Anonymous public comment

Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0597 Federal Registry Date: October 7, 2009 (Volume 74, number 193) The proposed rule that is to be discussed is the memorandum titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD): Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by the Federal PSD Permit Program”. There are five interpretations that are proposed. I believe that there should be a combination of the proposed interpretations of “subject to regulation.” Every group or organization will align with a different interpretation that best fits their organization. The question is what is going to be best for the environment. Monitoring and reporting requirement is necessary to interpreting pollutants that are “subject to regulation.” If EPA regulates non-pollutants, it can be beneficial for the long term. New and existing pollutants may occur and damage the environment. If there is information that has been gathered, it can be benefit EPA. With a combination of monitoring and reporting, there should also be an EPA-approved state implementation plan. When the Kyoto Protocol was being voted in the international spectrum, the Bush Administration did want to take part in it which resulted in certain states approving the Kyoto Protocol and developed strategies to cut emissions. Although the economy at this time is in a downturn, states can still implement simple strategies that do not have to cost a bundle. If many states start to implement regulation towards certain pollutants, the national government may take notice. Finding of endangerment develops limits. In conclusion, there should be a combination of three interpretations an inclusion of regulatory requirements for a pollutant in an EPA-approved State Implementation Plan, an EPA rule requiring monitoring and reporting of emissions of a pollutant, and an endangerment finding for a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.