Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0175-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-09T05:00Z

6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
51
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2005­
0175;
[
FRL­
]

[
RIN
A2060­
]

TRANSITION
TO
NEW
OR
REVISED
PARTICULATE
MATTER
(
PM)

NATIONAL
AMBIENT
AIR
QUALITY
STANDARDS
(
NAAQS)

AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
ANPR).

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
recently
issued
a
notice
of
proposed
revisions
to
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS)
for
particulate
matter
(
PM).
EPA
will
take
final
action
on
the
proposal
by
September
27,
2006.
This
notice
provides
advance
notice
of
key
issues
for
consideration
in
the
development
of
potentially
new
or
revised
policies
and/
or
regulations
to
implement
revisions
to
the
NAAQS
for
PM
recognizing
that
no
final
decision
has
been
made
concerning
whether
or
how
to
revise
the
PM
NAAQS.
The
EPA
is
posing
a
number
of
questions
related
to
the
transition
from
the
current
to
potentially
revised
PM2.5
standards,
as
well
as
the
transition
from
the
current
PM10
standards
to
potentially
new
PM10­
2.5
standards.
In
this
ANPR,
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
the
Agency's
preferred
approaches
to
revocation
of
the
1997
PM2.5
standards
once
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards
would
be
in
place,
and
also
approaches
to
2
revocation
of
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
in
areas
where
it
would
remain
after
promulgation
of
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards.

The
EPA
is
also
highlighting
and
providing
preliminary
thinking
on
how
to
address
some
of
the
key
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
issues
related
to
the
new
PM10­
2.5
standards,
and
the
transition
from
PM10
standards
to
PM10­
2.5
standards.

Finally,
EPA
is
requesting
comment
on
potential
timeframes
for
designations,
attainment
demonstrations
and
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
submittals
and
attainment
dates
for
both
any
new
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5
standards.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
date
60
days
from
date
of
publication].

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.

EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2005­
0175,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

 
www.
regulations.
gov:
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

 
Email:
A­
and­
R­
Docket@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.

EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2005­
0175.

 
Fax:
Fax
your
comments
to
(
202)
566­
1741,
Attention
Docket
ID.
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2005­
0175.

Mail:
Docket
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2005­
0175
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mail
Code:
6102T,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC,
20460.
Please
include
a
total
of
two
copies.

 
Hand
Delivery:
Deliver
your
comments
to:
Air
Docket,
3
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Room
B102,
Washington,
DC
20004,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­
HQ­
OAR­
2005­
0175.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket=
s
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­

HQOAR
2005­
0175.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.

The
www.
regulations.
gov
website
is
an
"
anonymous
access"

system,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
www.
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
4
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.

Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,

any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.
For
further
information
about
EPA's
public
docket
visit
the
EPA
Docket
Center
homepage
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
epahome/
dockets.
htm.
For
additional
instruction
on
submitting
a
comment,
go
to
"
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
the
EPA?"
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
section
of
this
document.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
www.
regulations.
gov
index.
Although
listed
in
the
index,

some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
e.
g.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.

Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
www.
regulations.
gov
or
in
hard
copy
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,

excluding
legal
holidays.
A
reasonable
fee
may
be
charged
for
copying.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Public
Reading
5
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
questions
regarding
PM
implementation
issues,
contact
Ms.
Barbara
Driscoll,
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Mail
Code
C504­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
phone
number
(
919)
541­
1051
or
by
e­
mail
at:

driscoll.
barbara@
epa.
gov.
Regarding
NSR
issues,
contact
Raj
Rao,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Mail
Code
C339­
03,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
phone
number
(
919)
541­
5344
or
by
e­
mail
at
rao.
raj@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

How
Should
I
Submit
CBI
To
the
Agency?

Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
through
www.
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
Clearly
mark
the
part
or
all
of
the
information
that
you
claim
to
be
CBI.

For
CBI
information
in
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
EPA,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
that
is
claimed
as
CBI.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket.
Information
so
marked
6
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
Roberto
Morales,
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Mail
Code
C404­
02,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
(
919)
541­
0880,
e­
mail
at
morales.
roberto@
epa.
gov,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
EPA­

HQOAR
2005­
0175.

What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:

1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.

2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.

3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.

4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.

5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.

6.
Offer
alternatives.

7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
7
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,

date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
WHAT
ACTIONS
RELATED
TO
THE
PM
NAAQS
HAVE
RECENTLY
BEEN
PROPOSED
OR
WILL
SOON
BE
PROPOSED
WHICH
RELATE
TO
THIS
NOTICE?
A.
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
B.
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
C.
Treatment
of
Data
Influenced
by
Exceptional
Events
II.
WHAT
IS
EPA'S
STRATEGY
FOR
ADDRESSING
PM?
A.
The
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
System
B.
National
Rules
III.
HOW
SHOULD
EPA
IMPLEMENT
THE
TRANSITION
FROM
THE
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
TO
ANY
NEW
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS?
A.
What
is
the
Status
of
Areas
Designated
Under
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS?
B.
How
Might
EPA
Implement
the
Transition
from
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
to
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS?
1.
PM2.5
NAAQS
Option
1
2.
PM2.5
NAAQS
Option
2
IV.
WHAT
ARE
THE
POTENTIAL
TIMELINES
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
ANY
NEW
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS?
A.
How
Would
the
Implementation
Schedules
of
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
and
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS
Fit
Together
if
the
Revised
PM2.5
Standards
Are
More
Stringent
Than
the
Current
Standards?
B.
What
is
EPA's
Preferred
Schedule
for
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Designation
Process?
C.
What
Would
the
Schedule
be
for
Attainment
Demonstrations
and
SIP
Submittals
for
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Standards?
D.
What
are
Attainment
Dates
for
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Standards?

V.
WHAT
ARE
THE
POTENTIAL
TIMELINES
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
ANY
NEW
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS?
A.
What
is
a
Potential
Schedule
for
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Designation
Process?
B.
What
is
EPA's
Preferred
Schedule
for
Designations
for
any
New
PM10­
2.5
Standards?
8
C.
What
is
EPA's
Preferred
Schedule
for
Attainment
Demonstrations
and
SIP
Submittals
for
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Standards?
D.
What
is
EPA's
Preferred
Schedule
for
Attaining
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Standards?

VI.
HOW
SHOULD
EPA
IMPLEMENT
THE
TRANSITION
FROM
THE
PM10
STANDARDS
TO
ANY
NEW
PM10­
2.5
STANDARDS?
A.
What
is
EPA's
Proposal
for
Revoking
the
PM10
Standards?
B.
What
Should
the
Timing
be
for
Revoking
the
24­
hour
PM10
Standard
for
Those
Areas
Where
the
24­
hour
PM10
Standard
is
Retained?
C.
What
Transition
Issues
are
Created
by
Revoking
the
24­
hour
PM10
Standard
in
Areas
Where
It
is
Currently
Proposed
to
be
Retained
and
How
Might
They
be
Addressed?
1.
Control
measures
2.
Transportation
conformity
3.
General
conformity
4.
New
Source
Review
program
VII.
WHAT
EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
REQUIREMENTS
SHOULD
APPLY
UNDER
ANY
NEW
PM2.5
AND
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS?

VIII.
STATUTORY
AND
EXECUTIVE
ORDER
REVIEWS
I.
WHAT
ACTIONS
RELATED
TO
THE
PM
NAAQS
HAVE
RECENTLY
BEEN
PROPOSED
OR
WILL
SOON
BE
PROPOSED
WHICH
RELATE
TO
THIS
NOTICE?

This
ANPR
is
intended
to
solicit
input
into
key
issues
related
to
the
transition
to
any
new
or
revised
NAAQS
for
PM.
The
EPA
has
proposed
two
rulemakings,
the
NAAQS
for
Particulate
Matter;
Proposed
Rule
(
71
FR
2620,
January
17,

2006)
and
the
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
(
71
FR
2710,
January
17,
2006),
and
will
be
proposing
another
rulemaking,
Treatment
of
Data
Influenced
by
Exceptional
Events
(
anticipated
to
be
9
published
by
March
2006).
These
proposals
are
summarized
here
to
provide
background
for
the
issues
and
questions
raised
in
this
document.
The
EPA
is
not
taking
comment
on
these
actions
here.
Rather,
if
you
have
comments,
you
should
submit
them
to
the
docket
for
the
proposed
rulemaking
to
which
they
are
applicable,
following
the
procedures
described
in
each
proposal.

A.
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Particulate
Matter
On
December
20,
2005,
the
Administrator
signed
a
notice
proposing
revisions
to
the
primary
and
secondary
NAAQS
for
PM,
which
was
published
on
January
17,
2006
(
71
FR
2620).

The
proposal
can
be
found
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
particlepollution/
actions.
html.
For
the
primary
standards
for
fine
particles
(
particles
generally
less
than
or
equal
to
2.5
micrometers
(
µ
m)
in
diameter,
or
PM2.5),
EPA
proposed
to
revise
the
level
of
the
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard
from
65
micrograms
per
cubic
meter
(
µ
g/
m3)
to
35
µ
g/
m3,
providing
increased
protection
against
health
effects
associated
with
short­
term
exposure
(
including
premature
mortality
and
increased
hospital
admissions
and
emergency
room
visits)
and
to
retain
the
level
of
the
annual
PM2.5
standard
at
15
µ
g/
m3,
continuing
protection
against
health
effects
associated
with
long­
term
exposure
(
including
premature
mortality
and
development
of
10
chronic
respiratory
disease).
The
EPA
is
also
taking
comment
on
alternative
NAAQS
levels.
Additionally,
EPA
proposed
to
revise
the
criteria
for
spatial
averaging
of
monitors
for
purposes
of
the
annual
PM2.5
standard.

