SUBMITTED VIA UPLOAD AT REGULATIONS.GOV

August 31, 2012

Attn: Docket No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0492 Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Code 6102T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460

Re: Comment on National Ambient Air Qu ality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38991 (June 29, 2012) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007– 0492)

The Center for Biological Diversity (“Ce nter”) submits the following comments regarding the EPA’s proposed National Ambi ent Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) for particulate matter (“Proposed Rule”) 1 . The EPA is proposing to revise the annual primary NAAQS for PM 2.5 to a limit in the range of 12 to 13 μg/m 3 while retaining th e 24-hour primary standard of 35 μg/m 3 . The proposed rule would retain the current secondary standards for PM 2.5 but add a new visibility standard. Th e primary and secondary standards for PM 10 would remain unchanged.

The Center is a non-profit organization with more than 375,000 members and online activists and offices throughout the United States. The Cente r’s mission is to ensure the preservation, protection and rest oration of biodiversity, native sp ecies, ecosystems, public lands and waters and public health. In furtherance of these goals, the Center’s Climate Law Institute seeks to reduce U.S. greenhouse emissions and othe r air pollution to protect biological diversity, the environment, and human health and welfare.

We support Administrator’s propos al to revise the primary PM 2.5 standard in order to protect public health and welfare. As detailed below, however, the proposal should be improved in several important ways. First, the Administrator should adopt an annual PM 2.5 standard of 11 μg/m 3 and revise the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard to 25 μg/m 3 in order to achieve the requisite health and welfare protection. 2 Better speciated monitoring of ultrafine and fine particles is also essential, especially near roadways.

Second, the revision must protect against both the direct health and the climate impacts of black carbon (“BC”), a component of PM that is a potent greenhouse pollutant and responsible

1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter; Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890, 38991 (June 29, 2012) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2007–0492) (hereinafter “Proposed Rule.”)

2 See Clean Air Task Force, Testimony of John Graham, Ph.D. Senior Scientist Regarding Proposes Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Pollution EPA-HQ-OAR-2007_0492 (July 17, 2012).August 31, 2012 Page 2 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 for climate warming, melting of ice and snow, and climate disruption. Black carbon also has significant negative effect s on public health including cardiovascular and neurodegenerative effects and mortality. In fact, the data show that black carbon, especially from transportation sources, is one of the components of PM 2.5 that is most harmful to public health. Thus the Administrator should set a separate lim it for black carbon within the overall PM 2.5 standard. This will ensure that the standards fully protect human health and welfare both from the direct health
effects of PM 2.5 inhalation and from the serious climate impacts of black car bon. Black carbon reductions present an enormous opportunity for climate mitigation in the near-term due to its short atmospheric lifetime.

Finally, the proposal to “grandfather” in pending PSD permit applications already released for public comment as of the date of the revised NAAQS is c ontrary to the law and
should be withdrawn.

I. REGULATORY OVERVIEW

The Clean Air Act (“CAA” or “Act”) is desi gned to protect human health and welfare and has been extremely successful. For example, a recent study indicated that by year 2020 the CAA will have produced health and welfare be nefits worth over $2 trillion, and that those
benefits exceed the costs of the regulations by more than 30 times. 3 The NAAQS program,
which creates national standards for a select number of “criteria air pollutants,” is in many ways the heart of the Act’s protections. These standards are, in turn, implemente d by the states in their state implementation plans. To ensure that the NAAQS remain effective, the EPA is required to review, and if necessary revise , the standards for each criteria air pollutant every five years. 4

Like the rest of the Act, the NAAQS program is premised on the precautionary principle. 5 The Act directs the EPA, as the administering agen cy, to set the “primary” NAAQS at levels that “allowing an adequate margin of safety, ar e requisite to protect the public health.” 6 The “secondary” NAAQS must specify le vels that are “requisite to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse eff ects associated with the presence of such air pollutant in the
ambient air.” 7 Public welfare is defined broadly to include, among others, effects on climate. 8

The courts have indicated that the “EPA must err on the si de of caution ... setting the NAAQS at whatever level it deems necessary and sufficient to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety, taking into account both the available evidence and the inevitable
scientific uncertainties.” 9 Precaution is required for secondary NAAQS:

3 USEPA, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report (April 2011).

4 42 U.S.C. § 7409(d)(1).

5 As discussed by the court in Lead Industries Association v. EPA , 647 F.2d 1130, 1152 (D.C. Cir. 1980): For example, the House Report accom panying the Amendments states that one of its purposes is "(t)o emphasize the preventive or precautionary nature of the act, i.e., to assure that regulatory action can effectively prevent harm before it occurs; to emphasize the predominant value of protection of public health(.)" H.R.Rep.No.95-294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 49 (1977).

6 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1).

7 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(2).

8 42 U.S.C. § 7602(h).

9 American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA , 283 F.3d 355, 369 (D.C. Cir. 2002).August 31, 2012 Page 3 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 [N]othing in the Clean Air Act require s EPA to wait until it has perfect information before adopting a protective secondary NAAQS. Rather, the Act mandates promulgation of secondary standa rds requisite to pr otect public welfare from any " anticipated adverse effects associated w ith" regulated po llutants, 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(2) (emphasis added), sugge sting that EPA must act as soon as it has enough information (even if crude) to "anticipate[]" such effects[.] 10

II. THE PROPOSED RULE FAILS TO ADEQUATELY CONSIDER THE
SIGNIFICANT CLIMATE IMPACTS OF BLACK CARBON

Black carbon is a potent short-lived pollutant with climate impacts that may be second only to carbon dioxide over the next 20 years. 11 As such, it has received international attention as an important part of short-term actions to stave off immediate clim ate catastrophe and avoid imminent tipping points. Black carbon, or soot, is a product of incomplete combustion. It is typically co-emitted with organic carbon; the ra tio of black carbon to organic carbon is highest for fossil fuels. Both black carbon and organi c carbon are components of particulate matter.

As outlined in the Proposed Rule, aeros ols have a significant impact on climate. 12

Aerosols such as sulfates and ni trates exert a cooling impact on climate through cloud processes. In contrast, black carbon exerts a powerful warming influence on clim ate through a variety of mechanisms. This rulemaking presents an opport unity to mitigate global warming: a speciation approach that sets protective limits for black carbon will reduce warming in the next two decades, yet the proposed rule would forego this critically ne eded protection.

The proposed rule and the associated Integrat ed Science Assessment have also failed to fully consider all of the relevant data related to climate impacts of black carbon. Furthermore, these documents in some instances inaccurately characterize the state of the science.

A. The Current Rulemaking has Omitted Consideration of Current Science
Related to Black Carbon

The climate science reviewed in the proposed rule and suppor ting documents is not up to date, and this has impeded the Agency’s decisi on making process with regard to black carbon. Research studies that have contributed important new information within the last 5 years were not reviewed in the current rulemaking. For in stance, estimates of bl ack carbon’s radiative forcing have improved. Furthermore, the scien ce review fails to capture important aspects of
black carbon effects on snow and ic e. The importance of climate change in the Arctic, especially with regard to short-lived pollutants is also not reviewed in sufficient depth. The importance of

10 Id. at 380.

11 V. Ramanathan, & G. Carmichael, Global and Regi onal Climate Changes due to Black Carbon, 1 Nature Geoscience (2008) (“Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008”) at 221; USEPA, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (A pril 2011) at 5-10. Methane, the second most potent well-mixed greenhouse gas has a radiative forcing of 0.48 W/m 2 according to the IPCC Fourth Assessment. This
means that current observational estimates of black carbon forcing are larger th an the forcing estimated for methane.
These estimates are discusse d in greater detail below.

12 Proposed Rule at 38991.August 31, 2012 Page 4 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 avoiding tipping points has not been elucidated. Finally, welf are concerns related to decreased water availability have not been sufficiently considered.

1. Improved Estimates of Black Carbon Radiative Forcing

One of the fundamental characteristics of a climate pollutant is the amount that it contributes to global warming. This is often ch aracterized as radiative forcing. The Proposed Rule cites to the radiative forcing value a ssigned by the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (0.2 W/m 2 ). 13 This report was published in 2007. Since then, a number of studies have refined the methods used to estimate radiative forcing for
black carbon and have derived va lues higher than that reported in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (“IPCC AR4”). One explanation relates to the mixing state of black carbon. Black carbon particles are “externally mixed” if they occur as pure black carbon, whereas they are referred to as “internally mixe d” if they occur as a comple x of black carbon plus other compounds, such as sulfates. This is important because black carbon becomes internally mixed as it remains in the atmosphere, which increases th e heating efficiency of black carbon. Some of
the IPCC’s AR4 models used to estimate black carbon’s radiative forcing neglected to account for internal mixing. Model estimates since the IPCC AR4 include Bond et al., who arrived at a direct radiative forcing value of 0.4 W/m 2 for anthropogenic black carbon based on an average of
12 models. 14 Another model estimated black carbon forcing to be 0.53 W/m 2

. 15

Ramanathan and Carmichael report an obs ervationally constraine d value of direct radiative forcing for black carbon of 0.9 W/m 2

. 16 These authors explained that general
circulation models used to obt ain the generally lower values of forcing for black carbon (1) neglect mixing of black carbon with sulfates and other com pounds, which increases forcing significantly due to a lensing effect; (2) do not account for differences in black carbon concentrations at higher elevati ons in the air column where th e black carbon can influence cloud reflectivity; and (3) neglect biomass burning. 17

Chung and Seinfeld recently reported observati onal estimates of direct radiative forcing for both black carbon and organic matter from biom ass burning. They estimate direct radiative forcing for black carbon to be 0.65 W/m 2 and the contribution of or ganic carbon to be 0.0 W/m 2 due to the offsetting balance of abso rption by brown carbon and light scattering. 18 Furthermore, these authors estimate that indirect effects approxi mately cancel as well, with the result that the black carbon forcing will dictate the forcing from pollutants emitted by biomass burning. This is a crucial difference from the assumptions made in the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule assumes that radiative forcing for biomass burning is close to zero (0.03 W/m 2 ). 19 If this flawed

13 Proposed Rule at 38991.

14 Bond, T.C. et al., Quantifying I mmediate Radiative Forcing by Black Carbon and Organic Matter with the Specific Forcing Pulse, 11 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 1505 (2011).

