From: "Frey, Nathan J." <Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia W egman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/14/2012 06:06 PM Subject: RE: One more edit to the Executive Summary-- please review this version Attached for your consideration please find a summary of additional interagency comments under EOs 12866 and 13563 regarding the executive summary portion of the preamble. **From:** Lydia Wegman [mailto:Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov] **Sent:** Thurs day, June 14, 2012 5:39 PM **To:** Frey, Nathan J.; Mancini, Dominic J. **Cc:** Beth Hassett - Sipple; martin.karen@epa.gov; hannon.john@epa.gov; Joseph - J Dougherty; Janet McCabe; Gina McCarthy **Subject:** One more edit to the Executive Summary -- please review this vers ion Nathan and Dom, I realized that there was one edit we failed to include in the last version I sent you of the Executive Summary

related to spatial averaging. Please review this version of the revisions. Thanks. (S ee attached file: Executive Summar y 06 14 12 534 pm compare to 05 29 12.docx)

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 **I. Executive Summary**  A. Purpose of this Regulatory Action Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) govern the establishment, review, and revision, as appropriate, of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) to protect public health and welfare. The CAA requires periodic review of the air quality criteria

– the science upon which the standards are based

– and the standards themselves. This proposed rulemaking is being done pursuant to a court order and these statutory requirements. In 2006, the EPA completed the last review of the PM NAAQS. Inthat review, it undertook three principal actions. (1) With regard to fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diamet er, PM 2.5 ), the EPA revised the level of the primary

24 - hour PM 2.5 standard from 65 to 35 μg/m 3 and retained the level of the primary annual PM 2.5 standard. (2) With regard to the primary standards for particles less than or equal to 10 μm in diameter (PM 10 ), the EPA retained the primary 24 - hour PM 10 standard to continue to provide protection against effects associated with short- term exposure to thoracic coarse particles (i.e., PM 10 - 2.5 ) and revoked the primary annual PM 10 standard. (3) The EPA revised the secondary

standards to be identical in all respects to the primary standards. In subsequent litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded the primary

annual PM 2.5 standard to EPA on th e ground that EPA failed to explain adequatel y why the standard provided the requisite protection from both short- and long - term exposures to fine particles, including protection for at - risk populations such as children. The Court also remanded the secondary PM 2.5 standards to the EPA on the ground that the A gency

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 failed to explain adequately why s etting the secondary standards identical to the primary standards provided the required protection for public welfare, including protection from PM related visibility

impairment. The EPA is responding to the court’s remands as part of the current review of the PM NAAQS . This review was initiated in June 2007. Between 2007 and 2011, EPA prepared draft and final Integrated Science Assessments, Risk and Exposure Assessments, and Policy Assessments. Multiple drafts of all of these documents were subject to review b y the public and peer reviewed by EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. This proposed rulemaking is the next step in the review process; as noted, the schedule for th is rulemaking is subject to a court order requiring issuance of a proposed rule at this time. In this rulemaking, the EPA proposes to make revisions to the suite of primary and secondary standards for PM to provide increased protection of public health and welfare . W e also discuss EPA’s current perspectives on implementation issues related to the proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS. The EPA proposes revisions to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting regulations to address the proposed changes in the primary and secondary PM NAAQS as well as corresponding changes to ambient air monitoring, reporting and network design re quirements The EPA also proposes an approach for implementing the PSD program specificall y for the proposed secondary standard. B. Summary of Major Provisions With regard to the primary standards for fine particles, EPA proposes to revise the annual PM 2.5 standard by

lowering the level from 15.0 to within a range of 12.0 to 13.0 μg/m 3 so as to provide increased protection against health effects associated with long - and short - term exposures . The EPA proposes to retain the level (35 μg/m 3 ) and the form (98 th percentile) of the

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4 24 - hour PM 2.5 standard to provide supplemental protection ag ainst health effects associated with short - term exposures. This proposed action would provide increased protection for children, older adults, persons with pre - existing heart and lung disease, and other at - risk populations against an array

of PM 2.5 - related adverse health effects that include premature mortality , increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory

disease. The EPA also proposes to eliminate spatial averaging provisions as part of the form of the annual standard to avoid potential disproportionate impacts on at - risk populations . The proposed changes to the primary annual PM 2.5 standard are within the range that the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee advised the Agency to consider . These ch anges are based on an integrative assessment of an extensive body of new scientific evidence, which substantially

strengthens what was known about PM 2.5 - related health effects in the last review , including extended analyses of key epidemiological studies , and evidence of health effects observed at lower ambient PM 2.5 concentrations , , including effects in areas that likely met the current standards. The proposed changes also reflect consideration of a quantitative risk assessment that estimates public health risks likely to remain upon just meeting the current and various alternative standards . Based on this information, the Administrator proposes to conclude that the current primary

PM 2.5 standards are not requisite to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety , as required by the CAA, and that the proposed revisions are warranted to provide the appropriate degree of increased public health protection. The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of th e proposed primary PM 2.5 standards . With regard to the primary standard for coarse particles, EPA proposes to retain the current 24 - hour PM 10 standard, with a level of 150 μg/m 3 and a one - expected exceedance form,