In
addition,
for
the
primary
standards
for
coarse
particles
generally
less
than
or
equal
to
10
µ
m
in
diameter
(
PM10),
EPA
proposed
to
revise
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
in
part
by
establishing
a
new
indicator
for
thoracic
coarse
particles
(
particles
generally
between
2.5
and
10
µ
m
in
diameter,
PM10­
2.5),
qualified
so
as
to
include
any
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
that
is
dominated
by
resuspended
dust
from
high­
density
traffic
on
paved
roads
and
PM
generated
by
industrial
sources
and
construction
sources,
and
exclude
any
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
that
is
dominated
by
rural
windblown
dust
and
soils
and
PM
generated
by
agricultural
and
mining
sources.
The
EPA
also
proposed
that
agricultural
sources,

mining
sources
and
other
similar
sources
of
crustal
material
shall
not
be
subject
to
control
in
meeting
the
proposed
standard.
The
EPA
proposed
to
set
the
new
PM10­
2.5
standard
at
a
level
of
70
µ
g/
m3,
continuing
to
provide
a
generally
equivalent
level
of
protection
against
health
effects
associated
with
short­
term
exposure
(
including
hospital
admissions
for
cardiopulmonary
diseases,
increased
respiratory
symptoms
and
possibly
premature
mortality).

In
addition,
EPA
proposed
to
revoke
the
annual
PM10
11
standard
everywhere,
and
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
everywhere
except
in
areas
where
there
is
at
least
one
monitor
that
is
located
in
an
urbanized
area1
with
a
minimum
population
of
100,000
people
and
that
violates
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
based
on
the
most
recent
3
years
of
data.
This
revocation
of
the
PM10
standards
would
become
effective
upon
promulgation
of
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
(
expected
to
be
December
2006).
In
the
January
17,
2006,
notice,
the
Agency
provided
a
specific
list
of
areas
where
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
would
not
be
revoked
under
the
proposal
based
on
the
most
recent
3
years
of
data.
EPA
proposed
to
revoke
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
in
all
other
areas.
In
addition,
EPA
requested
comment
on
whether
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
should
be
retained
in
additional
areas
that
are
either
urbanized
areas
with
populations
less
than
100,000
people
or
non­
urbanized
areas
(
i.
e.,
populations
less
than
50,000)
but
where
the
majority
of
the
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
is
generated
by
high
density
traffic
on
paved
roads,
industrial
sources,
and
construction
sources,
and
which
have
at
least
one
monitor
that
violated
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
based
on
the
most
recent
3
years
of
data.

1
As
defined
by
the
U.
S.
Bureau
of
the
Census,
an
urbanized
area
has
"
a
minimum
residential
population
of
at
least
50,000
people"
and
generally
includes
"
core
census
block
groups
or
blocks
that
have
a
population
density
of
at
least
1,000
people
per
square
mile
and
surrounding
census
blocks
that
have
an
overall
density
of
at
least
500
people
per
square
mile."
The
Census
Bureau
notes
that
"
under
certain
conditions,
less
densely
settled
territory
may
be
part
of
each
UA."
See
http://
www.
census.
gov/
geo/
www/
ua/
ua_
2k.
html.
12
For
the
secondary
PM
standards,
EPA
proposed
to
revise
the
current
standards
by
making
them
identical
to
the
suite
of
proposed
primary
standards
for
fine
and
coarse
particles.

B.
Revisions
to
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
At
the
same
time
EPA
proposed
revisions
to
the
PM
NAAQS,
EPA
also
proposed
Revisions
to
the
Ambient
Air
Monitoring
Regulations
(
71
FR
2710,
January
17,
2006)
for
criteria
pollutants
to
support
the
proposed
revisions
to
the
NAAQS.
The
proposal
can
be
found
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oar/
particlepollution/
actions.
html.

Included
among
the
proposed
PM­
related
changes
are
new
provisions
to
be
added
to
40
CFR
parts
53
and
58
which
address
approval
of
monitoring
methods
and
PM10­
2.5
monitoring
requirements.
The
added
provisions
in
part
53
would
address
approval
of
PM10­
2.5
filter­
based
Federal
Reference
Method
(
FRM)
samplers
and
both
filter­
based
and
continuous
Federal
Equivalent
Method
(
FEM)
monitors.
Provisions
in
part
58
would
provide
the
monitoring
requirements
for
a
PM10­
2.5
network,
including
the
minimum
number
of
monitors
a
State
must
deploy.
In
addition,
the
proposal
adds
provisions
for
the
conditions
under
which
a
PM10­
2.5
monitor
may
be
compared
to
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS.

The
proposal
also
amends
a
number
of
existing
provisions
for
PM2.5
monitoring,
including
changing
the
criteria
for
FEM
equivalency
determinations
for
continuous
13
PM2.5
monitors.
This
should
allow
States
to
operate
continuous
monitors
at
more
required
monitoring
sites,

thereby
providing
more
robust
data
for
the
PM2.5
air
quality
program.

C.
Treatment
of
Data
Influenced
by
Exceptional
Events
The
EPA
will
soon
propose
a
rule
to
govern
the
review
and
handling
of
air
quality
monitoring
data
influenced
by
exceptional
events.
Section
319
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)

defines
an
event
as
an
exceptional
event
if
the
event
affects
air
quality;
is
not
reasonably
controllable
or
preventable;
is
a
natural
event,
or
an
event
caused
by
human
activity
that
is
unlikely
to
recur
at
a
particular
location;

and
is
determined
by
the
Administrator
to
be
an
exceptional
event.
The
EPA
will
be
proposing
procedures
and
criteria
related
to
the
identification,
evaluation,
interpretation
and
use
of
air
quality
monitoring
data
related
to
the
NAAQS
where
State
air
quality
agencies
petition
EPA
to
exclude,
in
whole
or
in
part,
air
quality
data
that
are
directly
affected
by
exceptional
events.
Section
319
of
the
CAA,
as
amended
by
section
6013
of
the
Safe
Accountable
Flexible
Efficient­
Transportation
Equity
Act
(
SAFE­
TEA)
of
2005,

requires
EPA
to
publish
a
proposed
rule
in
the
Federal
Register,
no
later
than
March
1,
2006.

II.
WHAT
IS
EPA
=

S
STRATEGY
FOR
ADDRESSING
PM?
14
Our
overall
strategy
for
achieving
the
PM
primary
and
secondary
standards
is
based
on
the
structure
outlined
in
the
CAA.
The
CAA
outlines
important
roles
for
State
and
Tribal
governments
and
for
EPA
in
implementing
NAAQS.

States
have
primary
responsibility
for
developing
and
implementing
SIPs
that
contain
local
and
in­
State
measures
needed
to
achieve
the
air
quality
standards
in
each
area.

We
assist
States
and
Tribes
by
providing
technical
tools,

assistance
and
guidance,
including
information
on
potential
control
measures.
The
EPA
recently
issued
a
Proposed
rule
to
Implement
the
Fine
Particle
NAAQS
(
70
FR
65984)
to
support
implementation
of
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS.
In
addition,

we
set
national
emissions
standards/
limits
for
some
sources,

such
as
new
motor
vehicles,
certain
categories
of
major
new
sources,
and
existing
stationary
sources
of
toxic
air
pollutants,
all
of
which
may
obtain
reductions
in
PM.
Where
upwind
sources
(
such
as
coal­
fired
power
plants)

significantly
contribute
to
downwind
problems
in
other
States
or
tribal
areas,
we
can
issue
federal
regulations
to
ensure
that
the
upwind
States
address
these
contributing
emissions
(
such
as
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule),
or
we
can
put
in
place
Federal
regulations
in
situations
where
the
upwind
States
fail
to
address
these
sources.

A.
The
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
System
15
A
SIP
is
the
compilation
of
regulations
and
programs
that
a
State
uses
to
carry
out
its
responsibilities
under
the
CAA,
including
the
attainment,
maintenance,
and
enforcement
of
the
NAAQS.
States
use
the
SIP
process
to
identify
the
emissions
sources
that
contribute
to
the
nonattainment
problem
in
a
particular
area,
and
to
select
the
emissions
reductions
measures
most
appropriate
for
that
area,
considering
technical
and
economic
feasibility,
and
a
variety
of
local
factors
such
as
population
exposure,

enforceability,
and
economic
impact.
Under
the
CAA,
SIPs
must
ensure
that
areas
reach
attainment
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
These
plans
take
into
consideration
emissions
reductions
resulting
from
national
programs
(
such
as
mobile
source
regulations,
the
acid
rain
program,
or
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards
for
air
toxics),
as
well
as
from
State
or
local
programs
not
directly
mandated
under
the
CAA.

B.
National
Rules
As
described
in
a
recent
EPA
report,
The
Particle
Pollution
Report:
Current
Understanding
of
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
through
20032,
State
and
Federal
programs
have
made
substantial
progress
in
reducing
ambient
concentrations
2
Environmental
Protection
Agency(
2004).
The
Particle
Pollution
Report:
Current
Understanding
of
Air
Quality
and
Emissions
through
2003.
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards;
Emissions,
Monitoring,
and
Analysis
Division,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711;
report
no.
EPA­
454­
R­
04­
002.
December
2004.
16
of
PM10
and
PM2.5.
For
example,
PM10
concentrations
have
decreased
31
percent
nationally
since
1988.
Regionally,

PM10
concentrations
decreased
most
in
areas
with
historically
higher
concentrations
 
the
Northwest
(
39
percent
decline),
the
Southwest
(
33
percent
decline),
and
southern
California
(
35
percent
decline).
Direct
emissions
of
PM10
have
decreased
approximately
25
percent
nationally
since
1988.

Programs
aimed
at
reducing
direct
emissions
of
particles
have
played
an
important
role
in
reducing
PM10
concentrations,
particularly
in
western
areas.
Some
examples
of
PM10
controls
include
paving
unpaved
roads
and
using
best
management
practices
for
agricultural
sources
of
resuspended
soil.
Of
the
87
areas
that
were
designated
nonattainment
for
PM10
in
the
early
1990'
s,
64
now
meet
those
standards.
In
cities
that
have
not
attained
the
PM10
standards,
the
number
of
times
the
standard
is
exceeded
is
down
significantly.

