Eric Zito \<EZito@meatami.com\>

04/17/2006 12:05 PM

To

Group A-AND-R-DOCKET@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

Comments on Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017 and Docket ID No.

EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018

To Whom It May Concern:

Attached are the American Meat Institute's comments on "National Ambient

Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Proposed Rule; (71 Fed.
Reg. 2620 (Jan. 17, 2006)); Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017" and
"Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, Proposed Rule,
Amendments; (71 Fed. Reg. 2710 (Jan. 17, 2006)); Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018." If you have any questions please feel free to
contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Eric Zito

Staff Assistant, Regulatory Affairs

AMI

1150 Connecticut Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20036

\(P\) 202.587.4224

April 17, 2006

Air Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Room B108, Mail code: 6102T

Washington, DC 20004

**RE: National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter,
Proposed Rule; (71 Fed. Reg. 2620 (Jan. 17, 2006)); Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2001-0017;**

**Revisions to Ambient Air Monitoring Regulations, Proposed Rule,
Amendments; (71 Fed. Reg. 2710 (Jan. 17, 2006)); Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0018**

To Whom It May Concern:

The American Meat Institute (AMI) is pleased to comment on EPA's two
proposed actions governing the regulation of particulate matter (PM)
under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act): (1) the proposed National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM; and (2) the proposed
revisions to the ambient air monitoring regulations at 40 C.F.R. Parts
53 and 58. These proposed regulations raise critical issues for animal
agriculture.

AMI is the nation's oldest and largest trade association representing
packers and further processors of beef, pork, lamb, veal, turkey, and
processed meat products. Its member have packing and further processing
plants located in all areas of the country, many of which are in areas
designated as not attaining the PM~2.5~ standards on December 17, 2004
(70 *Fed. Reg*. 944). In animal processing and the subsequent production
of meat and poultry products for commercial and retail use, AMI member
companies routinely burn natural gas and heating oil in boilers, heat
food-grade oils for cooking/frying, render or compost animal byproducts,
and process wastewater and animal waste solids for discharge or land
application. Many AMI members also produce animals for the meat and
poultry products markets. These companies are generally large commercial
animal feeding operations, and the proposed agricultural exclusion from
PM~10-2.5~ standards is important to them. Also, ammonia and VOCs are
produced in many of these processes, the proposed PM~2.5~ amendments are
very important to AMI and its members. AMI's comments will address both
packing plant and livestock production perspectives on this important
issue.

**Comments**

1)  **There is Little Evidence that EPA Needs to Revise the PM NAAQS**

AMI recognizes that EPA is required to review the NAAQS standards every
five years and, under terms of a settlement in *American Lung
Association v. Whitman* (No. 1:03CV00778, D.D.C. 2003), must complete
consideration of possible changes by September 27, 2006. However, EPA
has no mandate to change existing PM NAAQS, and for the following
reasons, AMI is not convinced that EPA has adequate scientific evidence
of PM~10-2.5~ adverse health effects, [or]{.underline} that the current
PM~2.5~ NAAQS provide inadequate public protection, to warrant the
proposed NAAQS changes:

-   EPA just established new PM~2.5~ standards in 1997, and has yet to
    finalize regulatory and monitoring methods to implement them.
    Obviously, the results of this PM~2.5~ standard have yet to be
    realized. EPA should retain both the annual (15 µg/m^3^) and 24-hour
    (65 µg/m^3^) standards.

-   EPA must revoke all uses of the PM~10~ standard, for it cannot
    legally maintain some uses, while also regulating PM~2.5~. To avoid
    unwarranted permitting requirements, EPA should make it clear that
    PM~10~ is no longer a "regulated pollutant" under the CAA.

-   It is premature for EPA to consider regulation of ammonia and VOCs
    as precursors as part of the implementation of the PM~2.5~ NAAQS.
    The science available today about the fate and transport of ammonia
    and VOCs is so incomplete as to make a legally valid and sound
    regulatory program impossible. Very little is known about where, how
    much, and how fast these emissions travel and interact with other
    substances to form PM~2.5.~ Absent such understanding, it is
    inappropriate for states to propose to regulate these substances in
    agricultural areas, nor does EPA have a sufficient base of knowledge
    by which to judge whether a state's proposal is sound and correct.
    EPA should not permit states to regulate ammonia or VOC emissions
    under the PM~2.5~ NAAQS.