15 Ming, Y et al., Two Opposing Effect s of Absorbing Aerosols on global-m ean Precipitation, 37 Geophys. Res. Lett. L13701 (2010) at 2.

16 Ramanathan and Carmichael 2008, citing Chung et al. 2005.

17 Id.

18 Chung, Serena and John Seinfeld, Climate Response of Direct Radiative Forcing of Anthropogenic Black Carbon, 110 Journal of Geophys. Res. D11102 (2012) (“Chung and Seinfeld 2012”) at 4.

19 Proposed Rule at 38992.August 31, 2012 Page 5 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 assumption is retained, it will contribute to further flawed decisions regarding the climate impacts of aerosols from biomass burning.

The discrepancy between the value assumed in the Proposed Rule and the direct radiative forcing for black carbon estimated by more recent, accurate techniques is significant. In the Proposed Rule, the total direct radi ative forcing for all aer osols combined is assumed to be only
-0.5 W/m 2 ; indirect aerosol forcings due to cloud effects, -0.7 W/m 2 and total radiative forcing
for all aerosols -1.3 W/m 2

. 20 The observationally constrained va lues for black carbon indicate that the assumed net cooling associated with aerosols is up to 50% less than predicted due to the presence of black carbon. 21 The Integrated Science Assessment discusses in detail the limits of model-based estimates for aerosol climate forcing. 22 As a result, the EPA should weight these observational values for black carbon forcing more heavily than model-based values.

2. Black Carbon Effects on Snow and Ice

Another crucial omission from the Proposed Ru le and the ISA is th e effect of reduced snow and ice albedo. The Integrated Scientific Assessment (ISA) devoted most of the climate section to in-depth analysis of the impact of aerosols on clouds and the resultant direct and indirect forcings. Yet, there was no attempt to quantify the forcing due to the reduction in snow and ice albedo. The Integrated Science Assessmen t states that “Other indirect effects from
aerosols are not considered to be radiative forcing.” 23 This appears to be an inaccurate
statement: the scientific literature universa lly treats albedo changes as a forcing

― and a significant one at that. For instance, Andrews and colleagues estimate that the indirect radiative forcing of black carbon on snow is 0.28 W/m 3

. 24 Another study estimated the radiative forcing
of black carbon on snow a nd ice at 0.054 and 0.049 W/m 2 for a strong and weak year. 25 Flanner et al. recently used an observational approach to assess how much snow albedo has changed between 1979 and 2008. They concluded that the change in albedo forc ing was approximately
0.45 W/m 2 over this time span. 26 Furthermore, this study s uggests that models typically underestimate the sensitivity of snow and ice albedo changes as a driver of atmospheric warming. 27

Perhaps more important than the radiative forc ing exerted on snow and ice is the efficacy of the forcing. “Efficacy” refers to how much te mperature will increase as a result of a given amount of radiative forcing. The Integrated Scie nce Assessment refers to an estimated efficacy

20 Proposed rule at 38992.

21 Assuming a radiative forcing for black carbon of 0.9 W/m 2 , the difference from the 0.2 W/m 2 radiative forcing for black carbon used in the proposed rule is 0.7 W/m 2 . This reduces total aerosol to -0.6 W/m 2

. 22 See, e.g., USEPA, Integrated Sc ience Assessment for Particulate Ma tter (December 2009) (“ISA”) at 9-124.

23 ISA at 9-164.

24 Andrews, T. et al., Preci pitation, Radiative Forcing and Global Te mperature Change, 37 Geophys. Res. Lett. L14701 (2010) at 3.

25 Flanner, Mark et al., Present-day Climate Forcing and Response from Black Carbon in Snow, 112 Journal of Geophys. Res. D11202 (2007) (“Flanner 2007”) at 9.

26 Flanner, Mark et al., Radiative Forcing and Albedo Fee dback from the Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere between 1979 and 2008, Nature Geoscience Advance Online Edition (Jan 16, 2011) (“Flanner 2011”) at 2.

27 Id. at 3-4.August 31, 2012 Page 6 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 of 1.7. 28 More recent estimates suggest that in fa ct black carbon may have an efficacy of 3.2. 29 Furthermore, it is important to note that so me particulate matter th at would otherwise be considered “cooling”, e.g. organic matter, will have a heating eff ect over snow and ice because the pristine surface reflectivity (albe do) is so high that the particle s will reflect less radiation than
the snow and ice surface. 30

Feedbacks are particularly im portant over snow and ice. Black carbon has an even greater impact on seasonal snow and ice beca use it causes earlier expo sure of underlying lowalbedo surfaces (e.g., rock, soil, vegetation and ocean). 31 Over the course of the Arctic spring, black carbon-contaminated snow absorbs enough extr a sunlight to melt earlier – weeks earlier in some places – than clean snow. 32 As snow and ice surfaces con tinue to warm, melt, darken and lose contrast with black carbon, the net warmi ng effect of black carbon on the Arctic will
decrease. 33 Thus, reducing black carbon now will have more of an impact than delaying
reductions.

Black carbon’s impact on the melting of snow a nd sea ice applies with equal force to the decrease in albedo of glaciers in montane regi ons and consequent accelerated melt-off. Black carbon depositions on Tibetan glaciers have been found to be a significant contributing factor to observed rapid glacier retreat. 34 By increasing surface melt on ice masses, black carbon triggers positive feedbacks because the resulting melt water spurs multiple radiative and dynamic feedback processes that acce lerate ice disintegration. 35 Moreover, in the case of glaciers, by increasing water flow through crevasses and moulin s, black carbon speeds freeze-thaw ice breakup and lubrication of the ice sheet base. 36

Pristine Antarctic regions have been found to contain black carbon concentrations of 0.1- 0.3 ppbw (parts per billion by weight), two or ders of magnitude less than the Arctic. 37 Notably, black carbon amounts of 3 ppbw were found 1 km downwind of the South Pole station, where the station’s power plant and aircraft operations were a suspected source. 38 Snow samples in the 1980s, including sites in Alaska and on sea ice in the central Arctic, yi elded typical black carbon amounts of 10-50 ppbw. 39 While black carbon emissions may ha ve fallen in the 1990s due to the

28 ISA at 9-162 citing Hansen, AC et al., Ethanol-diesel Fuel Blends – A Review, Bioresour Technol, 96:227-285

. 2005.

29 Flanner 2007 at 10.

30 Flanner, M.G. et al., Sp ringtime Warming and Reduced Snow Cover from Carbonaceous Particles, 9 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2481 (2009) (“Flanner 2009”).

31 Joseph McConnell et al., 20th-Century Industrial Black Carbon Emissions Altered Arctic Climate Forcing, 317 Science 1381, 1383 (2007).

32 Zender, Charles, Arctic Climate Effects of Black Carb on, Written Testimony for Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t. Reform on EPA Black Carbon and Global Warming, 110 th Cong. 12-29 (2007) (“Zender Testimony”) at 72.

33 Id. at 71

34 Xu, Baiqing et al., Black Soot and the Survival of Tibetan Glaciers, 106 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. U.S. 22114 (2009),
available at http://www.pnas.org/content/106/52/22114.full.

35 Hansen, James & Larissa Nazarenko, Soot Climate Forcing via Snow and Ice Albedos, 101 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 423 (2004) at 427.

36 Id.

37 Id. at 424.

38 Id.

39 Id. at 423.August 31, 2012 Page 7 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 economic collapse of the former Soviet Union, reduced black carbon emissions are not necessarily permanent in the face of possible economic recovery, increased shipping in the opening Northwest and Northeast Passages, re gional hydrocarbon resour ce development, and increased use of diesel-powered vehicles. 40 Measurements in the Alps revealed black carbon concentrations as large as 100 ppbw, enough to re duce the visible albedo by approximately 10% and double absorption of sunlight. 41 However, because of the positive feedbacks resulting from black carbon deposition, much smaller concentr ations of black carbon pe rturb snowmelt. Even very small concentrations of black carbon impurities (~ 10 ppb) are triggering astonishingly large ice-albedo warming. 42 This effect at low black ca rbon concentrations was recently confirmed in a laboratory setting. 43 This study also confirmed that as snow grains increase in size with age, they become more sensitiv e to black carbon-induced albedo reductions. 44

3. The Importance of the Arctic

The Arctic is an area of particular importa nce with regard to bl ack carbon. Although the Integrated Science Assessment in cludes a section on Arctic PM de position, it fails to capture the importance of immediate reductions in atmospheric warming at this location. The Arctic has experienced some of the most severe and ra pid warming associated with climate change, warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe on average. 45 Arctic summer sea ice extent and
thickness have decreased to about half of what they were several decades ago, 46 with an accompanying drastic reduction in volume, 47 which is severely je opardizing ice-dependent
animals. 48 Sea ice is disappearing at an unprecedente d rate: ice extent on August 26, 2012 fell below the record low set in September 2007, with several weeks of ice re duction likely still to

come. 49

Adverse impacts resulting from the accelerated loss of Arctic sea ice extend well beyond the Arctic Ocean and its coast. By reflecting the sun’s energy back into space, sea ice is an effective insulator, preventing heat in the Ar ctic Ocean from escapi ng upward and warming the

40 Id. at 424.

41 Id. at 427.

42 Zender Testimony at 74.

43 Hadley, Odelle and Thomas Kirchstetter, Black-carbon Reduction of Snow Albedo, Nature Climate Change
Advance Online Publica tion (March 4, 2012).

44 Id. at 437.

45 Trenberth, Kevin et al., Observations : Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Sciense Basis - Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Susan Solomon et al., eds. 2007).

46 Stroeve, J. et al., Arctic Sea Ice Extent Plummets in 2007, 89 EOS 2 (January 8, 2008); R. Kwok and D.A. Rothrock, Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958-2008, 36 Geophys. Research Lett L15501 (2009).