National
programs
that
affect
regional
emissions
have
contributed
to
lower
sulfate
concentrations
and,

consequently,
to
lower
PM2.5
concentrations,
particularly
in
the
Industrial
Midwest
and
Southeast.
National
ozonereduction
programs
designed
to
reduce
emissions
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs)
and
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
also
have
helped
reduce
carbon
and
nitrate
particles,
both
of
which
17
are
components
of
PM2.5.
Power
plant
emissions
of
sulfur
dioxide
dropped
from
33%
from
1990
to
2003,
largely
as
a
result
of
EPA's
Acid
Rain
Program.
Nationally,
SO2
emissions
have
declined
9
percent,
NOx
emissions
have
declined
9
percent,
and
VOC
emissions
have
declined
by
12
percent
from
1999
to
2003.
In
eastern
States
affected
by
the
Acid
Rain
Program,
sulfates
decreased
7
percent
over
the
same
period.

Over
the
next
10
to
20
years,
national
and
regional
regulations
will
make
major
reductions
in
ambient
PM2.5
levels.
The
Clean
Air
Interstate
Rule
(
CAIR)
and
the
NOx
SIP
Call
will
reduce
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
from
electric
generating
units
and
industrial
boilers
across
the
eastern
half
of
the
U.
S.,
regulations
to
implement
the
current
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
PM2.5
will
likely
result
in
direct
PM2.5
and
PM2.5
precursor
controls
in
nonattainment
areas,
and
new
national
mobile
source
regulations
affecting
off­
highway
diesel
engines,
highway
gasoline
and
diesel
vehicles,
and
other
mobile
sources
will
reduce
emissions
of
NOx,
direct
PM2.5,
SO2,
and
VOCs.
The
EPA
estimates
that
these
Federal
regulations
for
stationary
and
mobile
sources
will
cut
SO2
emissions
by
6
million
tons
annually
in
2015
from
2001
levels.
Emissions
of
NOx
will
be
cut
by
9
million
tons
annually
in
2015
from
2001
levels.
Emissions
of
VOCs
will
drop
by
3
million
tons,
and
direct
PM2.5
emissions
will
18
be
cut
by
200,000
tons
in
2015,
compared
to
2001
levels.

III.
HOW
SHOULD
EPA
IMPLEMENT
THE
TRANSITION
FROM
THE
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
TO
ANY
NEW
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS?

A.
What
is
the
Status
of
Areas
Designated
Under
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS?

On
April
5,
2005,
nonattainment
designations
became
final
for
39
nonattainment
areas.
These
areas
were
designated
based
on
air
quality
data
from
2001­
2003
and
2002­
2004.
Nationally,
PM2.5
concentrations
have
declined
by
10
percent
from
1999
to
2003.
Generally,
PM2.5
concentrations
have
also
declined
the
most
in
regions
with
the
highest
concentrations
 
the
Southeast
(
20
percent
decline),
southern
California
(
16
percent
decline),
and
the
Midwest
(
9
percent
decline)­­
with
the
exception
of
the
Northeast,
where
PM2.5
concentrations
increased
by
1%.
Direct
emissions
of
PM2.5
have
decreased
by
5
percent
nationally
over
the
past
5
years.

Modeling
done
by
EPA
indicates
that
by
2010,
18
of
the
39
areas
currently
not
attaining
the
1997
PM2.5
standards
should
come
into
attainment
of
those
standards
just
based
on
regulatory
programs
already
in
place,
including
CAIR,
the
Clean
Diesel
Rules,
and
other
Federal
measures.
Four
more
PM2.5
areas
are
projected
to
attain
the
standards
by
2015
based
on
the
implementation
of
these
programs.
All
areas
in
the
eastern
U.
S.
will
have
lower
PM2.5
concentrations
in
2015
19
relative
to
present­
day
conditions.
In
most
cases,
the
predicted
improvement
in
PM2.5
ranges
from
10
percent
to
20
percent.

B.
How
Might
EPA
Implement
the
Transition
from
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
to
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS?

The
EPA
has
evaluated
several
options
for
the
transition
from
the
1997
PM2.5
standards
to
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards,
and
is
elaborating
on
two
potential
options.

Should
the
Agency
decide
to
revise
the
current
PM2.5
standards,
then
either
of
the
following
two
options
would
continue
the
momentum
and
continuity
of
the
existing
implementation
program
as
areas
look
to
reduce
ambient
PM2.5
concentrations
to
meet
the
current
and
revised
PM2.5
NAAQS.

Any
suggested
alternatives
to
these
approaches
should
demonstrate
how
it
will
continue
the
momentum
and
continuity
of
the
implementation
program.

1.
PM2.5
NAAQS
Option
1
Option
1
recognizes
that
the
only
proposed
change
to
the
1997
annual
PM2.5
standard
is
a
change
in
the
application
of
spatial
averaging
(
71
FR
2620).
Because
the
EPA
believes
that
the
proposed
change,
if
adopted,
would
not
be
significant
enough
to
require
new
designations
under
section
107(
d),
we
are
soliciting
comment
on
whether
it
would
be
appropriate
to
view
this
revision
as
minor
thus
not
requiring
a
designation
process.
Even
though
section
107(
d)
20
calls
for
EPA
to
commence
the
designation
process
for
"
any
new
or
revised
NAAQS,"
exceptions
could
be
made
for
revisions
to
a
NAAQS
of
a
de
minimis
or
insignificant
nature
such
that
they
should
not
lead
to
the
initiation
of
the
designation
process
and
consequent
establishment
of
new
SIP
submission
and
attainment
deadlines.
Option
1
would
be
considered
only
if
EPA
finalized
a
revision
to
the
annual
PM2.5
standard
that
was
of
such
a
minor
nature
as
the
proposed
revision.
It
would
not
be
available
if
EPA
revised
the
standard
more
substantially.

Following
this
path,
EPA
would
propose
not
to
revoke
the
1997
annual
PM2.5
standard,
and
would
propose
to
revoke
the
1997
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard
1
year
after
designations
are
finalized
under
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standard.
With
the
exception
of
2
areas
in
California
(
South
Coast
Air
Quality
District
and
San
Joaquin
Valley)
all
areas
designated
as
nonattainment
for
PM2.5
were
only
violating
the
annual
standard.
Under
this
path,
new
nonattainment
designations
would
only
be
made
for
the
areas
which
do
not
meet
any
new
2006
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard.
Therefore,
areas
which
are
designated
nonattainment
for
the
1997
annual
PM2.5
standard
would
continue
to
develop
and
implement
their
SIPs
based
on
a
final
implementation
rule
for
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
(
proposed
on
November
1,
2005
at
70
FR
65984).
Areas
which
are
newly
designated
nonattainment
under
any
new
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard
21
would
submit
a
SIP
by
April
2013
following
the
proposed
schedule
in
part
IV.
C
below.
This
approach
would
maintain
the
momentum
in
the
PM2.5
SIP
development
and
implementation
program.
It
would
also
not
require
the
development
and
implementation
of
an
anti­
backsliding
rule
to
maintain
progress
in
the
program,
as
no
areas
are
in
nonattainment
based
solely
on
the
24­
hour
PM2.5
standard.
Therefore
control
measures
would
still
be
in
place
under
the
approved
PM2.5
SIPs.

2.
PM2.5
NAAQS
Option
2
Option
2
varies
from
Option
1
in
that
EPA
would
revoke
the
1997
annual
and
24­
hour
PM2.5
standards
1
year
after
designations
under
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards.
This
approach
is
similar
to
that
promulgated
under
the
ozone
program
(
69
FR
23951,
April
30,
2004)
for
the
revocation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
one
year
after
designations
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Following
this
path,
EPA
would
develop
and
implement
an
"
anti­
backsliding"
rule
to
ensure
that
SIP
control
measures
developed
and
adopted
under
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
remained
in
place
until
SIPs
could
be
submitted
and
approved
to
meet
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards.

In
the
anti­
backsliding
rule,
EPA
would
address
issues
similar
to
those
addressed
in
the
anti­
backsliding
rule
adopted
as
part
of
the
transition
from
implementation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
22
including:(
1)
which
planning
and
control
requirements
should
remain
in
effect;
(
2)
effect
of
the
revised
standards
on
the
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
program;
and
(
3)
how
the
transition
would
affect
general
and
transportation
conformity
programs.

In
addressing
some
of
these
issues,
EPA
is
inclined
to
follow
the
precedent
set
by
the
ozone
program
which
required
areas
in
nonattainment
with
both
the
1­
hour
and
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
to
maintain
mandatory
control
measures
already
in
place,
and
allowed
such
areas
to
revise
or
remove
discretionary
control
measures
following
a
section
110(
l)

demonstration.
In
addition,
such
areas
would
implement
transportation
conformity
and
NSR
based
on
their
designations
for
the
revised
standard
only,
for
the
reasons
explained
in
the
ozone
anti­
backsliding
rule
(
69
FR
23954,
April
30,
2004).
The
EPA
invites
comment
on
these
two
options,
and
solicits
comments
on
any
additional
options
which
would
ensure
a
smooth
transition
and
continued
improvement
in
air
quality.

IV.
WHAT
ARE
THE
POTENTIAL
TIMELINES
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
ANY
NEW
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS?

A.
How
Would
the
Implementation
Schedules
of
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
and
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
NAAQS
Fit
Together
if
the
Revised
PM2.5
Standards
Are
More
Stringent
Than
the
Current
Standards?

