1
Additional
Interagency
Comments
A.)
DOT
Comments
Conformity
determinations
will
be
required
one
year
after
PM2.5
designations
are
made,
which
is
expected
by
December
31,
2004.
EPA
is
not
proposing
to
revoke
the
PM10
standard,
so
some
areas
will
need
to
show
conformity
to
both
the
PM10
standard,
and
the
pm2.5
standard.

General
conformity
requirements
are
discussed
in
Section
III.
L.
beginning
on
page
316.
EPA
does
note
that:
"
We
are
currently
reviewing
the
general
conformity
program
and,
in
a
separate
action,
may
revise
the
regulations
as
appropriate,
with
respect
to
the
PM2.5
standards."

Transportation
Conformity
­
Please
see
FHWA
comments
below.

General
Conformity
­
EPA
is
also
proposing
to
set
de
minimus
levels
of
PM2.5
emissions
and
emissions
of
PM2.5
precursors
including
SO2,
NOx,
VOCs,
and
ammonia.
They
are
proposing
a
limit
of
100
tons
per
year
of
all
these
PM2.5
pollutants.
We
question
whether
tools
are
available
to
measure
and
predict
all
of
these
pollutants
for
general
conformity
analysis.

The
FAA'
has
raised
serious
concerns
about
its
ability
to
measure
and
predict
PM2.5
emissions
from
aircraft.
There
are
no
tools
available
for
measuring
or
predicting
2.5
emissions
from
aircraft,
and
FAA
is
concerned
about
what
might
be
done
while
we
develop
measurement
science.
We
are
probably
5
years
away
from
having
the
right
modeling
tools.
This
lack
of
tools
will
hamper
conformity
analyses
and
also
the
ability
of
airports
to
cooperate
in
SIP
planning.

On
page
317,
the
proposal
reads
"
Federal
agencies
have
several
options
for
demonstrating
conformity.
For
actions
in
PM2.5
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas,
the
Federal
agency
can
demonstrate
that
the
project/
action
is
specifically
identified
and
accounted
for
in
the
SIP,
obtain
documentation
from
the
State
that
the
emissions
are
included
in
the
SIP,
have
the
State
commit
to
include
the
emissions
in
the
SIP,
 "
Then
on
page
319,
EPA
states
"
However,
as
areas
develop
SIPs
for
the
PM2.5
standards,
we
recommend
that
State
and
local
air
quality
agencies
work
with
major
facilities
which
are
subject
to
the
general
conformity
regulations
(
e.
g.,
commercial
airports
and
large
military
bases)
to
establish
an
emission
budget
for
each
facility
in
order
to
facilitate
future
conformity
determinations."
As
noted,
this
is
likely
to
be
very
difficult.

B.)
FHWA
Comments
RACM
and
TCMs
 
We
are
concerned
with
the
many
discussions
of
RACM
and
TCMs
in
the
preamble.
a.
On
page
175.
A
key
component
of
reasonableness
is
missing.
A
measure
is
not
considered
to
be
RACM
if
it
does
not
advance
the
attainment
date.
(
See
page
219
on
RACT;
highlight
here.)
This
point
has
been
upheld
in
court
decisions
and
should
not
be
lost
in
the
discussion
here.
It
is
vital
that
the
preamble
not
imply
that
emissions
reductions
that
do
not
advance
the
attainment
date
are
RACM.
b.
On
page
266,
the
proposal
states,
"
The
demonstration
should
show
that
there
are
no
additional
reasonable
measures
available
that
would
meaningfully
advance
the
2
attainment
date
or
contribute
to
RFP
for
the
area."
The
term
"
meaningfully
advance"
is
not
all
that
clear.
Instead,
it
is
recommended
that
the
proposal
reiterate
here
the
language
used
on
page
219
that
measures
are
only
RACM
if
the
advance
the
attainment
date
a
year.
c.
Starting
on
page
270,
the
proposal
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.
For
the
PM2.5
program,
our
approach
is
to
emphasize
the
collective
evaluation
of
RACM
measures
and
whether
they
will
advance
the
attainment
date
when
taken
together.
We
believe
that
the
State
should
not
reject
an
individual
measure
unless
the
State
can
show
that
it
has
evaluated
the
collective
effect
of
that
measure
plus
all
other
available
control
measures
to
determine
whether
implementing
those
measures
together
would
advance
the
attainment
date."
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.
d.
On
page
277,
revise
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.
e.
On
page
277,
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.
f.
On
page
277­
278,
the
proposal
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.
g.
On
page
278,
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.
h.
Page
300
of
the
proposal
states,
"
Examples
of
voluntary
mobile
source
measures
include
transportation
control
measures,
ozone
action
plans,
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.
3
Other
comments:
1.
On
pages
55­
58,
the
proposal
discusses
the
sources
of
primary
PM
bases
on
the
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI).
This
is
somewhat
misleading,
and
should
focus
just
on
PM­
2.5.
For
example,
the
proposal
states
that
one
of
the
main
sources
of
these
particles
is
re­
entrained
dust.
It
then
states
that
much
of
these
particles
are
course
rather
than
fine.
But
since
this
proposal
deals
with
fine
particles,
it
seems
out
of
place
to
highlight
the
sources
of
PM­
10.
This
could
be
confusing
to
the
reviewer
and
potential
commenter.
Recommend
that
this
section
be
revised
to
focus
on
PM­
2.5
sources.