47 Polar Science Center, Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2, http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/res earch/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/ (last visited August 30, 2012).

48 Wolf, Shaye, Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bears, Center for Biological Diversity and Care for the Wild
International (2010).

49 National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis – Sea ice data updated daily, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ (last visited August 30, 2012).August 31, 2012 Page 8 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 lower atmosphere. 50 The decline of sea ice amplifies warming in the Arctic, which in turn has major implications for temperature patterns over adjacent, permafrost-dominated land areas and for weather patterns across the Northern Hemisphere. 51 Rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is predicted to accelerate warming 1,500 kilomete rs inland throughout Alaska, Canada and
Russia. 52 During rapid ice retreat, the ra te of inland warming could be more than three times that previously suggested by global climate models. 53 Higher temperatures will thaw out extensive expanses of permafrost, resulting in the pot ential release of methane and carbon dioxide currently frozen in Arctic soils, there by further accelerating additional warming. 54 Additional warming in the Arctic resulting from the loss of sea ice will also affect weather patterns by altering atmospheric circulation patterns and, therefore, weathe r patterns, leading to more extreme weather events and affecting transpor tation, agriculture, forestry and water supplies. 55 Loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean will therefore have serious repercussions as climactic feedbacks resulting from higher temperature incr eases accelerate, the timing of the seasons is altered, and shifting circulation patterns cascade through the Arctic and beyond.

We must act immediately to reduce heating in the Arctic region. Waiting for reductions
in carbon dioxide alone to take effect will be ma ny decades too late. Reductions in black carbon are urgently needed to slow warmi ng in the Arctic in the short term. 56

4. The Importance of Tipping Points

Growing emissions have the potential to trigge r “tipping points,” critical points in the climate system where even small increases in climate forcing trigger a rapid switch to a qualitatively different state that can be irreversible for millennia. 57 Several “tipping elements” in the climate system are thought to be close to th eir triggering points. For example, a 0.8 to 3.2°C temperature rise above pre-industrial levels has th e potential to trigger irreversible melting of the

50 World Wildlife Fund Int’l, Arctic Climate Feedbacks: Global Implications 8 (Martin Sommerkorn & Susan Joy Hassol eds., 2009) at 19-20.

51 Id. at 18.
52 United Nations Environmental Programme, Climate Change 2009 Science Compendium 19 (2009). (“UNEP 2009”) The disappearance of the Arc tic ice cap during the sunlit period of the year would radically reduce the local albedo and cause an annually averaged 19.7 Wm − 2 increase in absorbed solar flux at the Arctic Ocean surface, or equivalently an annually averaged 0.55 Wm − 2 increase on the planetary scale. C. Matsoukas et al., The Effect of Arctic Sea-Ice Extent of the Absorbed (Net) Solar Flux at the Surface, Based on ISCC P-D2 Cloud Data for 1983- 2007, 10 Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 777, 777 (2010).

53 UNEP 2009 at 19.

54 Id.

55 Francis, J. and Stephen Vavrus, Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid Latitudes, 39 Geophys. Res. Lett. L06801 (2012).

56 See, e.g., Arctic Council Task For ce on Short-Lived Climate Forcers, An Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Options for Black Carbon for the Arctic Council (2011) (“ACTF SLP Report 2011”); Jacobson, Mark, Short-term effects of Controlling Fossil-fuel soot, biofuel Soot and Gases, and Methane on Climate, Arctic Ice, and Air Pollution Health, 115 Journal of Geophys. Res. D14209 (2010) (“Jacobson 2010”); Ramanathan, V. & Yangyang Xu, The Copenhagen Accord for limiting Global Warming: Criteria, Constraints, and Available Avenues, 107 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 18 (2010) (“Ramanathan & Xu 2010”).

57 Lenton, Timothy et al., Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system, 105 Proc. Na tl. Acad. of Sciences 1786 (2008); Mario Molina et al., Reducing ab rupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO 2 emissions, 106 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 20616 (2009); Schellenhuber, Hans Joachim ,Tipping elements in the Earth System, 106 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 20561 (2009).August 31, 2012 Page 9 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 Greenland ice sheet, resulting in an eventual seve n meters of sea-level ri se that would inundate small island nations and heavily populated coastal areas. 58 Climate forcing from rising greenhouse gas emissions also reinforces positiv e feedback cycles that can further amplify warming. In the Arctic, the ice-albedo feedback loop is already occurring, where the loss of highly reflective sea ice due to warming increas es solar absorption, making the Arctic more vulnerable to future warming and ice loss. Increa sing temperatures are expected to trigger other feedbacks including the release of large stores of carbon and the potent greenhouse gas methane from melting Arctic permafrost. 59

Reductions in black carbon can help avoid cr ossing over tipping elements that are close to threshold. As discussed above, black carbon is one of the most important climate pollutants in the Arctic. Additionally, North America is the la rgest contributor to bl ack carbon deposited on
Greenland. 60

5. Decreased Water Availability with Black Carbon-Induced Snow Melt

Another public welfare im plication of black carbon-in duced snow melt is water availability. Glaciers and ice caps cover 10% of the Earth’s surface and provide about 75% of
the world’s fresh water. 61 The glaciers of the continental U.S. have a total area of approximately 580 sq. km 62 and constitute 7% of world glacier area. 63 Washington State accounts for approximately 75% of U.S. glaci al extent outside of Alaska. 64 Alaska contains approximately 11% of world glacier area. 65 Like sea ice, the Earth’s glacie rs as a whole are exhibiting rapid
recession. 66 For example, the number of glaciers at Glacier National Park has dropped from 150 to 26 since 1850, and if current trends in the rate of melting continue, the remaining glaciers will disappear within the next 25 to 30 years. 67

One of the main services prov ided by glaciers is water storage. Water storage occurs
both as frozen water in the form of ice as well as precipitation stored in glacial aquifers. 68 In many areas summer melt provides a regulating infl uence to maintain stream flows during the dry

58 Robinson, Alexander et al., Multistability and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet

, 2 Nature 429 (2012).

59 David Archer et al., The Millennial Atmospheric Lifetime of Anthropogenic CO 2 , 90 Climatic Change 283, 22 (2008); Charles D. Koven et al., Permafrost car bon-climate feedbacks accelerate global warming

, 108 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 14769 (2011).

60 Shindell, D.T. et al., A multi-model Assessment of Pollu tion Transport to the Arctic, 8 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 5353 (2008) at 5361.

61 P. Jansson et al., The Concep t of Glacier Storage: a Review

. 282 J. Hydrology 116, 117 (2003) (“Jansson 2003”).

62 Id. at 329.

63 R.G. Barry, The Status of Research on Glaciers and Gl obal Glacier Recession: A Revi ew, 30 Progress in Physical Geography 285, 286 (2006) (“Barry 2006”).

64 Krimmel, Robert, Glaciers of the Conterminous United States, U.S. Geological Survey Professonal Paper 1386-J2 (2002) see Table 1 for individual states.

65 Barry 2006 at 286.

66 P. Lemke et al., Chapter 4, Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 356 (S. Solomon et al. eds., 2007).

67 See, e.g. ,Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources 18 (Aug. 2007), available at : http://www.gao.gov/new s.items/d07863.pdf.

68 Jansson 2003 at 119-22.August 31, 2012 Page 10 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 season. 69 The importance of glacial water sources operates at multi-year, seasonal, and daily
time scales. 70 Non-ice sheet glaciers are also signifi cant because they can change extent much more rapidly than ice sheets, and thus are the cu rrent greatest contributor to increases in sea
level. 71 In fact, it is estimated that the world’s non-ice sheet glaciers would cause a 0.65 ± 0.16 m rise in sea level if they melted completely. 72 Glacial water storage and release also has important implications for hydroelectric power pl ants, irrigation, consum ptive use, and local
ecosystems. 73 Decreasing summer runoff will result in lower water levels in lakes and rivers, which in turn will cause re-suspension of sediment and free harmful compounds within the
sediment. 74 Destabilization due to glacial retreat can also increase the risk of “geomorphic hazards” such as floods, avalanches, and debris flow. 75

Similarly, black carbon deposited on seasona l snow can induce early melt and reduce water availability. A recent study measured significant concen trations of blac k carbon within falling snow in the Sierra Nevada. 76 This black carbon in turn w ould induce earlier snow melt due to changes in albedo and directly impact California’s water supply, which is currently impaired.

B. The “Unmasking” of Greenhouse Warming Due to Reductions in Cooling Aerosols Can be Offset by Reductions in Black Carbon

As evident from the scientific literature re viewed in the Integrated Science Assessment, there are significant health impacts from aerosols that can be ameliorated only with reductions in particulate matter. Further improvements in air qua lity are obviously needed from a direct health perspective. However, reductions in PM emissi ons overall could “unmask” some of the current net cooling effect of aerosol pollution if black car bon reductions do not account for a sufficient proportion of overall reduction in PM. The soluti on is to ensure that sufficient black carbon reductions accompany reductions in overall aerosol pollution. This will not ensure not only a climate benefit, but additional di rect health benefits as well.

The problem of “unmasking” global warming due to sulfate reductions has been the focus of multiple policy and scientific reports. 77 For instance, mitigation options to simultaneously reduce global warming and benefit public health as outlined by Shindell et al. specifically

69 Moore 2009 at 48.

70 Jansson 2003 at 117-19, 123.

71 Id. at 118.

72 M.B. Dyurgerov & M.F. Meier, Glaciers and the Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snaps hot at 7, Occasional Paper 58 (2005): Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado.

73 Moore 2009.

74 Z.W. Kundzewicz et al, Chapter 3, Fr eshwater Resources and their Management in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 188 (M.L. Parry et al. eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2007).

75 Moore 2009 at 50.

76 Hadley, O.L. et al., Measure Black Carbon Deposition on the Sierra Nevada Snow Pack and Implication for Snow Pack Retreat, 10 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7505 (2010).

