Proposal
to
Revise
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particle
Pollution
Presentation
to
the
CEED
Jason
K.
Burnett
May
2006
°
On
December
20,
2005
the
EPA
proposed
revisions
to
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
for
particle
pollution.

°
The
proposed
revisions
would
strengthen
a
fine
particle
standard
important
for
both
health
and
visibility,
and
would
improve
and
refocus
the
coarse
particle
standards
on
those
particles
that
are
associated
with
public
health
concerns.

°
The
proposed
revisions
address
two
categories
of
particle
pollution:

 
fine
particles
(
PM
2.5
),
which
are
2.5
micrometers
in
diameter
and
smaller;

and
 
inhalable
coarse
particles
(
PM
10­
2.5
),
which
are
smaller
than
10
micrometers
in
diameter
but
larger
than
PM2.5.
(
Not
covered
in
this
presentation.)

°
For
more
information
go
to
www.
epa.
gov/
air/
particlepollution
Overview
PM2.5
 
Primary
24­
hour
Standard
°
Under
the
proposal,
EPA
would
revise
the
level
of
the
24­
hour
standard
from
the
current
level
of
65
µ
g/
m3
to
35
µ
g/
m3.

 
EPA
is
proposing
this
change
based
on
its
assessment
of
a
significantly
expanded
body
of
scientific
information.

°
Studies
show
health
effects
at
and
below
the
level
of
the
current
standard
°
EPA
also
is
considering
alternative
levels
for
the
24­
hour
standard,
between
the
range
of
35
and
30
µ
g/
m3
and
is
soliciting
public
comment
on
these
levels.

°
In
addition,
the
Agency
took
comment
on
alternative
approaches
for
selecting
the
level
of
the
standard,
and
on
levels
as
high
as
the
current
level
of
65
µ
g/
m3
and
as
low
as
25
µ
g/
m3.
PM2.5
 
Primary
Annual
Standard
°
EPA
is
proposing
to
retain
the
current
annual
standard
at
15
µ
g/
m3
 
EPA
is
proposing
to
retain
this
standard
based
on
its
assessment
of
several
expanded,
re­
analyzed
and
new
studies
that
have
increased
the
Agency's
confidence
in
associations
between
long­
term
PM
2.5
exposure
and
serious
health
effects,

including
heart
and
lung­
related
death.

°
EPA
is
considering
and
is
seeking
public
comment
on
lower
alternatives
for
the
annual
standard
including
14
and
13
µ
g/
m3.

°
In
addition,
the
Agency
took
comment
on
alternative
views
including
a
standard
as
low
as
12
µ
g/
m3.
PM2.5
 
Secondary
Standards
°
The
proposal
would
set
the
secondary
standards
for
both
the
annual
and
24­
hour
standards
at
levels
identical
to
the
primary
standards
°
EPA
also
took
comment
on
whether
to
set
a
separate
PM2.5
standard,
designed
to
address
visibility
(
principally
in
urban
areas)

 
At
levels
within
a
range
of
20
to
30
µ
g/
m3,
and
 
On
averaging
times
within
a
range
of
four
to
eight
daylight
hours
°
Rulemaking
on
PM
NAAQS:

 
Proposal
signed
on
December
20,
2005
(
consent
agreement)

 
Public
comment
period:
90
days
 
Public
Hearings
held
in
Philadelphia,
Chicago
and
San
Francisco
 
Final
Rule
to
be
signed
by
September
27,
2006
(
consent
agreement)

 
Proposal
includes
simultaneous
rulemakings
°
PM
NAAQS,
Federal
Reference
Method,
&
Data
Handling
(
Part
50)

°
Air
Monitoring
Regulations:
Requirements
for
Reference
and
Equivalent
Methods,
Network
Design
Requirements
(
Parts
53
&
58)

 
Related
rulemakings:

°
Exceptional
&
Natural
Events,
Implementation
Advanced
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
Current
PM
NAAQS
Review
 
Schedule
April
2020
April
2015
(
based
on
2012­

2104
monitoring
data)

April
2013
April
2010
Nov.
2009
Nov.
2007
(
based
on
2004­
2006
monitoring
data)

Nov.
2006
2006
PM2.5
Primary
NAAQS
Up
to
April
2015
Attainment
Date
with
Extension
April
2010
(
based
on
2007­
2009
monitoring
data)

Attainment
Date
April
2008
SIPs
Due
April
2005
Effective
Date
of
Designations
Dec.
2004
Final
Designations
Signature
Feb.
2004
(
based
on
2001­

2003
monitoring
data)

State
Recommendations
to
EPA
July
1997
Promulgation
of
Standard
1997
PM2.5
Primary
NAAQS
Milestone
Timeline
if
PM2.5
NAAQS
are
Revised
Questions
Posed
in
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
°
What
are
the
costs
and
benefits
(
nationally
and
by
region)

with
15/
35
(
or
alternatives)?

