Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to
the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
August 21, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42671
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Summary
On June 14, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed a proposal
to revise the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for particulate matter (PM), in response to a June 6, 2012, order issued by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Environmental and public health advocacy groups
and 11 states had petitioned the agency, and subsequently filed suit in the D.C. Circuit alleging
that EPA failed to perform its mandated duty to complete the review of the PM NAAQS within
the statutory deadline. As part of the D.C. Circuit’s decision and a related Consent Agreement,
EPA has agreed to issue final revised PM NAAQS by December 14, 2012. EPA’s review of the
PM NAAQS has generated considerable debate and oversight in Congress.
The June 2012 proposal would strengthen the existing (2006) annual health-based (“primary”)
standard for “fine” particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter (or PM2.5), lowering the
allowable average concentration of PM2.5 in the air from the current level of 15 micrograms per
cubic meter (µg/m3), to a range of 12 to 13 µg/m.3 The annual PM2.5 NAAQS is set so as to
address human health effects from chronic exposures to the pollutants. The existing 24-hour
primary standard for PM2.5 that was reduced from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006 would be
retained, as would the existing standards for larger, but still inhalable “coarse” particles less than
10 micrometers in diameter or PM10. “Secondary” standards that provide protection against
“welfare” (non-health) effects, such as ecological effects and material deterioration, would be
identical to the primary standards the same as in 2006, but the June 2012 proposal included two
options for a 24-hour PM2.5 standard to improve visibility.
In developing the June 2012 proposal, EPA reviewed scientific studies available since the
agency’s previous review in 2006. EPA determined, and the independent scientific advisory
committee mandated under the CAA (Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, or CASAC)
concurred, that evidence continues to show associations between particulates in ambient air and
numerous significant health problems, including aggravated asthma, chronic bronchitis, reduced
lung function, irregular heart beat, non-fatal heart attacks, and premature death. Populations
shown to be most at risk include children, older adults, and those with heart and lung disease, and
those of lower socioeconomic status.
EPA expects that the potential benefits of the proposed revisions would range from an estimated
low of $88.0 million to a high of $5.9 billion dependent on the concentration level and other
factors, and estimated costs would range from $2.9 million to $69.0 million. Some stakeholders
and some Members express concerns that the cost impacts will be more significant than EPA
estimated in those areas unable to comply with the new standards. EPA’s establishment of or
revisions to the PM NAAQS do not directly regulate emissions from specific sources, or compel
installation of any pollution control equipment or measures, but indirectly could affect operations
at industrial facilities and other sources throughout the United States.
As with other NAAQS, a final revised PM standard will start a process that requires, among other
things, a determination of areas in each state that exceed the standard and must, therefore, reduce
pollutant concentrations to achieve it. Following the determination of “nonattainment” areas
(primarily counties) based on multiple years of monitoring data and other factors submitted by the
states, state and local governments must develop (or revise) State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
outlining measures they will implement to attain the standard. These often involve promulgation
of new regulations by states, leading to the issuance of revised air permits, which affect pollution
Congressional Research Service
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
control requirements at various facilities. The process from finalization of a revised NAAQS to
issuance of state SIPs, regulations, permits, installation of pollution control devices and
attainment of the new standard, typically takes several years. Based on statutory scheduling
requirements, designation of areas as nonattainment for any revised PM NAAQS would not be
determined until the end of 2014, and states would have until at least 2020 to achieve compliance.
Congressional Research Service
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background...................................................................................................................................... 3
EPA’s June 2012 Proposed Changes to the PM NAAQS................................................................. 5
Comparison of the June 2012 PM2.5 Annual Standard with Previous Promulgated and
Proposed Alternative PM Standards....................................................................................... 7
Review Process Leading up to the June 2012 Proposed PM NAAQS ............................................ 7
Implementing the Proposed Revised PM2.5 NAAQS..................................................................... 10
NAAQS Designation Process.................................................................................................. 11
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 Annual NAAQS Potential Area Designations........................ 12
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) .......................................................................................... 15
National Regulations ............................................................................................................... 16
Potential Impacts of More Stringent PM Standards....................................................................... 17
Reaction to the Proposed PM NAAQS.......................................................................................... 19
Congressional Activity................................................................................................................... 20
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 22
Figures
Figure 1. Counties Not Meeting the June 2012 Proposed Revised Primary Annual PM2.5
NAAQS Based on 2008-2010 Air Monitoring Data................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. Promulgated, Proposed, and Alternative PM2.5 Primary (Health) NAAQS ....................... 7
Table 2. EPA’s Estimated Total Monetized Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits of Attaining
Alternative PM2.5 NAAQS in 2020 ............................................................................................ 18
Table A-1. Milestone Chronology for Subsequent to the June 2012 Proposed PM NAAQS ........ 24
Table B-1. Chronological Listing of EPA Workshops, and Technical and Policy
Documents in Support of the June 2012 PM NAAQS Proposal ................................................ 25
Table B-2. Chronological Listing of CASAC Reviews and Consultations ................................... 27
Table C-1. Nonattainment Areas for the June 2012 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS as Estimated
Using 2008-2010 Data, Final Designations 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS October 8,
2009, and Final Designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Annual............................................ 28
Appendixes
Appendix A. Chronological Summary of Key Milestones Subsequent to the June 2012
PM NAAQS Proposal................................................................................................................. 24
Congressional Research Service
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Appendix B. Supporting EPA Scientific and Policy Documents, and CASAC Review................ 25
Appendix C. Comparison of Potential Nonattainment Areas for the June 2012 Proposed
PM2.5 Annual Standard with the Final Designations for the 2006 and 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS ...................................................................................................................................... 28
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 40
Congressional Research Service
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator signed a proposal to strengthen the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)1 for particulate matter (PM) on June 14, 2012,2
intended to address potential health effects (including chronic respiratory disease and premature
mortality) associated with short- and long-term exposure to particulate matter. The date of the
proposal was per a June 6, 2012, order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in response to petitions filed by advocacy groups and 11 states. 3 EPA’s most
recent statutorily required review and proposal has generated controversy and national debate
among stakeholders, health and environmental advocacy groups, and states, as well as oversight
in Congress, as did the previous changes leading up to the existing PM NAAQS promulgated
October 2006, and those established in 1997.
The proposed rule subsequently published in the Federal Register June 29, 2012,4 started a nine-
week public comment period through August 31, 2012. EPA also held two public hearings for the
proposal on July 17, 2012, in Philadelphia, PA, and July 19, 2012, in Sacramento, CA.5 Per the
D.C. Circuit decision and as agreed to in a June 26, 2012, proposed consent decree,6 EPA is to
finalize its decision regarding the PM NAAQS by December 14, 2012.
The June 2012 PM NAAQS proposal is the culmination of EPA’s statutorily required7 review of
the NAAQS under the Clean Air Act (CAA) based on studies available though mid 2009 and
recommendations of EPA staff and a scientific advisory panel (Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee, or CASAC8) established by the CAA.9 The agency initiated the review not long after
the 2006 promulgation of the PM NAAQS.10 EPA staff reassessed scientific studies considered in
setting the 2006 PM NAAQS revisions, reviewed and analyzed extensive subsequent research,
and considered public comments and recommendations of the CASAC. Based on the scientific
evidence considered, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson signed the proposal that would tighten
the current standard primarily by lowering the annual health-based (“primary”) standard for fine
1 Sections 108-109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment, review, and revisions of the NAAQS (42
U.S.C. 7408 and 7409).
2 The proposal as signed by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson on June 14, 2012, and supporting documents are
available on EPA’s website Particulate Matter (PM): Regulatory Actions, http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
3 American Lung Ass'n v. EPA, D.D.C., No. 1:12-cv-243, order issued June 6, 2012.
4 U.S. EPA, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Proposed Rule, 77 Federal Register
38889-39055, June 29, 2012.
5 U.S. EPA, Public Hearings for Proposed Rules – National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, 77
Federal Register 39205, July 2, 2012.
6 U.S. EPA, “Proposed Consent Decree,” 77 Federal Register 38060, June 26, 2012. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/
pagedetails.action?granuleId=2012-15603&packageId=FR-2012-06-26&acCode=FR. See also American Lung Ass'n v.
EPA, D.D.C., No. 1:12-cv-243, joint motion filed June 5, 2012.
7 Section 109(d)(1)) of the CAA.
8 For information regarding the CASAC PM review panel and its activities and reports, see http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/
sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/CASAC.
9 Section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act.
10 The current review was initiated with EPA’s June 2007 general call for information, U.S. EPA, “Integrated Science
Assessment for Particulate Matter: Call for Information,” 72 Federal Register 35462, June 28, 2007. See also EPA’s
Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, pp. 1-10 through
1-12, U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, EPA
452/R-11-003, April 2011, http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pm/data/20110419pmpafinal.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
1
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The proposal includes options for new secondary
standards to address visibility impacts in urban areas associated with PM2.5, but would not modify
the standards for inhalable coarse particles smaller than 10 microns or PM10.11 Because some
farming and livestock practices contribute to particulate matter emissions, the agricultural
community and some Members have maintained a particular interest in EPA’s consideration of
PM10 and the potential impacts on agricultural operations.12
As per statutory scheduling requirements under the CAA, the final designation of areas (primarily
counties) as nonattainment for any revised PM standards would not be determined until the end of
2014, and states would have until at least 2020 to achieve compliance. In its Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) accompanying the proposed rule assessing the costs and benefits of proposed
revisions to the PM NAAQS, EPA estimated that strengthening the PM2.5 annual standard would
add further similar health benefits anticipated with the promulgation of the 2006 PM NAAQS.13
Others have suggested that potential health benefits of tightening the PM NAAQS might be
higher than EPA’s estimates.14 On the other hand, tighter standards could impose additional
compliance requirements on communities, states, industry, and others, at what some stakeholders
and Members contend will be a substantial economic cost. EPA expects that requirements and
emission reductions associated with existing and recently promulgated federal regulations under
the CAA will significantly allay impacts of complying with the proposed revised PM standards,
and anticipates that virtually all counties will meet the standards as proposed in 2020.
Several recent and pending EPA regulations implementing the various pollution control statutes
enacted by Congress have garnered vigorous oversight during the 112th Congress.15 Members
have expressed concerns, in hearings, through bipartisan letters commenting on proposed
regulations, and through introduced legislation that would delay, limit, or prevent certain EPA
actions. Particular attention is being paid to the CAA, under which EPA has moved forward with
the first federal controls on emissions of greenhouse gases and also addressed emissions of
conventional pollutants from a number of industries. Because of health and cost implications,
NAAQS decisions historically have been the source of significant concern to some in Congress.