77 See, e.g ., United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Troposheric Ozone (2011) (“UNEP SLP Report 2011”) at 8; Ramanathan, V. and Y. Feng, On Avoiding Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference with the C limate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead, 105 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 38, 14245-14250(2008) (“Ramanathan and Feng 2008”).August 31, 2012 Page 11 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 avoided measures that reduce sulfates. 78 Similarly, Ramanathan and Xu emphasize the fact that cooling aerosols have masked up to 50% of the atmospheric heat ing that would otherwise occur due to current levels of gree nhouse gases in the atmosphere. 79

Yet, current regulations in the United States a nd globally are likely to significantly reduce
sulfates and other reflective aerosols. 80 A recent study examined patterns of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and determined that the recent unprecedented warming in the Arctic in large part results from the combined effect of reduced sulfates a nd increased black carbon emissions. 81

Absent measures to ensure balanced reductions in absorbing and scattering aerosols, it is possible that reductions in overall PM 2.5 could have a warming effect. This carries not only public welfare implications, but also public health implications . Yet the Proposed Rule and supporting documents do not consider the negativ e consequences of climate change on public
health.

Climate change poses an increasing threat to human health, through increases in heat waves and other extreme weather events, ailmen ts caused or exacerba ted by air pollution and airborne allergens, and the increased occurren ce of climate-sensitive infectious diseases. 82 Certain groups such as children, the elderly, th e poor, and minorities are particularly vulnerable
to climate-related health effects. 83

The number and intensity of extreme weathe r events are already increasing and are projected to increase further in the future, leadi ng to increases in associated injury, illness, emotional trauma, and death. 84 Heat is already the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States, and one recent study estimated that more than 150,000 Americans may die by the end of the century due to excessive heat caused by climate change. 85 Heat-wave related deaths in Chicago would more than double by 2050 under a lo wer emissions scenar io and quadruple under a high emissions scenario, while in Los Angeles, annual heat-rel ated deaths are projected to increase by two to three times by the end of th e century under a lower emissions scenario and by five to seven times under a higher emissions scenario, compared to a 1990s baseline. 86 Extreme precipitation, which has increased in the Midwes t, South and other regions by 50% mostly over the last few decades, 87 poses significant human health risk s including contaminated drinking water leading to disease outbreaks, drowning, and mold-related illnesses. 88 An increase in the intensity of Atlantic hur ricanes would also have severe health risks. More than 2,000 Americans

78 Drew Shindell et al., Simultaneously Mitigating Near-term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security, 335 Science 183 (2012) (“Shindell 2012”) at 183.

79 Ramanathan and Xu 2010 at 805.

80 Id . at 8059; Ramanathan and Feng 2008 at 14246.

81 Shindell, Drew & Greg Flaugevi, Climate Response to Regional Radiative Forcing During the Twentieth Century, Nature Geoscience, Online Publication (Mar. 31, 2009) at 298.

82 U.S. Global Change Research Program , Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009) (“USGCRP 2009”).

83 Id.

84 Id.

85 Natural Resources Defense Council, Killer Summer Heat: Toll form Rising Temperatures in America due to Climate Change (2012).

86 USGCRP 2009.

87 Id.

88 Union of Concerned Scientists, After the Storm: The Hi dden Health Risks of Flooding in a Warming World (2012), available at www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_im pacts/impacts/global-wa rming-and-flooding.html.August 31, 2012 Page 12 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 were killed in the 2005 hurricane season, more than double the average number of lives lost to
hurricanes in the United States over the previous 65 years. 89

Air pollution components that tr igger asthma attacks, specif ically air particulates and ozone, are expected to incr ease with climate change. 90 Asthma remains a leading cause of morbidity and school absenteeism in the United States. Projected climate-related increases in ground-level ozone concentrations in 2020 could lead to an average of 2.8 million more occurrences of acute respiratory symptoms, 944,000 more missed school days, and over 5,000 more hospitalizations for respiratory-related problems. 91 In 2020, the continental U.S. could pay an average of $5.4 billion (2008$) in health impact costs associated with the climate penalty on ozone, with California experiencing the greate st estimated impacts averaged at $729 million. 92

Infectious diseases also pose an increased threat in a changing cl imate. There are an
estimated 38 million cases of food and water-borne il lness in the US each year, caused in part by an increasing number of pathogens in the wake of extreme weat her events such as droughts, flooding, and hurricanes. 93 Meanwhile, warming favors the spread of some pathogen-carrying vectors. Lyme disease is the most common vect or-borne disease in the United States, with 25,000–30,000 cases reported to the CDC per year, with the highest incidence among children between ages 5 and 9. 94 A recent study suggests that outbreaks of the vector-b orne West Nile Virus are potentially related to higher summ er temperatures and extreme variation in precipitation. 95

A balance of black carbon and total aerosol reductions will protect public health and
welfare. Because black carbon has a short atmospheric lifetime of 5-7 days, reductions in black
carbon are an effective and immediate means to ensu re that reductions in “c ooling” aerosols such
as sulfates and nitrates do not inadvertently exac erbate the current trends in global warming. In addition, as discussed above, the net radiative forci ng due to direct and indirect effects of black carbon is of a similar order of magnitude as th e cooling contributed by sulfates and nitrates.

C. The EPA Must Address the Impacts of Bl ack Carbon in the PM NAAQS, Even
in the Face of Some Remaining Uncertainties

89 USGCRP 2009.

90 A. Bernstein & S.S. Myers, Cl imate Change and Children’s Health

, 23 Current Opinion in Pediatrics 221 (2011) (“Bernstein 2011”), available at http://journals.lww.com/copediatrics/Fulltext/2011/04000/Climate_change_and_children_s_health.16.aspx#

. 91 E. Perera & T. Sanford, Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate Change and Your H ealth: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution

, 2 (2011), available at www.ucsusa.org/assets/.../global. .../climate-change-and-ozonepollution.pdf

. 92 Id.

93 E. Maibach et al., Center for Climate Change Communi cation, Conveying the Human Implications of Climate Change

, 10-11 (2011), available at http://www.climatehealthconnect.org/resource/conveying-human-implicationsclimate-change-climate-change-c ommunication-primer-public-heal

. 94 Bernstein 2011.

95 Shlomit Paz, West Nile Virus Eruptions in Summer 2010 – What Is the Possible Linkage with Climate Change?, Chapter 21 of National Security and Human Health Implications of Climate Change 253 – 260 (2012).August 31, 2012 Page 13 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 The climatic effects of black carbon are we ll-established. Yet the Integrated Science Assessment repeatedly focuses on the unknowns related to aerosol cl imate science. What little mention is made of black carbon repeats this theme. While it is true that there are still details related to aerosol and black carbon climate imp acts on which further research is needed, the necessary facts are known. The EPA has a statutory obligation to take action.

Black carbon has received inte rnational attention as a critic al component of rapid action to address climate change. The United Nations Environment Programme recently released an assessment report that outlined the importanc e of black carbon and methane reductions for protecting public health and st aying within the world’s commitment to keep global temperature changes below 2° C. 96 Furthermore, the identified mitigation strategies if implemented by 2030 could cut global temperatur e increases in half by 2050. 97 Similarly, the Arctic Council Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers, formed by the Arctic Council Ministerial Tromsø Declaration, recently published an assessment re port outlining the importance of reducing black carbon to protect the Arctic as well as protect public health globally. 98 The United States is also
a member of the Climate and Clean Air Coali tion, which focuses on reductions in short-lived pollutants such as black carbon to mitigate clim ate change, prevent deaths, and improve food security. 99

The United States also has an obligation unde r the Gothenburg Protocol to address black carbon pollution. 100 The Gothenburg Protocol is part of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The United States has ratified this treaty. The Gothenburg Protocol sets particulate matter ceilings for Euro pean countries, although the United States is not subject to these ceilings. On May 4, 2012 the Pr otocol was amended to specifically address black carbon as a constituent of fine particulate matter. These revisions to the Protocol emphasize the importance of reducing black car bon to protect public health and climate. Furthermore, members agree to choose mitigati on options for particulate matter that focus on
black carbon reductions.

The EPA was tasked with generating a report on black carbon for Congress as part of the Department of Interior Appropriations Act of 2010. 101 This report shows that EPA is aware of the climate science and public health informati on that point to the importance of addressing black carbon pollution. 102 EPA must use this informati on in its relevant decsionmaking.

96 UNEP SLP Report 2011.

97 UNEP SLP report 2011 at 159.

98 ACTF SLP Report 2011 and Arctic Council Task Force on Short-Lived Climate Forcers, Progress Report and Recommendations for Ministers (2011) (“ACTF SLP Report Summary 2011”).

99 U.S. Department of State, The Climate and Clean Ai r Coalition to Reduce Sort Lived Climate Pollutants Fact Sheet (Feb 16, 2012), available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/02/184055.htm (Secretary Clinton remarks introducing the Coalition).

100 UNECE, Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone done in Gothenburg, Sweden in 1999 (last visited August 31, 2012), available at http://www.unece.org/env /lrtap/multi_h1.html . The protocol was revised in May 2012 to include specifi c reference to black carbon abatement.

101 U.S. Congress, H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (2010).

102 USEPA, Report to Congress on Black Carbon (March 2012) (“USEPA Black Carbon Report”).August 31, 2012 Page 14 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 Within the scientific community, multiple studies have indicated the importance of reducing black carbon and other short-lived climat e pollutants. Bond and Sun as early as 2005 published a study outlining the importance of reducing black carbon. 103 Ramanathan and Xu outlined four actions necessary to meet the US commitment to the Copenhagen Accord. These actions relied in large part on reductions in short-lived po llutants such as black carbon. 104 A complex climate model recently indicated that re ducing fossil fuel and solid-biofuel black carbon was more effective at reducing Ar ctic short-term warming than reductions in either methane or
carbon dioxide. 105 Shindell and colleagues recently pub lished a paper outlin ing 14 measures to
reduce black carbon and methane that could re duce temperature increases in 2050 by 0.5°C as well as improve public h ealth and food security. 106

The uncertainties cited by the EPA as a barrie r to regulating climat e impacts of aerosols do not apply to regulation of black carbon. Specific areas of uncer tainty raised by the EPA are
addressed below.