 
Benefits
likely
exceed
costs
by
wide
margin
for
most
of
the
country.

 
Significant
questions
about
attainment
feasibility
in
some
areas.

°
To
what
extent
is
attainment
of
15/
65
by
2015
on
the
path
towards
attaining
15/
35
(
or
alternatives)
by
2020?

°
What
is
known
about
differential
toxicity
and
what
does
this
imply
for
attainment
strategies?

 
Diverse
strategies
covering
many
types
of
particles
and
particle
precursors.
What
would
change
this
attainment
strategy?

°
How
might
a
controlling
daily
standard
affect
attainment
strategy
decisions?
Local
controls,
seasonal
controls?
Table
&
Maps
Summary
of
Counties
Violating
the
PM2.5
Primary
Standards
Current
and
Projected
2015
*
See
Technical
Support
Document
for
details
on
projection
method
used
here
(
i.
e.,
Speciated
Modeled
Attainment
Test­­
SMAT).
62
116
178
62
264
326
15/
30
46
50
96
50
185
235
14/
35
46
30
76
50
141
191
15/
35
14
18
32
14
102
116
15/
65 
current
standard
West
East
National
West
East
National
Projected
with
CAIR/
CAVR/
CAMR*

Current
Standard
Options
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Areas
Currently
Designated

Annual
and
24­
hour
PM
2.5
Nonattainment
(
53
counties)


24­
hour
Only
PM
2.5
Nonattainment
(
69)


Annual
PM
2.5
Only
Nonattainment
(
15)

(
2002­
2004;
includes
all
sites
w/
11+
observations
per
quarter
or
those
deemed
complete
via
`
data
substitution')
(
137
counties)

Counties
Exceeding
15
µ
g/
m3
Annual
and/
or
35
µ
g/
m3
24­
hour
PM2.5
Standard
Based
on
2002­
2004
Data*

*
These
projections
are
based
on
the
most
recent
data
(
2002­
2004).
EPA
will
not
designate
areas
as
nonattainment
on
these
data,
but
likely
on
2006­
2008
data
which
we
expect
to
show
improved
air
quality.
Exceptional
events
(
e.
g.,
fires)

that
may
contribute
to
violations
of
the
proposed
standards
may
be
included
in
this
dataset.
Modeled
Estimates
for
the
Year
2015
Number
of
Counties
7
0
25
Legend
Annual
and
24­
hour
PM2.5
Nonattainment
24­
hour
Only
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Annual
PM2.5
Only
Nonattainment
Counties
Projected
to
attain
84
Total
Nonattainment
32
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
2015
SMAT
15/
65
Counties
Projected
to
Exceed
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
in
2015
Based
on
EPA
Modeling*

Annual
15
ug/
m3
and
24­
Hour
65
ug/
m3
*
EPA
models
assume
implementation
of
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR,
mobile
source
and
other
federal
rules
and
existing
state
programs.
Air
quality
is
expected
to
be
better
than
shown.
This
approach
does
not
forecast
actions
states
will
take
to
meet
current
PM
standards.
Also
note
that
modeled
air
quality
forecasts
are
subject
to
a
number
of
uncertainties.
Counties
Projected
to
Exceed
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
in
2015
Based
on
EPA
Modeling*

Annual
15
ug/
m3
and
24­
Hour
35
ug/
m3
Number
of
Counties
25
44
7
Legend
Annual
and
24­
hour
PM2.5
Nonattainment
24­
hour
Only
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Annual
PM2.5
Only
Nonattainment
Counties
Projected
to
attain
115
Total
Nonattainment
76
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
2015
SMAT
15/
35
*
EPA
models
assume
implementation
of
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR,
mobile
source
and
other
federal
rules
and
existing
state
programs.
Air
quality
is
expected
to
be
better
than
shown.
This
approach
does
not
forecast
actions
states
will
take
to
meet
current
PM
standards.
Also
note
that
modeled
air
quality
forecasts
are
subject
to
a
number
of
uncertainties.
Counties
Projected
to
Exceed
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
in
2015
Based
on
EPA
Modeling*

Annual
14
ug/
m3
and
24­
Hour
35
ug/
m3
Number
of
Counties
32
37
27
Legend
Annual
and
24­
hour
PM2.5
Nonattainment
24­
hour
Only
PM2.5
Nonattainment
Annual
PM2.5
Only
Nonattainment
Counties
Projected
to
attain
139
Total
Nonattainment
96
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR
2015
SMAT
14/
35
*
EPA
models
assume
implementation
of
CAIR/
CAMR/
CAVR,
mobile
source
and
other
federal
rules
and
existing
state
programs.
Air
quality
is
expected
to
be
better
than
shown.
This
approach
does
not
forecast
actions
states
will
take
to
meet
current
PM
standards.
Also
note
that
modeled
air
quality
forecasts
are
subject
to
a
number
of
uncertainties.