Section
109(
d)(
1)
of
the
CAA
requires
a
thorough
review
23
of
the
NAAQS,
and
revisions
if
appropriate,
at
5­
year
intervals.
Current
requirements
of
the
CAA
thus
anticipate
an
overlap
in
review
and
implementation
of
standards.
The
EPA
believes
that
for
planning
purposes,
when
EPA
revises
a
standard
as
it
has
proposed
to
do,
it
is
beneficial
for
States
to
understand
control
strategies
that
may
be
useful
in
attaining
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards
when
developing
control
strategies
for
the
1997
PM2.5
standards.

B.
What
is
EPA's
Preferred
Schedule
for
the
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Designation
Process?

Under
the
terms
of
the
consent
decree
governing
the
review
of
the
1997
PM
NAAQS,
EPA
agreed
that
no
later
than
September
27,
2006,
it
would
sign
for
publication
a
notice
of
final
rulemaking
concerning
its
review
of
the
PM
NAAQS.

The
EPA
expects
that
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards
would
be
published
in
the
Federal
Register
within
4
weeks,
and
become
effective
60
days
later
probably
in
December
2006.

Timeframes
below
are
outlined
based
on
this
assumption.

Section
107(
d)(
1)
lays
out
a
schedule
allowing
States
up
to
1
year
in
which
to
make
recommendations
to
EPA
for
areas
that
might
be
designated
as
nonattainment
for
any
new
PM2.5
standards.
State
designation
recommendations
would
then
be
due
by
December
2007.
Tribes
would
also
be
encouraged,
but
not
required,
to
submit
designation
recommendations
to
EPA
for
their
reservations
or
other
areas
under
their
24
jurisdiction
by
December
2007.

These
recommendations
would
be
based
on
3
years
of
the
most
recent
monitoring
data
(
e.
g.,
2004­
2006).
The
EPA=
s
evaluation
of
the
existing
PM2.5
monitoring
network
indicates
that
it
is
adequate
for
designations
under
both
the
proposed
revised
annual
and
proposed
revised
24­
hour
standards.

Depending
on
which
revocation
process
is
selected
for
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS,
designations
may
be
for
the
revised
24­
hour
standard
alone
or
both
the
annual
and
24­
hour
standards.

Following
submittal
of
designation
recommendations
by
the
States,
EPA
would
evaluate
the
recommendations
and
make
possible
modifications.
Consistent
with
section
107,
States
would
be
notified
of
these
changes,
and
would
be
allowed
to
make
additional
comments
on
the
proposed
designations.
The
EPA
would
issue
final
PM2.5
designations
under
any
new
PM2.5
NAAQS
no
later
than
December
2009.
These
designations
would
be
effective
by
April
2010.
The
CAA
provides
EPA
with
up
to
3
years
to
designate
nonattainment
areas
following
promulgation
of
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS.
The
EPA
anticipates
that
this
full
time
period
may
be
necessary
for
a
variety
of
reasons
as
it
has
been
in
the
past,,
including
evaluating
more
recent
data
in
order
to
determine
appropriate
designation
boundaries.
This
timeline
would
allow
States
to
look
at
2006­
2008
monitoring
data
and
update
their
recommendations
to
EPA
if
they
choose
to
do
so
based
on
the
25
more
recent
data.

In
addition,
as
was
done
for
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS
designations,
we
would
anticipate
allowing
a
further
update
based
on
2007­
2009
monitoring
data,
and
make
designations
effective
in
April
2010.
Table
1
at
the
end
of
part
IV(
D)

provides
a
timeline
showing
the
dates
that
would
result
from
such
a
designation
process.
The
EPA
would
appreciate
comments
on
this
timeline
and
other
potential
approaches.

C.
What
Would
the
Schedule
be
for
Attainment
Demonstrations
and
SIP
Submittals
for
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Standards?

Part
D
of
title
I
of
the
CAA
sets
forth
the
requirements
for
SIPs
needed
to
attain
the
NAAQS.
Part
D
includes
a
general
subpart
1
which
applies
to
all
NAAQS
for
which
a
specific
subpart
does
not
exist.
These
provisions
apply
to
the
PM2.5
standards
and
would
apply
to
any
revised
PM2.5
standards.
The
EPA
has
currently
proposed
implementation
rules
for
PM2.5
(
70
FR
65984)
which,
when
finalized,
will
govern
any
revised
standards.

Section
172(
b)
of
the
CAA
requires
that
at
the
time
the
Agency
promulgates
nonattainment
area
designations,
EPA
must
also
establish
a
schedule
for
States
to
submit
SIPs
meeting
the
applicable
requirements
of
section
172(
c)
and
section
110(
a)(
2)
of
the
CAA.
Section
172(
b)
requires
that
such
schedule
allow
a
State
to
submit
its
attainment
26
demonstration
and
SIP
revision
within
no
more
than
3
years
of
nonattainment
designation.
Following
the
above
timeline
(
outlined
in
IV.
B),
if
nonattainment
area
designations
become
effective
in
April
2010,
and
EPA
allows
the
maximum
time
for
SIP
submissions,
then
attainment
demonstrations
and
SIP
revisions
would
be
due
by
April
2013.

D.
What
are
Attainment
Dates
for
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Standards?

Section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)
states
that
the
attainment
date
for
a
nonattainment
area
must
be
Aas
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
no
later
than
5
years
from
the
date
of
designation
for
the
area.@
If
any
new
2006
PM2.5
designations
are
made
in
December
2009
and
have
an
effective
date
of
April
2010,
the
initial
attainment
date
for
any
new
PM2.5
standard
would
be
no
later
than
April
2015.
As
an
aside,
this
attainment
date
would
correspond
with
the
latest
date
an
area
designated
in
April
2005
could
come
into
attainment
with
the
1997
PM2.5
NAAQS.
For
an
area
with
a
maximum
5­
year
attainment
date,
EPA
would
determine
whether
it
had
attained
the
standard
by
evaluating
air
quality
data
from
the
three
previous
calendar
years
(
2012­
2014).

Section
172
also
states
that
if
EPA
deems
it
appropriate,
the
Agency
may
extend
the
attainment
date
for
an
area
for
a
period
not
greater
than
10
years
from
the
date
of
designation
as
nonattainment,
taking
into
account
the
27
severity
of
the
nonattainment
problem
in
the
area,
and
the
availability
and
feasibility
of
pollution
control
measures.

For
any
area
that
is
granted
the
full
5­
year
attainment
date
extension,
the
attainment
date
would
be
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
no
later
than
April
2020.
For
such
areas,

EPA
would
determine
whether
the
area
attained
the
standard
by
evaluating
air
quality
data
from
2017,
2018,
and
2019.

Table
1
is
an
overview
of
the
proposed
timeline
for
implementing
any
new
2006
PM2.5
standards.

Table
1.
Proposed
Timeline
for
Any
New
2006
PM2.5
Standards
Effective
date
of
standard
December
2006
Monitoring
data
used
for
State
recommendations
2005­
2007
State
recommendations
to
EPA
December
2007
Final
designations
signature
December
2009
Effective
date
of
designations
April
2010
SIPs
due
April
2013
Attainment
date
Up
to
April
2015
(
based
on
2012­
2014
data)
Attainment
date
with
a
5­
year
extension
Up
to
April
2020
(
based
on
2017­
2019
data)

The
EPA
is
soliciting
comments
on
which
relevant
factors
should
influence
EPA's
decision
on
any
potential
timeline.

V.
WHAT
ARE
THE
POTENTIAL
TIMELINES
FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
OF
ANY
NEW
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS?

A.
What
is
a
Potential
Schedule
for
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Designation
Process?

Section
107(
d)(
1)(
B)
gives
the
Agency
the
authority
to
28
promulgate
designations
for
all
areas
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
no
later
than
3
years
from
the
date
of
promulgation
of
the
new
or
revised
NAAQS.

Currently,
a
PM10­
2.5
monitoring
network
does
not
exist.

The
EPA's
proposed
monitoring
regulations
for
PM10­
2.5
(
71
FR
2710)
call
for
monitors
to
be
deployed
by
January
2009.
If
this
schedule
is
adopted,
the
first
period
when
3
years
of
data
would
be
available
for
State
designation
recommendations
would
be
mid­
2012
based
on
air
quality
data
for
2009­
2011.
As
noted
above,
following
the
statutory
timeline,
designations
for
PM10­
2.5
would
be
required
to
occur
no
later
than
late
2009.
Three
years
of
PM10­
2.5
monitoring
data
will
not
be
available
at
that
time.
For
EPA
to
meet
its
statutory
obligation,
EPA
would
need
to
designate
all
areas
as
unclassifiable
under
section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)(
iii),
on
the
basis
that
no
information
is
available
to
determine
whether
an
area
is
meeting
any
new
NAAQS
for
PM10­
2.5.
From
a
historical
perspective
this
was
the
situation
in
1997
when
we
established
the
PM2.5
NAAQS.
Subsequent,
to
the
establishment
of
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
in
1997,
Congress
passed
legislation
which
modified
the
CAA
for
the
purposes
of
PM2.5
designations.
EPA
is
potentially
confronting
this
issue
again
with
respect
to
any
new
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS.
As
a
policy,

EPA
does
not
think
that
designating
all
areas
of
the
country
as
unclassifiable
provides
useful
information
to
the
public
29
about
their
area
meeting
new
air
quality
standards.
EPA
would
prefer
to
not
make
designations
until
three
years
of
monitoring
data
is
available.
EPA
is
soliciting
comments
on
the
best
way
to
address
this
issue.

B.
What
is
EPA
=

s
Preferred
Schedule
for
Designations
For
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Standards?

The
first
available
3
years
of
data
from
a
monitoring
network
for
PM10­
2.5
will
be
2009­
2011.
If
EPA
had
not
previously
designated
areas
unclassifiable,
EPA
could
then
request
recommendations
from
States
for
areas
that
might
be
designated
nonattainment
for
PM10­
2.5
by
July
2012.
This
is
approximately
6
months
after
a
full
3
years
of
data
would
be
available
for
some
areas.
EPA
believes
this
is
adequate
time
for
evaluating
and
quality
assuring
data
to
make
recommendations
on
designations.
On
the
other
hand,
States
have
until
May
1
to
certify
that
their
monitoring
data
is
correct,
and
may
need
additional
time
for
designation
recommendations.
Another
option
would
be
to
allow
the
States
until
October
2012
to
make
recommendations.
The
EPA
would
like
to
take
comment
on
this
option.