Precise estimation of natural versus anthropog enic sources of aeros ols and black carbon is not a prerequisite to regulat ion under the Clean Air Act. The Policy Assessment focuses on the difficulty of separating natural and anthropoge nic sources of aerosols as a major obstacle to regulating the climate impacts of aerosols. 107 This, however, is not a valid excuse for failing to address black carbon. Regardless of natural sources of black carbon, the data indicate that there are significant anthropogenic sour ces of black carbon that contribu te a large proportion of total
black carbon emissions. 108 In addition, as the Clean Ai r Scientific Advisory Committee comments on the ISA indicate: “The EPA promulga tes a health-based standard irrespective of the background concentration of particles and thus, the PRB [Policy Relevant Background] primarily has implications for implementation.” 109 Furthermore, as acknowledged in the Policy Assessment, “attainability and technological feasib ility are not re levant considerations in the promulgation of national ambient air quality standards.” 110

The magnitude of black carbon’s ra diative forcing is likely to be larger than estimated in the Proposed Rule. Another uncertainty cited by the EPA is the radiative forcing of aerosols. 111 Again, there is enough information related to black carbon’s impact to know that global temperatures will rise due to black carbon emi ssions. As discussed above, there are varied estimates in the literature, but the radiative fo rcing used by the IPCC in the Fourth Assessment report and adopted by the EPA represents one of the lowest estimates in the literature. Subsequent studies suggest the ra diative forcing is actually higher. The continually increasing

103 Bond, Tami & Haolin Sun, Can Reducing Black Carbon Emissions Counteract Global Warming?, 39 Environ. Sci. Technol. 5921 (2005).

104 Ramanathan and Xu 2010.

105 Jacobson 2010.

106 Shindell 2012.

107 USEPA, Policy Assessment for the Review of the Par ticulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Apr. 2011) (“USEPA Policy Assessment”) at 5-12.

108 See, e.g., UNEP SLP Report 2011 at 16-17 discussing sources and new studies and inventories since 2007.

109 USEPA, Comments from the Clean Air Scientific Commit tee (CASAC) to the Integrat ed Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (ISA) re Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second External Review Draft of July 2009) (November 24, 2009) (“USEPA CASAC comments to ISA”) at 13.

110 USEPA Policy Assessment at 1-3, quoting American Petroleum Institute v. Costle , 665 F. 2d at 1185.

111 Id. at 5-13August 31, 2012 Page 15 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 estimates of black carbon’s forcing in the literature sugge st that “uncertainty ” in this case is equivalent to “underestimation.”

Regional variability does not d ilute the need for reductions in black carbon. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of PM is cited within the Policy Assessment as confounding attempts to quantify regional climate responses. 112 While it is certainly true that some regions may experience larger responses to black carbon than others, black carbon will exacerbate global warming wherever it occurs. This is similar to the case for any air polluta nt. Some regions will benefit more from regulation than others, yet it remains a requirement of the Clean Air Act that air pollutants be limited to protect national health and welfare.

Black carbon’s negative climate impacts do not depend upon details of cloud interactions with aerosols. Aerosols undergo complex inter actions with clouds, which in turn dictate how aerosols affect global temperatures. The deta ils of these interactions have not yet been established. The Policy Assessment views this l ack in detail as a barrier to modeling aerosol climate impacts and consequently addressing the effects. 113 First, black carbon’s direct radiative forcing is not cloud-dependent. Second, a recent si mulation by Jacobson that included cloud and precipitation interactions indicated that control ling fossil and solid-biofuel black carbon had the greatest potential to reduce Arctic temperature of any mitigation strategy. 114 Third, Chung and Seinfeld estimate that positive and negative indi rect effects related to cloud interactions cancel each other resulting in only a minor contribu tion to of carbonaceous aerosols from biomass. 115

Reducing black carbon will undoubtedly benefit publ ic health and welfare with regard to both visibility and climate. The EPA does not need to quantif y the precise amount of climate
benefit to know that component of PM 2.5 must be controlled under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, as summarized above and in numerous scientific and interna tional reports, the EPA has abundant information on the best abatement options for black carbon.

The courts have made clear that uncertainty does not absolve the EPA of the obligation to protect public welfare. In American Trucking Association , the Court stated that with regard to secondary NAAQS, the “EPA must act as soon as it has enough information (even if crude) to ‘anticipate’ such effects.” 116 Climate is one of the defined components of “public welfare” under
the CAA. 117 The EPA currently has enough information regarding the climat e impacts of black carbon to trigger the duty to protect public welfar e under section 109(b) of the CAA. There may be regional uncertainties in the magnitude of th is effect, with some areas experiencing more warming than others. Overall, however, ther e is a substantial body of knowledge emphasizing the importance of black carbon as a climate forcer.

III. THE PM 2.5 NAAQS SHOULD BE REVISED TO SEPARATELY ADDRESS
BLACK CARBON

112 USEPA Policy Assessment at 5-12.

113 USEPA Policy Assessment at 5-13.

114 Jacobson 2010.

115 Chung and Seinfeld 2012 at 4.

116 American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA , 283 F.3d 355, 380 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

117 42 U.S.C. § 7602(h).August 31, 2012 Page 16 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 The current size-based particulate matter categ orization is insufficient to fully protect health and welfare. In particular, the effects of black carbon will not be sufficiently ameliorated without an additional, specifi c limit on this component of PM 2.5 . One reason why black carbon must be regulated separately is that it cons titutes a relatively small proportion of total PM 2.5 such that implementation plans will likely focus on components that ar e a larger proportion of total

PM 2.5 mass. Although there are currently regulations in place to address some new sources of black carbon, setting a limit fo r black carbon within the PM 2.5 NAAQS is urgently needed to address existing sources.

Moreover, the black carbon component of PM 2.5 has significant impacts on public
health. 118 These effects include cardiovascular, sy stemic vasculature, total mortality, and potentially respiratory impacts. 119 Ultrafine black carbon also has been associated with cognitive impairment in children. 120 When first emitted from fossil fuel combustion, black carbon is very small (diameter less than 0.1 μm) and occurs in the “ultrafine particle” size range. 121 As an ultrafine particle, black carbon may have enhanced health e ffects because it can cross biological
membranes. 122 As they age, black carbon particles gr ow in size and continue to harm public health. Although other constituents have also been associated with adverse health outcomes, the data show that black carbon, especially from tr ansportation sources, is one of the components of

PM 2.5 that is most harmful to public health. As discussed above, black carbon is also a strong climate forcer with impacts on public welfare. Among the climat e impacts of black carbon, are public health harms that are separate from those traditionally associated with PM. All of the evidence supports an approach that sets a separa te limit for black carbon in addition to an annual standard of 11 μg/m 3 and a 24-hour standard to 25 μg/m 3 for PM 2.5 . Such an approach is clearly needed in order to provide the required prot ection to both public he alth and welfare.

A. The Current Size-Based Approach Will Not Adequately Address the Climate Impacts of Black Carbon

The Policy Assessment acknowledges that the secondary NAAQS for PM 2.5 will not address climate impacts:

The current standards that are defined in terms of aggregate size mass cannot be expected to appropriately target cont rols on components of fine and coarse particles that are related to climate forcing effects. Thus, the current mass-based

PM 2.5 and PM 10 secondary standards are not an appropriate or effective means of focusing protection against PM-associated c limate effects due to these differences in components. 123

118 ISA chapter 6 and 7 (short- and long-term effects, respectively).

119 See ISA at 2-26.

120 See, e.g ., Suglia, Franco et al., Associ ation of Black Carbon with Cogn ition among Children in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study, 167 Amer. J. of Epidimiology 3 (2008).

121 ISA at 155, 240.

122 See, e.g., ISA at 4-21.

123 USEPA Policy Assessment.August 31, 2012 Page 17 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 The Policy Assessment then rejects a PM component -specific approach base d on uncertainties in climate science. As discussed above, however , it is incorrect to conclude that black carbon
climate science is so uncertain as to preclude such an approach.

Similarly, with regard to public health impacts, the Policy Assessment states:

[W]e conclude that additional information available in this review continues to provide evidence that many different constituents of the fine particle mixture as well as groups of components associated with specific source categories of fine particles are linked to adverse health effects. 124

The Policy Assessment rejects an approach th at would set standards for PM components separately due to the fact that many components are associated with similar health outcomes.

The EPA considered that a constituent-spec ific approach to setting NAAQS could be superior to the current size-based approach. 125 In commenting on the Integrated Science Assessment, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee supported this approach for future revisions, and suggested this may be pa rticularly important for carbon compounds. 126 Black carbon must be regulated separately and in addition to PM 2.5 because absent separate standards sulfates and nitrates may be more likely to be mitigated than the black carbon component of PM.

B. Without a Speciation Approach, Reducti ons in Other Constituents of PM 2.5 Are Likely To Be Prioritized Over Reductions in Black Carbon

Black carbon is likely to receive less focus than other PM components when states are considering how to implement the PM 2.5 NAAQS. Sulfates and nitrates are more likely to be the target for PM mitigation, in part because their precursors, SOx and NOx, are already subject to separate NAAQS. As explained in the recent EPA report to C ongress regarding black carbon:

In recent years, the overarching PM2.5 control program for stationary
sources in the United States and Eur ope has focused mainly on secondarily formed particles such as sulfates a nd nitrates, rather than on direct PM2.5 emissions. This is because PM controls motivated by public health and environmental goals are focused on reduci ng total PM mass (a large portion of
which is sulfates and nitrates formed in the ambient air from SOx and NOx) at
least cost. PM controls oriented toward climate would have to consider the light absorbing and scattering properties of the various PM constituents. 127

In addition, the proposed visibility standa rd may inadvertently result in an added emphasis on sulfates. This fact was emphasi zed within the CASAC comments on the draft Policy Assessment:

124 USEPA,Policy Assessment at 2-55.

125 Proposed rule at 38922

126 USEPA CASAC Comments to ISA at 2.

127 USEPA Black Carbon Report at 162.August 31, 2012 Page 18 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 My major concern has to do with consider ation for the potential of the tightening
of the standards to exacerbate climate wa rming if the appropriate fraction of PM is not preferentially controlled....Decr easing light scattering aerosols will improve visibility, but increase radiative forcing. It would be better to focus on reducing light absorbing aerosols to both improve visibility and potentially reduce warming (there is uncertain ty about the latter). Ther e is also a growing body of evidence that EC [elemental carbon, i.e. black carbon] is more strongly associated with various health impacts, so in th e implementation, focusing on EC controls
would be a win-win. 128

In low humidity conditions, black carbon is th e largest contributor to low visibility. 129 Thus,
balanced reductions in sulfates and black carbon will improve visibility as well. Sulfate pollution has been decreasing and is expected to con tinue to do so over the next several decades. 130 This trend will put greater importance on reducing shor t-lived climate pollutants such as black carbon.

