             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Proposed Rule
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS):
                 State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements
                                 RIN 2060-AQ48
General Comments

   1. Wildfire and wildland fire.
         a. Commenters recommend including additional context and background in the preamble and rule language about prescribed fire (planned ignitions) and wildfire (unplanned ignitions).  Specifically, that not including prescribed fire and wildfire may unintentionally set a precedence that limits the options for managing wildland fire, limits the role of wildland fire in restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, preclude options for effective management of carbon, and inadvertently violate the direction set forth in Executive Order (EO) 13653.
   2. Precursor policy options.
         a. Commenter recommends considering hybrid approaches to addressing regulation of PM2.5 precursors in attainment plans and nonattainment new source review (NNSR).  Specifically, one hybrid approach could have Option 2A as a screening mechanism for whether a particular PM2.5 precursor is important or a significant contributor to nonattainment in the area, and if so, Option 3 could then be utilized to demonstrate that control measures for all types of sources of a particular precursor are not needed for expeditious attainment of that area.
   3. De minimis determination.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing an alternative for "safe harbor" type provisions for de minimis determinations.  The alternative would state that if the contribution is below a certain percentage (e.g., 3 percent) it would be considered de minimis and an amount greater than that percentage would require additional justification to determine that the contribution is de minimis.
   4. Base year.
         a. Reviewer recommends considering additional years as the base year for attainment plans and determinations; including providing additional discussion as to why the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) should not be used as a base year.
   5. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion on the differences in 2, 4, and 6 digit codes and why 4 digit codes are the most appropriate.
   6. Use of previous reasonably available control measures (RACM) and reasonably available control technology (RACT).
         a. Reviewer recommends evaluating a "recent threshold" (e.g., within 3 years of when this RACM/RACT is performed) that would allow either no updates or a less extensive update to RACM and RACT.



   7. Technical feasibility determination.
         a. Commenter recommends clarifying that for agricultural sources that mitigation measures that may be technically feasible for one agricultural source may not be technically feasible for a similar type of agricultural operation.
   8. Economic feasibility determination.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying whether sources with similar technological characteristics owned by different sized entities are considered "similar sources" with respect to economic feasibility or would a state be allowed to justify rejection based on the size of entities applying such technology.  EPA states that a state may not reject technologically feasible measures as economically infeasible if similar sources have implemented the technology, absent adequate justification.  Therefore, while a state may consider engineering criteria to evaluate technological feasibility, small entities could be required to install economically infeasible technologies solely because a similar source owned by a larger facility has install the technology.
         b. Reviewer recommends evaluating whether "safe harbor" type provisions for economic feasibility with respect to cost effectiveness are appropriate.
   9. Attainment demonstration.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing benefits and costs of each of the proposed alternatives for the attainment demonstration.  For example, discuss the relative level of risk of just using FRM and/or FEM monitoring data.
   10. Credits for outside of nonattainment area for reasonable further progress (RFP).
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion why EPA thought it was appropriate to allow up to 200 kilometers (km) away from the nonattainment area for RFP in the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule and does not believe that it is still appropriate.
         b. Reviewer recommends considering credits outside of the nonattainment area for RFP because the EPA is requiring the use of outside the nonattainment area actions as "additional reasonable measures" to have a nonattainment area achieve attainment as expeditiously as possible and is allowing the use of outside the nonattainment area actions (but still within the state) as contingency measures within the SIP.  For example, if the nonattainment area needs to decrease emissions by 6 percent over a 6 year period, for a linear a RFP, the nonattainment area would need to decrease by 1 percent a year.  However, if because of the "additional reasonable measures," the nonattainment area can demonstrate attainment within 4 years, the nonattainment area would need to decrease emissions by 1.5 percent a year.  But because a state cannot credit outside the nonattainment area for RFP, the state may not be able to meet their RFP requirements.  
         c. Reviewer recommends providing additional basis and clarification for the term "additional reasonable measures," including whether this term has been defined or used in other criteria pollutants of the Clean Air Act.  If the term has not been previously used, the reviewer recommends explaining why PM2.5 is different than the other criteria pollutants that this requirement should be added. 