Following
submittal
of
designation
recommendations
by
the
States,
EPA
will
evaluate
the
recommendations
and
make
modifications
by
December
2012.
States
will
be
notified
of
these
changes,
and
given
another
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
proposed
modifications
to
designations.
The
EPA
would
30
then
issue
final
modified
PM10­
2.5
designations
by
May
2013
which
would
be
effective
approximately
July
2013.

If
EPA
had
previously
designated
areas
unclassifiable,

then,
once
EPA
had
sufficient
monitoring
data
available,
EPA
would
move
forward
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
A)
to
notify
States
that
it
believed
designations
for
areas
should
be
revised.
States
would
then
have
the
opportunity
to
respond
in
accordance
with
section
107(
d)(
3)(
B),
and
EPA
would
take
action
regarding
any
revisions
of
the
designations
in
accordance
with
section
107(
d)(
3)(
C).

Since
classifications
under
Title
I
are
done
at
the
same
time
as
designations,
EPA
is
considering
the
role
a
classification
system
could
play
in
facilitating
the
implementation
of
the
any
new
PM2.5
NAAQS.
The
EPA
prefers
not
to
develop
a
classification
system
to
use
in
determining
the
amount
of
time
permitted
for
attainment,
for
reasons
similar
to
those
outlined
in
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Implement
the
Fine
Particle
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards;

Proposed
Rule
(
70
FR
page
66000,
November
1,
2005).

Developing
a
classification
system
is
only
an
option,
not
a
requirement
under
section
172(
a)(
1),
and
for
the
reasons
noted
EPA
does
not
believe
it
would
be
preferable
to
implement
a
classification
scheme.
The
EPA
would
like
comments
on
this
potential
designation
timeline,
and
on
its
31
intentions
to
not
develop
a
classification
system.

C.
What
is
EPA
=

s
Preferred
Schedule
for
Attainment
Demonstrations
and
SIP
Submittals
for
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Standards?

Section
172(
b)
of
the
CAA
requires
EPA
to
establish
a
schedule
for
a
State
to
submit
its
attainment
demonstration
and
SIP
revision
within
3
years
of
nonattainment
designation.
Following
the
schedule
outlined
in
part
V(
B)

above,
if
nonattainment
designations
for
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards
were
effective
in
July
2013,
then
attainment
demonstrations
and
SIP
revisions
would
be
due
by
July
2016.

The
EPA
would
like
comments
on
this
proposed
timeline.

D.
What
is
EPA
=

s
Preferred
Schedule
for
Attaining
Any
New
PM10­
2.5
Standards?

Section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)
states
that
the
attainment
date
for
a
nonattainment
area
must
be
Aas
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
no
later
than
5
years
from
the
date
of
designation
for
the
area.@
If
new
PM10­
2.5
designations
are
made
in
May
2013
and
are
effective
in
July
2013,
the
initial
attainment
date
for
PM10­
2.5
would
be
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
no
later
than
July
2018.
For
an
area
with
an
attainment
date
of
July
2018,
EPA
would
determine
whether
it
had
attained
the
PM10­
2.5
standards
by
evaluating
air
quality
data
from
the
3
previous
calendar
years
(
i.
e.,
2015,

2016
and
2017).
32
Section
172
also
states
that
if
EPA
deems
it
appropriate,
the
Agency
may
extend
the
attainment
date
for
an
area
for
a
period
not
greater
than
10
years
from
the
date
of
designation,
taking
into
account
the
severity
of
the
nonattainment
problem
in
the
area,
and
the
availability
and
feasibility
of
pollution
control
measures.
For
any
area
that
is
granted
the
full
5­
year
attainment
date
extension,

the
attainment
date
would
be
no
later
than
July
2023.
For
such
areas,
EPA
would
determine
whether
they
have
attained
the
standard
by
evaluating
air
quality
data
from
2020,
2021
and
2022.
Table
2
is
an
overview
of
this
proposed
timeline
for
designation,
SIP
submittal
and
attainment
dates
under
this
proposed
schedule.

Table
2.
Proposed
Timeline
for
a
Possible
2006
PM10­
2.5
Standards
Effective
date
of
standard
December
2006
Monitoring
data
used
for
State
recommendations
2009­
2011
State
recommendations
to
EPA
July
2012
Final
designations
signature
May
2013
Effective
date
of
designations
July
2013
SIPs
due
July
2016
Attainment
date
Up
to
July
2018
(
based
on
2015­
2017
data)
Attainment
date
with
extension
Up
to
July
2023
(
based
on
2020­
2022
data)

The
EPA
requests
comment
on
this
potential
timeline
for
attaining
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards.

VI.
HOW
SHOULD
EPA
IMPLEMENT
THE
TRANSITION
FROM
THE
PM10
STANDARDS
TO
ANY
NEW
PM10­
2.5
STANDARDS?
33
A.
What
is
EPA's
Proposal
for
Revoking
the
PM10
Standards?

Before
areas
are
designated
under
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards,
we
intend
to
address
how
to
transition
from
implementation
of
the
PM10
standards
to
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards.
As
part
of
the
NAAQS
proposal
(
71
FR
2620),
EPA
proposed
to
revoke
the
annual
PM10
standard
everywhere,
and
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
everywhere
except
in
areas
where
there
is
at
least
one
monitor
that
is
located
in
an
urbanized
area
with
a
minimum
population
of
100,000
people
and
that
violates
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
based
on
the
most
recent
3
years
of
data.
This
revocation
would
be
effective
upon
promulgation
of
the
PM
NAAQS
in
December
2006.
The
EPA
also
provided
a
list
of
places
where
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
would
not
be
revoked
under
the
proposal.
In
addition,
EPA
requested
comment
on
whether
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
should
be
retained
in
areas
that
are
either
urbanized
areas
with
populations
less
than
100,000
people
or
non­
urbanized
areas
(
i.
e.,
population
less
than
50,000)
but
where
the
majority
of
the
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
is
generated
by
high
density
traffic
on
paved
roads,
industrial
sources,

and
construction
sources,
and
which
have
at
least
one
monitor
that
violated
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard.
Comments
on
this
revocation
plan
should
be
submitted
under
that
notice
(
71
FR
2620).

This
raises
a
number
of
issues
for
those
areas
where
34
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
would
still
apply
including:
when
and
how
should
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
be
revoked
for
these
areas;
should
anti­
backsliding
provisions
apply;
how
to
address
NSR
and
maintenance
issues;
and
other
implementation
issues.
Our
principal
objective
for
the
transition
is
to
ensure
that
air
quality
will
not
degrade
in
areas
where
the
potential
new
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
would
apply,
and
that
areas
continue
to
make
progress
toward
attainment
of
the
PM
standards.
Subject
to
requirements
under
the
CAA
for
revising
SIPs,
EPA
expects
States
would
take
the
opportunity
to
revise
their
SIPs
to
reflect
the
revocation
of
the
PM10
standards.

B.
What
Should
the
Timing
be
for
Revoking
the
24­
hour
PM10
Standard
for
Those
Areas
Where
the
24­
hour
PM10
Standard
is
Retained?

The
EPA
contemplates
that
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
would
be
revoked
one
year
after
attainment/
nonattainment
designations
are
effective
for
a
24­
hour
PM10­
2.5
standard.

Because
attainment/
nonattainment
designations
would
not
occur
until
July
2013,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
some
areas
where
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
has
not
been
revoked
would
come
into
attainment
with
the
PM10
standard
prior
to
July
2013.
We
invite
comment
on
how
these
areas
should
be
treated.

C.
What
Transition
Issues
are
Created
by
Revoking
the
24­
35
hour
PM10
Standard
in
Areas
Where
It
is
Currently
Proposed
to
be
Retained
and
How
Might
They
be
Addressed?

1.
Control
Measures
EPA
wants
to
ensure
that
air
quality
is
not
degraded
if
we
move
from
one
version
of
the
NAAQS
to
another.
What
protections
should
remain
in
place
to
ensure
that
air
quality
will
not
degrade
once
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
is
revoked,
and
that
progress
will
continue
as
areas
transition
from
implementing
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
to
implementing
the
24­
hour
PM10­
2.5
standard?

a.
What
requirements
based
on
an
area=
s
classification
for
the
PM10
standard
should
continue
to
apply?

The
EPA
believes
an
approach
similar
to
what
was
done
under
the
ozone
transition
from
the
1­
hour
to
the
8­
hour
standard
(
69
FR
23951
page
23969)
would
be
appropriate
here
in
that
control
measures
which
remain
in
place
were
determined
by
the
area's
classification.
Such
an
approach
would
mean
that
moderate
PM10
nonattainment
areas
should
continue
to
require
reasonably
available
control
measures
(
RACM)(
as
described
in
section
189(
a)(
1)(
C)
of
the
CAA).

Serious
PM10
nonattainment
areas
should
also
continue
to
require
best
available
control
measures
(
BACM)
(
section
189(
b)(
1)(
B)
of
the
CAA).
All
nonattainment
areas
should
have
an
EPA­
approved
part
D
SIP
in
place,
and
continue
to
implement
the
nonattainment
requirements
and
control
36
measures
identified
in
the
SIP.
Any
effort
to
change
SIPapproved
measures
would
be
subject
to
a
section
110(
l)

demonstration
of
no
interference
with
applicable
requirements.