Finally, despite its significant impacts, black carbon is a relatively small proportion of the
total volume of PM 2.5 (approximately 10%). 131 As a result, mitigation options that address larger-volume components of PM 2.5 will probably be prioritized over black carbon reductions.

C. Current On- and Non-Road Diesel Regu lations Do Not Mitigate Existing
Sources of Black Carbon

Black carbon must be regulat ed through the NAAQS program in order to address existing
mobile sources of black carbon. The EPA current ly regulates emissions from new heavy-duty diesel trucks, non-road diesel engines, locomotiv es, and marine engines. These programs are an important part of addressing black carbon. But it is important to note that these regulations apply only to new model years and are being phased in slowly. As a result, they will not yield significant reductions in black carbon until approximately 2030. 132 The current regulations will not have significant impact until the national fl eet has been fully replaced by new vehicles. The

EPA’s Report to Congress on Black Carbon indicates that additional reductions in black carbon will not occur in the absence of further regulation. 133 The NAAQS program is one of the few opportunities to reduce black carbon from existing engines, industrial and biofuel sources within the United States and rapidly reduc e emissions of this pollutant. Time is of the essence: the Arctic ocean will likely be ice free in the summ er by 2030 without imme diate and significant
reductions in black carbon combined with reduc tions in carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse pollutants.

128 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments from the Clean Air Scientific Committee (CASAC) to the Integrated Science Assessment for Par ticulate Matter (ISA) re Review of Policy Assessment for the Review of the PM NAAQS (Second External Review Draf t of July 2010) (September 10, 2010).

129 ISA at 9-8.

130 See, e.g ., UNEP SLP Report 2011at 13.

131 ISA at 3-59.

132 UNEP SLP Report 2011 at 12; USEPA Black Carbon Report at 175.

133 USEPA Black Carbon Report at 166.August 31, 2012 Page 19 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 IV. THE PROPOSED PM NAAQS DO NOT REFLECT THE AD MINISTRATOR’S
UNENCUMBERED ASSESSMENT OF TH E LEVEL REQUIRED TO PROTECT
PUBLIC HEALTH

The Proposed Rule published in the Federal Register 134 does not reflect the Administrator’s independent assessment of the PM 2.5 limits required to protect public health. The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) revi ewed a draft of the proposed rule prior to publication and suggested changes that weakened the proposed PM NAAQS. 135 When the proposed rule was first circulated for in teragency review, the primary NAAQS for PM 2.5 would have been reduced from 15 to 12 μg/m 3 . The OMB, however, returned the draft rule with a suggested range of 12 to 13 μg/m 3

. 136 This is how the published version of the proposed rule
now reads. 137

In response to the OMB comments, language was deleted that stated: “In the Administrator’s judgment, an annual standard of 12 μg/m 3 reflects placing greatest weight on evidence of effects for which the Integrated Sc ience Assessment has determ ined there is a causal or likely causal relationship with long- and short-term PM 2.5 exposures.” 138 The original draft proposed rule also explained why a standard set at 13 μg/m 3 could not provide an adequate margin of safety:

The Administrator recognizes that c onsideration for setting a higher annual standard level, e.g., up to 13 μ g/m 3 , would reflect an approach that places significantly less emphasis on margin of safe ty considerations than a standard set

at 12 μ g/m 3 . It would also reflect placing essentially no weight on more limited evidence of serious effects in susceptib le populations (e.g., infant mortality, low birth weight) and would likewise place essentially no wei ght on additional population-level data from a limited number of epidemiological studies. In addition, this approach would require the Administrator to expl ain why a standard
established above the level of the long-term mean PM 2.5 concentrations reported in several robust well-conducted studies, notably the Burnett et al. (2004) and Bell et al. (2008) studies, would provide requisite protection with an adequate margin of safety. The Administrator is not pres ently aware of any such explanations. 139

This explanation was also deleted in the published version of the rule.

These last-minute edits made to the propo sed rule are contrary to the statutory requirement that the Administrator use her best judgment to determine what limit on criteria air pollutants is required to protect public health and welfare. U nder section 108 of the Clean Air

134 77 Fed. Reg. 38890.

135 Eilperin, Juliet, White House Weakened EPA Soot Proposal, Documents Show , The Washington Post (July 17, 2012).

136 Office of Management and Budget, Summary of Additional Interagency Comments Under Eos 12866 and 13563 Regarding the NAAQS for Particulate Matter Proposed Rule: RIN 2060-AO47 (June 14, 2012).

137 77 Fed. Reg. 38890.

138 USEPA, Redline Revisions sent by EPA to OMB on the Administrator’s proposed conclusions on the primary PM2.5 Standard levels (subsection III.E.R.e) (June 8, 2012).

139 Id . at 49 (Internal citation omitted).August 31, 2012 Page 20 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 Act, air quality criteria ar e intended to “accurately reflect th e latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of all identifia ble effects on public health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air.” 140 In turn, section 109 requires the Administrator to promulgate primary and secondary NAAQS that are based on air quality criteria and in her judgment are requisi te to protect public health and welfare. 141 The Administrator made a judgment that the limit that would be based on ai r quality criteria and necessary to protect public health would need to be below 13 μg/m 3 . The OMB has not been tasked with setting these sta ndards and does not possess the expe rtise to assess what standards are necessary. Therefore, the OM B revisions are out side the law.

V. EPA’S PROPOSED “GRANDFATHERING” PROVISION FOR PSD PERMITS IS
UNLAWFUL

The EPA proposes a “grandfathering” provisi on that would allow pending PSD permit applications already released for public comment as of the effective date of the revised NAAQS to be evaluated under the NAAQS that existed on the date public notice was given of the draft permit. 142 This provision is not only contrary to “[l]ongstanding EPA policy” and regulation, as
EPA concedes 143 , but also contrary to the statute. Ev en if the EPA had discretion to “balance” various policy considerations in implementing th e PSD program—which, as described below, it does not—the agency has not justif ied its choice of an approach that sacrifices both air quality protection and meaningful public involvement to the convenience of permit applicants. The proposed “grandfathering” provision is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious.

A. The Proposed Grandfathering Provisi on Exceeds EPA’s Statutory Authority

Congress has spoken directly to the precise question at issue here, leaving the EPA
without discretion to find some ot her way of interpreting the statute. 144

The EPA purportedly finds “discretion” to grandfather pending PSD permits in Section 165(a), Section 165(c), and Section 301. Propos ed Rule at 39,024/1. These provisions, however, confer no such discreti on; on the contrary, Section 165(a) forecloses EPA’s approach. Under Section 165(a)(3), no major emitting facility “may be constr ucted” unless the facility’s owner or operator demonstrates emissions from the facility will not cause or contribute to the violation of “any . . . national am bient air quality standard in a ny air quality cont rol region.” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3)(B). Under the statute’s pl ain language, this requirement applies to the
commencement of construction —not to some earlier “milestone” in the permitting process. This language also plainly prohibits construction of a f acility that will violate “any” NAAQS— meaning the EPA cannot pick and choose which NAAQS it will allow a particular facility to violate. Yet EPA’s grandfathe ring proposal would allow PSD permits to issue in violation of Section 165(a)(3). Overall, the Proposed Rule would tighten the PM NAAQS in certain respects. Accordingly, by allowing permitting authorities to review pending PSD permits under the prior,

140 42 U.S.C. § 7408(b).

141 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1) and (2).

142 Proposed Rule at 39,024/2.

143 Id. at 39,023/3.

144 See Chevron v. Natural Reso urces Defense Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837 (1984)August 31, 2012 Page 21 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 less stringent NAAQS even after the new NAAQS goes into effect , the EPA’s proposal would
authorize construction of facilities that cause or c ontribute to NAAQS violat ions. This is exactly what Section 165(a)(3) prohibits.

Nothing in Section 165(c) provid es the EPA with discretion to violate the plain language of Section 165(a). Section 165(c) merely states that PSD permits “shall be granted or denied” within one year of filing of th e application. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(c). Nothing in this provision, however, authorizes the EPA to meet this dead line by granting a permit that does not meet the statute’s other mandatory requirements. Indeed , if the EPA cannot grant a permit within one year—consistent with all other permit require ments—it can comply w ith Section 165(c) by denying the permit.

Nor does Section 301 confer disc retion to avoid the requiremen ts of Section 165(a)(3). Section 301 states only that “[t]he Administrator is authorized to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out [her] functions under this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 7601(a)(1). The EPA’s regulatory authority thus extends no furthe r than necessary to implement “this chapter”; in other words, the EPA’s regulatory authority is coextensive with the Clean Air Act itself. Section 301 in no way provides au thority to regulate in a manner contrary to the plain requirements of “this chapter.”