The evolution and development of the PM NAAQS, in particular, have been the subject of
extensive oversight. During the 112th Congress, some Members expressed concerns in hearings,
letters to the administrator, and proposed legislation in anticipation of potential changes to the PM
NAAQS, and the June 2012 proposal is expected to generate further oversight.
This CRS report summarizes EPA’s June 2012 proposed changes to the PM NAAQS and includes
comparisons with previous (1997) and current (2006) promulgated and proposed standards. Key
actions leading up to the June 2012 proposal, and potential issues and concerns associated with
11 See EPA’s Fact Sheet “Overview of EPA’s Proposal to Revise the Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution
(Particulate Matter),” http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/fsoverview.pdf.
12 See CRS Report R41622, Environmental Regulation and Agriculture, coordinated by Megan Stubbs.
13 U.S. EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter,” EPA 452/R-12-003, June 2012, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/
PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf. The RIA and supporting documents are available in the public docket, Docket
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0955, http://www.regulations.gov/#!home.
14 For an example see,“Health Benefits of Alternative PM2.5 Standards,” Donald McCubbin, Ph.D., prepared for the
American Lung Association, Clean Air Task Force and Earthjustice, July 2011, http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/
files/Health-Benefits-Alternative-PM2.5-Standards.pdf.
15 See CRS Report R41561, EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track?, by James E. McCarthy and Claudia
Copeland.
Congressional Research Service
2
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
the proposal to strengthen the PM2.5 annual standard, are also highlighted. For more information
regarding issues and implementation of the current PM2.5 NAAQS promulgated in 2006, see CRS
Report RL34762, The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter
(PM): EPA’s 2006 Revisions and Associated Issues, by Robert Esworthy and James E. McCarthy,
and CRS Report R40096, 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Designating Nonattainment Areas, by Robert Esworthy.
Background
Particulate matter is one of six principal pollutants, commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants,”
for which EPA has promulgated NAAQS under the CAA.16 The others are ozone (O3, a key
measure of smog), nitrogen dioxide (NO2, or, inclusively, nitrogen oxides,17 NOx), sulfur oxides
(SOx, or, specifically, SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb).
PM2.5 can be emitted directly from vehicles, smokestacks, and fires but can also form in reactions
in the atmosphere from gaseous precursors, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and volatile
organics occurring naturally or as emissions typically associated with gasoline and diesel engine
exhaust, and from utility and other industrial processes. PM10 (or coarse PM) is an indicator used
in the NAAQS to provide protection from slightly larger (in the range of 2.5 to 10 microns or
thoracic coarse particles), but still inhalable particles that penetrate into the trachea, bronchi, and
deep lungs. These particles are generally associated with dust from paved and unpaved roads,
certain industrial processes and agriculture, construction and demolition operations (including
mining), and biomass burning.
Establishing NAAQS does not directly limit emissions; rather, it represents the EPA
Administrator’s formal judgment regarding the level of ambient pollution that will protect public
health with an “adequate margin of safety.” Under Sections 108-109 of the CAA,18 Congress
mandated that EPA set national ambient (outdoor) air quality standards for pollutants whose
emissions “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health (primary standards) or
welfare19 (secondary standards)” and “the presence of which in the ambient air results from
numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources.” The process for setting and revising NAAQS
consists of the statutory steps incorporated in the CAA over a series of amendments. Several other
steps have also been added by the EPA, by executive orders, and by subsequent regulatory reform
enactments by the Congress.
Section 109(d)(1)) of the CAA requires EPA to review the criteria that serve as the basis for the
NAAQS for each covered pollutant every five years, to either reaffirm or modify previously
established NAAQS. EPA has revised the PM NAAQS three times, in 1987, 1997, and most
16 42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1).
17 The NAAQS is for NO2; nitrogen gases that are ozone precursors are referred to as NOx.
18 42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1).
19 The use of public welfare in the CAA “includes, but is not limited to, effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation,
manmade 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, whether
caused by transformation, conversion, or combination with other air pollutants” (42 U.S.C. 7602(h)).
Congressional Research Service
3
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
recently, October 2006, to ensure that the standards continue to provide adequate protection for
public health and welfare.20
A February 24, 2009, decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
had remanded elements of EPA’s decisions as promulgated in October 2006, in particular the
decision not to tighten the primary annual NAAQS for PM2.5, to the agency for further
consideration but did not vacate the revised standard nor set a specific timeline. The decision was
in response to petitions filed in the D.C. Circuit by 13 states, industry, agriculture, business, and
environmental and public health advocacy groups, challenging certain aspects of EPA’s revisions
for both PM2.5 and PM10. The D.C. Circuit granted the petitions in part with regard to the PM2.5
annual standard and the secondary standards for PM2.5 and PM10 (including visibility impairment),
denying other challenges.21
Concerned with delays in EPA’s schedule for proposing revisions to the 2006 PM NAAQS, the
American Lung Association and the National Parks Conservation Association, and nine states
separately filed petitions with the D.C. Circuit in November 2011 urging the court to order EPA’s
immediate compliance with the February 2009 remand. Subsequently, in February 2012 the two
organizations sued EPA in the D.C. Circuit for failing to fulfill their statutory duty to review the
October 2006 PM NAAQS within five years,22 and a coalition of 11 states filed a similar suit with
the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York.23 In response, the D.C. Circuit initially
directed EPA to complete its review of the PM NAAQS by June 7, 2012, and following a motion
filed by the agency, amended the deadline to June 14, 2012.24
Promulgation of revised PM NAAQS will initiate a series of statutorily required actions, starting
with EPA/States coordinated effort to designate areas (counties or portions of counties) with
respect to attainment or nonattainment of any new primary standards three years following the
effective date of published final revisions. Within three years of EPA’s final designations of areas,
states are required to submit plans (state implementations plans or SIPs) outlining how they will
achieve or maintain compliance with the revised primary PM NAAQS. The CAA is not specific
with respect to dates regarding when states must meet secondary PM standards. Relevant
milestones are determined by EPA and states through the implementation planning process.
20 Beginning in 1971, regulation and monitoring of particulate matter under the CAA focused primarily on total
suspended particles (TSP) and, eventually in 1987, on coarse particles equal to or less than 10 micrometers in diameter
(PM10). EPA revised the particulates standards in 1997 to provide separate requirements for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). See EPA’s “Particulate Matter (PM) Standards - Table of Historical PM NAAQS” at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_history.html.
21 For a more detailed discussion regarding the petitions see section entitled “Petitions Challenging the 2006 PM
NAAQS and the D.C. Circuit’s February 29, 2009, Decision” in CRS Report RL34762, The National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter (PM): EPA’s 2006 Revisions and Associated Issues, by Robert
Esworthy and James E. McCarthy.
22 American Lung Ass'n v. EPA, D.D.C., No. 1:12-cv-243, filed 2/14/12.
23 States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Washington, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA, D.S. N.Y., 12 CIV 1064, filed 2/10/2012,
http://www.atg.state.vt.us/assets/files/NY%20v%20EPA%20Complaint%20(2-10-12).pdf.
24 See footnote 3.
Congressional Research Service
4
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
EPA’s June 2012 Proposed Changes to the PM
NAAQS
EPA’s 1997 revisions to the PM NAAQS25 revised the standards focused on particles smaller than
10 microns (PM10 or coarse particles) established in 1987,26 and introduced standards for “fine”
particles smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) for the first time. The current primary (health
protection) PM NAAQS as revised in 2006 include an annual and a daily (24-hour) limit for
PM2.5, but only a daily limit for PM10. To attain the PM2.5 annual standard, the three-year average
of the weighted annual arithmetic mean PM2.5 concentration at each monitor within an area must
not exceed the maximum limit set by the agency. The 24-hour standards are a concentration-based
percentile form,27 indicating the percent of the time that a monitoring station can exceed the
standard. For instance, a 98th percentile 24-hour standard indicates that a monitoring station can
exceed the standard 2% of the time during the year. For PM2.5 and PM10, the secondary NAAQS,
which are set at a level “requisite to protect the public welfare,” are the same as the primary
standards.
As proposed June 2012, the PM2.5 and PM10 standards and other implementation changes would
be as follows:28
Primary (Public Health) PM Standards
• PM2.5: strengthen the annual standard, which currently is 15 micrograms per
cubic meter (µg/m3), by setting a new limit of 12 µg/m3 or 13 µg/m3; retain the
daily (24-hour) standard at 35 µg/m3 based on the current three-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations as established in 2006.
• PM10: retain the current daily standard of no more than one exceedance of
concentrations of 150 µg/m3 per year on average over three years; there is no
current annual standard for PM10 (the previous annual maximum concentration
standard of 50 µg/m3 was eliminated by EPA in 2006).29
Secondary (Welfare) PM Standards
• PM2.5 and PM10: secondary (welfare) NAAQS would be the same as the primary
standards, the same correlations as the 2006 PM NAAQS, with the exception of
visibility impairment associated with PM2.5.
25 62 Federal Register 38652-38896, July 18, 1997.
26 PM10 NAAQS were promulgated in 1987, 52 Federal Register 24640, July 1, 1987.
27 “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.” 77 Federal Register 38954, June 29, 2012.
28 See footnote 2.
29 Based on the findings in the EPA PM criteria document and staff paper, and the CASAC’s concurrence, that the
studies reviewed do not provide sufficient evidence regarding long-term exposure to warrant continuation of an annual
standard. See 71 Federal Register 2653, Section III. Rationale for Proposed Decision on Primary PM10 Standards,
January 17, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
5
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
• PM2.5 Visibility Impairment: add a distinct secondary standard defined in terms
of a PM2.5 visibility index based on speciated30 PM2.5 mass concentrations and
relative humidity data to calculate light extinction on a deciview (dv) scale31
similar the current Regional Haze Program.32 Specifically, set a 24-hour
averaging time of 30 or 28 deciviews (dv) based on a 90th percentile form over
three years. EPA is also seeking comment on alternative levels (down to 25 dv)
and averaging times (e.g., 4 hours).
Implementation Changes
• Monitoring:33 update several aspects of monitoring regulations including
requiring relocating a small number of PM2.5 monitors to be collocated with
measurements of other criteria pollutants (e.g., nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and
carbon monoxide (CO)) near-roadway monitoring so to ensure these monitors are
at one location in each urban area with a population of 1 million or more, and
operational by January 1, 2015. Use data from existing Chemical Speciation
Network or the EPA/National Park Service IMPROVE monitoring network to
determine whether an area meets the proposed secondary visibility index
standard PM2.5 . No changes to PM10 monitoring.
