the emission source.
Subpart 1 of the CAA allows EPA to “classify the area for the purpose of
applying an attainment date” and to consider such factors as “the availability and
feasibility of pollution control measures,” and may provide the agency flexibility. As
referenced in the proposed PM implementation rule, areas also may petition the
2.5
agency under Section 126 of the CAA to impose controls on upwind sources that
significantly contribute to their nonattainment of the standard.48 The agency has
imposed additional controls on sources of nitrogen oxides (which contribute to PM
and ozone formation downwind) through its “NOx SIP Call” and the “Regional Haze
47 See page 66006 of 70 Federal Register 65984, Nov. 1, 2005, Proposed Rule To Implement
the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
48 A number of such petitions regarding NAAQS other than PM have been filed with the
2.5
agency. The most well-known are those that were filed in August 1997 by eight
northeastern states, four of which were granted by the agency in January 2000. See CRS
Report 98-236, Air Quality: EPA’s Ozone Transport Rule, OTAG, and Section 126 Petitions
— A Hazy Situation? by Larry Parker and John Blodgett.

---

CRS-15
Rule.”49 In addition, the CAIR, promulgated in May 2005, is intended to address
interstate transport of pollutants that hinder attainment of PM and eight-hour ozone
2.5
NAAQS in downwind states.
Economic Impacts. Another concern, particularly of local businesses and
governments in areas with nonattainment designations, is the potential negative
impacts on an area’s economic development. Nonattainment designation does
require new major sources of pollution to offset pollution by equivalent or greater
emission reductions from existing sources, and requires highway and transit planners
to demonstrate that new projects “conform” to the area’s SIP.50 Although the EPA
has not analyzed the potential economic impact of designating areas as nonattainment
for particulate matter, a 2002 EPA analysis51 found that ozone nonattainment
designations had no net negative impact on those areas. Specifically, 6.5 million jobs
were created in ozone nonattainment areas from 1990 to 1998, and “over 55 percent
of ozone nonattainment areas had average annual employment growth rates greater
than that of their region of the country.” Personal income growth in these
nonattainment areas essentially matched the national average between 1990 and 1998
(38.5% versus 38.9%), according to EPA.
In contrast to the EPA findings, a study conducted by NERA Economic
Consulting for the American Petroleum Institute (API), found that meeting the 2010
ozone attainment deadline will lead to a $3 billion reduction in economic output in
the Philadelphia region in 2011.52 According to an API summary53 of the report,
“[t]he economic impacts would include the cost of local controls of $3.9 billion per
year, the loss of thousands of regional jobs, a reduction of billions of dollars in gross
regional product, and a significant loss of disposable personal income in the area.”
The API summary indicates that delaying the eight-hour ozone NAAQS attainment
deadline to 2015 would lower the cost to the local economy to $100 million per year
and lead to 1,000 fewer jobs. The extent to which the analysis supporting these
findings has been subjected to the rigorous peer review process typical for
publication in a scientific journal has been a concern to some.54
49 The Regional Haze Rule establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at
stationary sources in 26 industrial categories; available at [http://www.epa.gov/
visibility/actions.html].
50 For additional information on conformity, see CRS Report RL32106, Transportation
Conformity Under the Clean Air Act: In Need of Reform? by James E. McCarthy.
51 U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation, “The Historical Record: Nonattainment Status
and Economic Growth,” Feb. 26, 2002.
52 Economic Impact of 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Deadlines on Philadelphia Region,
September 2005 (released November 7, 2005); available on the API website at
[http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/NERA_API_Philadelphia_Report.pdf].
53 Available at [http://api-ep.api.org/economics/index.cfm?bitmask=002003002000000000].
54 Testimony of James Werner, Director, Division of Air and Waste Management, Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate
Change, and Nuclear Safety, Implementation of the Existing Particulate Matter and Ozone
(continued...)