-   EPA should implement the proposed monitoring network for PM~10-2.5~
    and, before the next review period, collect the data that is needed
    to determine [if]{.underline} health effects and exposure levels
    warrant a new PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS. There is no reason now to finalize a
    new PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS before the monitoring network is in place and
    before health evidence argues convincingly that controls are needed.

-   EPA is about to undertake, with the livestock and poultry
    industries, a national study of PM~2.5~ and PM~10-2.5~ animal
    feeding operations emissions that will not be fully evaluated until
    perhaps 2011. It is premature to consider NAAQS emissions policy
    that would affect the livestock sector until the study data are
    available.

-   Should EPA finalize a PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS as proposed, EPA should
    exclude rural agricultural sources from the PM~10-2.5~ standard and
    exempt agricultural PM from Clean Air Act controls air regulators
    will use to implement the NAAQS.

2)  **Urban and non-urban PM have very different sources, and
    chemistry.**

Although AMI does not support any proposed changes to the 1997 NAAQS for
PM~2.5~ and urges EPA not to promulgate a PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS at this time,
should EPA finalize the proposed coarse PM standard, AMI agrees that
agricultural PM should be excluded.

PM from inner-city urban and non-urban areas differ remarkably in their
origins, formation mechanisms, atmospheric lifetimes, spatial
distribution, indoor-outdoor ratios, chemical composition, and temporal
variability, as well as size. The scientific literature also suggests
that they differ significantly in biological effects. As a result, the
kinds of PM people are exposed to in inner-city urban areas differ
significantly from the kinds found in non-urban areas.

PM in non-urban (suburban and rural) areas is often dominated by
windblown dust and soil materials characterized by calcium, aluminum,
silicon, magnesium, iron, and primary organic materials such as pollen,
spores, and plant, insect and animal debris. PM in urban areas, on the
other hand, often contains materials from industrial or vehicular metals
or organic materials (e.g., brake lining wear particles, tire tread
debris, smelters and incinerators, exhaust from airports and train
stations, and freeway and city street vehicle exhaust). *See, e.g.*
Hildemann LM, Markowski GR, Cass GR., Chemical Composition of Emissions
from Urban Sources of Fine Organic Aerosol. Environ Sci Technol: 25(4):
744-748 (1991).

Most urban fine and ultra-fine particles usually are formed from gases,
through combustion, condensation, and atmospheric transformation. Urban
fine particles are predominately sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, and
hydrogen ions; elemental carbon, secondary organic compounds, and
primary organic species from cooking and combustion of wood and fossil
fuels, and more than 100 different chemical compounds and certain
metals, primarily from industrial activities and incinerator or
vehicular combustion. EPA Staff Paper at 2-38.

In non-urban areas, fine PM particles include unburned carbon particles
that generally result from motor vehicles, off-highway diesel equipment,
cooking and residential wood burning, agricultural activities, and in
some locations, electrical generation or industrial activities. EPA
Staff Paper at 2-6. In arid rural regions fine PM also often contains
finely pulverized, wind-blown crustal materials. *See* Pinal County Air
Quality Control District: Source Apportionment Study (July 29, 2005)
<http://co.pinal.az.us/AirQual/pdf/pinal_speciation_study.pdf>.

3)  **Urban PM has greater potential to cause health effects**

The scientific evidence also shows that urban and non-urban PM have very
different potentials for adverse health effects. Many epidemiologic
studies have demonstrated the greater likelihood that urban-industrial
fine particles rather than crustal coarse particles are responsible for
observed associations with respiratory health effects. *See, e.g.* Laden
F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J., Association of Fine Particulate
Matter from Different Sources with Daily Mortality in Six U.S. Cities.
Environ Health Perspectives 108(10): 941-946 (2000); Mar TF, Norris GA,
Koenig JQ, Larson TV, Association Between Air Pollution and Mortality in
Phoenix, 1995-1997. Env Health Perspectives 108(4): 347-353 (2000).