The
EPA
also
believes
that
those
areas
where
the
24­

hour
PM10
standard
is
being
violated
and
has
not
been
revoked
should
continue
to
implement
the
requirements
of
the
CAA
until
nonattainment
and
attainment
designations
for
PM10­

2.5
are
completed.
However,
this
could
represent
a
significant
period
of
time
(
from
2006­
2013).
Consequently,

EPA
is
interested
in
alternative
views
regarding
the
appropriate
implementation
pathway
for
the
PM10
standard
in
these
areas.

b.
How
should
EPA
address
maintenance?

Those
PM10
nonattainment
areas
where
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
has
not
been
revoked
which
come
into
attainment
with
the
24­
hour
PM10
NAAQS
prior
to
designations
under
the
24­
hour
PM10­
2.5
standard,
may
request
to
be
redesignated
as
attainment
for
PM10
under
section
107(
d).
As
such
they
would
need
to
submit
a
maintenance
plan
under
section
175A.

Maintenance
areas
do
not
have
any
outstanding
obligation
to
adopt
further
mandatory
control
obligations.
We
would
anticipate
an
approach
to
maintenance
requirements
similar
to
what
was
provided
in
the
ozone
rule
where
maintenance
areas
retain
the
discretion
to
modify
any
discretionary
37
control
measures
upon
a
demonstration
under
section
110(
l)

(
69
FR
23951
page
23955).
The
EPA
requests
comments
on
how
to
address
maintenance
areas.

2.
Transportation
conformity
Transportation
conformity
is
required
under
section
176(
c)
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
'
7506(
c))
to
ensure
that
federally
supported
highway
and
transit
project
activities
are
consistent
with
(
Aconform
to@)
the
purpose
of
a
SIP.

Conformity
to
the
purpose
of
a
SIP
means
that
transportation
activities
will
not
cause
new
air
quality
violations,
worsen
existing
violations,
or
delay
timely
attainment
of
the
NAAQS.
Transportation
conformity
applies
in
nonattainment
areas
and
maintenance
areas.
The
EPA=
s
transportation
conformity
rule,
40
CFR
part
93,
establishes
the
criteria
and
procedures
for
determining
whether
transportation
activities
conform
to
the
State
air
quality
plan.
It
also
establishes
criteria
and
procedures
for
determining
whether
transportation
activities
conform
in
areas
where
no
SIP
containing
motor
vehicle
emissions
budgets
yet
exists.

Transportation
conformity
rulemakings,
as
well
as
other
relevant
conformity
materials
such
as
guidance
documents,

policy
memoranda,
the
complete
text
of
the
conformity
rule,

and
conformity
research
can
be
found
at
EPA=
s
transportation
conformity
website,
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq/
transp.
htm
(
once
at
the
site,
click
on
ATransportation
Conformity.@)
38
Until
areas
are
designated
nonattainment,

transportation
conformity
will
not
apply
for
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standard.
Based
on
the
timeline
outlined
above,

designations
for
any
new
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
could
be
effective
in
July
2013,
and
for
all
nonattainment
areas
transportation
conformity
would
then
apply
1
year
later.
Prior
to
the
designation
date,
EPA
would
propose
to
update
the
transportation
conformity
rule
to
address
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standard.

The
EPA
will
solicit
public
comment
on
these
and
other
issues
associated
with
determining
transportation
conformity
in
any
new
PM10­
2.5
nonattainment
areas
when
it
proposes
to
revise
the
conformity
rule
to
address
the
new
standard.

Once
we
revoke
the
PM10
standard
and
the
associated
designations,
transportation
conformity
will
no
longer
apply
under
the
terms
of
the
statute
for
that
standard.

3.
General
conformity
Section
176(
c)
of
the
CAA
requires
that
before
a
Federal
entity
takes
an
action,
it
must
make
a
determination
that
the
proposed
action
will
not
interfere
with
the
SIP
or
the
State=
s
ability
to
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS.
In
November
1993,
EPA
promulgated
two
sets
of
regulations
to
implement
section
176(
c).
One
set,
known
as
the
general
conformity
regulations,
deals
with
all
other
Federal
activities
besides
funding
of
highway
and
mass
transit
39
projects.
These
activities
include
funding
and
approval
of
airport
projects,
expansion
of
military
bases,
and
permitting
of
projects
to
deepen
waterways.

Federal
agencies
take
thousands
of
actions
every
day
and
requiring
determinations
on
every
action
would
not
be
possible.
Therefore,
EPA
established
a
number
of
exemptions
to
the
rule
requirements
including
a
de
minimis
emission
level
generally
based
upon
the
size
of
a
major
stationary
source
in
the
nonattainment
or
maintenance
area.

Following
are
a
series
of
questions
related
to
implementation
of
general
conformity
on
which
EPA
is
soliciting
input:

 
What
de
minimis
levels
should
EPA
establish
for
direct
and
precursor
emissions
for
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards?

The
EPA
currently
does
not
have
speciated
monitoring
data
for
PM10­
2.5.
Consequently,
we
do
not
know
if
the
mass
of
PM10­
2.5
contains
a
significant
amount
of
particulate
matter
formed
by
atmospheric
chemical
reactions.

 
In
transitioning
to
a
new
standard,
how
should
EPA
treat
previous
conformity
evaluations
and
determinations
based
on
the
PM10
standard?

 
Are
there
any
categories
of
actions
that
should
be
exempt
from
the
conformity
requirements
for
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards?
If
so,
how
could
such
exemptions
be
40
devised?

4.
New
Source
Review
program
The
NSR
program
is
a
preconstruction
permitting
program
that
applies
when
a
new
source
is
constructed
or
an
existing
one
is
modified.
The
major
NSR
program
applies
to
major
stationary
sources
and
is
comprised
of
the
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
(
PSD)
program
that
applies
in
attainment
areas
and
a
nonattainment
NSR
program
that
applies
to
pollutants
for
which
an
area
is
designated
nonattainment.

There
are
many
major
NSR
program
implementation
issues
that
EPA
will
address
for
a
new
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS,
including
revocation
of
the
existing
PM10
NAAQS.
In
this
ANPR,
EPA
is
highlighting
some
of
the
key
issues
and
providing
EPA's
preliminary
thinking
on
approaches
for
addressing
them.
We
recognize
that
there
may
be
other
implementation
issues
not
identified
here,
and
we
invite
you
to
identify
them.
When
submitting
comments,
please
support
your
comments
with
adequate
data
and/
or
practical
scenarios
or
illustrations.

a.
Does
PM10
continue
to
be
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
for
PSD
in
areas
where
the
24­
hour
PM10
NAAQS
would
be
revoked?

The
PSD
program
applies
when
a
major
stationary
source
of
any
"
regulated
NSR
pollutant",
that
is
located
in
an
area
designated
as
attainment
or
unclassifiable
for
any
criteria
pollutant,
is
constructed
or
undergoes
a
major
modification
41
(
40
CFR
52.21(
a)(
2);
40
CFR
51.166(
a)(
7)).
EPA
defines
a
"
regulated
NSR
pollutant"
to
include
(
1)
any
pollutant
for
which
a
NAAQS
has
been
promulgated
(
otherwise
known
as
a
"
criteria"
pollutant);
(
2)
any
pollutant
subject
to
a
New
Source
Performance
Standard
promulgated
under
section
111
of
the
CAA;
and
(
3)
any
pollutant
that
is
otherwise
regulated
under
the
Act,
except
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
regulated
under
section
112
of
the
Act3
(
40
CFR
52.21(
b)
(
50);
40
CFR
51.166(
b)(
49)).
Thus,
in
addition
to
applying
to
criteria
pollutants
for
which
EPA
has
promulgated
a
NAAQS,
the
PSD
program
also
applies
to
any
non­
criteria
pollutant
that
is
covered
by
the
additional
prongs
of
the
definition
of
a
"
regulated
NSR
pollutant"
described
above.
However,
not
all
of
the
PSD
program
requirements
outlined
below
are
applicable
to
non­
criteria
pollutants
that
are
subject
to
the
PSD
program.

The
PSD
requirements
include
but
are
not
limited
to:

C
Installation
of
Best
Available
Control
Technology
(
BACT),

C
Air
quality
monitoring
and
modeling
analyses
to
ensure
that
a
project=
s
emissions
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
any
NAAQS
or
maximum
allowable
pollutant
increase
(
PSD
3
This
definition
also
covers
any
pollutant
that
is
subject
to
any
standard
promulgated
under
or
established
by
Title
VI
of
the
Act,
but
this
is
not
relevant
to
particulate
matter.
42
increment),

C
Notification
of
Federal
Land
Manager
when
a
proposed
source
or
modification
may
affect
nearby
Class
I
areas,
and
C
Public
comment
on
the
permit.

For
any
criteria
pollutant
subject
to
PSD,
all
PSD
requirements
including
the
PSD
increments
analyses
apply.

However,
since
there
are
no
NAAQS
for
non­
criteria
pollutants,
only
some
requirements,
including
BACT,
apply
to
these
pollutants
(
See
42
U.
S.
C.
7475(
a)(
4);
40
CFR
52.21(
j));
40
CFR
52.166(
j))

The
proposed
revocation
of
the
24­
hour
PM10
NAAQS
in
certain
areas
raises
issues
about
whether
existing
PSD
regulations
would
continue
to
apply
to
PM10
in
any
respect
after
the
revocation
of
the
NAAQS
in
these
areas.
The
extent
to
which
all
or
some
of
the
PSD
requirements
apply
depends
on
whether
PM10
continues
to
be
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
in
these
areas,
either
as
a
criteria
or
a
noncriteria
pollutant,
under
EPA's
regulations
and
the
CAA.
We
seek
comment
on
the
following
options
to
address
these
issues:

Option
1
Since
the
24­
hour
PM10
standard
would
remain
in
effect
at
least
in
some
areas,
we
could
conclude
that
PM10
continues
to
be
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
for
the
PSD
43
program.
Thus,
even
in
those
areas
in
which
the
24­
hour
PM10
NAAQS
is
revoked
(
24­
hour
revoked
areas),
PM10
would
be
regarded
as
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
only
by
virtue
of
being
otherwise
subject
to
regulation
under
the
CAA
(
40
CFR
52.21(
b)(
50)(
iv))
because
a
24­
hour
PM10
NAAQS
continues
to
apply
in
other
areas.
Under
this
approach,
PSD
for
PM10
would
continue
to
apply
in
all
areas.
However,
as
stated
earlier,
only
a
few
PSD
requirements,
including
BACT,
would
apply
in
24­
hour
revoked
areas
since
PM10
would
be
regarded
as
a
non­
criteria
pollutant
in
those
areas.
In
those
areas
where
the
24­
hour
PM10
NAAQS
is
not
revoked,
all
PSD
program
elements
would
continue
to
apply
for
PM10
because
it
remains
a
criteria
pollutant
in
these
areas.