Although the Proposed Rule does no t say so outright, the EPA seems to imply that there is some kind of conflict between the require ments of Section 165(a) and the deadline for issuance of permits in Section 165(c). 145 There is no such conflict. The EPA does not claim, or even suggest, that implementation of the new NAAQS would make timely issuance of PSD permits impossible. Even if th is were the case, the EPA coul d still implement both Section 165 (a) and (c) according to each provision’s pl ain language by denying permits that cannot demonstrate compliance with applicable law within a year of application completeness. Statutes must be construed so as to give e ffect to all of their provisions. Hibbs v. Winn , 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004). As there is no statutory contradiction for the EPA to resolve, there is no need for the EPA to invoke the general regul atory authority of Section 301. 146 In any event, any particular failure to comply with the d eadline in Section 165(c) would not excuse the EPA’s duty to comply with the Act’s other requirements. Cf. General Motors Corp. v. United States , 496 U.S. 530, 540-42 (1990).

The EPA also claims Section 160(3) “call[s] for a balancing of economic growth and protection of air quality.” Proposed Rule at 39,024/1. Nothing in Section 160(3) allows the agency to “balance” away clear and mandatory requi rements of the statute. This section states only that one purpose of the PSD program is to “insure [ sic ] that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with preservation of existing clean air resources.” 42 U.S.C. § 7470(3). The EPA’s “grandfathering” proposal di rectly contradicts this purpose by allowing economic growth (i.e., construction of majo r facilities) in a manner inconsistent with preservation of clean air

145 To the extent EPA is relying on such an implied “conflic t,” it has failed to adequately explain the rationale for its proposal.

146 Cases such as Citizens to Save Spencer County v. EPA , 600 F.2d 844 (D.C. Cir. 1979), which upheld EPA’s attempt to fashion a regulatory compromise where two st atutory provisions were in direct and irreconcilable conflict, are thus inapposite here.August 31, 2012 Page 22 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 resources (i.e., in violation of a NAAQS adopted to protect health and welfare). The EPA’s purported “balancing” is merely the substitu tion of a policy preference for a statutory requirement. New York v. EPA , 443 F.3d 880, 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“EPA may not ‘avoid the Congressional intent clearly expressed in the text simply by asserting that its preferred approach would be better policy.’”) (quoting Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA

, 88 F.3d 1075, 1089 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). EPA’s “balancing” act is plainly unlawful.

The EPA further claims that it may exempt facilities from the new PM NAAQS because it has adopted similar provisions in the past. Proposed Rule at 39,023/3. None of the cited rulemakings provides or identifies legally ad equate authority for the exemption the EPA proposes here. Indeed, in its 1980 final rule revising the PSD regulations, the EPA explicitly rejected a “grandfather” provision based on the date of application completeness rather than the date of permit issuance, citing concerns that the broader exemption would fail to protect air quality—a core goal of Section 165. 45 Fed. Reg. at 52,683 (Aug. 7, 1980) . In any event, “previous statutory violations cannot ex cuse the one now before the court.” New Jersey v. EPA

, 517 F.3d 574, 583 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

The Clean Air Act as a whole further confir ms the EPA has no general warrant to create new “grandfathering” exemptions. Congress ha s adopted only one express provision allowing “grandfathering” under the PSD program. See 42 U.S.C. § 7478(b). It has not created or authorized other such exemptions. Where Co ngress has provided express exemptions, but has not enacted others, the EPA is not free to cr eate additional, unauthorized exemptions from applicable statutory requirements. See Andrus v. Glover Constr. Co. , 446 U.S. 608, 616-17 (1980).

Finally, the EPA’s rationale for choosing the release of a draft permit for public comment as the “milestone” triggering the grandfathering pr ovision is also contrary to statute. The EPA claims the application of new NAAQS requireme nts after the public comment period has begun “would unduly delay the processing of the perm it application by potentially requiring an additional public comment period and additional wo rk by the reviewing authority at a time when it should be focused on considering public comments and preparing a final permit decision . . . .” Proposed Rule at 39,024/2. Section 165 prohibits cons truction of a major facility in an area to which PSD requirements apply unless “intereste d persons” have been provided an opportunity “to appear and submit written or oral presentations on the air qua lity impact of such source, alternatives thereto, control tec hnology requirements, and other a ppropriate considerations.” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(2). By “grandfathering” facilitie s as of the date a draft permit is released for comment, the EPA’s proposal depriv es interested persons of their statutory right to comment on air quality impacts, alternatives , control technology, and other c onsiderations related to the current NAAQS.

The Proposed Rule’s complaints about “del ay” and “additional work” also betray a disturbingly cavalier attitude to ward public comment. Under th e EPA’s existing regulations, public comments may raise “substantial new questi ons” requiring revisions to a draft permit and reopening of the public comment period. 40 C.F. R. § 124.14(b). Accordingly, the EPA’s own regulations already anticipate some “additional work” and “d elay” after the release of a permit for comment are anticipated by EPA’s regulations. Indeed, without the possibi lity of revisions inAugust 31, 2012 Page 23 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 light of public comments, public comments would be largely meaningless. The EPA’s proposal to foreclose public comments on compliance with the NAAQS in the name of avoiding delay and additional work—while its own regulations expre ssly anticipate the potential for both delay and additional work on all other aspects of a draft permit—is entirely arbitrary.

In short, EPA’s “grandfathering” proposal is contrary to the Clean Air Act. EPA cannot lawfully finalize this proposal.

B. EPA Has Not Justified the “Balance” Struck by the Proposed Grandfathering Provision

Even if the Clean Air Act were ambiguous or silent as to the EPA’s “grandfathering” authority—which, as demonstrated above, it is not—the Proposed Rule w ould still represent an impermissible constructi on of the statute. See Chevron , 467 U.S. at 843. Exempting facilities from the revised NAAQS solely because draft permits have been issued is incompatible with the statute’s purpose and structure.

The EPA claims broad authority to “balance” economic growth and air quality protection. As discussed above, the EPA has no such authority, but even if it did, the agency would have to exercise that authority in li ght of the purposes of the Cl ean Air Act. Those purposes overwhelmingly favor protection of air quality, h ealth, and welfare; to the extent the Act mentions maintenance of productive capacity and economic growth, it does so in the context of requiring advancement of those values in a manner that preserves clean air. See, e.g. , 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401(b), (c); 7409(b); 7470. Ind eed, when setting a NAAQS—as the EPA proposes to do
here—the EPA cannot factor in co st considerations at all. Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns , 531 U.S. 457, 471 (2001). The Clean Air Act strikes a balance that strongly favors protection of public health and air quality over economic factors.

The EPA’s “grandfathering” proposal, in contra st, strikes the opposite balance. It would allow issuance of permits that violate applicable NAAQS standards. The standards that will be violated, of course, are by definition those “requisi te” to protect health and welfare. 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1), (2). The EPA’s proposal thus sacr ifices the Act’s core purposes to economic considerations the agency has not even bothered to identify with any particularity. This is not a “balancing” act the statute will bear.

The EPA does not even fully explain why it c hose to unbalance the Act’s purposes in this way. The Proposed Rule makes no attempt to define what permitting delays the EPA would consider “unreasonable”; indeed, it appears that the EPA regards any delay as unreasonable, regardless of the impact on air qua lity, public health, and welfare, and even if the permit still could be issued within one year of applicat ion completeness. Nor has the EPA adequately explained what factors the agency consider ed in developing the proposal; aside from a conclusory paragraph or two about the “delay ” and “extra work” occasioned by permit revisions following release for public comment, the EPA has not identified with any precision the competing considerations it proposes to “balan ce” or how its proposal achieves its goals.August 31, 2012 Page 24 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 Instead, the EPA appeals to “basic principles of fairness and equity.” Proposed Rule at 39,024/1. In so doing, the EPA misunderstands the sc ope of its authority as an administrative agency. Powers of equity are normally exerci sed by courts, not administrative agencies; unlike courts, agencies have “no constitutional or common law existence or authority,” and thus exercise only the authority conferred by Congress. Michigan v. EPA , 268 F.3d 1075, 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (“If there is no statute conferring aut hority, a federal agency has none.”). Nothing in the NAAQS or PSD programs confers equitable powers on the EPA; accordingly, the EPA does not have those powers. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of App eals has struck down EPA rules that were intended in part to achieve the agen cy’s goals of equity and fairness, but were
nonetheless in excess of its statutory authority. See N. Carolina v. EPA , 531 F.3d 896, 918, 921, reh’g granted in part on other grounds , 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) . Again, fairness is a noble goal, but EPA’s extra-statut ory notion that prioritizing the convenience of polluters over the health of the public promotes fairness and equity cannot justify deviations from statutory
command.

The EPA’s “grandfathering” proposal is an im permissible constructi on of the Clean Air Act that runs counter to the statute’s purpose a nd exceeds the agency’s prerogatives. It cannot lawfully be adopted in the final NAAQS.

VI. CONCLUSION

This rulemaking presents a critical opportunity to provide substantia l direct public health benefits while mitigating short-term climate impacts. It is essential that the EPA promulgate air quality standards that protect both ag ainst the direct he alth impacts of PM 2.5 inhalation, as well as against dangerous climate change by providing a se parate limit for black carbon, in addition to an annual standard of 11 μg/m 3 and a 24-hour standard to 25 μg/m 3 for PM 2.5 . This would achieve a balanced reduction in warming and c ooling components and improve public health and
welfare. The science related to black carbon is well-developed and establishes the importance of reductions in this short-lived climate pollutant. In addition, the proposal to “grandfather” in pending PSD permit applications alr eady released for public comment is unlawful. Finally, it is
essential that the EPA establish a better monito ring network to measure individual ultrafine and fine PM components. Thank you for the opport unity to comment. If you have any questions
about this letter or the refe rences attached, please contac t Andrea Weber at (415) 436-9682 x.311, or aweber@biologicaldiversity.org.

Sincerely,

Anna Moritz Legal Fellow, Center fo r Biological Diversity

Enc: References cited and attachedAugust 31, 2012 Page 25 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890 

### List of References

Andrews, T. et al., Precipitati on, Radiative Forcing and Global Te mperature Change, 37 Geophys. Res. Lett. L14701 (2010)

Archer, David & Victor Brovki n., The Millennial Atmospheric Lifetime of Anthropogenic CO2, 90 Climatic Change 283 (2008).