2.
On
page
62,
the
proposal
states,
"
The
main
sources
of
NOx
are
combustion
of
fossil
fuel
in
boilers
and
onroad
mobile
sources."
It
also
states
that
these
sources
account
for
80%
of
NOx
emissions
with
each
contributing
about
half.
This
does
not
seem
to
be
correct.
The
2002
and
2003
numbers
show
that
fuel
combustion
electrical
utilities
and
highway
vehicles
only
account
for
57%
of
emissions.
Also,
as
alluded
to
elsewhere
in
the
proposal,
non­
road
mobile
sources
are
also
a
major
source
of
NOx.
And,
over
the
past
decades,
while
on­
road
emissions
have
decreased
significantly,
non­
road
emissions
have
continued
to
grow.
Also,
according
to
the
NEI,
industrial
fuel
combustion
is
also
a
fairly
large
source
of
NOx.
Therefore,
this
section
needs
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
recently
release
2002
or
2003
numbers,
and
should
also
list
non­
road
sources
as
a
major
source.

3.
Page
75.
Section
182(
f)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
can
also
apply
to
other
sources
besides
"
major
stationary
sources,"
and
waive
NOx
requirements
for
ozone.

4.
Page
78.
Conformity,
both
transportation
and
general
conformity
take
effect
one
year
after
the
effective
date
of
designations.

5.
Page
80.
In
the
first
full
sentence
on
the
page,
shouldn't
this
be
"
attainment
demonstrations
SIPs"
instead
of
"
nonattainment
SIPs?"

6.
Page
88.
The
proposal
has
left
blank
the
proposed
design
value
for
which
areas
would
be
classified
as
serious
under
this
option.
This
is
a
vital
piece
of
information
that
is
needed
to
evaluate
this
proposal.
In
addition,
the
proposal
should
clearly
give
a
basis
for
this
value.

7.
Page
94.
Rural
transport
nonattainment
areas
would
also
be
subject
to
general
conformity.

8.
On
page
96,
the
proposal
states
that
only
1
area
may
meet
the
criteria
for
a
rural
transport
area.
What
is
the
area?
Since
there
is
only
1
area,
it
is
recommended
that
the
proposal
go
ahead
and
identify
it,
providing
a
clearer
example
of
the
type
of
area
this
section
is
referring
to.
4
9.
On
page
97,
the
proposal
states,
"
Under
the
current
schedule,
nonattainment
area
designations
are
to
be
finalized
in
December
2004."
This
is
inconsistent
with
earlier
in
the
document.

10.
Page
102­
104.
The
dates
in
the
example
that
begins
on
the
bottom
of
page
102
should
be
revised
to
reflect
the
actual
proposed
attainment
dates.
Areas
will
start
with
a
presumed
2010
attainment
date,
not
2012.
The
years
examined
would
be
2007,
2008,
and
2009,
with
a
1­
year
extension
possible
to
2011.

