�������ϲʿ���Ԥ��

�������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� Comments on EPA's Proposal to Tighten Fine Particulate Matter Standards

Thu, 09/06/2012 - 15:36

Association Also Weighs in on the Treatment of Air Data Influenced by Exceptional Events �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� recently submitted comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on proposed revisions to its National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM_2.5).  �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� also commented on draft guidance to improve the Agency’s Exceptional Events Rule.  That rule allows EPA to exclude certain air-quality monitoring data when determining whether or not an area violates a NAAQS. National Air Standards for Fine Particulates EPA proposed revisions to its NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM_2.5) on June 29, 2012.  EPA has agreed to finalize the air quality standards by Dec. 14, 2012, as part of a settlement to a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Washington D.C Circuit brought by environmental groups and certain states.  On Aug. 31, �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� sent a 20-page letter to EPA in response to its proposal.  As a threshold matter, �������ϲʿ���Ԥ��’s comments point to the unrealistically expedited schedule for reviewing and revising the NAAQS.  �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� emphasized that the December 2012 deadline would force EPA to rely on a predetermined answer that ignores public comments and undercuts valuable scientific review and deliberation.  EPA‘s approach follows a disturbing trend at the Agency—agreeing to a truncated timeline for completing complex rulemakings in exchange for settling litigation brought by private parties. �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� is most concerned about – and offered significant comments in opposition to – parts of the proposal that would: lower the PM_2.5 annual standard from 15 µg/m³ to a range of from 12 µg/m³ to 13 µg/m³; create a new separate urban visibility standard; impose changes to monitoring requirements for fine particulate matter, including the addition of fine particulate ambient air monitors along urban highways. In addition, �������ϲʿ���Ԥ��’s comments explained why EPA has: underestimated the number of new non-attainment areas under the PM proposal; given insufficient weight to the significant reductions on particulate matter that are slated to occur over the next ten years; and generally underestimated the real-world costs, while overestimating the benefits, that would result from a more stringent particulate matter standard. �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� offered support for EPA’s proposed decision to retain the coarse particle (PM₁₀) standard, as the science does not support a lowering of the standard.  �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� also supported, with some modification, EPA’s “grandfathering” approach to its construction permitting program that would provide projects in “permitting pipeline” relief from demonstrating compliance with the new NAAQS. Within two years of setting a new NAAQS or revising an existing standard, the Clean Air Act directs EPA to formally identify or “designate” areas as “unclassifiable/attainment” (meeting the standard or no evidence indicating a violation), “nonattainment” (not meeting the standard), or “unclassifiable” (insufficient information to designate as attainment or nonattainment, but likely to be violating).  A nonattainment designation may trigger restrictions on the use/operation of construction equipment as well as federal sanctions, including emissions caps limiting economic development and the loss of federal highway transportation dollars. Exceptional Events Rule EPA recently released for public comments its to improve the process for implementing the Agency’s (EER). The EER allows EPA to exclude certain air-quality monitoring data when determining whether or not an area violates a national ambient air quality standard(s) (NAAQS).  States face strict deadlines to make attainment determinations that could hinge on whether or not data affected by exceptional events are included or excluded. Failure by any state to prove compliance with federal air standards could jeopardize federal funding for transportation projects in the state, among other harmful sanctions. Under the EER, EPA may flag certain air monitoring readings as “exceptional” and exclude data from nonattainment determinations if a local air agency demonstrates that an exceptional event, such as a wildfire or dust storm, caused an air quality violation. �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� chapters and members in arid western states face significant air quality challenges brought on by chronic wildfires, dust storms and high winds; they report that EPA has not consistently applied its EER. �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� submitted comments Sept. 4 on the draft EER guidance. Overall, �������ϲʿ���Ԥ��’s concerns and criticisms of the draft guidance center around the lack of clarity on what a state should include in its demonstration package and the delays in processing and approving exceptional event submissions.  In light of likely adoption of a more stringent federal particulate matter and ozone standards expected to drastically increase the number of non-attainment areas across the nation, it is critical that EPA streamline the information required for demonstration submittals, the processing of requests and the underlying ambiguities in the rule.  However, �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� also pointed out that moving ahead with guidance, rather than a formal revision to the rule, would mean less regulatory certainty and could violate federal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act. �������ϲʿ���Ԥ�� also has supported a bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would help states prove more efficiently and effectively that their violations of dust-pollution (i.e., particulate matter) standards qualify as “exceptional events.” For more information, contact Leah Pilconis, Senior Environmental Advisor to �������ϲʿ���Ԥ��, at pilconisl@agc.org.