---

CRS-16
Grant Programs. Although EPA does not have a grant program specifically
designed to assist nonattainment areas, the agency provides several grants to state air
pollution agencies in support of their programs. Other sources of funding are also
available. For example, states may obtain funding for projects intended to contribute
to attainment or maintenance of NAAQS under the Department of Transportation’s
(DOT’s) Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program (CMAQ).
Congress authorized $8.6 billion for the program for FY2005-FY2009 under the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU, P.L. 109-59), signed into law on August 10, 2005.
Authorized initially by Congress under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240) and funded by the Highway Trust
Fund, CMAQ provides funding for surface transportation and other related projects
that contribute to air quality improvements and congestion mitigation. In particular,
the program is authorized to fund projects that contribute to the reduction of carbon
monoxide (CO) and ozone concentrations. CMAQ funds are apportioned to a state
based on its population and pollution reduction needs. The population of each
nonattainment or maintenance area for ozone and/or CO in a state is multiplied by
a weighting factor based on the level of nonattainment (e.g., moderate, serious,
severe). States with no maintenance or nonattainment areas for ozone or CO are
guaranteed a minimum of 0.5% of each fiscal year’s authorized CMAQ funds.
CMAQ was expanded to allow the use of funds for projects intended to reduce
PM concentrations under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21, P.L. 105-178). TEA-21 did not, however, change the apportionment formula that
is based on CO and ozone. States with maintenance or nonattainment areas for only
PM receive the guaranteed minimum. For a more detailed discussion of CMAQ and
relevant legislation, see CRS Report RL33057, Surface Transportation
Reauthorization: Environmental Issues and Legislative Provisions in SAFETEA-LU
(H.R. 3), by Linda Luther.
Identifying Sources and Control Measures. Determining sources
contributing to emission of fine particles to identify the appropriate actions for
compliance with the PM standards is expected to be complicated. The EPA has
2.5
been conducting several technical studies in an effort to develop extensive guidance
to help states identify appropriate control measures in their SIPs for specific
parameters and conditions. The proposed PM implementation rule provides
2.5
information related to this concern as well.
Timely Completion of a PM Implementation Rule. Many stakeholders
2.5
and some Members of Congress are concerned with the timing of EPA’s completion
of the implementation requirements and associated guidance for achieving and
maintaining compliance with the 1997 PM NAAQS. EPA’s proposed “PM
2.5
2.5
Implementation Rule” was published on November 1, 2005,55 and the agency has yet
to release a final rule. States are required to submit their SIPs by April 2008. The
54 (...continued)
Air Quality Standards, Nov. 10, 2005.
55 70 Federal Register 65984, Nov. 1, 2005.

