Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0062-0259
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-10-02T04:00Z

EPA’s response to conformity comments in red (8/26/05)

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. Okay

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%.

We are revising this number to be more than 60%, since Rich looked at
the PM2.5 nonattainment areas, and believes the number is around 67% of
total NOx from these sources.

P

age 83; conformity applies 1 year from the “effective” date of
nonattainment designation (i.e., April 5, 2006). okay

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. 
Okay; suggest the following wording in the text:  

(see section III.K. of this package, and the transportation conformity
rule of 40 CFR parts 51 and 93)

And footnote:

The final transportation conformity rule related to PM2.5 precursors was
published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2005 (70 FR 24280).

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.

SO2 is correct.  The conformity rule should refer to SO2, rather than
S0x.  This can be addressed in the future during other rulemakings if we
want. 

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.

We are revising this language to address DOT and OMB’s comments on
this language.

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.

We would rather keep the language as is, and not add a clarification
about conformity and attainment dates.  The section is complex as is,
and to clarify the implications of one CAA program and not others may be
more confusing.  Like with ozone attainment date extensions, we intend
to deal with any conformity implications of PM2.5 attainment dates on an
as-needed basis through future conformity implementation.  

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.

OMB is currently considering dropping their desire to have an alternate
baseline, so we may end up only with a 2002 baseline for PM2.5.   If the
option is retained, we will make this language consistent in the PM2.5
implementation proposal and final 8-hour ozone implementation phase 2
rule.

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.

We are adding language that clarifies that conformity budgets are only
for the nonattainment area boundary.  This language is consistent with
modeling for ozone areas, and is not going to impact conformity budgets
for PM2.5 .

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.

We are going to make this language consistent with what we’ve
discussed in the conformity context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Suggest changing to “voluntary transportation control measures”

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.  

Agree with suggested change.  

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).

Agree with suggested change

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…

Agree with suggested change

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?

Forwarded this to Dave Stonefield at OAQPS.

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

Agree.  Will add language

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.

We’ve made a clarification to address your comment.