• Air Quality Index (AQI): update the AQI (EPA’s color-coded tool for informing
the public how clean or polluted the air is and associated measures for reducing
risks of exposure) for PM2.5 by changing the upper end range for “Good”
category (an index value of 50) on the overall scale (0 to 500 based on
conversion of PM2.5 concentrations) to the level of the proposed revised annual
PM2.5 standard. EPA would also set the 100 value of the index scale (“Moderate”)
at the level of the current 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which is 35 µg/m,3 and the AQI
of 150 (“Unhealthy Sensitive Groups”) would be set at 55 µg/m.3 The current
upper end for the “Hazardous” (500), “Unhealthy” (200) and “Very Unhealthy”
(300) AQIs would be retained.34
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD):35 revise the PSD permitting
program (rules) with respect to the proposed revised PM NAAQS so as not to
“unreasonably delay” pending permits and establish a “grandfather” provision for
permit applications if a draft permit or preliminary determination has been issued
for public comment no later than the effective date of final revised PM NAAQS.
30 Includes a measure of PM2.5 mass, elements, ions, and carbon species. See EPA’s laboratory standard operating
procedures (SOPs) for PM2.5 chemical speciation at http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/specsop.html.
31 “The deciview scale is frequently used in the scientific and regulatory literature on visibility. 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,” 77 Federal Register 39043, June 29, 2012. A “deciview is a
yardstick for measuring visibility: the higher the deciview level, the hazier the air appears,” U.S. EPA, Fact Sheet:
Overview of EPA’s Proposal to Revise the Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution (Particle Matter), p.2,
http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/2012/fsoverview.pdf.
32 See U.S. EPA, “EPA’s Regional Haze Program,” http://www.epa.gov/visibility/program.html.
33 See EPA Fact Sheet: EPA’s Proposal to Update the Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution: Monitoring,
Designations and Permitting Requirements, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/2012/fsimp.pdf.
34 See EPA Fact Sheet: Summary of Proposed Improvements to the Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution and
Updates to the Air Quality Index (AQI), http://www.epa.gov/pm/pdfs/
PMNAAQSProposalSTANDARDSAQI61412FINALUPDATED.pdf.
35 See footnote 33.
Congressional Research Service
6
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
This provision would not apply to NAAQS for other criteria pollutants and
permits not meeting these criteria would have to demonstrate compliance with
the revised standards once they are finalized.
Comparison of the June 2012 PM2.5 Annual Standard with Previous
Promulgated and Proposed Alternative PM Standards
The final PM2.5 daily standard established in 2006 was among the less stringent within the range
of alternative levels recommended by EPA staff, and the annual standard is not as stringent as the
standard recommended by the CASAC. The decision to retain the annual PM2.5 standard was also
less than recommended. Table 1 below shows the June 2012 proposed changes to the PM2.5
annual standard in comparison to the annual and daily standards for 1997 and 2006 promulgated
standards, and alternative levels recommended prior to the 2006 final revisions.
Table 1. Promulgated, Proposed, and Alternative PM2.5 Primary (Health) NAAQS
PM2.5 NAAQS Options
24-hour Primary
Annual Primary
1997 Promulgated PM NAAQS
65 µg/m3 15
µg/m3
CASAC Recommendation (June 2005)
35-30 µg/m3 14-13
µg/m3
EPA Final “Staff Paper” (Dec. 2005)
35-25 µg/m3 15
µg/m3
or
40-30
µg/m3 14-12
µg/m3
Dec. 2005 Proposed PM NAAQS Rule
35 µg/m3 15
µg/m3
2006 Promulgated PM NAAQS
35 µg/m3 15
µg/m3
CASAC Recommendation (August 2010)
35-30 µg/m3 13-11
µg/m3
EPA Final “Staff Paper” (April 2011)
35-30 µg/m3 13-11
µg/m3
June 2012 Proposed Rule (June 2012)
35 µg/m3 13-12
µg/m3
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) with information from EPA’s June 2012
proposal and related technical documents, and the December 2006 promulgated PM NAAQS and supporting
technical and policy documents (http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/actions.html).
Review Process Leading up to the June 2012
Proposed PM NAAQS
The CAA as enacted, includes specific requirements for a multistage process to ensure the
scientific integrity under which NAAQS are set, laying the groundwork for the Administrator’s
determination of the standard, and the procedural process for promulgating the standard.36
Primary NAAQS, as described in Section 109(b)(1), were to be “ambient air quality standards 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.”
36 For a detailed overview of the NAAQS process see CRS Report 97-722, Air Quality Standards:
The Decisionmaking Process.
Congressional Research Service
7
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Based on this premise, the CAA specifies the criterion to be used by the Administrator in deciding
on the final standard, including preparation of a “criteria document” that summarizes scientific
information assessed. The Act also requires the establishment and role of an independent advisory
committee (CASAC37) to review EPA’s supporting scientific documents, and the timeline for
completing specific actions. EPA administratively added the preparation of a “staff paper” that
summarizes the criteria document and lays out policy options. In addition, Executive Order 12866
requires a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), although the economic impact analysis is
essentially only for informational purposes and can not be directly considered as part of the
decision in determining the NAAQS. 38
Beginning June 2007 with its general call for information,39 EPA initiated the current PM
NAAQS review, which culminated in assessments of the scientific research and risk analyses, and
ultimately the April 2011 publication of the staff’s final Policy Assessment for the Review of the
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (or PM Policy Assessment).40 The
staff paper presented the staff conclusions and recommendations on the elements of the PM
standard based on evaluation of the policy implications of the scientific evidence contained in the
criteria document and the results of quantitative analyses (e.g., air quality analyses, human health
risk assessments, and visibility analyses) of that evidence. Table B-1 in Appendix B provides a
chronological listing of EPA’s supporting documents leading up to the June 2012 proposed PM
NAAQS.
Supplemental to public comments solicited in the Federal Register, the CASAC reviewed EPA’s
drafts and final documents supporting the science and policy behind the Administrator’s decisions
in the June 2012 PM NAAQS proposal. The CASAC conducted meetings and consultations, and
submitted written overviews, providing their views of the validity and completeness of the
agency’s assessments and findings, and recommending improvements. CASAC’s final product,
its review of EPA’s second external review draft of the “PM Policy Assessment,” was completed
June 2010.
37 For general information regarding the CASAC as well as the CASAC panel for the PM NAAQS review, see EPA
Clean Air Advisory Committee (CASAC) website http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommittees/CASAC.
38 The CAA directs the EPA Administrator to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety. This language
has been interpreted, both by the agency and by the courts, as requiring standards based on a review of the health
impacts, without consideration of the costs, technological feasibility, or other non-health criteria. Costs and feasibility
are generally taken into account in NAAQS implementation (a process that is primarily a state responsibility).With
regard to the non-relevance of cost considerations, see generally Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531
U.S. 457, 465-472, 475-76 (2001).
39 U.S. EPA, “Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter: Call for Information,” 72 Federal Register 35462,
June 28, 2007.
40 U.S. EPA, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards, U.S.
EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, EPA 452/R-11-003,
April 2011, http://www.epa.gov/ttnnaaqs/standards/pm/data/20110419pmpafinal.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Table B-2 in Appendix B provides a chronological summary of CASAC consultations and
reviews of the supporting documents for the June 2012 proposal.
Until discontinued by the CASAC Chairman in 2005, CASAC historically had signed off in the
form of a “closure letter” only when the panel of members was convinced that each document
accurately reflected the status of the science. The CASAC closure letter was an indication that the
majority of the CASAC panel members had generally reached consensus that the criteria
documents and the staff paper provided an adequate scientific basis for regulatory decision-
making. The discontinuance of the closure letter was the subject of considerable debate,
particularly within the science community.41 EPA revised certain aspects (not including
reinstating the closure letter) of the CASAC review process most recently in May 2009.42
The April 2011 EPA staff paper concluded, and the CASAC panel concurred, that the scientific
evidence supported modifying the PM2.5 primary standard and considering options for revising
the secondary standard for reducing visibility impairment associated with PM. Recognizing
certain limitations of the data, a range of alternatives were presented for consideration by the
Administrator for modifying the current PM NAAQS. These recommendations were the basis for
the Administrator’s decision, taking into account other factors including public comments
received, for proposing to strengthen the annual PM2.5 primary standard.43
The staff paper included possible modifications to strengthen certain aspects of the PM10
standard. However, staff and CASAC placed considerable emphasis on continuing uncertainties
and lack of sufficient data to initiate relevant quantitative risk assessment to support such
modifications to the standard. As presented in the June 2012 Federal Register, the Administrator
provisionally concluded that the growing evidence continues to support the appropriateness of the
existing primary 24-hour PM10 standard’s protection of short-term health effects, and proposed to
retain the existing PM10 standard.44
A perennial issue in conducting NAAQS reviews is whether the agency is basing its decisions on
those studies that reflect the latest science. In reviewing thousands of studies, the agency staff
ultimately need to establish a cut-off date, or be faced with the need for a continuous review. The
current review is based on studies completed by mid-2009, but in the June 29, 2012, Federal
Register notice the EPA indicated that it:
… 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
41 See CRS Report RL33807, Air Quality Standards and Sound Science: What Role for CASAC? by James E.
McCarthy.
42 For EPA’s most recent revisions to the CASAC review process see the May 21, 2009 memorandum from
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson to Dr. Jonathan Samet, CASAC Chair, and to Elizabeth Craig, Acting EPA
Administrator for Air and Radon and Lek Kadeli, Acting Administrator for Research and Development,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/WebCASAC/NewNAAQSProcess?OpenDocument.
43 See 77 Federal Register 38900-38944, Section III. Rationale for Proposed Decisions on Primary PM2.5 Standards,
June 29, 2012.
44 See 77 Federal Register 38944-38963, Section IV. Rationale for Proposed Decisions on Primary PM10 Standards,
June 29, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
9
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
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.45
Implementing the Proposed Revised PM2.5 NAAQS
Promulgation of NAAQS sets in motion a process under which the states and EPA first identify
geographic nonattainment areas, those areas failing to comply with the NAAQS based on
monitoring and analysis of relevant air quality data.46 The CAA is specific with regard to the
timelines for determining areas in noncompliance, submission of plans for achieving (or
maintaining) compliance, and when noncompliant areas must achieve the established or revised
NAAQS.