Increased adverse health effects and ambient air pollution have been
shown in numerous studies to increase with proximity to roadways,
suggesting that motor vehicle traffic (engine emissions) contributes to
ambient health effects in those areas. *See, e.g.* Pearson RL, Wachtel
J, Ebi KL., Distance-weighted Traffic Density in Proximity to a Home is
a Risk Factor for Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers. J Air Waste
Manage Assoc 50:175-180 (2000).

Recently, a number of epidemiologic studies have reported associations
between residential proximity (up to 200 meters distance, but less than
400 meters) to busy roads and a variety of adverse respiratory health
outcomes in children, including respiratory symptoms, asthma
exacerbations, and decrements in lung function. *See, e.g.* Kramer U,
Koch T, Ranft U, Ring J, Behrendt H., Traffic-related Air Pollution is
Associated with Atopy in Children Living in Urban Areas. Epidemiology
11:64-70 (2000). Studies of urban street dust demonstrate that the
PM~2.5~ particles are often enriched with materials -- such as vehicle
tire and brake wear debris, metals and organic chemicals from
incinerators and industrial operations, asphalt road-wear, and
carbon-based combustion by-products -- that cause inner-city street dust
to be more toxic than non-urban road dust samples. *See* Robinson AL,
Lipsky EM, Pekney N, Lucas L, Wynne D, Rogge WF, Bernado-Bricker A,
Sevimoglu O., Fine Particle Emission Profile for Road Dust in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 17PB-1 (2005).

Many important studies have demonstrated that crustal soil materials are
benign. *See, e.g.* Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J.,
Association of Fine Particulate Matter from Different Sources with Daily
Mortality in Six U.S. Cities. Environ Health Perspectives 108(10):
941-946 (2000). The authors concluded that crustal particles were not
associated with daily mortality, and that combustion particles in the
fine fraction from mobile and coal combustion sources, but not fine
crustal particles, are associated with mortality. *See also* Ozkaynak H,
Thurston GD., Associations Between 1980 U.S. Mortality Rates and
Alternative Measures of Airborne Particle Concentration. Risk Anal.,
7(4):449-61 (1987) (concluding that particles from industrial sources
(iron and steel emissions) and from coal combustion were more
significant contributors to mortality than soil-derived crustal
particles).

4)  **There is a strong scientific basis for excluding agricultural,
    non-urban sources from any PM~10-2.5~ primary and secondary NAAQS
    and exemption of these sources from Clean Air Act controls to
    implement these NAAQS**

The developing science on PM demonstrates clear distinctions between
urban and non-urban PM -- they have different origins, chemistry, and
potential for health effects. Should EPA promulgate a coarse PM standard
at this time, it must reflect this scientific knowledge, which points to
excluding non-urban sources.

Scientific health studies show that there is no health or public welfare
basis to impose the PM~10-2.5~ primary or secondary NAAQS on non-urban
and rural agricultural sources. Most importantly, there is no scientific
evidence of adverse health effects from typical exposures to non-urban
PM~10-2.5~. This should hardly be surprising because PM~10-2.5~ in
non-urban areas generally results from wind-blown crustal materials,
which have been shown to be nontoxic.

EPA's Staff Paper, which analyzed the voluminous "latest scientific
knowledge" in the Criteria Document (as required by 42 U.S.C.
§ 7408(a)(2)), summarizes the pertinent evidence and provides a fully
supported, rational basis for the proposed exclusion, as the following
excerpts demonstrate:

-   *\[C\]omparison of paired urban and nearby rural sites suggest that
    PM~10-2.5~ levels are generally higher in urban areas. . . . In all
    the metro areas shown, the urban PM~10-2.5~ concentrations [exceed
    those in the nearby rural locations]{.underline}*. EPA Staff Paper
    at 2-36 (emphasis added).