11.
Pages
144­
146
of
the
proposal
discuss
trying
to
align
modeling
years.
However,
this
does
not
address
the
issue
of
seasonal
variation.
Even
if
you
look
at
ozone,
PM­
2.5,
and
regional
haze
for
the
same
year,
each
pollutant
or
the
haze
problem,
could
actually
be
worse
during
different
seasons.
How
do
areas
look
at
this
seasonal
variation?
Would
they
need
to
look
at
all
three,
for
two
or
three
different
times
of
the
year?
The
proposal
seems
to
imply
that
one
attainment
modeling
could
cover
both
ozone
and
PM­
2.5,
but
depending
on
the
nature
of
the
PM­
2.5
problem,
this
may
not
be
the
case.
This
needs
to
be
addressed
and
clarified.

12.
Page
150.
Would
these
RFP
plans
be
required
to
contain
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets?
It
is
assumed
that
they
would.
In
that
case,
this
should
be
highlighted
in
this
section
and
cross­
referenced
with
the
conformity
section.

13.
Page
157.
2010
is
proposed
as
the
first
RFP
milestone
year.
Will
this
be
consistent
with
the
ozone
implementation
plan
attainment
dates
and
RFP?
It
seems
that
it
would
be
beneficial
to
have
these
years
aligned.
Also,
how
does
this
fit
with
inventory
requirements?
It
seems
to
be
off­
cycle.
Periodic
inventories
will
be
due
in
2005,
2008,
2011,
2014,
etc.
Wouldn't
it
be
better
and
conservative
of
resources,
if
the
RFP
milestone
years
aligned
with
the
inventory
years?

14.
Page
188.
This
section
discusses
using
a
different
geographic
area
than
the
nonattainment
area
for
RFP
purposes.
However,
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.
This
issue
should
be
discussed
and
cross­
referenced
with
the
conformity
section.

15.
Page
204
begins
a
section
on
what
precursors
apply
to
RACT.
However,
it
only
discusses
NOx,
VOCs,
and
ammonia.
What
about
SO2,
which
is
mentioned
in
the
first
sentence
of
the
section,
but
not
discussed
as
whether
it
applies
to
RACT.

16.
On
page
281,
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.

17.
On
page
282,
"
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
5
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.

18.
Page
321.
Please
see
above
comments
on
designations
and
effective
dates.

19.
On
page
338,
the
proposal
states,
"
We
do
not
believe
that
this
creates
a
major
regulatory
burden
because
NOx
is
already
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant.
This
is
because
it
is
a
precursor
for
the
ozone
NAAQS
and
an
indicator
for
the
NO2
NAAQS."
Does
this
conclusion
account
for
the
fact
that
ozone
is
a
summer
problem,
whereas
PM­
2.5
may
be
a
year­
round
pollutant
that
the
PM­
2.5
NOx
may
be
a
winter
problem?

20.
Page
396
states,
"
The
EPA
plans
to
address
these
concerns
in
a
future
Tribal
NSR
rule,
which
is
scheduled
for
proposal
in
early
2004."
This
should
be
updated.

C.)
DOD
Comments
SUBJECT:
Proposed
Rule
to
Implement
the
Fine
Particle
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
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.

From
the
time
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
were
first
proposed,
DoD
has
raised
concerns
about
potential
impacts
to
military
training
and
testing
activities.
DoD
must
routinely
conduct
realistic
training
and
weapons
testing
to
ensure
safety
and
survivability
on
the
battlefield.
Currently,
DoD
has
approximately
100
bases
in
areas
that
have
been
recommended
as
nonattainment
for
the
annual
PM2.5
standard.
This
rule
has
the
potential
to
affect
the
use
of
obscurants;
prescribed
burning
to
maintain
and
sustain
training
areas
and
biological
habitat;
operations
and
maintenance
of
tactical
military
combustion
sources;
and
fugitive
dust
from
training
and
exercise
activities.
While
these
training
activities
are
relatively
small,
sporadic
sources
of
PM
emissions
(
the
largest
component
of
these
emissions
is
crustal
material/
dust
which
EPA
has
determined
to
be
a
very
small
fraction
of
PM2.5
emissions),
the
consequences
of
regulating
military
readiness
activities
would
greatly
outweigh
the
relatively
minor,
incremental
benefit
of
such
regulation.

