**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, on-road 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 on-road 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]{.underline} all of these
    measures are reasonably available in [any]{.underline} 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]{.underline} of these measures should be considered RACM for
    [any]{.underline} 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]{.underline} section 108(f) measures are reasonably available
    in [any]{.underline} 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.