Option
2
Alternatively,
we
could
interpret
all
prongs
of
the
"
regulated
NSR
pollutant"
definition
to
be
area­
specific.

Thus,
in
24­
hour
revoked
areas,
PM10
would
no
longer
be
a
criteria
pollutant,
and
none
of
the
other
prongs
of
the
definition
of
"
regulated
NSR
pollutant"
would
apply
to
PM10
in
these
areas.
Therefore,
none
of
the
PSD
requirements
would
apply
to
PM10
in
such
areas.
We
request
comment
on
whether
there
is
any
other
basis
for
retaining
PM10
as
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant,
even
if
it
is
no
longer
a
criteria
pollutant.

b.
Does
the
CAA
require
continued
obligation
for
some
form
44
of
PM
increment?

Section
163
of
the
CAA
states
that
each
SIP
should
contain
measures
assuring
that
maximum
allowable
increases
over
baseline
concentration
(
increments)
for
PM
shall
not
be
exceeded
in
attainment
areas.
Section
163
contains
specific
numerical
increments
(
expressed
as
ug/
m3)
for
PM,
which
EPA
initially
implemented
using
the
total
suspended
particulate
indicator.
After
EPA
transitioned
to
PM10
as
the
indicator
for
PM
in
1987,
the
Agency
substituted
PM10
increments
for
the
PM
increments
in
section
163
based
on
the
authority
of
section
166(
f)
of
the
Act
(
58
FR
31622,
June
3,
1993).

Section
166(
f),
which
was
enacted
in
the
1990
amendments
to
the
CAA,
authorized
EPA
to
substitute
PM10
increments
"
of
equal
stringency
in
effect"
as
the
section
163
PM
increments,
but
also
required
that
the
PM
increments
remain
in
effect
until
the
new
PM10
increments
were
promulgated.

For
pollutants
other
than
PM
and
sulfur
dioxide4,

Section
166(
a)
of
the
CAA
directs
the
Administrator
to
conduct
a
study
and
promulgate
regulations,
which
may
include
increments,
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality.
EPA
promulgated
increments
for
nitrogen
oxides
under
this
authority
(
70
FR
59582,
Oct.
12,
2005,
and
53
FR
40656,
Oct.
17,
1988).
Section
166(
a)
also
directs
the
Administrator
to
promulgate
pollutant­
specific
PSD
4
Section
163
also
contains
increments
for
sulfur
dioxide.
42
U.
S.
C.
45
regulations
for
pollutants
for
which
NAAQS
are
promulgated
after
1977.
The
proposed
revocation
of
the
PM10
NAAQS
raises
two
issues
with
respect
to
EPA's
PSD
regulations
for
PM.
The
first
is
whether
EPA
has
a
continuing
obligation
under
section
163
or
166(
f)
of
the
CAA
to
implement
some
form
of
a
PM
increment.
The
second
question
concerns
the
methodology
that
EPA
should
use
to
establish
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5
to
replace
the
increments
for
PM10.
We
seek
comment
on
the
following
options
to
address
these
issues:

Option
1
Once
the
PM10
NAAQS
is
revoked,
one
approach
would
be
to
conclude
that
section
166(
f),
requiring
equivalent
PM10
increments,
is
no
longer
applicable
in
the
absence
of
a
PM10
NAAQS.
Furthermore,
since
section
166(
f)
effectively
superseded
section
163,
we
would
not
construe
the
latter
provision
to
require
that
EPA
maintain
a
PM
increment
after
the
revocation
of
the
PM10
NAAQS.
Thus,
we
could
conclude
that
neither
the
section
163
increment
requirement
for
PM
nor
the
section
166(
f)
increment
requirement
for
PM10
remains
effective
after
revocation
of
the
PM10
standard.

Accordingly,
we
would
need
to
develop
new
increments5
for
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5.
In
the
interest
of
simplicity
and
ease
section
7473
5
Alternatively,
if
we
promulgate
such
regulations
under
section
166,
EPA
could
develop
equivalent
PSD
regulations
for
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5
that
46
of
implementation,
we
could
develop
new
increments
for
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5
pursuant
to
section
166
of
the
CAA.
This
approach
would
include
among
other
things,
establishing
new
baseline
dates
and
trigger
dates
for
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5
on
the
theory
that
these
are
separate,
new
pollutants,
at
least
for
NSR
purposes.
Otherwise
the
alternative
approach,
described
below,
of
trying
to
continue
the
implementation
of
the
section
163
increments
for
PM
(
using
the
new
indicators)

would
involve
retroactively
estimating
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5
emissions
in
1978
(
based
on
the
original
PSD
requirements
for
PM),
and
would
be
extremely
difficult
in
most
cases.

Option
2
Another
approach
would
be
to
interpret
sections
163
and
166(
f)
to
require
some
form
of
PM
increments
on
a
continuous
basis.
However,
we
would
recognize
the
Congressional
intent
reflected
in
section
166(
f)
that
EPA
update
the
PM
increments
as
it
modifies
the
NAAQS
for
PM.
Under
this
option,
we
could
substitute
PM10
increments
with
two
new
increments
(
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5)
"
of
equal
stringency
in
effect"

based
on
section
166(
f)
of
the
CAA
by
using
the
methodology
reflected
in
our
1993
PM10
increments
regulation.
This
approach
would
provide
continuity
with
the
existing
PM10
increments
system
and
would
most
likely
involve
retaining
the
existing
baseline
areas
and
dates.

include
other
measures
instead
of
increments.
47
c.
How
should
permitting
authorities
implement
the
PM2.5
program
upon
revocation
of
the
PM10
NAAQS?

When
EPA
first
promulgated
the
NAAQS
for
PM2.5
in
1997,

we
encountered
a
number
of
technical
difficulties
with
implementing
the
PSD
program
for
PM2.5
upon
the
effective
date
of
the
NAAQS
for
PM2.5.
To
address
these
difficulties,

EPA
established
a
policy
that
enabled
permitting
authorities
to
use
the
implementation
of
the
PSD
program
for
PM10
as
a
surrogate
for
a
PM2.5
PSD
program
until
the
necessary
tools
were
in
place
to
measure
PM2.5
and
implement
PSD
permitting
programs
for
PM2.5.
See
Memorandum
from
John
S.
Seitz,

Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
to
Regional
Air
Directors,
Interim
Implementation
of
New
Source
Review
for
PM2.5
(
October
23,
1997)
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
Region7/
programs/
artd/
air/
nsr/
nsrmemos/
pm
25.
pdf
).
The
EPA
extended
this
PM10
surrogate
policy
to
implementation
of
the
NSR
program
in
nonattainment
areas,

once
PM2.5
nonattainment
designations
became
effective
on
April
5,
2005.
See
Memorandum
from
Stephen
D.
Page,

Director,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
to
Regional
Air
Directors,
Interim
Implementation
of
New
Source
Review
for
PM2.5
in
Nonattainment
Areas
(
April
5,
2005)
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
Region7/
programs/
artd/
air/
nsr/
nsrmemos/
pm
25guid.
pdf).
These
policies
remain
in
effect
today
pending
the
promulgation
of
EPA's
PM2.5
implementation
rules
for
NSR
48
and
approval
of
SIPs
containing
PSD
programs
for
PM2.5.

Because
of
the
proposed
revocation
of
the
PM10
NAAQS,

there
may
not
be
a
PM10
PSD
program
remaining
in
24­
hour
revoked
areas
to
rely
upon
as
a
surrogate
for
implementation
of
a
PSD
program
for
PM2.5.
This
raises
the
issue
of
how
States
may
continue
to
satisfy
the
PSD
program
requirements
for
PM2.5
in
the
interim
period.
We
seek
comment
on
the
following
options
to
address
this
issue:

Option
1
One
approach
that
we
might
use
would
be
to
continue
using
an
analysis
of
PM10
air
quality
as
a
surrogate
for
the
air
quality
analysis
under
the
PM2.5
program
with
a
change.

Permitting
authorities
may
continue
to
analyze
PM10
emissions
and
concentrations,
but
they
would
have
to
compare
these
concentrations
with
the
PM2.5
NAAQS
to
show
that
the
predicted
PM10
concentrations
would
not
exceed
the
PM2.5
NAAQS.
This
approach
would
overpredict
actual
PM2.5
concentrations
in
most
cases,
but
it
would
represent
a
conservative
screening
mechanism
that
could
demonstrate
that
a
new
source
or
major
modification
would
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
the
PM2.5
NAAQS.
We
believe
that
this
would
be
a
suitable
interim
approach
until
all
the
necessary
implementation
elements
for
carrying
out
an
independent
PM2.5
program
have
been
finalized.

Option
2
49
An
alternative
approach
would
be
to
continue
to
apply
the
existing
surrogate
policy
for
implementing
the
PM2.5
program,
even
after
the
PM10
standard
has
been
revoked.
In
other
words,
the
impacts
of
the
PM10
emissions
would
continue
to
be
compared
with
the
former
PM10
NAAQS.
Again
this
would
serve
as
an
interim
policy,
until
all
the
PM2.5
implementation
elements
for
carrying
out
an
independent
PM2.5
program
have
been
finalized.

d.
How
should
EPA
implement
the
PSD
program
for
PM10­
2.5
upon
the
effective
date
of
the
promulgation
of
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS?