Arctic Council Task Force on Shor t-Lived Climate Forcers, An Asse ssment of Emissions and Mitigation Options for Black Carbon for the Arctic Council (2011),

Arctic Council Task Force on Shor t-Lived Climate Forcers, Progress Report and Recommendations for Ministers (2011)

R.G. Barry, The Status of Research on Glaciers a nd Global Glacier Recession: A Review, 30 Progress in Physical Geography 285, 286 (2006).

Bernstein, A. & S.S. Myers, Climate Change and Ch ildren’s Health, 23 Current Opinion in Pediatrics 221 (2011),

Bond, Tami & Haolin Sun, Can Reducing Black Ca rbon Emissions Counteract Global Warming?, 39 Environ. Sci. Technol. 5921 (2005).

Bond, T.C. et al., Quantifying Imme diate Radiative Forcingy by Black Ca rbon and Organic Matter with the Specific Forcing Pulse, 11 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 1505 (2011)

Chung, Serena and John Seinfeld, Climate Response of Direct Radiative Forci ng of Anthropogenic Black Carbon, 110 Journal of Geophys. Res. D11102 (2012)

Clean Air Task Force, Testimony of John Graham, Ph.D . Senior Scientist Regard ing Proposes Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards fo r Particulate Pollution EPA-HQ-OAR-2007_0492 (July 17, 2012).

Dyurgerov, M.B. & M.F. Meier, Glaciers and th e Changing Earth System: A 2004 Snapshot at 7, Occasional Paper 58 (2005): Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado.

Eilperin, Juliet, White House Weakened EPA Soot Proposal, Documents Show, Th e Washington Post (July 17, 2012).

Flanner, Mark et al., Present-day Climate Forcing and Response from Black Carbon in Snow, 112 Journal of Geophys. Res. D11202 (2007)

Flanner, M.G. et al., Springtime Warming and Redu ced Snow Cover from Carbonaceous Particles, 9 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2481 (2009).

Flanner, Mark et al., Radiative Forcing and Albedo F eedback from the Northern Hemisphere Cryosphere between 1979and 2008, Nature Geoscience Advance Online Edition (Jan 16, 2011)August 31, 2012 Page 26 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890

Francis, J. and Stephen Vavrus, Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid Latitudes, 39 Geophys. Res. Lett. L06801 (2012).

Government Accountability Office, Climate Change : Agencies Should Develop Guidance for Addressing the Effects on Federal Land and Water Resources (2007)

Hadley, O.L. et al., Measure Black Carbon Deposition on the Sierra Nevada Snow Pack and Implication for Snow Pack Retreat, 10 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7505 (2010)

Hadley, Odelle and Thomas Kirchstetter, Black- carbon Reduction of Snow Albedo, Nature Climate Change, Advance Online P ublication (Mar. 4, 2012)

Hansen, James & Larissa Nazarenko, Soot Climate Fo rcing via Snow and Ice Albedos, 101 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 423 (2004)

Jacobson, Mark, Short-term effects of Controlling Fossil-fuel soot, biof uel Soot and Gases, and Methane on Climate, Arctic Ice, and Air Pollution H ealth, 115 Journal of Geophys. Res. D14209 (2010)

Jansson, P. et al., The Concept of Glacier Storage: a Review. 282 J. Hydrology 116, 117 (2003)

Koven, Charles D. et al., Permafrost Carbon-cl imate Feedbacks Accelerate Global Warming, 108 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 14769 (2011).

Krimmel, Robert, Glaciers of the Conterminous Unite d States, U.S. Geological Survey Professonal Paper 1386-J-2 (2002)

Kundzewicz, Z.W. et al, Chapter 3, Freshwater Resources and their Ma nagement in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Worki ng Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 188 (M.L . Parry et al. eds., Ca mbridge Univ. Press 2007).

Kwok, R. & D.A. Rothrock, Decline in Arctic Sea Ice Thickness from Submarine and ICESat Records: 1958-2008, 36 Geophys. Research Letters L15501 (2009).

Lemke, P. et al., Chapter 4, Observations: Change s in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 356 (S. Solomon et al. eds., 2007).

Lenton, Timonthy M. et al., Tipping elements in the Earth's clim ate system, 105 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 1786 (2008)

Maibach. E. et al., Center for Climate Change Communication, Conveying the Human Implications of Climate Change (2011)

Matsoukas, C. et al., The Effect of Arctic Sea-Ice Extent of the Absorb ed (Net) Solar Flux at the Surface, Based on ISCCP-D2 Cloud Data for 1983-2007, 10 Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 777, 777 (2010).

McConnell, Joseph et al., 20th-Cent ury Industrial Black Carbon Emission s Altered Arctic Climate Forcing,
317 Science 1381August 31, 2012 Page 27 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890

Ming, Y. et al., Two Opposing Effects of Absorbi ng Aerosols on global-mean Precipitation, 37 Geophys. Res. Lett. L13701 (2010)

Molina, Mario et al., Reducing abrupt climate change ri sk using the Montreal Prot ocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions , 106 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 20616 (2009)

Moore, R.D. et al., Glacier Change in Western North America: Influences on Hydrology, Geomorphic Hazards, and Water Quality, 23 Hyrdol. Process. 42 (2009)

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis – Sea ice data updated daily, http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenew s/ (last visited August 30, 2012)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Killer Summer Heat: Toll form Rising Temperatures in America due to Climate Change (2012)

Office of Management and Budget, Summary of A dditional Interagency Comments Under Eos 12866 and 13563 Regarding the NAAQS for Particulate Matte r Proposed Rule: RIN 2060-AO47 (June 14, 2012)

Paz, Shlomit, West Nile Virus Eruptions in Summ er 2010 – What Is the Possible Linkage with Climate Change?, Chapter 21 of National Security and Huma n Health Implications of Climate Change 253 – 260 (2012),

Perera, E. and T. Sanford, Union of Concerned Sc ientists, Climate Change and Your Health: Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution (2011)

Polar Science Center, Arctic Se a Ice Volume Anomaly, version 2, http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wo rdpress/research/projects/arc tic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Ramanathan, V. & G. Carmichael, Global and Regi onal Climate Changes due to Black Carbon, 1 Nature Geoscience 221 (2008)

Ramanathan, V. and Y. Feng, On Avoiding Danger ous Anthropogenic Interfer ence with the Climate System: Formidable Challenges Ahead, 105 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 38, 14245-14250(2008).

Ramanathan, V. & Yangyang Xu, The Copenhagen A ccord for limiting Global Warming: Criteria, Constraints, and Available Avenues, 107 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 18 (2010)

Robinson, Alexander et al., Multistab ility and critical thresholds of the Greenland ice sheet, 2 Nature 429 (2012)

Schellenhuber, Hans Joachim, Tipping elements in the Earth System, 106 Proc. Na tl. Acad. of Sciences 20561 (2009)

Shindell, Drew et al., A multi-model Assessment of Pollution Transport to the Arctic, 8 Atmos. Chem. Phys. 5353 (2008)

Shindell, Drew and Greg Flaugevi, Climate Respons e to Regional Radiative Fo rcing During the Twentieth Century, Nature Geoscience, Onlin e Publication (Mar. 31, 2009)August 31, 2012 Page 28 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890

Shindell, Drew et al., Simultaneously Mitigating N ear-term Climate Change and Improving Human Health and Food Security, 335 Science 183 (2012).

Stroeve, J. et al., Arctic Sea Ice Extent Plummets in 2007, 89 EOS 2 (January 8, 2008).

Suglia, Franco et al., Association of Black Carbon with Cognition among Childre n in a Prospective Birth Cohort Study, 167 Amer. J. of Epidemiology 3 (2008)

Trenberth, Kevin et al., Observa tions: Surface and Atmospheric Climat e Change in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - Fourth Assessment Repor t of the IPCC (Susan Solo mon et al. eds. 2007).

Union of Concerned Scientists, After the Storm: The Hidden Health Risks of Flooding in a Warming World (2012)

United Nations Economic Commission of Europe, Prot ocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone done in Gothenburg, Sweden in 1999

United Nations Environmental Programme, Clim ate Change 2009 Science Compendium (2009)

United Nations Environment Programme, Integrated Assessment of Black Ca rbon and Troposheric Ozone (2011)

U.S. Congress, H.R. 2996: Department of the Interior , Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (2010)

U.S. Department of State, The Climate and Clean Ai r Coalition to Reduce Sort Lived Climate Pollutants Fact Sheet (Feb 16, 2012)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments from the Clean Air Scientific Committee to the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter re Review of Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Second Ex ternal Review Draft of July 2009) (November 24, 2009)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Comments fr om the Clean Air Scientific Committee (CASAC) to the Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Ma tter (ISA) re Review of Policy Assessment for the Review of the PM NAAQS (Second External Revi ew Draft of July 2010) (September 10, 2010)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (December 2009)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 Final Report (2011)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Repor t to Congress on Black Carbon (March 2012)

U.S. Environmental Protection, Redline Revisions se nt by EPA to OMB on the Administrator’s proposed conclusions on the primary PM2.5 Standard le vels (subsection III.E.R.e) (June 8, 2012)August 31, 2012 Page 29 of 29 Center for Biological Diversity Comments on Proposed PM NAAQS, 77 Fed. Reg. 38890

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Policy Asse ssment for the Review of the Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Apr. 2011)

U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Clim ate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)

Wolf, Shaye, Extinction: It’s Not Just for Polar Bear s, Center for Biological Di versity and Care for the Wild International (2010)

World Wildlife Fund Int’l, Arctic Climat e Feedbacks: Global Implications (2009)

Xu, Baiqing et al., Black Soot and the Survival of Tibetan Glaciers, 106 Pr oc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. 22114 (2009)

Zender, Charles, Arctic Climate Effects of Blac k Carbon, Written Testimony for Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Oversight and Gov’t. Reform on EPA Black Carbon and Global Warming, 110th Cong. 12-29 (2007)