-   *\[B\]ased on evidence from re-analyses and extended analyses using
    ACS cohort data, the CD concludes that the long-term exposure
    studies find [no associations between long-term exposure to thoracic
    coarse particles and mortality]{.underline}*. (citing to CD at
    8-307). EPA Staff Paper at 3-19 (emphasis added).

-   *Not only are exposures to coarse particles generally higher in
    urban areas than in nearby rural locations, but urban coarse
    particles are also enriched by a number of contaminants not commonly
    found in natural crustal materials that are typical of non-urban
    coarse particles. . . . It follows that [thoracic coarse particles
    in urban areas would differ in composition from those in rural
    areas]{.underline}, being enriched in components from urban mobile,
    stationary, and area source emissions.* EPA Staff Paper at 5-54
    (emphasis added).

-   *Toxicologic studies . . . support the view that sources of [coarse
    particles common in urban areas are of greater concern than
    uncontaminated materials of geologic origin]{.underline}*. EPA Staff
    Paper at 5-55 (emphasis added).

-   *\[R\]ecent evidence from epidemiologic studies has suggested that
    [mortality and possibly other health effects are not associated with
    thoracic coarse particles]{.underline} from dust storms or other
    such wind-related events that result in suspension of natural
    crustal materials of geologic origin. The clearest example is
    provided by a study in Spokane, WA, which specifically assessed
    whether mortality was increased on dust-storm days using
    case-control analysis methods. . . . \[T\]he Spokane study provides
    no suggestion of significant health effects from uncontaminated
    natural crustal materials that would typically form a major fraction
    of coarse particles in non-urban or rural areas*. EPA Staff Paper at
    5-56 (emphasis added).

-   *While dust generated from agricultural activity can include
    biological materials such as fungal or bacterial material, and some
    occupational studies discussed in the CD report effects at
    occupational exposure levels (Table 7B-3, p. 7B-11),* *[such studies
    do not provide relevant evidence for much lower levels of community
    exposures]{.underline}*. *Further, it is unlikely that such sources
    contribute to the effects that have been observed in the recent
    urban epidemiologic studies*. EPA Staff Paper at 5-56 (emphasis
    added).

-   *\[T\]he available evidence from health studies suggests that the
    focus of an indicator for thoracic coarse particles should be on
    such particles found in urban, not rural environments (Henderson,
    2005). . . . Thoracic coarse particle concentrations generally
    reflect contributions from local sources, and the limited
    information available from speciation of thoracic coarse particles
    and emissions inventory data indicate that the sources of urban
    thoracic coarse particles generally differ from those found in
    nonurban areas. As a result, the kinds of thoracic coarse particles
    people are exposed to in urban areas can be expected to differ
    significantly from the kinds found in non-urban or rural areas.
    [Ambient PM~10-2.5~ exposure is associated with health effects in
    studies conducted in urban areas, and the limited available health
    evidence more strongly implicates coarse particles from industrial
    and traffic-related sources than from uncontaminated soil or
    geologic sources]{.underline}.* EPA Staff Paper at 5-57 (emphasis
    added).

-   *The limited evidence does not support either the existence or the
    lack of causative associations for community exposures to
    agricultural or mining industries. Given the apparent differences in
    composition and in the epidemiologic evidence, [it is not
    appropriate to conclude that evidence of associations with health
    effects related to urban coarse particles would also apply to
    nonurban or rural coarse particles]{.underline}*. EPA Staff Paper at
    5-57 (emphasis added).

-   *\[T\]here appears to be a [clear distinction]{.underline} between
    the character and nature of exposures and evidence concerning
    associated health effects of coarse particles as found in urban as
    compared to those found in nonurban and, more specifically, rural
    areas*. . . . *\[T\]his evidence leads staff to consider a more
    narrowly defined indicator for thoracic coarse particles that
    focuses on thoracic coarse particles characteristic of urban areas.
    This is consistent with CASAC's recommendation to "qualify the
    PM~10-2.5~ standard . . . with a focus on urban areas" where
    thoracic coarse particles are influenced by industrial or
    traffic-associated sources* (Henderson, 2005, p. 8). EPA Staff Paper
    at 5-53 (emphasis added).