Within three years of issuance of a NAAQS, states are required to submit “infrastructure” plans
demonstrating that they have the basic air quality management components necessary to
implement the NAAQS.47 Following EPA’s final designations of attainment and nonattainment
areas, states (and tribes if they choose to do so) must submit their plans (State Implementation
Plans, or SIPs) for how they will achieve and/or maintain attainment of the standards. These may
include new or amended state regulations and new or modified permitting requirements.
If new, or revised, SIPs for attainment 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. 48
Areas designated nonattainment for the NAAQS also are subject to new source review (NSR)
requirements. Enacted as part of the 1977 CAA Amendments and modified in the 1990 CAA
Amendments, NSR is designed to ensure that newly constructed facilities, or substantially
modified existing facilities, do not result in violation of applicable air quality standards. NSR
provisions outline permitting requirements both for construction of new major pollution sources
and for modifications to existing major pollution sources.49 The specific NSR requirements for
45 See 77 Federal Register 38899, Section II. Background (B) Review of the Air Quality Criteria and Standards for PM
(3) Current PM NAAQS Review, June 29, 2012.
46 For a general overview of the NAAQS designations process, see EPA’s “Designations” website at
http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/designations.html.
47 Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act. For a general overview of the NAAQS implementation plans process, see
EPA’s “State Implementation Plan Overview” website at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/overview.html.
48 On March 14, 2012, EPA published a final rule restructuring sections of the conformity rule so that existing
requirements apply to new or revised NAAQS and released associated implementation guidance July 2012. (U.S. EPA,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Guidance for Transportation Conformity Implementation in Multi-
Jurisdictional Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas, July 2012, http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/
regs/420b12046.pdf). For transportation conformity regulations see, U.S. EPA “State and Local Transportation
Resources: Transportation Conformity” at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/index.htm.
49 For an overview, including statutory authority and regulations, see EPA’s “New Source Review (NSR)” at
http://www.epa.gov/air/nsr/.
Congressional Research Service
10
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
affected sources depend on whether the sources are subject to “Prevention of Significant
Deterioration” (PSD) or nonattainment provisions.50 As discussed earlier (see “EPA’s June 2012
Proposed Changes to the PM NAAQS”), the June 2012 PM NAAQS proposal would revise the
PSD permitting program (rules) with respect to the proposed revised PM NAAQS so as not to
“unreasonably delay” pending permits and establish a “grandfather” provision for permit
applications if a draft permit or preliminary determination has been issued for public comment by
the date the revised PM NAAQS go into effect.
In addition to requiring states to submit implementation plans, EPA acts to control NAAQS
pollutants through national regulatory programs. These may be in the form of regulations of
products and activities that might emit the pollutants (particularly fuels and combustion engines,
such as automobiles and trucks) and in the form of emission standards for new stationary sources
(e.g., utilities, refineries). EPA anticipates that recent CAA rules, including rules to reduce
pollution from power plants, clean diesel rules for vehicles, and rules to reduce pollution from
stationary diesel engines, would help states meet the proposed revised PM NAAQS.
NAAQS Designation Process
The NAAQS designation process is intended as a cooperative federal-state-tribal51 process in
which states and tribes provide initial designation recommendations to EPA for consideration. In
Section 107(d)(1)(A) (42 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). Areas are identified as “attainment/unclassified”52 when they
meet the standard or when the data are insufficient for determining compliance with the NAAQS.
Following state and tribal recommended 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.
Measuring and analyzing air quality to determine where NAAQS are not being met is a key step
in determining an area’s designation. Attainment or nonattainment designations are made
primarily on the basis of three years of federally referenced monitoring data.53 EPA began
developing methods for monitoring fine particles at the time the PM2.5 NAAQS were being
finalized in 1997, and operation of the network of monitors for PM2.5 was phased in from 1999
50 See Clean Air Act, Part D—Plan Requirements for Nonattainment Areas, sections 171-178, codified at 40 CFR
52.24(f)(10). Section 166 of the CAA authorizes EPA to establish regulations for PSD of any pollutant for which EPA
has issued a national standard.
51 Though not required, 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 follows 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). For information regarding tribes that
have participated in the PM2.5 designation recommendation process, see http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations.
52 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.
53 A federally referenced monitor is one that has been accepted for use by EPA for comparison of the NAAQS by
meeting the design specifications and certain precision and bias (performance) specifications (40 CFR Part 58).
Congressional Research Service
11
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
through 2000. The network of monitors and their locations have been modified over time. Most
recently, in a separate action in conjunction with the October 2006 publication of the revised
particulates NAAQS, EPA amended its national air quality monitoring requirements, including
those for monitoring particle pollution.54 The amended monitoring requirements were intended to
help federal, state, and local air quality agencies by adopting improvements in monitoring
technology. EPA is proposing additional modifications to the PM NAAQS monitoring network as
discussed earlier in this report.
In addition to air emission and air quality data, EPA considers a number of other relevant factors
in designating nonattainment area,55 and recommends that states apply these factors in their
determinations in conjunction with other technical guidance. Examples of these factors include
population density and degree of urbanization (including commercial development), growth rates,
traffic and commuting patterns, weather and transport patterns, and geography/topography. States
and tribes may submit additional information on factors they believe are relevant for EPA to
consider.
Nonattainment areas include those counties where pollutant concentrations exceed the standard as
well as those that contribute to exceedance of the standard in adjoining counties. Entire
metropolitan areas tend to be designated nonattainment, even if only one county in the area has
readings worse than the standard. In addition to identifying whether monitored violations are
occurring, states’ or tribes’ boundary recommendations for an area are to also show that violations
are not occurring in those portions of the recommended area that have been excluded, and that
they do not contain emission sources that contribute to the observed violations.
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 Annual NAAQS Potential Area Designations
The June 2012 proposal to tighten the PM2.5 annual standard is expected to result in an increase in
the number of areas (typically defined by counties or portions of counties) designated
nonattainment. Similar to the strengthening of the PM2.5 daily (24-hour) standard in 2006, the
June 2012 proposed range of concentrations for the PM2.5 annual standard is expected to affect
primarily areas currently in nonattainment for the existing (2006) standards, but would also likely
include a few counties that have not been previously designated as nonattainment. EPA would not
require new nonattainment designations for PM10 primary NAAQS since the June 2012 proposal
would retain the existing (2006) standards.
Assuming EPA promulgates final PM NAAQS revisions by December 14, 2012, as indicated
earlier in this report, state and tribal area designation recommendations would be required under
the CAA to be submitted to EPA by December 2013 (within one year of the final rule). The CAA
requires EPA to make its final area designations within one year of the state and tribal
recommendations, projected to be December 2014. EPA is required to notify states and tribes of
its intended modifications to their recommendations 120 days (projected to be August 2014) prior
to promulgating final designations which are expected to become effective some time in early
2015.
54 Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, final rule, 71 Federal Register 61235-61328, October 17, 2006.
http://www.epa.gov/air/particlepollution/actions.html.
55 See Chapter 5 of the EPA Technical Support Document for December 17, 2004, final designations for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS and April 2005 modifications, for explanations of these factors; available at http://www.epa.gov/
pmdesignations/1997standards/tech.htm.
Congressional Research Service
12
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
The actual area designations of nonattainment are more than two years away and will be based on
more current monitoring data (likely 2011-2013) and other factors. However, EPA identified
counties with monitors that show concentrations of PM2.5 that would exceed the proposed revised
range of the primary annual standard of 12 µg/m3 to 13 µg/m3 based on 2008-2010 monitoring
data. The map in Figure 1 below depicts these areas for the two proposed revised PM2.5 annual
standards. The areas are depicted in the map for illustration purposes as a rough approximation of
the potential areas that may be designated nonattainment for the June 2012 proposed standards.
The specific counties based on the 2008-2010 data are shown in Appendix C. The map below
shows the overlap of those nonattainment areas for the existing (2006) PM2.5 annual and/or daily
(24-hour), as well as additional areas not previously designated nonattainment. Although a direct
comparison of areas expected to be designated nonattainment for the June 2012 proposed PM2.5
standards with those areas designated nonattainment for the existing (2006) PM NAAQS56 is not
available, overlaying those counties with monitors based on 2008-2010 monitoring provides some
indication of potential areas.
56 For additional information, see CRS Report R40096, 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Designating Nonattainment Areas, by Robert Esworthy.
Congressional Research Service
13
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Figure 1. Counties Not Meeting the June 2012 Proposed Revised Primary Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS Based on 2008-2010 Air Monitoring Data
(proposed revised annual standard of 12 µg/m3 and 13 µg/m3 )
Source: U.S. EPA, http://www.epa.gov/pm/2012/mapb.pdf. The above map, other maps and supporting
documents regarding the June 2012 PM NAAQS proposal are available on EPA’s website Particulate Matter (PM):
Regulatory Actions, http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
Notes: Specific counties are shown in Appendix C. The designations are presented for illustrative purposes
only. EPA will not designate areas as nonattainment any revised PM NAAQS based on 2008-2010 air monitoring
data. Designations wil most likely be based on 2011-2013 air monitoring data that the agency anticipates will
indicate comparatively improved air quality.
The 2006 revised PM NAAQS, which are currently being implemented, primarily affect urban
areas. EPA published its final designations of 31 areas in 18 states, comprising 120 counties (89
counties and portions of 31 additional counties) for nonattainment of the revised 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, on November 13, 2009.57 The designations, based on 2006 through 2008 air
quality monitoring data, included a few counties that were designated nonattainment for PM2.5 for
the first time, but the majority of the counties identified overlapped with EPA’s final
57 74 Federal Register 58688-58781, November 13, 2009; see also “Area Designations for 2006 24-Hour Fine
Particulate (PM2.5) Standards—Regulatory Actions,” http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/2006standards/regs.htm#4.
Publication of a final area designation rule for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS had been delayed as a result of the
incoming Administration’s review of the final rule, along with several other agency proposed and final actions
introduced toward the end of the previous Administration. See footnote 56.
Congressional Research Service
14
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
nonattainment designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.58 It is important to note that most of the
1997 PM2.5 nonattainment areas were only exceeding the annual standard; thus, tightening the 24-
hour standard resulted in an increased number of areas being designated nonattainment based on
exceedances of both the 24-hour and the annual standard. The majority of the roughly 3,000
counties throughout the United States (including tribal lands) were designated
attainment/unclassifiable, and are not required to impose additional emission control measures to
reduce PM2.5.