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5 to continue to provide protection against effects associated with short- term exp osure to PM 10 - 2.5 , including premature mortality and increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits. In reaching this decision, the Administrator proposes to conclude that the available health evidence and air quality

information for PM 10 - 2.5 , taken together with the considerable uncertainties and limitations associated with that information, suggests that the degree of public health protection provided against short - term exposures to PM 10 - 2.5 does not need to be increased beyond that provided by

the current PM 10 standard. The Administrator welcomes the public’s views on these approaches to considering and accounting for the evidence and its limitations and uncertainties . With regard to the secondary PM standards, the EPA proposes to revise the suite of secondary PM standards by

adding a distinct standard for PM 2.5 to address PM - related visibility impairment. More specifically , the EPA proposes to establish a secondary standard defined in terms of a PM 2.5 visibility index, which would use speciated PM 2.5 mass concentrations and relative humidity

data to calculate PM 2.5 light extinction, similar to the Regional H aze Program; a 24 - hour averaging time; a 90 th percentile form , averaged over 3 ye ars ; and a level set at one of two options

– either 30 deciviews (dv) or 28 dv. The EPA also proposes to rely upon the existing Chemical Speciation Network (CSN) to provide appropriate monitoring data for calculating PM 2.5 visibility

index values. The proposed secondary

standard is based on the long - standing science characterizing the contribution of PM, especially fine particles, to visibility impairment and on air quality anal ys es , with consideration also given to a reanal ys is of public perception surveys regarding people’s stated preferences regarding acceptable and unacceptable visual air quality . Based on this information, the Administrator propo ses to conclude that the current secondary PM 2.5 standards

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 are not sufficiently

protective of the public welfare with respect to visual air quality . The EPA solicits comment on all aspects of the proposed secondary standard . To address other non - visib ility welfare effects including ecological effects, effects on materials, and climate impacts, the EPA proposes to retain the current suite of secondary PM standards generall y, while proposing to revise only the form of the secondary annual PM 2.5 standard to remove the option for spatial averaging consistent with this proposed change to the primary annual PM 2.5 standard. The proposed revisions to the PM NAAQS would trigger a process under which states (and tribes, if they

choose) will make recommendations to the Administrator regarding designations, identifying areas of the country that either meet or do not meet the proposed new or revised NAAQS for PM 2.5 . States will also review, modify and supplement their existing state implementation plans. The propose d NAAQS revisions would affect the applicable air permitting requirements and the transportation conformity and general conformity processes. This notice provides background information for understanding the implications of the proposed NAAQS revisions for these implementation processes and describes and requests comment on EPA’s current perspectives on implementation issues. In addition, the EPA proposes to revise its PSD regulations to provide limited grandfathering from the requirements that result from the revised PM NAAQS for permit applications for which the public comment period has begun when the revised PM NAAQS take effect. The EPA also proposes to implement a surrogate approach that would provide a mechanism for permit applicants to demonstrate th at they will not cause or contribute to a violation of the proposed secondary PM 2.5 visibility

index NAAQS. It is the EPA’s intention to finalize any time - sensitive revisions to its PSD regulations at the same time as any new or revised NAAQS are finalized .

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7 With regard to implementation - related activities, the EPA intends to promulgate rules or develop guidance related to NAAQS implementation on a schedule that provides timely clarity to the states, tribes, and other parties responsible for NAAQS implementation. The EPA solicits comment on all implementation aspects during the public comment period for this notice and will consider these comments as it develops future rulemaking or guidance, as appropriate. On other topics, the EPA proposes changes to the Air Quality Index (AQI) for PM 2.5 to be consistent with the proposed primary PM 2.5 standards. The EPA also proposes revisions to the data handling procedures consistent with the proposed primary and secondary

standards for PM 2.5 including the computations necessary for determining when these standards are met and the measurement data that are appropriate for comparison to the standards. With regard to monitoring - related activities, the EPA proposes updates to several aspects of the monitoring regulations and specifically proposes to require that a small number of PM 2.5 monitors be relocated to be collocated with measurements of other pollutants (e.g., nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide) in the near- road environment. C. Costs and Benefits In setting the NAAQS, the EPA may not consider the costs of implementing the standards. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Wh itman v. American Trucking Associations , 531 U.S. 457, 465 - 472, 475 - 76 (2001), as discussed in section II.A of this notice. As has traditio nally

been done in NAAQS rulemaking, the EPA has conducted a Regulatory Impact Anal ys is (RIA) to provide the public with information on the potential costs and benefits of attaining several alternative PM 2.5 standards. In NAAQS rulemaking, the RIA is done for informational purposes only , and the proposed decisions on the NAAQS in this rulemaking are not in any way based on consideration of the information or anal ys es in the RIA. The RIA fulfills

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8 the requirements of Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 . . The summary

of the RIA, which is discussed in more detail below in section X.A ., estimates benefits ranging from $88 million to $220 million (for 13.0 μg/m 3 ) and from $2.3 billion to $5.9 bil lion per year (for 12.0 μg/m 3 ) in 2020 and costs ranging from $2.9 million (for 13.0 μg/m 3 ) to $69 million (for 12.0 μg/m 3 ) per ye ar.