-   *Taken together, the epidemiologic studies that examine exposures to
    thoracic coarse particles generally found in urban environments and
    to natural crustal materials support the view that [urban thoracic
    coarse particles are of concern to public health, in contrast to
    uncontaminated natural crustal dusts]{.underline}*. EPA Staff Paper
    at 5-56 (emphasis added).

-   In addition, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee ("CASAC")
    also pointed to the absence of health effects data in recommending
    that EPA focus on urban sources of PM~10-2.5~ in the 2006 NAAQS, and
    even pointed directly to agricultural operations as sources that
    were not associated with the adverse health effects of PM~10-2.5~:
    *Because the evidence for the toxicity of PM~10-2.5~ comes from
    studies conducted primarily in urban areas and is related, in large
    part, to the re-entrainment of urban and suburban road dusts as well
    as primary combustion products, there is concern that the
    associations of adverse effects with PM~10-2.5~ may not apply to
    rural areas where the PM~10-2.5~ is largely composed of less-toxic
    components of windblown soil or [products of agricultural
    operations]{.underline} for which there is either no or limited
    evidence of health issues.* Attachment A to CASAC's June 6, 2005
    letter to EPA, at 7 (emphasis added).

In setting standards for air pollutants at levels that are "requisite"
to protect public health and welfare, EPA must establish standards that
are neither more or less stringent than necessary for these purposes,
and which reflect the latest scientific knowledge of the nature and
severity of the health effects involved, the size of the sensitive
populations at risk, the relative degrees of exposure and thus risk for
these sensitive populations, and the kind and degree of the
uncertainties that must be addressed. 71 Fed. Reg. 2622 (2006). The
above review of the "latest scientific knowledge" shows that
agricultural sources should be excluded from the PM~10-2.5~ primary and
secondary NAAQS.[^1] 42 U.S.C. § 7408(a)(2). AMI agrees that EPA should
retain the proposed exclusion in the final rule.

5)  **Should EPA promulgate a coarse PM standard at this time, EPA also
    needs to make clear in the final rule that agricultural sources will
    not be subject to regulatory controls to meet the NAAQS for
    PM~10-2.5.~**

The proposed regulatory requirement that "\[a\]gricultural sources . . .
shall not be subject to control in meeting this standard," 71 Fed. Reg.
2699, is right on point, but it requires further clarification and
detail to facilitate implementation by the states. EPA explained in the
preamble that this statement is designed to make clear that "*there is
no need nor basis to control these sources to obtain the public health
benefits intended by the proposed indicator*." 71 Fed. Reg. 2668. Should
EPA promulgate a coarse PM standard at this time, it needs to repeat
this statement in the final rule, and also should add (so that states
have no room for misinterpretation) that in areas that will be
designated non-attainment under the new PM~10-2.5~ standard,
agricultural sources that are located in non-attainment areas shall not
be subject to regulation in any state's SIP as a basis for attaining the
NAAQS for PM~10-2.5~.

PM~10-2.5~ from agricultural sources also should be excluded from Title
V permitting and New Source Review ("NSR") obligations. EPA should take
the same action it took in 1995 when it limited its interpretation of
"regulated air pollutant" to the scope of the then-applicable PM~10~
NAAQS in 1995. *See* Memorandum from Lydia N. Wegman, Deputy Director,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, "Definition of Regulated
Pollutant for Particulate Matter for Purposes of Title V" (Oct. 16,
1995) (attached). Now, EPA should further revise that policy to reflect
the updated NAAQS and exclude PM~10-2.5~ from agricultural sources from
EPA's interpretation of "regulated air pollutant" and "regulated NSR
pollutant."