Based on anticipated reductions associated with several other existing national air pollution
control regulations and programs (see discussion in “National Regulations” section), EPA
predicted that only a few counties would not be in compliance with the proposed primary
standards by 2020: two counties in California are projected to not meet the proposed annual
standard of 13 µg/m;3 an additional four counties in Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, and Montana
would not meet the proposed option of 12 µg/m3 for the annual standard.59
State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
Under the CAA, within three years of issuance of a NAAQS, all states are required to submit
“infrastructure” plans demonstrating that they have the basic air quality management components
necessary to implement the NAAQS.60 Areas designated attainment/unclassifiable will not have
to take steps to improve air quality, but under the statute they must take steps to prevent air
quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. For those areas ultimately designated
nonattainment, state, local, and tribal governments must outline detailed control requirements in
plans demonstrating how they will meet the revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
These plans, defined as state implementation plans and referred to as SIPs (TIPs for tribal
implementation plans), must be submitted to EPA three years after the effective date of the
agency’s final designations.61 EPA projects final area designations will be effective early 2015 for
the June 2012 proposed revisions, thus SIPs and TIPs would be required by early 2018. If states
fail to develop an adequate implementation plan, EPA can impose one. Under the CAA, states are
required to meet any established or revised PM2.5 standard “as expeditiously as practicable,” but
no later than five years from the effective date of designation—December 2020 according to
EPA’s timeline—unless an extension (up to five additional years) allowed under the CAA is
granted.62
58 For detailed PM2.5 state/county geographical designation recommendations by EPA and those from individual states
and tribes, for the 1997 and for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, see http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations.
59 See EPA map and depicting projections for 2020 based on modeling of projected 2005 emissions,
http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/2012/mapa.pdf, and http://www.epa.gov/air/particles/2012/tableb.pdf.
60 Section 110(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act. For a general overview of the NAAQS implementation plans process, see
EPA’s “State Implementation Plan Overview” at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/sipstatus/overview.html.
61 Section 172 of the Clean Air Act. See EPA’s “State Implementation Plan Overview” at http://www.epa.gov/air/
urbanair/sipstatus/overview.html.
62 Under Section 172(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, EPA may grant an area an extension of the initial attainment date for one to
five years (in no case later than 10 years after the designation date for the area). A state requesting an extension must
submit an implementation plan (SIP) by the required deadline that includes, among other things, sufficient information
demonstrating that attainment by the initial attainment date is “impracticable.”
Congressional Research Service
15
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
National Regulations
EPA anticipates that in many cases, stationary and mobile source controls and additional
reductions currently being adopted to attain existing (2006) PM2.5 standards in conjunction with
expected emission reductions from implementing national regulations and strategies will help
states meet the proposed standards. These national actions include the
• Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR);63
• Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS);64
• Light‐Duty Vehicle Tier 2 Rule;65
• Heavy Duty Diesel Rule;66
• Clean Air Nonroad Diesel Rule;67
• Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best Available Retrofit
Technology Determinations;68
• NOx Emission Standard for New Commercial Aircraft Engines;69
• Emissions Standards for Locomotives and Marine Compression-Ignition
Engines;70
• Emission Standards Ignition Engines, Control of Emissions for Nonroad Spark
Ignition Engines and Equipment;71
• Category 3 Oceangoing Vessels;72
• Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines (RICE) National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS);73 and
• New Source Performance Standards and Emissions Guidelines for
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators Final Rule Amendments.74
Stakeholders and some Members of Congress are skeptical about EPA’s expectations with respect
to the corollary benefits associated with some of these regulations, and raise concerns about
pending efforts to delay some of the more recent programs and historical delays of others. Of
63 76 Federal Register 48208-48483, August 8, 2011.
64 77 Federal Register 9304-9513, February 16, 2012.
65 65 Federal Register 6822-6870, February 10, 2000.
66 65 Federal Register 59896-59978, October 6, 2000.
67 69 Federal Register 38958-39273, January 29, 2004.
68 70 Federal Register 39104-39172, July 6, 2005.
69 70 Federal Register 69644-69687, November 17, 2005.
70 73 Federal Register 37095-37144, republished June 30, 2008.
71 73 Federal Register 59034-59380, October 8, 2008.
72 75 Federal Register 22896-23065, April 30, 2010.
73 75 Federal Register 51570-51608, August 20, 2010; Proposed Amendments 77 Federal Register 33812-33857, June
7, 2012.
74 74 Federal Register -51415, October 6, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
16
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
particular concern are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (“Cross-State Rule” or CSAPR),75 which
was to have gone into effect in 2012 but was stayed in December 2011, then vacated on August
21, 2012, by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals,76 and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards
(MATS), which EPA itself has stayed pending reconsideration. Other remanded rules include the
hazardous air pollutant (“MACT”) standards for boilers and cement kilns. EPA has delayed
implementation of the boiler MACT rules for more than a year and a half while considering
changes to the requirements. The agency has also extended the compliance deadline for the
cement kiln MACT by two years.
Potential Impacts of More Stringent PM Standards
Estimates of health and welfare risk reductions and control strategies for areas potentially not in
compliance provide some insights into potential impacts of the June 2012 proposed PM NAAQS.
The Clean Air Act requires that NAAQS be set solely on the basis of public health and welfare
protection, while costs and feasibility are generally taken into account in implementation of the
NAAQS (a process that is primarily a state responsibility). As discussed previously, in setting and
revising the NAAQS, the CAA directs the EPA Administrator to protect public health with an
adequate margin of safety. This language has been interpreted, both by the agency and by the
courts, as requiring standards be based on a review of the health impacts, without consideration of
the costs, technological feasibility, or other non-health criteria.77
Nevertheless, coinciding with the PM NAAQS proposed rule in the June 29, 2012, Federal
Register, EPA released a regulatory impact analysis (RIA)78 assessing the costs and benefits of
setting the standard at the proposed and other alternative levels, to meet its obligations under
Executive Order 12866 and in compliance with guidance from the White House Office of
Management and Budget.79 EPA emphasized that the RIA is for informational purposes and that
the proposed decisions regarding revisions to the PM NAAQS presented in the June 2012
proposed rulemaking are not based on consideration of the analyses in the RIA in any way. Table
2 below presents a range of EPA’s estimated economic costs, monetized benefits, and net benefits
(subtracting total costs from the monetized benefits) associated with achieving the June 2012
proposal, and other alternatives considered.
75 See U.S. EPA, “Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and
Correction of SIP Approvals,” 76 Federal Register 48208-48483, August 8, 2011, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2011-08-08/pdf/2011-17600.pdf. Explanatory and background material can be found on EPA’s website at
http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/actions.html.
76 EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Environmental Protection Agency, D.C. Cir., No. 11-1302, August 21, 2012,
http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/19346B280C78405C85257A61004DC0E5/$file/11-1302-
1390314.pdf. See also U.S. EPA’s website “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)” for the this decision and other
related documents.
77 With regard to the non-relevance of cost considerations, see generally Whitman v. American Trucking Associations,
531 U.S. 457, 465-472, 475-76 (2001).
78 U.S. EPA, “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter,” EPA-452/R-12-003 June 2012, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html.
79 58 Federal Register 51735, October 4, 1993. See the White House OMB website, Regulatory Matters, at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/default.
Congressional Research Service
17
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Table 2. EPA’s Estimated Total Monetized Benefits, Costs and Net Benefits of
Attaining Alternative PM2.5 NAAQS in 2020
(2006 $ in millions)
Alternative
Standard
Estimated Monetized
Estimated
Estimated Net
(annual/24-hour µg/m3)
Benefitsa
Total Costsb
Benefitsc
Discount Rate
3%
7%
7%
3%
7%
13/35
$88 to $220
$79 to $200
$2.9
$85 to
$76 to
$220
$200
12/35 $2,300
to
$2,100 to
$69 $2,300
to
$2,000 to
$5,900
$5,400
$5,900
$5,300
11/35 $9,200
to
$8,300 to
$270 $8,900
to
$8,000 to
$23,000
$21,000
$23,000
$21,000
11/35 $14,000
to
$13,000 to
$390 $14,000
to
$13,000 to
$36,000
$33,000
$36,000
$33,000
Source: Environmental Protection Agency’s “Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,” EPA-452/R-12-003 June 2012, Table ES-2, p. ES-
9, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html. Estimates and results are as reported by EPA and have been rounded
after calculation.
Note: Results are rounded to two significant digits after calculation for presentation and computation as
reported by EPA. Estimates (costs and benefits) reflect full attainment in 2020, which includes implementation of
several national programs and are incremental to compliance with the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The discount rates
are as recommended in EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses (2000) and OMB Circular A-4 (2003).
a. The reduction in premature deaths each year accounts for over 98% of total monetized benefits. Mortality
risk evaluation assumes discounting over the Science Advisory Board-recommended 20-year segmented lag
structure. Not all possible benefits are quantified and monetized in this analysis. 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.
b. Due to data limitations, EPA was unable to discount compliance costs for al sectors at the 3% discount
rate. Consequently, the net benefit calculations at 3% were computed by subtracting the costs at the 7%
rate from the monetized benefits with the 3% rate.
c. For purposes of calculating net benefits, EPA uses the total social cost estimate, which is slightly higher than
the engineering cost.
As shown in the table, estimated benefits are expected to be at least 30 times greater than the
costs of $69 million for the most stringent option included in the June 2012 proposal. EPA also
notes that a full accounting of benefits would include additional environmental and societal
benefits that were not quantified in the analysis. The basis for the benefits calculations80 are
health and welfare impacts attributable to reductions in ambient concentration emissions of PM2.5
resulting from a reasonable, but “speculative,” array of known state implementation emission
control strategies selected by EPA for purposes of analysis. The analysis does not model the
specific actions that each state will undertake or emerging technologies in implementing the
80 See p. Section ES.2.3. beginning on p.ES-5 (pdf p. 19, and discussion of health benefits in Chapter 5 beginning p. 5-
1 (pdf p. 199), and welfare benefits in Chapter 6 p. 6-1 (pdf p. 342) of the EPA June 2012 RIA, footnote 78.
Congressional Research Service
18
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
alternative PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA notes that mortality co-benefits represent a substantial proportion
of total monetized benefits (over 98%).81
The EPA estimated total costs under partial and full attainment of several alternative PM
standards.82 The engineering costs generally include the costs of purchasing, installing, and
operating the referenced control technologies. The technologies and control strategies selected for
analysis are illustrative of one way in which nonattainment areas could meet a revised standard.
EPA anticipates that in actual SIPS, state and local governments will consider programs that are
best suited for local conditions as there are various options for potential control programs that
would bring areas into attainment with alternative standards. EPA includes a detailed discussion
of the limitations and uncertainties associated with the benefits assumptions and analyses.