DoD's
mission
is
to
fight
and
win
our
nation's
wars.
Today
more
than
ever
DoD
must
train
under
extremely
realistic
conditions
in
order
to
ensure
that
our
forces
can
cope
effectively
with
the
dynamic
changes
in
warfare
scenarios
and
tactics
employed
by
our
new
enemies.
Regulating
operational
ranges
and
training
operations
under
the
proposed
rule
will
impose
an
unnecessary
burden
on
such
training
and
limit
its
realism,
putting
our
forces
at
greater
risk
on
the
battlefield.
6
Given
these
circumstances,
we
request
that
EPA
confirm
that
its
guidance
to
state
and
local
agencies
will
be
to
focus
their
attention
on
significant
sources
of
PM2.5
emissions,
and
not
on
the
training
and
testing
activities
of
the
military.
We
note
that
the
draft
proposed
rule
does
not
address
military
sources
of
PM2.5
emissions
specifically.
In
the
past,
however,
EPA
has
stated
that
"
it
is
clear
that
military
training
activities
are
actually
among
the
smallest
sources
of
PM2.5
in
areas
likely
to
have
a
particulate
problem."
(
1997
Browner
letter
to
Secretary
Cohen)

1.
Impact
on
Uniquely
Military
Readiness
Activities:
DoD
understands
that
the
focus
of
the
proposed
rule
is
to
reduce
emissions
of
very
fine
particulates
(
PM2.5)
as
well
as
emissions
of
pollutants
that
have
been
identified
as
precursors
of
PM2.5.
EPA
is
proposing
to
achieve
this
by
implementing
a
balanced
program
to
reduce
emissions
from
regional
sources
(
such
as
power
plants
emitting
sulfur
dioxide
(
SO2)
and
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)]
and
local
sources
(
such
as
cars,
trucks,
industrial
sources,
and
various
other
combustion
or
burning­
related
activities).
DoD
agrees
with
this
approach.
We
are
concerned
however,
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.
Such
regulation
would
impose
unacceptable
impacts
on
readiness,
with
marginal
environmental
benefit.

Discussion:
DoD
has
the
same
concerns
with
the
potential
impacts
on
training,
testing,
and
operations
as
we
discussed
in
comments
provided
when
the
Interstate
Air
Quality
Rule
was
proposed
and
when
the
PM2.5
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
was
first
proposed.
DoD
must
routinely
conduct
realistic
training
and
weapons
testing
to
ensure
safety
and
survivability
on
the
battlefield.

Military
readiness
activities,
such
as
live­
fire
training,
training
with
smoke
and
obscurants,
maneuver
training,
and
munitions
related
testing,
emit
PM2.5.
These
emissions
however,
do
not
share
the
suspension
and
transport
characteristics
associated
with
emissions
from
industrial
or
commercial
operations
because
they
are
localized
and
of
short
duration.
The
proposed
rule
may
also
create
conflicts
between
DoD's
obligations
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
and
its
obligations
under
other
statutes,
such
as
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
as
well
as
DoD's
necessary
operations
under
range
management.
DoD
is
required
to
engage
in
prescribed
burns
of
designated
areas
to
maintain
habitat
for
endangered
species,
to
prevent
wildfire
as
part
of
forestry
management,
or
to
clear
an
area
for
the
safe
entry
of
an
Explosive
Ordnance
Disposal
team.
See
comment
number
4
below.
The
EPA
Administrator
responded
to
DoD's
earlier
comments
in
a
June
17,
1997
letter
to
the
Secretary
of
Defense,
which
expressed
EP
A's
willingness
to
work
with
DoD
on
these
issues
and
made
the
following
points:

 
EPA
did
not
see
the
need
for
Defense
activities
to
be
the
target
of
control
strategies
designed
to
attain
these
new
standards.
7
 
EPA
had
been
analyzing
data
on
PM2.5
and
found
that
"
it
is
clear
that
military
training
activities
are
actually
among
the
smallest
sources
of
PM2.5
in
areas
likely
to
have
a
fine
particulate
problem."
 
EPA
would
not
recommend
that
States
focus
regulatory
attention
on
military
training
and
field
exercises.
 
Regarding
possible
State
in­
use
controls
involving
DoD's
tactical
vehicles
and
equipment,
EPA
would
work
with
the
States
to
ensure
that
no
unreasonable
burdens
were
imposed
on
these
sources
in
State
Implementation
Plans.
 
With
regard
to
prescribed
burning,
EPA
was
working
with
Federal
and
State
agencies,
including
DoD,
to
develop
guidance
for
balancing
air
quality
strategies
and
the
need
for
prescribed
burning.