---

CRS-17
EPA contends that many states generally have a sense of what needs to be done based
on the proposal, information in the final transportation PM conformity rule
2.5
published in December 2004, and past experience with development of SIPs for other
NAAQS. Although recognizing there are certain nuances associated with the PM2.5
NAAQS and that some areas that are in nonattainment of a NAAQS for the first time
may require additional assistance, the EPA believes the targeted promulgation date
should allow sufficient time for states to complete their SIPs. Some states and
stakeholders are less optimistic.
EPA’s Review of the PM NAAQS and September 2006 Changes.56 At
the end of 2005, EPA completed its statutorily required57 review and assessment of
relevant scientific studies to either reaffirm or modify the PM NAAQS. Based on the
review, on September 21, 2006, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson signed
revisions to the PM NAAQS58 to provide increased protection against potential health
effects associated with short- and long-term exposure to particulate matter (including
chronic respiratory disease and premature mortality). Given the simultaneity of these
new PM NAAQS and the ongoing implementation of the 1997 PM
standards,
2.5
outcomes and challenges associated with the review and the EPA’s changes to the
existing PM NAAQS could affect the implementation schedule.
Based on its review and analysis of numerous scientific studies available
between 1997 and 2002,59 and on determinations made by the Administrator, EPA’s
modifications to the PM NAAQS tighten the current NAAQS primarily by lowering
the daily (24-hour) standard for PM . Several public interest groups and scientists,
2.5
including the EPA independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC),60 advocated tightening the standards further than proposed. Others
contend that data do not support the stricter standards nor, in some cases, the 1997
standards.
56 For more information regarding of EPA’s changes to the PM NAAQS, see CRS Report
RL31531, Air Quality: EPA’s 2006 Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard, by
Robert Esworthy and James E. McCarthy. Information can also be accessed on EPA’s
website [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html].
57 Section 109(d)(1)) of the CAA.
58 The new PM NAAQS have not appeared in the Federal Register as of this writing but are
available on EPA’s website at [http://epa.gov/pm/actions.html]. The schedule for
completion of the agency’s review of the PM NAAQS was governed by a consent decree
resolving a lawsuit filed in March 2003 (American Lung Assn. v. Whitman [No.
1:03CV00778, D.D.C. 2003], as modified by the court).
59 EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, Oct. 29, 2004. EPA, Review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of
Scientific and Technical Information, OAQPS Staff Paper, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, EPA-452/R-05-005, July 2005. The EPA criteria document and staff paper
can are available at [http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_cr_sp.html].
60 The CASAC, mandated under Section 109(d)(2) of the CAA, reviews EPA’s NAAQS
criteria documents and staff papers as they are prepared, recommends improvements, and,
after further meetings and reviews, signs off only when it is convinced that each accurately
reflects the status of the science ([http://www.epa.gov/sab/panels/casacpmpanel.html]).

---

CRS-18
Tightening the PM NAAQS is expected to result in more areas classified as
2.5
“nonattainment” and needing to implement new controls on particulate matter. States
and local governments would be required to develop and implement new plans for
addressing emissions in those areas that do not meet any new standards. In an
February 2006 advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR)61 outlining an
implementation plan for the transition to the January 17, 2006, proposed PM
standards, EPA indicated that it would be beneficial for States to consider control
strategies that may be useful in attaining the new 2006 PM NAAQS when
2.5
developing their strategies for the 1997 PM standards
2.5
A stricter standard may mean more costs for the transportation and industrial
sectors, including utilities, refineries, and the trucking industry, affected by
particulate matter controls. In terms of public health, a stricter standard may mean
fewer health effects for the general population and particularly sensitive populations,
such as children, asthmatics, and the elderly.
In a fact sheet supporting the new PM NAAQS, the EPA estimated that the most
likely benefits associated with the new revised 24-hour PM standard would range
2.5
from $17 billion to $35 billion, based on published scientific studies, at a cost of $6
billion.62 The EPA estimated that the benefits of meeting the annual PM standard,
2.5
which was not changed, would range from $20 billion to $160 billion a year in 2015,
based on updated analyses, at a cost of $7 billion. On October 6, 2006, the EPA
released a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) providing additional details on the
national costs and benefits of the final PM NAAQS. The agency did not publish an
RIA with its proposal in January 2006.63
Designation of geographical areas and the associated impacts on specific areas
would be speculative at best because implementation of any revised PM NAAQS is
several years off. States will not be required to meet the proposed PM standard
2.5
until April 2015 (April 2020, if qualified for an extension). With regard to the 1997
PM NAAQS, states are required to submit “implementation” plans for how they
2.5
will meet the standard by April 2008 and must be in compliance by 2010, unless they
are granted a five-year extension.
The EPA’s previous review and 1997 establishment of PM standards was the
subject of litigation and challenges, including a Supreme Court decision in 2001. It
would not be surprising if interested parties return to the courts or initiate challenges
to the September 2006 PM NAAQS. These challenges could affect the current
implementation schedule as well. However, the final form of the new PM NAAQS,
and therefore the associated potential impacts of implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
standards, may not be known for some time.
61 71 Federal Register 6718, Feb. 9, 2006.
62 Available on EPA’s website at [http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html].
63 EPA released interim and “provisional” analyses primarily focused on comparisons of
potential risk scenarios in specified cities and locales. See EPA’s Particulate Matter
Regulatory Actions website at [http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html].

