PM2.5
Implementation
Plan
Proposed
Rule
(
PM2.5
Implementation
Proposal
­
OMB
Draft
#
3
Redline
­
8/
11/
05)
FHWA
Comments
8/
23/
05
 
Page
1;
should
note
that
designations
were
effective
April
5,
2005.

 
Page
60;
in
the
paragraph
on
nitrates,
it
states,
"
The
main
sources
of
NOx
are
combustion
of
fossil
fuel
in
boilers
and
onroad
mobile
sources.
Together
they
account
for
almost
80
percent
of
NOx
emissions,
with
stationary
and
mobile
source
fuel
combustion
each
accounting
for
about
half
of
these
emissions."
This
seems
to
be
incorrect
 
possibly
"
onroad"
should
be
deleted
from
the
first
sentence.
In
2002,
onroad
emissions
of
NOx
were
approximately
35%.

 
Page
83;
conformity
applies
1
year
from
the
"
effective"
date
of
nonattainment
designation
(
i.
e.,
April
5,
2006).

 
Page
83,
footnote
39;
needs
to
reference
the
May
6,
2005
conformity
rule
amendments
that
addressed
precursors.
Also,
this
is
not
the
complete
rule,
but
only
portions
of
it.
Instead,
this
footnote
should
reference
40
CFR
Parts
51
and
93,
which
are
the
actual
conformity
regulations.

 
Page
84­
86
and
elsewhere
throughout
the
NPRM;
the
proposal
discusses
"
SO2"
(
sulfur
dioxide)
as
the
precursor
instead
of
"
SOx,"
which
is
in
contrast
to
the
conformity
rule.

 
Page
87;
the
section
on
ammonia
is
misleading
and
seems
to
be
in
conflict
with
the
conformity
rule.
Even
if
the
State
finds
that
ammonia
emissions
contribute
to
the
nonattainment
problem,
that
does
not
mean
that
they
will
control
emissions
from
onroad
sources,
or
create
an
emissions
budget.
Conformity
for
ammonia
will
only
apply
if
the
SIP
actually
creates
an
on­
road
budget.
Again,
EPA
needs
to
reference
the
transportation
conformity
regulations
when
issues
related
to
on­
road
mobile
sources
and
transportation
conformity
are
discussed.

 
Page
95;
EPA
is
proposing
an
option
(
although
not
preferred)
that
would
classify
PM2.5
areas,
and
give
some
areas
a
later
attainment
date.
EPA
needs
to
discuss
how
this
option
will
affect
the
implementation
of
other
PM2.5
requirements,
such
as
transportation
conformity.

 
Page
107;
this
section
on
attainment
dates
seems
to
be
based
on
option
1
for
classifications.
However,
this
is
not
clear
and
is
somewhat
confusing.
It
seems
that
the
two
sections
need
to
be
consistent,
and
two
options
presented
here
as
well,
or
at
least
this
section
needs
to
explain
how
it
would
work
if
the
second
option
is
chosen
for
classifications.
 
Pages
124,
161,
307,
402,
and
406;
reference
that
2002
is
the
baseline
year
for
PM2.5
and
8­
hour
ozone.
However,
the
Phase
2
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
plan
now
contains
a
provision
that
would
allow
a
change
to
a
more
recent
baseline
year.

 
Page
131;
"
The
EPA
has
also
provided
grant
funding
to
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
to
develop
a
"
menu
of
options"
document
to
provide
State
and
local
agencies
and
the
general
public
with
additional
information
on
sources
of
emissions,
potential
control
measures,
and
their
associated
costs
and
air
quality
benefits."
EPA
needs
to
provide
more
information
on
this
effort,
and
DOT
should
be
involved
in
any
review
of
transportation
control
strategies.

 
Page
204
and
page
405;
request
comments
on
an
option
that
would
"
include
all
sources
(
rather
than
just
selected
sources)
within
200
kilometers
of
the
nonattainment
area."
This
approach
could
have
serious
ramifications
on
transportation
conformity.
If
on­
road
mobile
sources
are
included,
than
it
would
logically
seem
that
these
reductions
would
figure
into
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.
This
would
in
turn
seem
to
try
to
apply
transportation
conformity
beyond
the
nonattainment
area.
This
is
specifically
inconsistent
with
Section
176
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
which
limits
conformity
to
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas.
EPA
needs
to
discuss
how
this
option
would
affect
transportation
conformity
and
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets.
If
the
RFP
SIP
establishes
a
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget,
it
should
only
be
for
the
nonattainment
area,
as
conformity
only
applies
in
nonattainment
or
maintenances
areas.