While recognizing the need to adequately protect against potential health concerns associated
with PM, some Members and stakeholders are also apprehensive that EPA has underestimated
potential costs and are concerned with the potential monetary consequences associated given the
current economic environment. In particular, some stakeholders question the validity of EPA’s
reliance on the associated impacts of other national regulations in reducing the potential burdens.
Critics are concerned that this results in underestimating the number of areas (counties) likely to
be affected in terms of their ability to attain the proposed alternative PM NAAQS and the
expected associated costs of necessary measures that will be required to in the form of SIPs.
Reaction to the Proposed PM NAAQS
Prior to the EPA’s June 2012 proposed rule to revise the PM NAAQS, stakeholders were
providing evidence and arguments in letters, press releases, at public hearings and other forums
for their preferred recommendations, and EPA received numerous comments during various
stages of development of the criteria and policy documents. In general, business and industry
opposed more stringent standards particularly in light of the current national and global economic
environment; and public health and environmental advocacy groups advocated support for more
stringent standards based on the continuing evidence of health effects from ongoing scientific
research. As mentioned earlier, several states petitioned EPA, and subsequently filed suit in the
D.C. Circuit Court urging timely completion of its review of the PM NAAQS in response to the
February 2009 remand. Other state air quality regulators recognized the need to ensure adequate
health protection from PM, but expressed concerns about the impacts of more stringent PM
NAAQS on already strained state budgets.
Proponents of more stringent standards generally assert—
• the PM2.5 standards should be at least as stringent as the more stringent combined
daily and annual levels recommended in the 2006 EPA staff paper, and those
recommended by the CASAC;
• scientific evidence of adverse health effects is more compelling than when the
standards were revised in 2006;
81 U.S. EPA, p. ES-10 June 2012 RIA, footnote 78.
82 See discussion for engineering cost analysis in Chapter 7 beginning p. 7-1 (pdf p. 455) June 2012 RIA, footnote 78.
Congressional Research Service
19
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
• more stringent standards ensure continued progress toward protection of public
health with an adequate margin of safety as required by the CAA;
• welfare effects, particularly visibility, should be enhanced.
Critics of more stringent PM NAAQS contend—
• more stringent (and in some cases the existing) standards are not justified by the
scientific evidence; the proposal does not take into account studies completed
since the 2009 cut-off;
• requiring the same level of stringency for all fine particles without distinguishing
sources is unfounded;
• costs and adverse impacts on regions and sectors of the economy are excessive;
• revising the standards could impede implementation of the existing (2006) PM
NAAQS and the process of bringing areas into compliance, given the current
status of this process;
• the benefits (and costs) associated with implementation of the 2006 PM NAAQS,
as well as compliance with other relatively recent EPA air quality regulations,
have not yet been realized, pointing out that based on EPA’s trends data that
annual and 24-hour measured PM national concentrations have declined 24% and
28% respectively from 2001 to 2010.
EPA has responded to both sides by emphasizing that the agency’s conclusions and
Administrator’s decisions are provisional in nature, and the agency is soliciting comment (60-day
comment period from the date of publication in the Federal Register) regarding its supporting
analysis and a variety of alternative PM NAAQS. In addition to written comments, EPA will also
compile information presented at the July 2012 public hearings held in Philadelphia and
Sacramento. EPA also declared its intention to review and evaluate significant new studies
developed and published since the close of the criteria document.83
Congressional Activity
Not long after EPA’s release of its PM NAAQS proposal, the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on June 28, 2012,84 on the
potential impacts of tightening the PM2.5 NAAQS. The focus of the debate was the regulatory
costs and burdens associated with the implementation of the revised standards, and potential
impacts on economic growth, employment and consumers. Just prior to EPA’s release of the
proposal, several Members urged the Administrator to include retaining the PM2.5 standard as an
option for consideration in the agency’s proposal.85
83 See footnote 45.
84 House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power June 28, 2012 hearing entitled,
“The American Energy Initiative: A Focus on the New Proposal to Tighten National Standards for Fine Particulate
Matter,” http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=9627.
85 See joint letter from Representatives Fred Upton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Ed Whitfield,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, and Joe Barton, Chairman Emeritus, June 6, 2012,
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Letters/112th/060612EPANAAQS.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
20
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
During the second session of the 111th and during the first session of the 112th Congress, some
Members raised concerns in letters to the EPA Administrator86 and during oversight hearings,87
about EPA’s staff draft reports, and CASAC recommendations leading up to the June 2012
proposal, and the potential impacts that tightening the PM10 NAAQS standards could have on the
agricultural industry. Many Members encouraged EPA to retain the current PM10 NAAQS
standards.88 A general provision was also included in FY2012 House-reported EPA appropriations
language (H.R. 2584, Title IV, Section 454)89 that would have restricted the use of FY2012
appropriations “to modify the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national
secondary ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter (generally referred
to as “PM10”).”90 No comparable provision was retained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2012 (P.L. 112-74), enacted December 23, 2011, which ultimately included EPA’s FY2012
appropriation. Although EPA proposed to retain the PM10, some stakeholders and Members
remain skeptical that the final revised NAAQS could be changed from the proposal. Congress
continues to consider legislation that would delay EPA regulatory action with respect to revising
the PM10 NAAQS,91 including the House-passed Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011
(H.R. 1633), which awaits action in the Senate.
NAAQS decisions have often been a source of significant concern to many in Congress. The
evolution and development of the PM (and ozone) NAAQS, in particular, have been the subject
of extensive oversight. For example, following promulgations of the 1997 NAAQS Congress held
28 days of hearings on the EPA rule. Congress enacted legislation specifying deadlines for
implementation of the 1997 standard, funding for monitoring and research of potential health
effects, and the coordination of the PM (and ozone) standard with other air quality regulations.
During the 109th Congress, hearings were held regarding implementation and review of the PM
NAAQS leading up to promulgations of the 2006 PM NAAQS.92
86 Examples of letters to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson include, but are not limited to, a joint letter from 21 Senators,
July 23, 2010, http://grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/Agriculture-07-23-10-dust-letter-to-EPA-signed-version-
doc.pdf; a joint letter from Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and Representative Earl Pomeroy, August 5, 2010,
http://conrad.senate.gov/pressroom/record.cfm?id=327070&; a joint letter from 75 House Members, September 27,
2010, http://agriculture.house.gov/pdf/letters/EPA_NAAQS.pdf; and a joint letter from 99 House Members, March 29,
2011, http://fincher.house.gov/press-release/fincher-noem-call-epa-abandon-unreasonable-dust-standards.
87 For example, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Oversight Hearing to
Examine the Impact of EPA Regulation on Agriculture, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., September 23, 2010; and U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Agriculture, Public Hearing to Review the Impact of EPA Regulation on Agriculture, 112th
Cong., 1st sess., March 10, 2011.
88 See CRS Report R41622, Environmental Regulation and Agriculture, coordinated by Megan Stubbs.
89 The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2584, Title IV
Section 454) as reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on July 19, 2011. From July 25, 2011, to July 28,
2011, the House considered H.R. 2584 as reported July 19, 2011, but the House floor debate was suspended.
90 See CRS Report R42332, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations, by Robert Esworthy,
and CRS Report R41979, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) FY2012 Appropriations: Overview of Provisions in
H.R. 2584 as Reported, by Robert Esworthy.
91 For example, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act of 2011, hearing on H.R. 1633, 112th Cong., 1st sess., October 25, 2011,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=8999.
92 For example, see 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 Air Quality Standards,
November 10, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
21
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Because of the potential impacts PM NAAQS could have on both public health and the economy,
EPA’s current reassessment and June 2012 proposed modifications of these standards will likely
be of continued interest to Congress.
Conclusions
EPA’s proposal to modify the existing PM NAAQS published June 29, 2012, following
completion of its statutorily required review, has sparked interest and conflicting concerns among
a diverse array of stakeholders, and in Congress. As evidenced by the history of the PM NAAQS,
the level of scrutiny and oversight will likely increase as the agency proceeds toward its final
decision regarding the PM NAAQS by December 2012. Because both the health and economic
consequences of particulate matter standards are so potentially significant, the PM NAAQS are
likely to remain a prominent issue of interest during the remainder of the 112th Congress.
While analyses indicate more stringent PM NAAQS could result in fewer adverse health effects
for the general population and particularly sensitive populations such as children, asthmatics, and
the elderly, as well as improved welfare effects, concerns remain with regard to the associated
costs. In its assessment of the impacts of tightening the PM NAAQS as proposed, EPA expects
few additional areas will be in nonattainment and require more stringent pollution controls to
achieve compliance. Industry, some Members and some state representatives anticipate that the
proposed tighter PM NAAQS will likely result in more areas classified as nonattainment and
needing to implement new controls on particulate matter. Further, they are concerned that stricter
standards may mean more costs for the transportation and industrial sectors, including utilities,
refineries, and the trucking industry, impacted by particulate matter controls.
The EPA’s review and establishment of the 1997 PM NAAQS was the subject of litigation and
challenges, including a Supreme Court decision in 2001.93 EPA’s 1997 promulgation of standards
for both coarse and fine particulate matter prompted critics to charge EPA with over-regulation
and spurred environmental groups to claim that EPA had not gone far enough. Not only was the
science behind the PM NAAQS challenged, but EPA was also accused of unconstitutional
behavior. More than 100 plaintiffs sued to overturn the standard. Although EPA’s decision to issue
the standards was upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, for the most part, stakeholders on
both sides of the issue continued to advocate their recommendations for more stringent and less
stringent (in some cases no) PM standard. Several states and industry, agriculture, business, and
environmental and public health advocacy groups petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit, challenging certain aspects of EPA’s revisions of the PM NAAQS as
promulgated December 2006. A February 24, 2009, decision by the D.C. Circuit granted the
petitions in part, denying other challenges, and remanded the standards to EPA for further
consideration. The court did not specifically vacate the 2006 PM NAAQS and implementation is
currently underway.
The final form of the current efforts to revise PM NAAQS may not be known for some time. EPA
will likely receive considerable comments in response to the June 2012 proposal. It would not be
surprising if interested stakeholders return to the courts or initiate challenges after the agency
completes its review and promulgates final standards in December 2012, thus potentially
93 Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). Along with deciding issues specific to PM and
ozone, the Court ruled unanimously that costs could not be considered in setting primary (health based) NAAQS.
Congressional Research Service
22
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
furthering delays in designating nonattainment areas, and states’ development and
implementation of SIPs.