---

CRS-19
Impacts of Actions Regarding the 1997 Ozone NAAQS. The final
1997 PM NAAQS were signed by the EPA Administrator at the same time as new
NAAQS for ground-level ozone. The two NAAQS were jointly published on July
18, 1997.64 Generally referred to as the eight-hour ozone standard, the new standard
for ground-level ozone requires a more stringent concentration limit (0.08 parts per
million versus. the previous 0.12), but it averages the ozone concentrations measured
over eight hours rather than the previous one hour. Following their joint
promulgation in 1997, both the ozone and the PM NAAQS were the subject of many
of the same challenges and litigation, including a Supreme Court decision in 2001
(see discussion later in this report). Implementation of the eight-hour ozone standard
currently precedes the PM NAAQS implementation. (See CRS Report RL32345,
Implementation of EPA’s 8-Hour Ozone Standard, by James E. McCarthy.)
On April 15, 2004, EPA designated areas in 32 states and the District of
Columbia (474 counties in all) as nonattainment for the new ozone air quality
standard.65 The EPA designations, and the implementation rule66 that accompanied
the designations, have been challenged for being too lenient by several states and
various public interest groups, and too restrictive by industry groups. A number of
general issues, such as cost and interpretation of boundaries, are expected to be
similar for the eight-hour ozone and PM rules, but the EPA deems the CAA
2.5
requirements regarding PM to be less complicated, relative to ozone requirements.
2.5
The PM implementation rule will be new rather than a transformation of an
2.5
existing one, as in the case of eight-hour ozone. In addition, fewer areas have been
designated as nonattainment for PM than were designated under the eight-hour
2.5
ozone NAAQS. Nevertheless, implementation of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS, and
associated challenges or other delays, will likely affect the implementation of the
1997 PM NAAQS.
2.5
Legislation Related to PM NAAQS Implementation
Concerns regarding the potential impacts of the new ozone and particulate
standards have led to several attempts to modify the implementation requirements.67
Most legislative attempts during the 109th Congresses were generally attached to
larger pieces of legislation, such as the proposed multipollutant (“Clear Skies”),
energy, and transportation bills.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), signed by the President on August
8, 2005, includes provisions that could affect NAAQS implementation through
programs that could contribute to reductions in PM (and ozone). Title VII Subtitle
64 62 Federal Register 38652-38896, July 18, 1997.
65 69 Federal Register 23857, Apr. 15, 2004.
66 69 Federal Register 23951, Apr. 30, 2004. See 8-hour Ground-Level Ozone
Designations: Regulatory Actions, an EPA website, at [http://www.epa.gov/
ozonedesignations/regs.htm].
67 See CRS Issue Brief IB10107, Clean Air Act Issues in the 108th Congress (available from
the author), and CRS Report RL33552, Clean Air Act Issues in the 109th Congress, by
James E. McCarthy.