   11. Electronic submissions for RFP.
         a. Reviewer recommends strengthening the language in the use of electronic communication and an electronic reporting system.
   12. Extensions for attainment.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional explanation of the difference between the attainment determinations in the previous PM2.5 Implementation Rule and this proposed rule and examples of specific cases where an extension would be needed and granted.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification on the difference in plan submittals between a Moderate nonattainment area plan and Serious nonattainment area plan for granting an exemption.
   13. Attainment date for Serious nonattainment areas.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying that "10 years after designation" is as of "nonattainment" and should not be considered as of designation as of Serious nonattainment.
   14. Emission inventory.
         a. Commenter recommends developing a mechanism to allow for the use of emissions estimating methodologies (EEM) for animal production operations under the National Air Emissions Monitory Study (NAEMS) when they become available.
   15. Emission inventory decrease for Serious nonattainment areas that have failed to achieve attainment.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing clarification on EPA's determination process for determining if a Serious nonattainment area that fails to attain has decreased emissions by 5 percent each year.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification of the "most recent inventory" in relation to Clean Air Act (CAA) section 189(d).  If a state is required to calculate the inventory for the nonattainment area each year to determine if the nonattainment area has decreased emissions by 5 percent, does the 5 percent change to that year's inventory or is it 5 percent of the initial inventory calculated?
         c. Reviewer recommends clarifying that contingency measures that include outside the nonattainment area measures can be included for reaching the 5 percent required level as long as those measures are quantifiable, enforceable, replicable, and accountable.
   16. Quantitative milestones.
         a. Reviewer recommends allowing a nonattainment area that has decreased emissions by greater than 15 percent within a 3 year period to carryover that additional decreased emission to the next quantitative milestone. 
   17. Contingency measures for Serious nonattainment areas that have failed to attain.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying why contingency measures should be required when those contingency measures would have already been instituted for failure to meet the RFP for the Serious nonattainment area.


   18. Time-frame for attainment for Serious nonattainment areas that have failed to demonstrate attainment.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification why 5 years (consistent with CAA section 172(a)(2)) should be followed for demonstrating attainment and why EPA is not considering 6 or 10 years for demonstrating attainment (consistent with CAA section 188(c)(1) and (2) that are specifically related to PM).
   19. Definition of stationary source.
         a. Commenter recommends providing additional explanation and guidance of how stationary sources relate to agricultural production operations.
   20. Major source thresholds for PM2.5 precursors.
         a. Reviewer recommends modifying EPA's policy on preferred ratios for major source threshold determinations for PM2.5 precursors related to sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX).  Specifically, the EPA believes that the preferred ratios in the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule were not conservative enough (page 374).  However, not considering the relative effect of PM2.5 precursors to direct PM2.5 puts an undue burden on potential sources of PM2.5 precursors and sets a de facto more protective air quality standard than for direct PM2.5 sources. 
         b. Reviewer recommends adding a discussion of whether volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3 - ) emissions (the other PM2.5 precursors not mentioned above) should be considered at higher levels than direct PM2.5 for major source thresholds.
   21. Planning requirements not suspended with a Clean Data Determination (CDD)
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional clarification why certain planning requirements are not suspended with a CDD.
   22. Guidance for stationary source monitoring.
         a. Reviewer recommends modifying this section as it does not appear to be related to the rest of the rulemaking.  This appears to be an information collection request that is related to a future potential guidance update that is not tied to this specific rulemaking effort.
   23. EO 12866 and EO 13563.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying the statement that EPA submitted the action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in 2011.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing benefits and costs for this proposed rule within a regulatory impact analysis even if those benefits and costs are at the state level.
   24. Paperwork Reduction Act.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying why states without any nonattainment area would not be required to submit any information to the EPA for this rule.
         b. Reviewer recommends providing additional basis for the estimated labor hours required and the estimated labor costs.



