Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0135-2820
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-05-17T04:00Z

EPA Response to Follow-Up Items From:

Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Rule, "Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards," RIN 2060-AQ86

Primary Questions for Discussion:

   1. For the estimates on the bottom of page 8-4 that decrease the benefits by 12-16% by removing California from the baseline, how is this estimate consistent with the benefits maps that were shown during the briefing in which the majority of the benefits appeared to be in California? 

No follow-up needed.

   2. Please reconcile the estimates of population and counties estimated to be in nonattainment with the PM and ozone NAAQS on pages 11, 29, 33, and 36 of the preamble.  Some of these estimates appear to be based on the RIA modeling for this rule, some appear to be related to nonattainment designations.  Please help us reconcile how both sets of estimates reconcile with the number of counties estimated to be in nonattainment at these dates when the NAAQS were designated. 

      How do the PM NAAQS projections and Tier 3 projections compare?
      
      The PM NAAQS RIA projected that there would be 7 counties, all in CA, that would not meet the annual standard of 12 ug/m3 in 2020 (table 3-6 in PM NAAQS RIA).
      
      The Tier 3 modeling projects that there will be 14 counties, 8 in CA, that would not meet the annual standard of 12 ug/m3 in 2030.
      
      The differences in modeling between the analyses stem primarily from the difference in modeling platform (Tier 3 used the 2005 modeling platform, while the PM NAAQS used the 2007 modeling platform), and the different years being evaluated (2020 vs. 2030).
      
      How many of the areas projected to be above the standard are currently nonattainment areas?
      
      The 2030 Tier 3 reference case projects 14 counties to be above the annual PM2.5 standard.  13 of those are currently designated nonattainment.
      
      The 2030 Tier 3 reference case projects 21 counties to be above the 24-hour PM2.5 standard.  17 of those are currently designated nonattainment.
      
      All of the counties projected to be above the ozone standard in the 2030 Tier 3 reference case are currently designated nonattainment.

   3. The introductory portion of Chapter 8 of the RIA mistakenly refers to the ACS based estimate for PM/premature morality benefits as "most conservative." ["most conservative" appears at least 3 times in pages 8-4 and 8-5.]  Rather, the ACS and 6-Cities based estimates represent EPA's preferred estimates.  As indicated in the rest of the chapter, there are estimates that are both higher and lower than these preferred estimates.  If this verbiage appears in the preamble, it should be fixed there as well.

ACTION: Will revise appropriate text to read as follows:

"Using the most conservative lower end of EPA's range of preferred premature mortality estimates..."

   4. We will send an edit to page 8-10 of the RIA, to clarify the role/purpose of the expert elicitation.

This is being addressed separately.

   5. What is the purpose of Table 8-13 of the RIA (how it is it used?).

ACTION: Added the following text:

"For the set of endpoints affecting the asthmatic population, in addition to baseline incidence rates, prevalence rates of asthma in the population are needed to define the applicable population. Error! Reference source not found. lists the prevalence rates used to determine the applicable population for asthma symptoms. Note that these reflect current asthma prevalence and assume no change in prevalence rates in future years."

ACTION: Clarify American Lung Association References

Edited to be consistent with the 2012 PM NAAQS RIA.

   6. The text in chapter 6 of the RIA appears almost identical to that on pages 30-60 of the preamble.  For brevity, consider deleting chapter 6.  If keeping both, please fix this issue in both places:  Page 48 of preamble and page 6-10 of RIA  -  suggest deleting 2[nd] and 3[rd] paragraphs of ethanol entry.

      EPA declines these changes, as explained on March 18 phone call.