6)  **EPA should not modify the 1997 PM~2.5~ NAAQS**

While AMI is pleased that EPA has recognized that the scientific data
requires an exclusion for agricultural sources of PM~10-2.5~, we believe
that the practical and scientific evidence also requires that EPA retain
the 1997 NAAQS for PM~2.5~. EPA's proposal would apply a lowered 24-hour
PM~2.5~ NAAQS to all sources nationwide, urban and non-urban, despite
the fact that EPA has only now proposed regulations to implement the
1997 standards, is only now undertaking a national livestock and poultry
emissions study to characterize PM~2.5~ emissions, and has no evidence
of adverse health effects under the current NAAQS from PM~2.5~ from
agricultural sources. In fact, all of the studies relied upon by EPA in
proposing the PM~2.5~ NAAQS are based on health effects on
[urban]{.underline} populations of PM generated by [urban]{.underline}
sources, as the following excerpts from the Staff Paper demonstrate:

-   *Following the establishment of new standards for PM~2.5~ in 1997,
    the EPA led a national effort to deploy and operate over 1000
    PM~2.5~ monitors.* *[Over 90 percent of the monitors are located in
    urban areas]{.underline}.* EPA Staff Paper at 2-20 (emphasis added).

-   *A primary goal of the current PM risk assessment has been to
    identify and include [urban]{.underline} areas in the U.S. for which
    epidemiologic studies are available that estimate concentration
    response relationships for those locations.* EPA Staff Paper at 4-5
    (emphasis added).

-   *For the PM~2.5~ risk assessment, staff focused on selecting
    [urban]{.underline} areas in which studies reported total and/or
    cardiovascular mortality associated with short-term exposure to
    PM~2.5~ concentrations*. EPA Staff Paper at 4-6 (emphasis added).

-   *\[T\]he risk assessment indicates the likelihood that thousands of
    premature deaths per year would occur in [urban]{.underline} areas
    across the U.S. even upon attainment of the current PM~2.5~
    standards. Beyond the estimated incidences of mortality discussed
    above, staff also recognizes that similarly substantial numbers of
    incidences of hospital admissions, emergency room visits,
    aggravation of asthma and other respiratory symptoms, and increased
    cardiac-related risk are also likely in many [urban]{.underline}
    areas, based on risk assessment results presented in Chapter 4 and
    on the discussion related to the pyramid of effects drawn from
    section 9.2.5 of the CD*. EPA Staff Paper at 5-14 (emphasis added).

-   *In considering these estimates of PM~2.5~-related mortality upon
    meeting the current standards in a number [of example urban
    areas]{.underline}, together with the uncertainties in these
    estimates, staff concludes that they are indicative of risks that
    can reasonably be judged to be important from a public health
    perspective and that they provide support for consideration of
    standards that would provide increased protection beyond that
    afforded by the current PM~2.5~ standards*. EPA Staff Paper at 5-14
    (emphasis added).

-   *Urban areas have higher concentrations of organic carbon, elemental
    carbon, and particulate nitrate than rural areas due to a higher
    density of fuel combustion and diesel emissions*. EPA Staff Paper at
    6-5.

-   *Urban areas generally have higher loadings of PM~2.5~ . . . .* EPA
    Staff Paper at 6-5.

The monitoring and health effects data for PM~2.5~ that demonstrates any
association with public health or welfare concerns is focused
predominantly, if not solely, on urban areas and urban sources. There is
no scientific basis to impose the PM**~2.5~** NAAQS on non-urban and
rural agricultural sources.

7)  **EPA should retain the 1997 PM~2.5~ NAAQS for non-urban and
    agricultural sources**

If EPA decides to finalize the proposed reduction in 24-hour PM~2.5~
NAAQS, then, at the least, EPA should refrain from lowering the current
daily or annual standard for non-urban and agricultural sources. There
is no scientific evidence that the 1997 PM~2.5~ NAAQS levels are not
adequately protective of non-urban populations. The evidence used by EPA
to support a lower 24-hour standard for inner-city and
industrially-derived PM~2.5~ does not support lowering the 24-hour
standard (resulting in costly control requirements) for non-urban
sources.

EPA's compliance models have projected that the impact of lowering the
PM~2.5~ daily standard from 65 to 35 μg/m^3^ would primarily increase
the number of *non-urban* counties in nonattainment. Yet EPA has no
scientific evidence of adverse health effects in those non-urban
counties that warrant more stringent PM~2.5~ regulation. The risk posed
by PM~2.5~ in urban areas does not apply to non-urban areas.