Specific Comments

   1. Page 22.
         a. Commenter recommends revising the statement "For example, PM2.5 concentrations are highest in the West and Southeast."  However, Table 2 shows that concentrations are highest in the West and Central.
   2. Page 23.
         a. Commenter recommends deleting Table 2 as the regional information comes from 1 to 34 stations within a region and may lead to conclusions that are incorrect. Because of so few stations the regional values are not statistically reliable and may not be representative of the region.
   3. Page 39.
         a. Commenter recommends providing additional information for determining that reducing regional SO2 and local sources of carbon in the East and local sources of nitrate and carbon in the West will be most effective in reducing PM2.5 concentrations.  The additional information could be used by states to alleviate burden in relation to precursor demonstrations and attainment planning.
   4. Page 107.
         a. Commenter recommends clarifying how attainment demonstration modeling emissions inventories may not be consistent with the emissions inventories developed for the nonattainment area and how the nonattainment area emissions inventories are used for the attainment demonstration modeling.
         b. Commenter recommends providing additional information on how emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors outside of the nonattainment area may be affected (i.e., regulated or controlled) as a result of the modeling demonstrations.
   5. Page 111.
         a. Reviewer recommends modifying "States can alternatively develop superior state-specific nonroad emissions estimates . . . ." to state "States can alternatively develop technologically equivalent or superior state-specific nonroad emissions 
estimates . . . ."
   6. Page 134.
         a. Reviewer recommends removing brackets from "in the area" quotation with respect to the "nonattainment area" and providing a footnote of the court decision and how it applies.
   7. Page 137.
         a. Reviewer recommends providing additional discussion on the economic feasibility determination recommended in the 2007 PM2.5 rule.
   8. Page 139.
         a. Reviewer recommends adding to the list: 8. Impact on jobs and 9. Cumulative impacts to the source not considered above (e.g., delays in maintenance or other potential safety-related actions).
   9. Page 327.
         a. Reviewer recommends clarifying that "in writing" includes electronic submittals within Step 5.
         
   10. Rule Language
         a. §51.100  -  reasonable further progress is defined as "annual incremental reductions in emissions . . . ." Reviewer recommends clarifying whether periodic step-down functions are included within RFP.
         b.  §51.1006(a)  -  reviewer recommends removing or revising the second sentence starting with "The technical analysis could include . . . ." as this language is more appropriate for guidance documents or discussion within the preamble.
         c. §51.1007(d)  -  reviewer recommends removing or revising this subpart as this language is more appropriate for guidance documents or discussion within the preamble.
         d. §51.1008  -  reviewer recommends clarifying why there are timing requirements within §51.1008(b)(3) for Serious nonattainment areas and not for Moderate nonattainment areas within §51.1008(a).

Typographical Comments

   1. Page 40.
         a. Commenter recommends ensuring that: 
                 i. Tier 2 Light-Duty vehicle standards be cited instead of Tier 3
                 ii. Green House Gas standards for Light-Duty and Heavy-Duty vehicles do not need to be cited.
         b. Commenter recommends clarifying if the Heavy Duty rule is the Tier 2 Heavy Duty Diesel rules.
         c. Commenter recommends updating footnote 47.
   2. Page 242.
         a. Add additional ")" after "section 172(c)(6)".
   3. Page 518.
         a. Recommend revising §51.1005(c) as there appears to be words missing.
   4. Page 536.
         a. Part of the first sentence for §51.1011(a) and (b) is underlined and should be removed.
   5. Reviewer recommends defining the following terms and ensuring that all acronyms used within the preamble are also provided within the preamble glossary of terms and acronyms:
         a. FRM 
         b. FEM
         c. NESHAPs
   6. Reviewer recommends revising all cases where the term "whether or not" is used to state "whether".  For example, on page 398, the sentence, "The requirements differ depending on whether or not the nonattainment area is considered a metropolitan area." (emphasis added).  Should be revised to state, "The requirements differ depending on whether the nonattainment area is considered a metropolitan area."
