PM
2.5
Implementation
Proposal
OMB
Draft
#
3
Redline,
Dated
8/
11/
05
CAA
Services
Steering
Committee
Comments
29
August
2005
SUBJECT:
Proposed
Rule
to
Implement
the
Fine
Particle
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards,
OMB
Draft
#
3
Redline,
Dated
8/
11/
05
The
Department
of
Defense
Clean
Air
Act
Services
Steering
Committee,
which
represents
the
Departments
of
the
Army,
Navy,
Air
Force,
and
other
DoD
components
and
agencies,
has
conducted
a
preliminary
review
of
the
subject
draft
proposed
rule
and
submits
the
following
comments
for
consideration.
In
addition,
we
are
resubmitting
our
earlier
comments
from
19
November
2004
since
they
do
not
appear
to
have
been
addressed
in
this
draft.

1.
Reduction
of
emissions
outside
of
nonattainment
areas.

Comment:
As
indicated
in
our
comments
of
19
November
2004,
DoD
is
concerned
that
the
proposed
rule
would
allow
States
to
regulate
other
local
sources,
including
uniquely
military
readiness
activities.
DoD
believes
that
such
activities
(
including
testing,
training
and
operations)
should
not
be
subject
to
State
controls
under
the
proposed
rule.
In
addition
to
potential
impacts
to
readiness
activities
within
nonattainment
areas,
the
most
recent
draft
of
the
rule
has
added
language
that
could
potentially
impact
military
readiness
activities
outside
of
nonattainment
areas
as
well.

Discussion:
In
the
8/
11/
05
draft
preamble,
EPA
added
language
indicating
that
"
States
should
also
adopt
emission
reduction
strategies
addressing
emissions
sources
outside
of
nonattainment
areas
or
on
a
statewide
basis
in
order
to
help
attain
the
standards
expeditiously."
DoD
is
concerned
that
these
strategies
could
regulate
uniquely
military
readiness
activities,
even
though,
as
highlighted
in
our
19
November
comments,
EPA
previously
recognized
that
there
is
no
need
for
Defense
activities
to
be
the
target
of
control
strategies
designed
to
attain
these
new
standards
and
in
fact,
military
training
activities
are
actually
among
the
smallest
sources
of
PM2.5
in
areas
likely
to
have
a
fine
particulate
problem.

Recommendation:
DoD
recommends
that
EPA
include
in
the
preamble
the
language
that
DoD
proposed
in
our
19
November
2004
comments
to
emphasize
the
unique
nature
of
military
readiness
activities
and
to
indicate
that
regulation
of
military
activities
is
not
necessary
to
achieve
reductions
of
transported
PM2.5.

2.
General
Conformity.

Comment:
The
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule
should
indicate
that
EPA
will
revise
the
General
Conformity
Rule
to
address
the
PM2.5
standards.
2
Discussion:
In
section
L.
2.,
the
draft
preamble
states
that
EPA
is
"
currently
reviewing
the
general
conformity
program
and,
in
separate
action,
may
revise
the
regulations
as
appropriate,
with
respect
to
the
PM2.5
standards."

DoD
believes
that
it
is
critical
that
the
current
General
Conformity
Rule
be
updated
to
appropriately
address
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
and
associated
issues.
The
General
Conformity
rule
has
not
been
amended
since
it
was
original
promulgated
in
1994.
The
experience
of
DoD
and
other
Federal
agencies
with
implementation
of
the
rule
has
resulted
in
the
identification
of
many
areas
where
the
rule
could
be
improved
to
streamline
the
process
and
provide
more
flexibility
for
both
the
federal
agencies
and
the
states.

Recommendation:
The
preamble
language
should
be
revised
to
provide
a
firm
commitment
from
EPA
to
revise
the
General
Conformity
Rule
to
address
the
PM2.5
standards,
including
which
precursors
need
to
be
analyzed
under
general
conformity,
as
well
as
needed
improvements
to
the
rule.

Suggested
language:
"
We
are
currently
reviewing
the
general
conformity
program
and
will
soon
propose
revisions
to
the
regulations
to
address
PM2.5
issues,
including
which
precursors
need
to
be
analyzed
under
general
conformity
and
other
related
issues."

3.
Rural
Transport
Classification.

Comment:
The
draft
preamble
language
with
respect
to
the
rural
transport
classification
does
not
agree
with
the
language
in
the
draft
proposed
rule.

Discussion:
The
preamble
contains
extensive
language
discussing
a
possible
"
rural
transport
classification"
and
indicates
that
"
EPA
also
requests
comment
on
the
appropriateness
of
a
rural
transport
classification
for
certain
nonattainment
areas.
In
today's
proposal,
we
have
also
included
draft
regulatory
language
allowing
for
the
classification
of
an
area
as
a
"
rural
transport
area"
upon
submission
of
a
SIP
that
demonstrates,
using
EPA
approved
attainment
modeling,
that
the
nonattainment
problem
in
the
area
is
due
to
the
"
overwhelming
transport"
of
emissions
from
outside
the
area."

However,
the
draft
regulatory
language
pertaining
to
the
rural
transport
classification
has
been
struck
through,
creating
a
disconnect
between
the
preamble,
which
says
draft
language
has
been
included,
and
the
actual
rule
language,
which
no
longer
mentions
the
rural
transport
classification.

Recommendation:
DoD
continues
to
support
the
concept
of
the
rural
transport
classification
and
recommends
that
EPA
clarify
their
intentions
to
seek
comments
on
the
appropriateness
of
the
classification
for
certain
nonattainment
areas
and
correct
the
disconnect
between
the
preamble
and
rule
language.
3
4.
Reasonable
Further
Progress
(
RFP)
Reductions.

Comment:
The
preamble
language
should
clarify
EPA's
intentions
with
respect
to
the
geographic
areas
for
RFP
purposes.

Discussion:
The
draft
preamble
indicates
that
the
"
proposed
approach
for
considering
NOx
and
SO2
emissions
for
RFP
under
the
PM2.5
program
is
similar
to
the
approach
for
addressing
NOx
emissions
in
past
guidance
for
1­
hour
ozone
rate
of
progress
plans.
The
ozone
guidance
provides
that
in
their
RFP
baseline
inventories,
States
at
a
minimum
are
required
to
include
all
sources
of
NOx
and
VOC
emissions
from
within
the
nonattainment
area.
The
ozone
guidance
also
provides
that
States
may
include
in
RFP
plans
certain
NOx
sources
located
up
to
200
kilometers
outside
of
an
ozone
nonattainment
area."
However,
EPA
has
deleted
the
corresponding
language
from
the
draft
rule
that
discussed
the
geographic
area
for
emissions
to
be
included
in
the
RFP
inventory.

Recommendation:
EPA
should
clarify
if
their
"
proposed"
approach
will
rely
simply
on
this
language
from
the
preamble,
rather
than
as
actual
text
in
the
proposed
rule.