---

CRS-20
G requires the EPA to establish a program to provide grants and loans to retrofit
vehicles with diesel engines with new emission reduction technology. Eligible
vehicles include heavy-duty trucks, locomotives, and boats. Subtitle G, referred to
as the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) of 2005 (the same as the proposed
stand-alone legislation S. 1265, S. Report 109-133), authorizes $200 million annually
for FY2007 through FY2011 (Title VII Subtitle G Section 797). Other provisions
may also contribute to reducing PM to some extent. For example, Title XVI
establishes a program to promote the development and deployment of low-carbon
technologies, both domestically and in developing countries. Various sections in
Titles VII, VIII, and XIII authorize research and development (R&D) funding for
hydrogen, fuel cells, and alternative fuel vehicles or establish tax incentives for their
use. See CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (P.L. 109-58, H.R. 6), by Brent D. Yacobucci.
Multipollutant legislation to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants, if
enacted, might also reduce PM concentrations and could also revise the attainment
2.5
process. In the 109th Congress, six bills have been introduced that would impose
multipollutant controls on utilities. Two of the bills, H.R. 227 and S. 131 (Clear
Skies), are modified versions of the Administration’s three-pollutant proposal for
sulfur dioxide (SO ), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury (Hg) emissions . The other
2
four bills, S. 150, S. 730, H.R. 1451, and H.R. 1873, are four-pollutant proposals that
include carbon dioxide (CO ). In addition to the effects of reducing emissions of the
2
pollutants of concern on PM , Clear Skies legislation would create a new
2.5
“transitional” area classification in place of nonattainment for areas that can
demonstrate through modeling that they will attain the 1997 PM and ozone
2.5
standards by December 2015. Until that date, transitional areas would not incur
penalties or face additional requirements beyond those identified in the EPA or state
modeling. After 2015, if an area failed to achieve the standard, it would be
designated nonattainment by June 2017 and would then have to impose controls to
reach attainment by 2022. By reclassifying most ozone and PM nonattainment
2.5
areas as “transitional,” Clear Skies would eliminate the application of conformity in
those areas until 2018.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee blocked S. 131 from
advancing to the Senate floor, on a tie vote, on March 9, 2005. The committee’s 9-9
vote brought an end, possibly for the remainder of the 109th Congress, to further
attempts to find a compromise on Clear Skies amendments. See CRS Report
RL32782, Clear Skies and the Clean Air Act: What’s the Difference? by Larry B.
Parker and James E. McCarthy, and CRS Report RL32755, Air Quality:
Multi-Pollutant Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Larry B. Parker and John E.
Blodgett.
Implementation of the 1997 PM NAAQS: Timeline and
2.5
Delays
Due to legal challenges, the lack of a national monitoring network, and other
factors, implementation of the 1997 PM NAAQS has been delayed since it was
2.5
promulgated. The timeline presented in Table 2, driven primarily by statutory
requirements, reflects the most recent key milestone dates for PM implementation,
2.5

---

CRS-21
including actual completions. It follows an EPA milestone schedule outlined in an
April 21, 2003, memorandum to EPA regional administrators that also provided the
nonbinding guidance for implementation of the PM area designations.68
2.5
Recognizing potential efficiencies associated with states and tribes being able to
harmonize future control strategies, the initial PM schedule was intended to be
2.5
similar to the eight-hour ozone program.
Table 2. Estimated Schedule for Implementation of the 1997
PM NAAQS
2.5
Date
1997 PM NAAQS Milestones
2.5
February 2004 (completed)
State-tribal area designation recommendations
(based on 2000-2002 monitoring data)
June-July 2004 (completed)
EPA notifies states and tribes regarding
modifications to their recommendations
January 5, 2005 (completed)
EPA promulgates final area designations
(published in 70 Federal Register
(required 1 year after states and tribes make
944)
recommendations)
February 2005 (completed
EPA proposes PM implementation rule
2.5
November 1, 2005) (published in
70 Federal Register 65984)
April 5, 2006 (1 year after the final
States must submit transportation conformity
designation April 5, 2005 effective
determination within 1 year of the effective date
date)
of nonattainment designation (per EPA’s final
“conformity rule,” published July 1, 2004)
Late 2006 (estimated)
EPA promulgates final PM implementation rule
2.5
April 2008 (3 years after final area
States and tribes submit revised implementation
designations effective date)
plans (SIPs) to achieve PM compliance in
2.5
nonattainment areas
2010-2015 (5-10 years after final
NAAQS statutory compliance deadline for
area designations effective date)
attainment
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency fact sheets and guidance documents, and relevant Federal Register notices.
The PM requirement of three years of monitoring data to determine whether
2.5
areas are meeting the established limits is one factor responsible for delaying
implementation. Comprehensive monitoring data sufficient to make this
determination and the attainment designations were not available in 1997.
Recognizing this dilemma, in the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
68 EPA memorandum, Apr. 21, 2003, from the Office of Air and Radiation Assistant
Administrator Jeffrey R. Holmstead to EPA Regional Administrators, available at
[http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/pm/pm25_guide.html], accessed January 2006.