Congressional Research Service
23
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Appendix A. Chronological Summary of Key
Milestones Subsequent to the June 2012 PM
NAAQS Proposal
As part of the D.C. Circuit’s decision and a related Consent Agreement, EPA has agreed to issue
final revised PM NAAQS by December 14, 2012. The timeline presented in Table A-1 below
reflects the most recent projected milestone dates subsequent to the PM NAAQS proposed rule
published June 29, 2012. These milestones are driven primarily by statutory requirements under
the CAA, and are based on milestones identified in the June 29, 2012, Federal Register and
accompanying EPA fact sheets. The CAA does not specify a timeframe with regard to when states
must meet secondary PM standards; relevant milestones are determined by EPA and states
through the implementation planning process.
Table A-1. Milestone Chronology for Subsequent to the June 2012 Proposed PM NAAQS
Actual and Projected Date
June 2012 Proposed PM NAAQS Milestones
June 2012 Proposed Rule (completed) (77
PM NAAQS proposal to strengthen the primary PM2.5 annual standard, and
Federal Register 38889-39055, June 29, 2012)
secondary standard to address impaired visibility, and other
implementation modifications
July 17 and 19, 2012, Public Hearings (77
EPA announced public hearings regarding the June 2012 proposed NAAQS:
Federal Register 39205, July 2, 2012)
July 17, 2012, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and July 19, 2012, in
Sacramento, California
August 31, 2012, Public Comment (pending)
EPA solicited comments in the 77 Federal Register 38889-39055, June 29,
2012, for various modifications related to the PM NAAQS
December 14, 2012, Final Rule (pending)
Target date for publishing final rule for PM NAAQS revisions based on
public comment and other information; as published in 77 Federal Register
38889-39055, June 29, 2012, and per the D.C. Circuit June 2012 and as
agreed to under a Consent Decree
December 2013 Proposed Area
State-tribal area designation recommendations (based on 2010-2012
Designations (pending) (required by CAA
monitoring data)
within one year after PM NAAQS final rule)
August 2014 EPA Response (pending)
EPA notifies states and tribes regarding modifications to their
recommendations
December 2014 Final Area Designations
EPA promulgates final area designations; expected effective data early 2015
(pending) (required one year after states and
tribes make recommendations)
No Date Available (pending )
EPA proposes PM2.5 implementation rule
Early 2016 (one year after the final
States with new transportation projects submit conformity determination
designation effective date of early 2015)
within one year of the effective date of nonattainment designation
Not Available (pending )
EPA promulgates final PM2.5 implementation rule
Early 2018 (3 years after final area
States and tribes are to submit revised implementation plans (SIPs) to
designations effective date)
achieve PM2.5 compliance in nonattainment areas required three years after
final designations
April 2020-2025 (5-10 years after final area
CAA NAAQS statutory compliance deadline that States must meet the
designations effective date)
health standards “as expeditiously as practicable” but not later than five
years after designations. A state may request a possible extension to 2025,
depending on the severity of an area’s fine particle pollution problems and
the availability of pollution controls.
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact
sheets, technical documents, guidance, and the 77 Federal Register 38889-39055, June 29, 2012,
http://www.epa.gov/pm/actions.html.
Congressional Research Service
24
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Appendix B. Supporting EPA Scientific and Policy
Documents, and CASAC Review
Table B-1. Chronological Listing of EPA Workshops, and Technical and Policy
Documents in Support of the June 2012 PM NAAQS Proposal
Workshop/Draft or Final Document
Date
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter: Cal for Information
June 2007
Workshop to Discuss Policy-Relevant Science to Inform EPA’s Integrated Plan for the Review of
July 2007
the Primary PM NAAQS - Final Agenda
Workshop to Discuss Policy-Relevant Science to Inform EPA’s Integrated Plan for the Review of
July 2007
the Secondary PM NAAQS - Final Agenda
PM NAAQS Integrated Review Plan - Draft
October 2007
PM NAAQS Integrated Review Plan - Final
March 2008
Notice of Workshop to Review Initial Draft Materials for the PM Integrated Science Assessment
May 2008
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter - First External Review Draft
December 2008
PM NAAQS: Scope and Methods Plan for Urban Visibility Impact Assessment
February 2009
PM NAAQS: Scope and Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment
February 2009
Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter - Second External Review Draft
July 2009
Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment – External Review Draft
September 2009
Risk Assessment to Support the Review of the PM Primary National Ambient Air Quality
September 2009
Standards - External Review Draft
Review of Urban Visibility Public Preference Studies (Final Report)
September 2009
Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment Data File
November 2009
Corrections to Relative Humidity Values Used in the Draft UFVA, Corrected Graphics, Tables,
November 2009
and Availability of Detailed Data File for Current Conditions
Integrated Science Assessment for PM (Final Report)
December 2009
Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment - Second External Review Draft
January 2010
Statistical Analysis of Existing Urban Visibility Preference Studies
February 2010
Corrections to Relative Humidity Values Used in the Draft Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment,
Availability of Data File Comparing Incorrect RH Data to Corrected RH Data for Atlanta and
February 2010
Birmingham
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particulate Matter – Second External Review Draft
February 2010
Revision to Section 3.3.5 of the Second External Review Draft of the PM Urban Visibility
March 2010
Assessment
Analyses of PM2.5 Data for the PM NAAQS Review, Hassett-Sipple
March 2010
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particulate Matter - Final Report
June 2010
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particular Matter - Air Quality Data Files (for hybrid
June 2010
rollback-based analyses)
Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particular Matter - Air Quality Data Files (for
June 2010
proportional and locally-focused rollback-based analyses)
Corrected Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment Data File
July 2010
Congressional Research Service
25
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Workshop/Draft or Final Document
Date
Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment - Final Document
July 2010
PM10 and PM10-2.5 Air Quality Analyses, Schmidt and Jenkins
July 2010
Particulate Matter Air Quality Data Requested from Epidemiologic Study Authors
July 2010
SANDWICH-Related Correction to the UFVA Data File, as Used for the Final Document
July 2010
Explanation of Error in Table 4-3 of the Final UFVA
July 2010
PM2.5 Air Quality Analyses
July 2010
Assessment of the Use of Speciated PM2.5 Mass-Calculated Light Extinction as a Secondary PM
November 2010
NAAQS Indicator of Visibility
Simplified Approaches for Calculation of Hourly PM2.5 Light Extinction Values From Hourly
November 2010
PM2.5 Mass and Relative Humidity Data and 24-hour PM2.5 Composition Data
Supplemental analysis of PM10 Air Quality from Locations Evaluated by Zanobetti and Schwartz
February 2011
(2009)
PM2.5 Air Quality Analyses - Update
April 2011
PM10 and PM10-2.5 Air Quality Analyses
April 2011
PM2.5 Distributional Statistical Analyses
April 2011
Assessment of PM2.5 FEMs Compared to Col ocated FRMs
April 2011
Investigation of 1-hour PM2.5 Mass Concentration Data from EPA-Approved Continuous
April 2011
Federal Equivalent Method Analyzers
Documentation of Measurement Uncertainty Estimates of Col ocated Chemical Speciation
June 2012
Network and IMPROVE Data for Use in the Secondary PM2.5 Standard for Visibility
Recommendations for Sampling Artifact Correction for PM2.5 Organic Carbon
June 2012
Technical Analyses to Support Surrogacy Policy for Proposed Secondary PM2.5 NAAQS under
June 2012
NSR/PSD Programs
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact
sheets, list of technical documents available on it’s website Technology Transfer Network (TNN) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Particulate Matter (PM) Standards – Documents from Current Review
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pm/s_pm_index.html, and the 77 Federal Register 38889-39055, June
29, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
26
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Table B-2. Chronological Listing of CASAC Reviews and Consultations
Review/Consultation
CASAC Particulate Matter Review Panel’s Consultation on EPA’s Draft Integrated Review Plan for
November 2007
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter - Teleconference
CASAC Particulate Matter Review Panel’s Consultation on EPA’s Draft Integrated Review Plan for
January 2008
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter - Report
Consultation on Ambient Air Monitoring Issues Related to the Coarse Particle Speciation by the
Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) Ambient Air Monitoring & Methods
March 2009
Subcommittee (AAMMS)
Review of EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (First External Review Draft
May 2009
December 2008)
Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and
May 2009
Methods Plan for Health Risk and Exposure Assessment
Consultation on EPA’s Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards: Scope and
May 2009
Methods Plan for Urban Visibility Impact Assessment
Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review Draft,
November 2009
July 2009)
Review of Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment (External Review Draft,
November 2009
September 2009)
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 2009
CASAC Review of Particulate Matter Urban-Focused Visibility Assessment – Second External
April 2010
Review Draft (January 2010)
CASAC Review of Quantitative Health Risk Assessment for Particulate Matter – Second External
April 2010
Review Draft (February 2010)
Review of the White Paper on Particulate Matter (PM) Light Extinction Measurements
April 2010
CASAC Review of Policy Assessment for the Review of the PM NAAQS - First External Review
May 2010
Draft (March 2010)
CASAC Review of Policy Assessment for the Review of the PM NAAQS – Second External Review
September 2010
Draft (June 2010)
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fact
sheets, list of CASAC documents available on EPA’s web sites “EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC) Final Reports by Topic” at http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
WebReportsbyTopicCASAC!OpenView, and the 77 Federal Register 38889-39055, June 29, 2012.