Should EPA finalize a 35 μg/m^3^ PM~2.5~ 24-hour NAAQS, AMI strongly
urges EPA to retain the current (and not fully implemented 65 μg/m^3^
NAAQS) for non-urban and agricultural sources. AMI has presented
evidence in these comments that the differences between the sources,
composition, and health effects of urban versus non-urban PM~2.5~ to
justify such a different PM~2.5~ standard for non-urban areas.

8)  **EPA could distinguish "urban" and "non-urban" PM~2.5~ NAAQS areas
    on the basis of approved sites for monitors.**

If EPA properly applies different NAAQS to urban and agricultural
sources of PM~2.5~, it is crucial that states receive detailed guidance
on implementation of the two standards. EPA can instruct the states to
effectively distinguish between urban and agricultural sources of
PM~2.5~ and to exclude agricultural sources by taking the following
steps:

-   Differentiating counties by urban or non-urban dominance of PM~2.5~
    using the same five-step test as for locating monitors for the new
    PM~10-2.5~ network The PM~2.5~ monitors would be designated as
    subject to either the 2006 (35 μg/m^3^) or 1997 (65 μg/m^3^)
    daily standard.

-   Retaining the 1997 daily standard of 65 μg/m^3^ for non-urban
    counties.

    -   For agricultural sources in non-urban PM~2.5~ non-attainment
        counties (i.e. those exceeding the 65 μg/m^3^ standard), those
        agricultural sources would be subject to those SIP requirements
        that states use to meet the 1997 PM~2.5~ standard.

    -   For agricultural sources in urban PM~2.5~ non-attainment
        counties (i.e. those exceeding the 35 μg/m^3^ standard), EPA
        should require states to meet their SIP requirements solely
        through controls on urban sources, rather than through controls
        on agricultural sources, which primarily emit nontoxic crustal
        PM. This requirement would be equivalent to the rule for
        PM~10-2.5~.

9)  **EPA's proposal to retain the PM~10~ NAAQS in some geographic areas
    is legally invalid, and EPA should revoke all PM~10~ standards**

EPA has proposed a new NAAQS for the coarse fraction of PM (PM~10-2.5~
in urban areas) and proposes to revoke the current annual PM~10~
standard. *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 2674. EPA also proposes to revoke the
current daily PM~10~ standard (promulgated in 1987) except in 15 areas
of the country where at least one monitor in an urban area has violated
the standard. *Id.* For the reasons explained below, EPA's proposal is
contrary to law and should be abandoned. Instead, EPA should de-regulate
PM~10~ in its entirety.

Retaining the PM~10~ standard under any circumstances will be rejected
by the courts. In *American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA*, 175
F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 1999), the D.C. Circuit vacated the 1997 PM~10~
standard because PM~10~ is "an arbitrary indicator for coarse particle
pollution" when EPA is regulating PM~2.5~ separately. That analysis also
applies to EPA's proposal to retain the 1987 PM~10~ standard in 15
geographic areas. It is just as arbitrary to retain the 1987 PM~10~
standard while at the same time maintaining a PM~2.5~ standard. As the
D.C. Circuit held, ["*\[i\]t is the very presence of a separate PM~2.5~
standard that makes retention of the PM~10~ indicator arbitrary and
capricious*]{.underline}." *American Trucking*, 175 F.3d at 1054
(emphasis added).

EPA's proposed rationale for retaining the PM~10~ standard does not
solve the legal problem of the PM~10~ standard. EPA will continue to
rely on a subtraction method in those 15 geographic areas, just the
opposite of the court's decision. *See* 71 Fed. Reg. 2674. Such reliance
is a legally invalid basis for retaining a NAAQS. *See American
Trucking*, 175 F.3d at 1054-55. EPA has no evidence that the PM~10~
violations in the 15 areas are caused by the coarse fraction of PM. In
fact, eight of these same 15 areas have been designated as
[nonattainment for PM~2.5~]{.underline}. The proposition that the 15
areas subject to the retained standard "*[could]{.underline} be in
violation*" of the revised PM~10-2.5~ standard is insufficient to
justify continued regulation. 71 Fed. Reg. 2674 (emphasis added).