The
EPA
has
interpreted
various
provisions
in
title
I,

part
C
of
the
CAA
to
require
immediate
implementation
of
the
PSD
program
in
all
areas
for
each
pollutant
upon
the
effective
date
of
a
NAAQS
for
that
pollutant.
See
Seitz
Memorandum
(
October
27,
1997).
As
noted
earlier,
EPA's
PSD
regulations
define
a
regulated
NSR
pollutant
to
include,

among
other
things,
any
pollutant
for
which
a
NAAQS
is
promulgated
(
40
CFR
51.166(
b)(
49);
52.21(
b)(
50)).
In
contrast,
under
part
D
of
the
CAA,
the
nonattainment
NSR
program
is
not
required
to
be
implemented
for
a
particular
pollutant
subject
to
a
NAAQS
until
nonattainment
areas
are
designated
pursuant
to
section
107
of
the
CAA,
and
are
in
effect
for
that
pollutant.

As
described
in
detail
in
the
earlier
PM2.5
50
implementation
discussion,
EPA
established
a
policy
that
enabled
permitting
authorities
to
use
the
implementation
of
a
PSD
program
for
PM10
as
a
surrogate
for
implementation
of
the
PSD
program
for
PM2.5
until
the
necessary
tools
were
in
place
to
measure
PM2.5
and
implement
permitting
programs
for
PM2.5.
The
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
encounter
similar
difficulties
with
implementing
a
PSD
program
for
PM10­
2.5
upon
the
effective
date
of
a
NAAQS
for
PM10­
2.5.
However,
as
discussed
above
in
the
context
of
PM2.5,
the
revocation
of
the
PM10
NAAQS
may
leave
EPA
without
a
PM10
program
to
rely
upon
as
a
surrogate
for
implementation
of
a
PSD
program
for
PM10­
2.5.
Thus,
we
are
exploring
other
approaches
that
EPA
might
use
to
fulfill
the
PSD
requirements
in
title
I,

part
C
of
the
CAA
upon
the
effective
date
of
a
NAAQS
for
PM10­
2.5.
We
request
comment
on
the
following
approaches
and
welcome
suggestions
for
additional
approaches
we
might
use
for
a
temporary,
interim
period
to
prevent
significant
deterioration
of
air
quality
from
new
and
modified
sources
of
PM10­
2.5:

Option
1
One
approach
that
we
might
use
would
be
to
continue
using
an
analysis
of
PM10
air
quality
as
a
surrogate
for
the
air
quality
analysis
under
a
PM10­
2.5
program.
Permitting
authorities
may
continue
to
analyze
PM10
emissions
and
concentrations
and
compare
that
with
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
to
51
show
that
the
predicted
PM10
concentrations
would
not
exceed
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS.
This
approach
would
overpredict
actual
PM10­
2.5
concentrations
in
most
cases,
but
it
would
represent
a
conservative
screening
mechanism
that
could
demonstrate
that
a
new
source
or
major
modification
would
not
cause
or
contribute
to
a
violation
of
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS.

Option
2
Another
approach
might
be
to
compare
the
PM10
analysis
to
the
former
PM10
NAAQS
and
thus
use
compliance
with
the
former
PM10
NAAQS
as
a
surrogate
for
compliance
with
the
new
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
for
a
temporary
period.
This
latter
approach
might
be
used
independently
or
as
a
secondary
step
in
a
tiered
analysis
if
the
first
approach
discussed
above
was
found
to
be
overly
conservative.

Option
3
Another
approach
might
be
to
use
compliance
with
BACT
for
PM10­
2.5
as
a
surrogate
for
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
compliance
demonstration.
In
this
approach,
we
might
make
a
determination
for
an
interim
period
that
the
first
major
sources
that
trigger
PSD
requirements
for
PM10­
2.5
are
not
likely
to
cause
or
contribute
to
noncompliance
with
the
PM10­

2.5
NAAQS
if
they
meet
BACT
for
PM10­
2.5.
Thus,
we
might
consider
compliance
with
BACT
to
represent
a
surrogate
for
the
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS
compliance
demonstration
for
a
limited
period
until
we
have
the
tools
in
place
to
assess
PM10­
2.5
52
concentrations.

e.
How
should
ambient
PM10­
2.5
dominated
by
rural
windblown
dust
and
soils,
and
generated
by
agricultural
and
mining
sources
be
treated
in
the
NSR
program
for
the
proposed
PM10­

2.5
standard?

The
proposed
PM10­
2.5
indicator
is
qualified
so
as
to
include
any
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
that
is
dominated
by
resuspended
dust
from
high
density
traffic
on
paved
roads
and
PM
generated
by
industrial
sources
and
construction
sources,
and
excludes
any
ambient
mix
of
PM10­
2.5
that
is
dominated
by
rural
windblown
dust
and
soils
and
PM
generated
by
agricultural
and
mining
sources.
This
suggests
that
the
NSR
applicability
test
would
exclude
these
sources
from
consideration.
We
request
comment
on
how
we
would
implement
the
NSR
program
if
we
promulgate
a
NAAQS
with
these
characteristics.

VII.
WHAT
EMISSION
INVENTORY
REQUIREMENTS
SHOULD
APPLY
UNDER
ANY
NEW
PM2.5
AND
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS?

Emission
inventories
are
critical
for
the
efforts
of
State,
local,
Tribal
and
Federal
agencies
to
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS
that
EPA
has
established
for
criteria
pollutants
including
PM2.5
and
any
new
PM10­
2.5
standards.

Pursuant
to
its
authority
under
section
110
of
Title
I
of
the
CAA,
EPA
has
long
required
States
to
submit
emission
inventories
containing
information
regarding
the
emissions
53
of
criteria
pollutants
and
their
precursors.
The
EPA
codified
these
requirements
in
40
CFR
part
51,
subpart
Q
in
1979
and
amended
them
in
1987.

In
June
2002,
EPA
promulgated
the
Consolidated
Emissions
Reporting
Rule
(
CERR)(
67
FR
39602,
June
10,
2002).

The
CERR
consolidates
the
various
emissions
reporting
requirements
into
one
place
in
the
CFR.
In
January
2006,

EPA
proposed
the
Air
Emissions
Reporting
Requirements
(
AERR)

(
71
FR
69,
January
3,
2006)
which
proposes
to
modify
some
of
the
reporting
requirements
established
by
CERR.
In
addition,
EPA
has
developed
guidance
AEmissions
Inventory
Guidance
for
Implementation
of
Ozone
and
Particulate
Matter
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)
and
Regional
Haze
Regulations,@
EPA­
454/
R­
99­
006
available
at:

http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
chief/
eidocs/
eiguid/
index.
html.
The
EPA
developed
this
guidance
document
to
complement
the
CERR
and
proposed
AERR
and
to
provide
specific
guidance
to
State
and
local
agencies
and
Tribes
on
how
to
develop
emissions
inventories
for
8­
hour
ozone,
PM2.5,
and
regional
haze
SIPs.

The
CERR
and
AERR
set
forth
national
requirements
for
emission
data
elements
for
all
States,
regardless
of
NAAQS
attainment
status.
EPA
guidance
complements
these
requirements
and
indicates
how
the
data
should
be
prepared
for
SIP
submissions.
The
SIP
inventory,
which
may
be
derived
from
the
CERR
inventory,
applies
only
to
54
nonattainment
areas.
The
SIP
inventory
also
must
be
approved
by
EPA
as
a
SIP
element
and
is
therefore
subject
to
public
hearing
requirements,
and
is
thus
regulatory
in
nature.
The
inventory
required
by
the
CERR
is
not.
Because
of
the
regulatory
significance
of
the
SIP
inventory,
EPA
will
need
more
documentation
on
how
the
SIP
inventory
was
developed
by
the
State
as
opposed
to
the
documentation
required
for
the
CERR
inventory.

Therefore,
the
basis
for
EPA=
s
emission
inventory
program
is
specified
in
the
CERR,
the
AERR
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
NPRM)
and
the
related
guidance
document.
The
EPA
is
interested
in
receiving
comments
on
whether
or
not
additional
emission
inventory
requirements
or
guidance
are
needed
to
implement
any
new
PM2.5
standards
and
any
new
PM10­
2.5
NAAQS.
Following
are
a
set
of
questions
on
which
we
would
like
input:

a.
Are
the
data
elements
specified
within
the
CERR
and
AERR
sufficient
to
develop
adequate
SIPs
for
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5?

For
example,
should
EPA
expand
the
listing
of
reportable
compounds
to
include
elemental
and
organic
carbon?

b.
Fugitive
emissions
are
a
significant
contributor
to
ambient
levels
of
PM10­
2.5.
Should
EPA
require
and/
or
develop
more
precise
methods
for
estimating
fugitive
particulate
emissions,
perhaps
including
wind
blown
dust?

c.
The
EPA
believes
that
daily
emissions
will
be
important
55
under
both
PM2.5
and
PM10­
2.5.
Should
EPA
require
any
additional
emission
inventory
data
elements
or
temporal
allocation
techniques
to
estimate
more
accurately
daily
Transition
to
New
or
Revised
PM
NAAQS
 
pg.
55
of
55
pgs.

emissions
and
their
variability?

d.
Are
there
other
inventory
issues
that
EPA
should
define
through
either
regulation
or
guidance?

VIII.
STATUTORY
AND
EXECUTIVE
ORDER
REVIEWS
Under
Executive
Order
12866,
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
(
58
FR
51735,
October
4,
1993),
this
action
is
not
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
and
is,
therefore,
not
subject
to
review
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.

Lists
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
part
51
Environmental
protection,
Particulate
Matter.

_________________________
Dated:

_________________________
Stephen
L.
Johnson,
Administrator.