DOE
Comments
on
Interagency
Review
Draft
of
EPA's
"
Final
Rule
to
Implement
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard"

1.
Table
of
Contents.
The
preamble
should
include
a
detailed
Table
of
Contents.
2.
Preparation
of
Regulatory
Impact
Assessment.
To
provide
reviewers
with
a
range
of
likely
costs
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
new
standard,
EPA
should
prepare
a
complete,
comprehensive
and
detailed
RIA.
3.
Time
Available
for
Submitting
New
SIPs.
EPA
states
in
the
preamble
that
this
rulemaking
is
Phase
1
of
two
regulations
outlining
the
requirements
for
the
implementation
of
the
new
8­
hour
NAAQS,
and
that
the
publication
of
Phase
2
sometime
later
this
year
will
contain
substantial
elements
of
the
overall
program.
Requiring
State
agencies
to
initiate
their
State
Implementation
Plan
processes
after
the
effective
date
of
this
initial
phase
of
the
rulemaking
presents
the
States
with
an
incomplete
set
of
guidance
for
the
implementation
of
the
new
NAAQS.
One
key
element,
for
example,
that
will
be
addressed
in
Phase
2
is
the
requirement
that
States
choose
among
the
three
options
pursuant
to
unmet
attainment
demonstration
obligations
for
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
that
are
currently
also
exceeding
the
1­
hour
NAAQS
and
aspects
of
the
8­
hour
nonattainment
NSR
program.
If
possible
under
Sec.
110
or
other
applicable
sections
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
EPA
should
delay
the
required
initiation
of
state
planning
processes
until
the
effective
date
of
the
Phase
2
rulemaking.
4.
Interrelationship
of
the
8­
Hour
Ozone
Implementation
Program
with
Other
EPA
Rules
 
Alignment
of
Deadlines
and
Requirements.
EPA
should
review
the
timetables
and
requirements
of
other
air
quality
and
fuels
rulemakings
already
promulgated,
noticed,
or
in
preparation,
especially
the
Interstate
Air
Quality
Transport
rule,
to
ensure
that
there
are
no
conflicts
between
this
rulemaking
and
the
other
rules.
We
are
especially
concerned
about
the
timing
for
the
introduction
of
the
fuel
quality
rules
and
the
recently
noticed
IAQT
rule.
It
seems
likely
that
one
widely
used
local
measure
will
be
some
form
of
reformulated
gasoline.
We
are
uncertain
what
impact
this
increased
demand
for
these
highly
refined
fuels
will
be
and
ask
that
EPA
initiate
a
study
of
the
impact
of
this
rulemaking
on
the
availability
and
cost
of
these
expanded­
use
fuels.
5.
Role
of
1­
hour
Ozone
State
Implementation
Plan
Control
Strategies
and
Requirements
for
Attainment
of
the
8­
hour
Ozone
NAAQS.
As
noted
in
EPA's
Trends
reports,
metropolitan
areas
have
been
making
steady
progress
to
reduce
the
number
and
severity
of
exceedances
of
the
current
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
but
have
not
seen
this
same
trend
for
calculations
for
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
EPA
should
provide
a
technical
analysis
to
show
the
effectiveness
of
the
same
set
of
control
strategies
and
requirements
implemented
to
address
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
in
reducing
ambient
ozone
concentrations
over
the
new
standard's
longer
averaging
period.
6.
Role
of
Nationwide
Rules.
Although
EPA
states
in
the
preamble
that
it
wants
to
reduce
the
need
for
relatively
expensive
local
controls,
EPA
does
expect
new
local
controls
to
be
needed
to
bring
some
areas
into
attainment
of
the
8­
hr.
standard.
This
reliance
on
local
controls
appears
to
conflict
with
the
emphasis
on
nationwide
controls
for
the
Interstate
Air
Quality
Transport
rulemaking,
recently
noticed
in
the
Federal
Register.
Is
EPA
applying
consistent
policy?
Could
EPA
provide
more
precise
estimates
of
the
number
of
areas
that
would
reach
attainment
within
the
applicable
deadlines
solely
as
a
result
of
local
measures
in
existing
SIPs
and
national
or
regional
measures?
7.
Contingency
Measures.
It
is
clear
from
existing
air
monitoring
data
that
at
least
several
metropolitan
areas
will
have
difficulty
attaining
the
current
1­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
and
EPA
says
in
the
preamble
that
it
expects
that
some
metropolitan
areas
will
have
difficulty
attaining
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS.
What
contingency
measures,
in
addition
to
the
bump­
up
provisions
outlined
in
the
Notice
of
Final
Rulemaking
will
be
required
to
ensure
that
all
areas
attain
both
the
current
ozone
NAAQS
and
the
new
standard?
What
measures
will
be
available
to
metropolitan
areas
that
find
themselves
in
this
situation
in
the
future?
8.
Overwhelming
Transport.
Would
it
be
possible
to
modify
the
"
overwhelming
transport"
classification
to
encompass
transported
emissions
from
other
countries
as
well
as
states,
or
must
any
section
179B
analysis
(
international
border
areas)
be
done
separately?
The
preamble
mentions
that
the
current
"
overwhelming
transport"
guidance
is
outdated
and
will
be
withdrawn.
What
can
EPA
tell
us
now
about
how
the
replacement
guidance
might
affect
the
number
of
areas
that
could
potentially
qualify
for
the
overwhelming
transport
category?
9.
Deadlines
for
the
1­
hr.
attainment
demonstration.
Would
the
current
deadlines
for
the
1­
hr.
attainment
demonstration
continue
to
apply
post­
designation?
10.
Anti­
backsliding.
The
Utility
Air
Regulatory
Group
(
UARG)
comments
of
9/
5/
03,
p.
9,
say
the
restriction
that
the
percentage
reduction
(
5%
in
the
draft
final
rule)
must
be
in
addition
to
regional
or
national
rules
"
appears
on
its
face
to
be
far
more
stringent
than
EPA's
policy
governing
attainment
demonstrations
and
ROP
requirements,
under
which
states
can
(
apart
from
the
very
limited
exceptions
in
CAA
Sec.
182(
b)(
1)
count
toward
emission
reduction
requirements
any
emission
reductions
not
already
reflected
in
the
applicable
emission
inventory
baseline."
Please
comment
on
this
statement.