When
the
PM2.5
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
particulate
matter
and
ozone
were
first
published
in
July
1997,
President
Clinton
issued
implementation
guidance
to
EPA
that
included
many
of
these
same
commitments.
62
Fed.
Reg.
38421
(
July
18,
1997).

Recommendation:
DoD
recommends
that
EPA
include
language
in
the
preamble
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.
Specifically,
DoD
requests
the
following
paragraphs
be
added
to
Section
III.
E.
1
of
the
preamble.

"
The
Department
of
Defense
(
DoD)
engages
in
activities
that
are
unique
to
the
armed
forces
and
without
comparison
to
activities
in
the
commercial
or
industrial
sector.
DoD
must
engage
in
live­
weapons
fire,
use
of
smoke
and
obscurants,
and
field
maneuver
activities
to
train
its
personnel
for
combat.
DoD's
training
activities
may
include
training
in
classrooms
and
simulators,
but
culminate
in
livefire
and
maneuver
training
under
conditions
simulating
the
stress,
confusion,
distances,
and
complexity
of
combat.
Realistic
combat
training
involves
the
use
of
smoke
and
obscurants,
vehicles
traversing
unpaved
terrain,
and
mobile
combustion
sources.
DoD
must
train
in
realistic
combat
settings
to
be
able
to
operate
in
a
global
environment.
Similarly,
DoD
is
required
by
various
laws
to
conduct
realistic
survivability
and
safety
testing
of
ordnance
and
weapons
systems
and
aircraft.
Training
and
testing
are
critical
to
DoD's
operational
readiness
and
in
the
best
interests
of
our
national
defense.
All
of
these
uniquely
military
activities
are
relatively
small
sources
of
PM2.5
and
do
not
significantly
impact
air
quality.

EPA
does
not
see
the
need
for
Defense
activities
to
be
the
target
of
control
strategies
designed
to
achieve
PM2.5
reductions.
EPA
has
analyzed
data
on
PM2.5
and
found
that
it
is
clear
that
military
testing
and
training
activities
are
actually
among
the
smallest
sources
of
PM2.5
in
areas
likely
to
have
a
fine
particulate
problem.
EPA
would
not
recommend
that
States
focus
regulatory
attention
on
military
training,
testing
and
operational
activities."
8
2.
General
Conformity
 
The
draft
proposed
rule
should
clarify
how
the
general
conformity
requirement
would
apply
to
the
four
precursors
of
PM2.5.
It
is
not
clear
how
the
variability
in
precursor
pollutants
aligns
with
conformity
requirements.

Discussion:
Section
II.
E.
2.
of
the
draft
preamble
discusses
the
proposed
policy
options
for
how
states
should
address
PM2.5
precursors
in
the
PM2.5
implementation
plans.
The
section
explains
that
the
NSR
and
Transportation
Conformity
programs
will
take
effect
prior
to
approval
of
SIPs
for
PM2.5
attainment,
and
thus
there
is
an
"
interim
period"
between
the
date
the
program
becomes
applicable
to
a
given
nonattainment
area
and
the
date
EPA
approves
the
overall
PM2.5
implementation
plan.
Options
for
addressing
PM2.5
precursors
during
this
interim
period
for
the
NSR
and
transportation
conformity
programs
are
set
out
in
the
later
sections
of
the
rule
that
specifically
address
transportation
conformity
and
NSR.
For
the
rest
of
the
programs
discussed
in
the
draft
rule,
(
RFP,
RACT,
RACM
and
modeling)
the
approach
is
as
proposed
in
the
Section
II.
E.

The
General
Conformity
program
will
also
take
effect
prior
to
approval
of
the
state
SIPs.
It
should
articulate
a
clear
policy
respecting
how
precursors
are
addressed
during
the
interim
period.
The
present
discussion
in
Section
III.
L.
5
of
the
preamble
implies
that
the
General
Conformity
analysis
would
have
to
address
all
of
the
possible
PM2.5
precursors.
This
approach
is
inconsistent
with
how
the
draft
proposed
rule
addresses
the
PM2.5
precursors
for
Transportation
Conformity
and
for
New
Source
Review.