 
Page
204;
states
"
Except
in
those
rare
cases
where
an
area
is
violating
only
the
24­
hour
standard,
the
State
should
design
the
emission
inventory
to
reflect
annual
average
emission
levels."
First,
we
have
been
told
that
all
PM2.5
nonattainment
areas
are
violating
the
annual
standard
(
i.
e.,
there
are
no
areas
just
violating
the
24­
hour
standard.)
Second,
this
approach
would
allow
RFP
only
for
the
annual
standard.
This
conflicts
with
the
approach
EPA
has
given
for
transportation
conformity
that
would
require
that
areas
that
are
violating,
or
in
near
violation,
of
the
24­
hour
standard,
must
demonstrate
conformity
for
both
standards
and
calculate
emissions
estimates
for
both
standards.
EPA
should
provide
more
information
on
how
inventories
for
just
the
annual
standard
would
meet
requirements
for
the
24­
hour
standard,
and
why
the
approach
is
more
stringent
for
transportation
conformity.
See
also
page
229
which
states,
" 
the
annual
PM2.5
standard
is
considered
to
be
the
`
controlling'
standard
(
as
opposed
to
the
24­
hour
standard),
and
the
fact
that
all
sites
violating
the
PM2.5
standards
are
violating
the
annual
standard
rather
than
only
the
24­
hour
standard "
In
addition,
see
page
308
regarding
emissions
inventories.
Would
inventories
be
required
for
both
the
annual
and
24­
hour
standards?
A
consistent
approach
should
be
used
to
address
the
24­
hour
standard.

 
Page
263
and
411;
states
"
In
the
past
under
other
SIP
programs,
States
may
have
rejected
a
single
measure
under
consideration
as
RACM
because
the
emission
reduction
benefits
from
that
measure
alone
would
not
advance
the
attainment
date
by
one
year.
The
EPA
does
not
believe
this
approach
is
appropriate
under
section
172."
We
previously
commented
on
this
policy
as
well.
Why
is
EPA
changing
this
interpretation?
Is
this
consistent
with
the
RACM
court
decision
(
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
294
F.
3d
155
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2002)?
If
this
is
not
current
policy
for
ozone
and
other
pollutants,
then
we
would
strongly
object
to
any
changes
to
this
definition
of
RACM.

 
Page
270;
states
"
However,
under
current
EPA
policy
we
do
not
presume
that
all
of
these
measures
are
reasonably
available
in
all
areas."
This
should
be
revised
to
state,
"
However,
under
current
EPA
policy
we
do
not
presume
that
any
or
all
of
these
measures
are
reasonably
available
in
any
areas."
As
written,
the
proposal
still
implies
that
some
of
the
measures
are
reasonably
available
for
all
areas,
and
this
is
not
the
case.

 
Page
271;
states
"
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
include
a
presumption
that
each
of
these
measures
should
be
considered
RACM
for
every
PM2.5
nonattainment
area."
Revise
to
state,
" 
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
include
a
presumption
that
any
of
these
measures
should
be
considered
RACM
for
any
PM2.5
nonattainment
area."
See
preceding
comment.

 
Page
271;
states
"
PM2.5
monitoring
data
show
that
organic
and
elemental
carbon
typically
make
up
a
significant
percentage
(
e.
g.,
25
percent
or
more)
of
the
PM2.5
mass
in
most
urban
areas,
and
analyses
have
shown
that
transportation
sources
are
significant
emitters
of
these
PM2.5
components.
For
this
reason,
we
believe
that
States
should
give
serious
consideration
to
TCMs
in
their
RACM
analyses."
We
strongly
disagree
with
this
conclusion.
This
recommendation
should
be
deleted
from
the
proposal.
It
is
not
needed
anyway,
as
the
proposal
already
states
that
all
measures
must
be
considered.
There
is
no
reason
to
specifically
call
out
TCMs
here.
Although
transportation
sources
may
be
significant
sources
of
PM2.5
in
some
areas,
we
are
not
sure
whether
TCMs
are
the
most
cost­
effective
way
to
achieve
significant
emission
reductions.