It is unlikely that the existing PM~10~ monitors "*[could]{.underline}
be in violation*" of the new PM~10-2.5~ standard when EPA admits that
the monitoring network for the retained PM~10~ standard "may not be
sited in accordance with all of the criteria" for the new monitoring
network for PM~10-2.5~. 71 Fed. Reg. 2674. If the monitors are not
equivalent, then neither are the monitoring results. The prior PM~10~
standard is simply technically and legally inconsistent with the revised
PM~10-2.5~ standard and needs to be fully revoked.

That inconsistency is further highlighted by the fact that the retained
PM~10~ standard does not reflect a key component of the new indicator
for PM~10-2.5~ -- the exclusion of agricultural sources. Furthermore,
the data for the 15 areas with the retained PM~10~ standard may include
PM from agricultural sources as well as PM~2.5~ (indeed, some AMI
members are located in some of the designated 15 areas). EPA must
develop new nonattainment designations for the coarse fraction of PM
based on the new standard, which excludes agricultural sources, rather
than attempt to enforce nonattainment designations that are based on a
legally invalid standard.

Finally, other regulatory obligations (i.e. permitting) under the Act
might persist if EPA failed to fully de-regulate PM~10.~ For example,
emissions of PM~10~ could trigger Title V permitting obligations and NSR
requirements. For this reason, EPA should revise its policies,
interpretations, and regulations as necessary to fully revoke PM~10~ as
a regulated pollutant.

10) **The proposed air monitoring network for PM~10-2.5~ must exclude
    areas dominated by agricultural sources**

Whether or not EPA finalizes the proposed PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS, AMI supports
development of the proposed monitoring network (proposed at 71 Fed. Reg.
2710). AMI also agrees that the new monitoring network should be placed
in high-population locations where concentrations of PM~10-2.5~ are
dominated by resuspended dust and other PM emissions from high density
traffic on paved roads and PM generated by industrial sources and
construction activities. EPA's monitoring system for PM~10-2.5~ should
be designed and rigorously managed to measure *only* the particles that
EPA intends to regulate, and exclude non-urban (rural and suburban) PM
sources from the PM~10-2.5~ standard.

The proposed five-part suitability criteria seem appropriately focused
on the selection of urban and industrial areas to permit effective
implementation of the PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS. EPA's monitoring proposal should
include explicit specifications and test procedures, including quality
assurance and data certification, to allow differentiation of urban and
non-urban sources of PM. AMI is concerned that the rules limiting
location of monitoring sites be carefully designed to exclude non-urban
sources from the PM~10-2.5~ standard and evaluate the different
contributions of non-urban versus urban PM emissions.

AMI urges EPA to revise its proposal to reflect these concerns. We
appreciate the opportunity to comment, and would welcome the opportunity
to discuss our concerns further.

> Sincerely,
>
> ![](media/image1.png){width="2.6041666666666665in"
> height="0.6458333333333334in"}
>
> Mark Dopp
>
> Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and
>
> General Counsel

[^1]: Agricultural sources clearly should not be subject to the
    PM~10-2.5~ NAAQS because even the evidence for urban health effects
    appears to be too weak to support *any* standard for PM~10-2.5~. EPA
    recognized in the Staff Paper that "*the epidemiologic evidence on
    morbidity and mortality effects related to PM~10-2.5~ exposure is
    very limited at this time. A key area of uncertainty in this
    evidence is the potentially quite large uncertainty related to
    exposure measurement error for PM~10-2.5~, as compared with fine
    particles. Other key uncertainties include the very limited
    information available on the composition of thoracic coarse
    particles and the effects of thoracic coarse particles from various
    sources, and the lack of evidence on potential mechanisms for
    effects of thoracic coarse particles*." EPA Staff Paper at 5-70.