It
appears
that
the
appropriate
solution
is
for
EPA
to
include
the
General
Conformity
program
in
the
list
of
programs
that
take
effect
during
the
interim
period,
which
would
follow
the
approach
described
by
EPA
in
Section
II.
E.
2.
of
the
preamble.
In
summary,
that
approach
assumes
that
SOx
and
NOx
must
be
included
in
SIP
regulations
to
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
PM2.5
standards,
and
it
assumes
that
most
VOCs
and
ammonia
do
not
have
to
be
included
to
demonstrate
attainment.
The
assumption
for
each
group
can
be
changed
by
a
state
and/
or
EPA
determination
that
the
specific
precursor
does
or
does
not
have
to
be
regulated.

Recommendation:
DoD
recommends
that
General
Conformity
be
identified
as
an
interim
program
and
that
the
treatment
of
precursors
be
consistent
with
the
treatment
for
New
Source
Review.

3.
Timing
of
States'
SIPs
and
Conformity
­
The
draft
proposed
rule
should
allow
more
flexibility
in
the
methods
available
to
DoD
facilities
to
demonstrate
conformity
during
the
interim
period
between
when
conformity
applies
and
the
SIP
is
approved.

Discussion:
The
approach
set
out
in
Section
III.
L
of
the
preamble
would
prevent
DoD
from
using
three
of
its
most
important
options
to
demonstrate
positive
conformity
for
an
action
during
the
two­
year,
or
more,
interim
period
that
exists
between
the
effective
date
of
EPA's
general
conformity
regulations
for
an
area
designated
as
nonattainment
and
the
date
that
states
must
submit
their
SIPs
for
EPA
approval.
9
The
preamble
states
that,
"
The
general
conformity
regulations
specify
requirements
for
actions/
projects
in
areas
without
an
approved
SIP.
Those
requirements
would
apply
to
PM2.5
nonattainment
areas
until
the
SIP
is
approved
by
EPA."
The
General
Conformity
rule
allows
only
limited
methods
to
demonstrate
conformity
in
areas
without
an
approved
SIP.

First,
DoD
will
not
be
able
to
demonstrate
conformity
for
an
action
because
its
emissions
are
specifically
identified
in
the
applicable
SIP's
attainment
demonstration
or
contained
in
a
military
growth
allowance
or
increment
in
such
demonstration.
(
40
CFR
Sec
93158(
a)(
1)).
Second,
DoD
will
not
be
able
to
demonstrate
conformity
during
this
period
by
having
the
responsible
state
agency
certify
that
the
emissions
from
the
action
(
or
a
portion
of
them),
along
with
the
emissions
of
that
pollutant
from
all
sources
in
the
area,
do
not
exceed
the
emissions
budget
in
the
EPA
approved
SIP
(
40
CFR
Sec.
93.158(
a)(
5)(
i)(
A)).
Finally,
DoD
will
also
not
be
able
to
rely
on
the
State
Governor's
commitment
to
revise
the
SIP
within
eighteen
months
(
40
CFR
Sec.
93.158(
a)(
5)(
i)(
B))
to
demonstrate
that
an
action
conforms
during
this
period.

Recommendation:
DoD
recommends
that
EPA
commit
to
revising
the
General
Conformity
Rule
to
provide
more
flexibility
for
demonstrating
conformity
during
the
interim
period
between
the
date
conformity
applies
and
before
the
new
SIP
is
approved.
Specifically,
DoD
recommends
that
EPA
propose
to
extend
the
time
period
for
a
State
Commitment
to
revise
the
SIP
from
eighteen
months
to
the
date
the
new
SIP
is
due.

4.
Prescribed
Burning
­
The
proposed
rule
may
create
conflicts
between
DoD's
obligations
under
the
CAA
and
its
obligations
under
other
statutes
(
e.
g.,
Endangered
Species
Act).
The
draft
proposed
rule
should
clarify
how
to
reconcile
existing
requirements
to
use
prescribed/
managed
burning
to
prevent
wildfire(
s)
and
perform
ecosystem
management
with
EPA's
plan
to
control
these
operations
as
sources
of
PM2.5.