 
Page
271;
states
"
However,
experience
has
shown
that
local
circumstances
vary
to
such
a
degree
from
city
to
city
that
it
would
not
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
all
section
108(
f)
measures
are
reasonably
available
in
all
areas."
Revise
to
state,
"
However,
experience
has
shown
that
local
circumstances
vary
to
such
a
degree
from
city
to
city
that
it
would
not
be
reasonable
to
assume
that
any
section
108(
f)
measures
are
reasonably
available
in
any
areas.

 
On
page
274,
the
proposal
states,
"
Programs
to
expand
use
of
clean
burning
fuels
(
such
as
biodiesel)."
Can't
biodiesel
actually
increase
NOx
emissions?
If
this
is
the
case,
it
is
recommended
that
the
phrase
"
such
as
biodiesel"
be
deleted.

 
On
page
275,
"
Reduce
dust
from
paved
and
unpaved
roads"
is
listed
as
an
area
source.
This
should
be
moved
under
mobile
sources.
Dust
from
paved
and
unpaved
roads,
if
significant,
will
need
to
become
part
of
the
on­
road
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.
There
has
been
a
great
deal
of
confusion
in
regards
to
this
issue
in
the
past.
As
listed
under
areas
sources,
this
may
confuse
readers.
In
addition,
dust
from
highway
and
transit
construction
activities
(
next
item),
if
found
significant,
may
also
be
part
of
the
on­
road
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget.

 
Page
280;
states
"
Examples
of
voluntary
mobile
source
measures
include
transportation
control
measures,
ozone
action
plans,
reduced
switchboard
locomotive
idling,
and
trip
reduction
strategies."
This
implies
that
all
TCMs
are
voluntary
measures,
and
this
is
not
correct.
Recommend
deleting
"
transportation
control
measures
from
this
sentence,
and
if
necessary
replace
with
a
specific
example
of
a
voluntary
measure.

 
Page
286;
states
"
Travel
on
paved
and
unpaved
roads
results
in
re­
entrained
road
dust
which
contributes
to
measured
PM2.5
violations."
This
is
not
accurate
or
consistent
with
the
transportation
conformity
rulemaking.
Re­
entrained
road
dust
"
may"
contribute
to
PM2.5
air
quality
problems.

 
Page
288;
states
"
By
the
end
of
the
one­
year
conformity
grace
period
metropolitan
and
donut
areas
(
defined
below),
if
designated
nonattainment
for
PM2.5,
must
also
make
a
conformity
determination
for
PM2.5."
This
should
more
accurately
state
that
by
the
end
of
the
one­
year
grace
period
a
conformity
of
metropolitan
plans
and
transportation
improvement
programs
(
TIPs)
must
be
determined,
reflecting
the
metropolitan
area
and
any
associated
donut
areas
(
defined
below).

 
Page
292;
states
"
not
been
included
in
the
MPO's
conformity
determination,
new
projects
and
project
phases
could
not
be
approved
in
the
metropolitan
area
or
the
donut
area."
This
should
state
new
"
nonexempt"
projects
and
project
phases
could
not
be
approved 

 
Page
297;
states
"
In
another
rulemaking
action,
we
will
propose
to
establish
de
minimis
emission
levels
for
federal
projects
or
actions
covered
by
the
general
conformity
program.
However,
on
page
298,
it
states
"
Currently,
we
are
reviewing
the
general
conformity
regulations
and
are
considering
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
revise
them
in
the
near
future."
Will
EPA
propose
changes
to
the
general
conformity
regulations,
or
are
they
just
considering
whether
it
would
be
appropriate?

 
Page
307;
should
be
updated
and
revised
to
reflect
MOBILE6.2
as
the
most
current
emissions
model
outside
of
California,
and
EMFAC2002
for
California.

 
Page
394­
395;
"
consultation
with
appropriate
State
and
EPA
technical
representatives"
should
be
revised
to
include
consultation
with
State
and
local
transportation
agencies,
and
MPOs,
in
accordance
with
interagency
consultation
requirements
in
40
CFR
93.105
and
the
State's
conformity
SIP.