---

CRS-22
(TEA-21; P.L. 105-178, Title VI), Congress revised the statutory deadline
requirements for the new NAAQS, predicated on a previously released EPA Interim
Implementation Policy. TEA-21 required states to submit designation
recommendations within one year after receipt of three years of data meeting defined
federal protocols, and required the EPA to promulgate designations within one year
after state recommendations are due, but not later than December 31, 2005.
As discussed earlier, operation of the network of monitors was phased in from
1999 through 2000, making three-year monitoring data available at different points,
depending on area location. Rather than a staggered designation schedule, which
would likely result in hampering cross-coordination of implementation plans, the
EPA proposed a single date for state and tribal recommendations and final EPA
designations. The deadlines of February 15, 2004, for governors to submit their
PM designation recommendations and December 31, 2004, for EPA to promulgate
2.5
designations for each state were the result of Congress amending the CAA in the
FY2004 omnibus appropriations (P.L.108-199).
In addition to the delay in establishing a monitoring network, the 1997 NAAQS
standards were challenged in District Court by the American Trucking Associations,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and several other state and business groups. An
initial May 1999 opinion by the District Court partially in favor of the plaintiffs was
reversed by the Supreme Court in February 2001.69
Conclusion
Implementation of the 1997 PM NAAQS is affecting a number of areas,
2.5
including some that have not previously been designated “nonattainment” for a
NAAQS. A number of concerns have been raised regarding the potential impacts,
and numerous questions have been triggered regarding the specifics of the
implementation process.
The EPA projects that federal measures, such as recent auto and truck emission
standards and controls on power plants and regional regulations, will be sufficient to
demonstrate attainment in a large portion of monitored nonattainment counties by
2015, prior to the development and implementation of local measures. Some
Members of Congress and others have questioned the EPA’s predictions regarding
the relative magnitude of the emission reductions associated with existing and
proposed air quality controls. Considerable debate also exists regarding the potential
economic consequences associated with nonattainment.
69 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argued Dec. 17, 1998;
decided May 14, 1999 (No. 97-1440). American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al.,
Petitioners v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Whitman v. American
Trucking Associations, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 99-1257 and No. 99-1426, Feb. 27, 2001
(121 S. Ct. 903). See CRS Report RS20860, The Supreme Court Upholds EPA Standard
Setting Under the Clean Air Act: Whitman v. American Trucking Assn’s, by Robert Meltz
and James E. McCarthy.

---

CRS-23
The final form of PM implementation and its effects may not be known for
2.5
some time. Some states and other stakeholders continue to disagree with the EPA’s
PM nonattainment area designations and to suggest that fewer counties should have
2.5
been designated. Other stakeholder groups contend that the EPA should have
included additional counties. The agency’s PM implementation rule, which has yet
2.5
to be promulgated, may be challenged (like many EPA rules) in the courts. The
EPA’s first attempt at an implementation plan was among the issues remanded by the
Supreme Court in a 2001 decision that addressed a number of issues related to the
setting of the PM and the eight-hour ozone standard. Challenges following the
2.5
eight-hour ozone designations could also affect certain decisions and the schedule
regarding PM . The EPA’s review and September 2006 revisions of the existing
2.5
PM NAAQS may face challenges that could affect implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. Modification of the statutory provisions affecting implementation of the
1997 ozone and particulate standards, through regulation or legislation, is likely to
remain under consideration.
Many critical milestones are scheduled to be completed in the coming months,
and PM will likely remain an area of focus for many stakeholders and Congress for
2.5
the remainder of 2006 and throughout 2007

---