Congressional Research Service
27
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Appendix C. Comparison of Potential
Nonattainment Areas for the June 2012 Proposed
PM2.5 Annual Standard with the Final Designations
for the 2006 and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
Table C-1. Nonattainment Areas for the June 2012 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS as
Estimated Using 2008-2010 Data, Final Designations 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS
October 8, 2009, and Final Designations for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS Annual
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
ALABAMA
Birmingham, ALa
Jefferson Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Shelby Shelby
Walker (p)
Walker (p)
Chattanooga, AL-TN-GA
Jackson (p)
UNDEFINEDb
Russell
ALASKA
Fairbanks, AK
Fairbanks N. Star (p)
Fairbanks N. Star
Fairbanks N. Star
ARIZONA
Nogales, AZ
Santa
Cruz
Pinal, CA
Pinal (p) (designated
February 3, 2011)c
CALIFORNIA
Chico, CA
Butte
(p)
Imperial County, CA
Imperial
(p)
Los Angeles, CA
Los Angeles (p)
Los Angeles (p)
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Orange
Orange
Riverside (p)
Riverside (p)
Riverside
Riverside
San Bernardino (p)
San Bernardino (p)
San Bernardino
San Bernardino
Sacramento, CA
El Dorado (p)
Placer
(p)
Congressional Research Service
28
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Sacramento
Solano
(p)
Yolo
(p)
San Francisco Bay Area, CA
Alameda
Contra
Costa
Marin
Napa
San
Francisco
San
Mateo
Santa
Clara
Solano
(p)
Sonoma
(p)
San Joaquin Valley, CA
Fresno Fresno
Fresno
Fresno
Kern (p)
Kern (p)
Kern
Kern
Kings
Kings
Kings
Kings
Madera
Madera
Madera
Merced
Merced
Merced
Merced
San Joaquin
San Joaquin
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Stanislaus
Stanislaus
Stanislaus
Tulare
Tulare
Tulare
Tulare
Yuba City-Marysville, CA
Sutter
Yuba
(p)
UNDEFINED
San
Diego
CONNECTICUT
New York, NY-NJ-CT
Fairfield Fairfield
New Haven
New Haven
Congressional Research Service
29
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
DELAWARE
Philadelphia- Wilmington,
New Castle
New Castle
PA-NJ-DE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Entire District
GEORGIA
Atlanta, GA
Barrow
Bartow
Carrol
Cherokee
Clayton
Clayton
Cobb
Cobb
Coweta
De Kalb
De Kalb
Douglas
Fayette
Forsyth
Fulton
Gwinnett
Gwinnett
Hall
Heard
(p)
Henry
Newton
Paulding
Putnam
(p)
Rockdale
Spalding
Walton
Chattanooga, AL-TN-GA
Catoosa
Walker
Congressional Research Service
30
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Macon, GA
Bibb
Bibb
Monroe
(p)
Rome, GA
Floyd
Floyd
UNDEFINED
Dougherty
Muscogee
Muscogee
Richmond
Wikinson
HAWAII
UNDEFINED
Hawaii
Hawaii
IDAHO
Logan, UT-ID
Franklin
(p)
Pinehurst, ID
ILLINOIS
Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Cook
Cook
IL-IN
DuPage
Grundy
(p)
Kane
Kendall
(p)
Lake
McHenry
Will
St. Louis, MO-IL
Madison
Madison
Madison
Monroe
Randolph
(p)
St. Clair
St. Clair
INDIANA
Chicago-Gary-Lake County,
Lake
IL-IN
Porter
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN
Dearborn (p)
Congressional Research Service
31
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Evansville, IN
Dubois
Gibson
(p)
Pike
(p)
Spencer
(p)
Vanderburgh
Warrick
Indianapolis, IN
Hamilton
Hendricks
Johnson
Marion
Marion
Marion
Morgan
Lafayette-Frankfort, IN
Louisville, KY-IN
Clark
Clark
Clark
Floyd
Floyd
Jefferson
(p)
Vincennes, IN
UNDEFINED
Lake
Spencer
Vanderbugh
Vigo
IOWA
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island,
Scott
IA-IL
Muscatine, IA
Muscatine
UNDEFINED
Clinton
KENTUCKY
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN
Boone
Campbel
Kenton
Huntington-Ashland,
Boyd
WV-KY-OH
Congressional Research Service
32
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Lawrence
(p)
Louisville, KY-IN
Bullitt
Bullitt
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Paducah-Mayfield, KY-IL
UNDEFINED
Daviess
MARYLAND
Baltimore, MD
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
City
Baltimore
Carrol
Harford
Howard
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Charles
Frederick
Montgomery
Prince
George’s
Martinsburg, WV- Hagerstown,
Washington
MD
MICHIGAN
Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI
Livingston Livingston
Macomb
Macomb
Monroe
Monroe
Oakland
Oakland
St. Clair
St. Clair
Washtenaw
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne
Grand Rapids, MI
Congressional Research Service
33
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
MISSISSIPPI
UNDEFINED
Jones
MISSOURI
St. Louis, MO-IL
Franklin
Jefferson
St.
Charles
St.
Louis
St. Louis City
St. Louis City
St. Louis City
MONTANA
Libby, MT
Lincoln (p)
NEW JERSEY
New York, NY-NJ-CT
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Passaic
Somerset Somerset
Union
Union
Philadelphia- Wilmington,
Burlington Burlington
PA-NJ-DE
Camden
Camden
Gloucester
Gloucester
NEW YORK
New York, NY-NJ-CT
Bronx Bronx
Bronx
Kings
Kings
Nassau
Nassau
New York
New York
New York
Congressional Research Service
34
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Orange
Orange
Queens
Queens
Richmond
Richmond
Rockland
Rockland
Suffolk
Suffolk
Westchester
Westchester
NORTH CAROLINA
Hickory, NC
Catawba
Greensboro-Winston Salem-
Davidson
High Point, NC
Guilford
UNDEFINED
Davidson
OHIO
Canton-Massillon, OH
Stark Stark
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN
Butler
Butler
Butler
Clermont
Hamilton
Warren
Cleveland-Akron- Lorain, OH
Ashtabula (p)
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Cuyahoga
Lake
Lake
Lorain
Lorain
Medina
Medina
Portage
Portage
Summit
Summit
Summit
Summit
Columbus, OH
Coshocton (p)
Delaware
Fairfield
Franklin
Franklin
Licking
Congressional Research Service
35
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Dayton-Springfield, OH
Clark
Clark
Greene
Montgomery
Montgomery
Montgomery
Huntington-Ashland,
Adams (p)
WV-KY-OH
Gallia
(p)
Lawrence
Lawrence
Scioto
Parkersburg- Marietta, WV-OH
Washington
Steubenville- Weirton, OH-WV
Jefferson Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Wheeling, WV-OH
Belmont
Youngstown, OH
UNDEFINED
Hamilton
Hamilton
Mahoning
OREGON
Klamath Falls, OR
Klamath
(p)
Oakridge, OR
Lane
(p)
PENNSYLVANIA
Allentown, PA
Lehigh
Northampton
Northampton
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA
Cumberland
Dauphin
Lebanon
Dauphin
York
Johnstown, PA
Cambria Cambria
Cambria
Indiana (p)
Indiana (p)
Lancaster, PA
Lancaster Lancaster
Lancaster
Liberty-Clairton, PA
Allegheny (p)
Allegheny (p)
Allegheny
Allegheny
Philadelphia-Wilmington,
Bucks Bucks
PA-NJ-DE
Chester
Chester
Chester
Chester
Congressional Research Service
36
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Delaware
Montgomery
Montgomery
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, PA
Allegheny (p)
Allegheny (p)
Allegheny
Allegheny
Armstrong (p)
Armstrong (p)
Beaver
Beaver
Beaver
Beaver
Butler
Butler
Greene (p)
Greene (p)
Lawrence (p)
Lawrence (p)
Washington
Washington
Washington
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Westmoreland
Reading, PA
Berks
York, PA
York
York
TENNESSEE
Chattanooga, AL-TN-GA
Hamilton
Clarksville, TN-KY
Knoxville-Sevierville- La Follette,
Anderson Anderson
TN
Blount
Blount
Knox
Knox
Knox
Loudon
Loudon
Loudon
Roane (p)
Roane (p)
Congressional Research Service
37
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
TEXAS
UNDEFINED
Harris
UTAH
Logan, UT-ID
Cache
(p)
Provo, UT
Utah
(p)
Salt Lake City, UT
Box Elder (p)
Davis
Salt
Lake
Tooele
(p)
Weber
(p)
VIRGINIA
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Alexandria City
Arlington
Fairfax
City
Fairfax
Co
Falls Church City
Loudoun
Manassas
City
Manassas Park City
Prince
William
WASHINGTON
Seattle-Tacoma, WA
Pierce
(p)
WEST VIRGINIA
Charleston, WV
Kanawha Kanawha
Kanawha
Kanawha
Putnam
Putnam
Huntington-Ashland,
Cabell
Cabell
Cabell
WV-KY-OH
Mason
(p)
Wayne
Congressional Research Service
38
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
1997
PM2.5 NAAQS 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
June 2012 Proposed PM2.5 NAAQS
Proxy
Proxy
Designations
Designations
EPA Final
EPA Final
(based on 2008-
(based on 2008-
Designations
Designations
2010 Data)
2010 Data)
Annual
24-Hour
Annual
Annual
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
(15 µg/m3)
(35 µg/m3 98th)
(13 µg/m3)
(12 µg/m3)
Designation Areas
Counties and Partial Counties (p)
Martinsburg, WV-Hagerstown,
Berkeley
Berkeley
MD
Morgantown, WV
Parkersburg- Marietta, WV-OH
Pleasants (p)
Wood
Wood
Wood
Steubenville- Weirton, OH-WV
Brooke Brooke
Brooke
Brooke
Hancock
Hancock
Hancock
Wheeling, WV-OH
Marshall
Marshall
Marshall
Ohio
Ohio
Ohio
WISCONSIN
Green Bay, WI
Madison-Baraboo, WI
Milwaukee-Racine, WI
Milwaukee
Racine
Waukesha
Waukesha
TOTALS
20 states and D.C.
18 states
12 states
21states
38 areas
31 areas
NA
NA
204 counties
120 counties
33 counties
82 counties
173 whole counties
90 whole counties
NA
NA
31 partial counties
30 partial counties
NA
NA
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from EPA PM Designations websites. In some designated areas, EPA
included cities in the total count of whole and partial counties, with the exception of the District of Columbia.
a. In the September 20, 2010, Federal Register, EPA announced its determination that a three-county (Jefferson,
Shelby, and portion of Walker) Alabama nonattainment area (Birmingham) has attaining data for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (75 Federal Register 57186, September 20, 2010). The clean air data determination
was based on certified ambient air monitoring data showing the area monitored as in attainment for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2007-2009 data.
b. The “designated areas” including one or more counties (or portions of counties) are as defined in the final
designations for the 2006 PM2.5. Those counties identified as potential nonattainment areas for the June
2012 proposed standards designated that were not part of a previously defined designated areas are
characterized as “UNDEFINED” designation areas.
Congressional Research Service
39
Air Quality: EPA’s 2012 Proposed Changes to the Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
c. In a February 3, 2011 final notice, EPA published designations of three areas as “nonattainment” or
“unclassifiable/attainment” for the 2006 24-PM2.5 NAAQS that were deferred in the November 13, 2009,
promulgated designations, 76 Federal Register 6056-6066, http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/
2006standards/documents/2011-01/FR-2011-01.pdf.
d. In the August 25, 2008, Federal Register, EPA announced its determination that a three-county (Harrisburg,
Lebanon, Carlisle) Pennsylvania nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was in attainment (73
Federal Register 49949, August 25, 2008). The determination was based on certified ambient air monitoring
data showing the area monitored as in attainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS since the 2004-2006
monitoring period.
Author Contact Information
Robert Esworthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
Congressional Research Service
40