Discussion:
DoD
is
required
to
engage
in
prescribed
burning
of
designated
areas
to
maintain
habitat
for
species
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
It
is
prudent
and
effective
for
DoD
to
use
prescribed
burning
to
prevent
wildfire,
perform
ecosystem
management,
or
to
clear
an
area
for
the
safe
entry
of
an
Explosive
Ordnance
Disposal
team.
This
draft
proposed
rule
makes
no
provisions
for
reconciling
these
requirements
with
requirements
in
the
rule.
For
example,
the
proposed
rule
makes
no
provisions
to
resolve
the
rule's
conflicts
with
existing
requirements
to
use
prescribed/
managed
burns
for
habitat
management.
We
believe
that
regulation
of
such
activities
under
the
proposed
rule
should
defer
to
other
guidance
and
efforts
such
as
EPA's
Interim
Air
Quality
Policy
on
Wildland
and
Prescribed
Fires
(
April
23,
1998)
and
State
smoke
management
plans.

Recommendation:
DoD
recommends
that
EPA
include
provisions
within
the
PM2.5
implementation
rule
that
direct
states/
tribes
to
review
the
adequacy
of
the
SMPs
in
collaboration
with
wildland
owners/
managers
and
make
appropriate
improvements
to
mitigate
future
air
quality
impacts.
The
implementation
rule
should
also
address
the
10
effects
of
fire
emissions
on
other
Clean
Air
Act
requirements,
such
as
prevention
of
significant
deterioration
and
conformity
of
federal
activities
with
state
implementation
plans.
The
rule
should
indicate
that
compliance
with
the
SMP
meets
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
PM2.5
SIP.
Specifically,
DoD
requests
the
following
paragraphs
be
added
to
Section
III.
E.
1
of
the
preamble.

"
As
a
Federal
agency,
DoD
must
also
comply
with
environmental
statutes
in
a
manner
that
the
private
sector
does
not.
DoD,
as
the
third
largest
land
manager,
must
engage
in
environmental
stewardship
land
management
activities
to
maintain
its
ranges
and
other
training
lands;
activities
that
would
not
normally
occur
in
the
private
sector.
For
example,
DoD
may
be
required
to
engage
in
mandatory
prescribed
burns
of
certain
areas
to
maintain
habitat
for
endangered
species
under
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA).
Likewise,
DoD
may
need
to
conduct
a
prescribed
burn
in
a
portion
of
a
range
to
enable
Explosive
Ordinance
Disposal
personnel
to
enter
an
area
safely.
As
management
of
such
activities
is
better
suited
to
guidance
elsewhere,
we
defer
regulating
such
activities
under
the
proposed
rule.

In
the
Interim
Air
Quality
Policy
on
Wildland
and
Prescribed
Fires,
EPA
urges
state
and
tribal
air
quality
managers
to
collaborate
with
wildland
owners
and
managers
to
mitigate
the
air
quality
impacts
that
could
be
caused
by
the
increase
of
fires
managed
to
achieve
resource
benefits.
DoD
manages
very
large
tracts
of
"
wildland."
EPA
especially
urges
the
state
and
tribal
managers
to
develop
and
implement
at
least
basic
smoke
management
programs
(
SMPs)
when
conditions
indicate
that
such
fires
will
adversely
impact
the
public.
SMPs
establish
procedures
and
requirements
for
minimizing
emissions
and
managing
smoke
dispersion.
The
goals
of
SMPs
are
to
mitigate
the
nuisance
and
public
safety
hazards
(
e.
g.,
on
roadways
and
at
airports)
posed
by
smoke
intrusions
into
populated
areas;
to
prevent
deterioration
of
air
quality
and
NAAQS
violations;
and
to
address
visibility
impacts
in
mandatory
Class
I
Federal
areas.
Accordingly,
EPA
understand
that
compliance
with
the
SMP
meets
the
compliance
requirements
of
the
PM2.5
SIPs
and
therefore
it
is
not
necessary
to
further
regulate
prescribe
burning
under
this
rule."

5.
Rural
Transport:
DoD
supports
the
EPA's
rural
transport
areas
option.
Several
installations
are
in
or
immediately
adjacent
to
areas
that
have
been
recommended
for
nonattainment
but
have
no
significant
source
of
PM2.5
emissions.
DoD
agrees
with
provisions
for
accounting
for
upwind
sources
as
states
develop
plans
to
demonstrate
attainment
in
these
types
of
areas.

6.
Classification
System:
DoD
supports
the
EPA
option
of
not
having
any
system
for
classifying
PM2.5
nonattainment
areas
or
assigning
attainment
dates
and
control
strategy
requirements.

DoD
is
available
to
further
discuss
any
of
these
issues
as
requested.
DoD
reserves
its
right
to
participate
in
the
public
comment
process
should
further
issues
arise.
