1
Comments
on
8­
Hour
Ozone
NAAQS
Implementation
Rule
(
Phase
I)

OMB
Comments
It
is
not
clear
that
Alternative
Y
is
superior
in
terms
of
the
Agency's
Preferred
Approach
(
Option
2).
For
example,
based
on
the
information
contained
in
the
"
Qualitative
Assessment",
10
areas
(
including
major
metropolitan
areas)
would
be
classified
lower
under
Alternative
Y
than
under
Option
2.
Only
8
areas
would
be
classified
lower
under
Option
2
than
under
Alternative
Y.
How
can
the
Agency
be
sure
that
Alternative
Y
is
superior
to
Option
2?

How
much
discretion
does
EPA
have
over
the
control
requirements
in
the
higher
classifications
within
Subpart
2?

Does
EPA
have
discretion
to
alter
the
Subpart
2
timeframes?

It
is
possible
that
two
areas,
each
with
the
same
8­
hour
design
value,
would
be
classified
differently;
one
in
Subpart
1,
and
the
other
in
Subpart
2.
Did
EPA
consider
altering
the
timeframe
under
Subpart
2
marginal
(
currently
3
years)
to
equate
with
the
Subpart
1
timeframe
(
5
years)?
(
The
other
timeframes
in
Subpart
2
would
have
to
be
changed
accordingly.)
If
such
a
change
is
made
in
the
final
rule,
are
there
"
logical
outgrowth"
problems?

What
is
the
definition
of
"
rural"
that
EPA
is
using
in
this
rule?

On
pages
53­
54,
EPA
states
that
it
will
shortly
issue
new
guidance
on
determining
whether
a
region
is
subject
to
overwhelming
transport.
Please
provide
a
draft
of
this
guidance
to
OMB
for
review.

EPA
is
limiting
the
"
overwhelming
transport"
areas
to
rural
areas.
The
explanation
given
on
pages
54­
55
of
the
preamble
is,
however,
not
very
convincing.
Recommend
that
EPA
allow
non­
rural
areas
to
be
considered
for
the
"
overwhelming
transport"
classification.

What
are
the
NSR
requirements
for
this
rule?

What
are
EPA's
plans
for
the
RIA?

DOT
Comments
1.
DOT
objects
to
issuance
of
the
final
rule
unless
OMB
and
EPA
extend
the
planned
effective
date
of
designations
to
align
the
effective
dates
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
designations
with
the
publication
of
the
final
transportation
conformity
rule,
so
that
MPOs
can
utilize
the
full
12­
month
grace
period
to
complete
the
conformity
process.
DOT
is
extremely
concerned
that
a
potential
delay
in
the
release
of
the
final
transportation
conformity
regulation
will
shorten
the
statutory
12­
month
2
conformity
grace
period
for
such
areas.
Without
a
full
12­
month
grace
period
many
areas
will
likely
not
be
able
to
complete
the
conformity
process,
and
could
fall
into
a
conformity
lapse,
significantly
disrupting
the
transportation
programs
in
these
areas,
through
no
fault
of
their
own.

The
CAA
allows
a
12­
month
grace
period,
starting
from
the
effective
date
of
the
nonattainment
designations,
before
MPOs
are
required
to
complete
conformity
determinations
on
the
transportation
plans
and
programs.
This
provision
was
clearly
intended
to
allow
newly
designated
areas
a
full
year
to
develop
their
conformity
demonstrations.
EPA
indicates
in
the
draft
preamble
to
the
proposed
final
rule
that
the
effective
date
of
the
designations
of
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
would
be
30
days
after
issuance
of
the
designations­­
most
likely
April
15,
2004.
The
effective
date
of
these
designations,
most
likely
in
mid
to
late
May,
will
start
the
statutory
12­
month
conformity
grace
period.

By
the
end
of
this
grace
period,
new
conformity
determinations
reflecting
the
8­
hour
standard
will
have
to
be
made
for
all
metropolitan
plans
and
TIPs
in
designated
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
It
is
our
understanding
that
the
earliest
the
final
transportation
conformity
regulations
will
be
published
is
in
June,
and
perhaps
later.
But
without
the
final
conformity
rule,
States
and
MPOs
will
be
uncertain
as
to
how
conformity
will
need
to
be
demonstrated
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
In
particular,
MPOs
within
existing
1­
hour
areas,
will
not
know
what
conformity
"
tests"
they
will
need
to
comply
with
until
the
Conformity
Rule
amendments
are
finalized,
since
the
proposal
offered
several
options.
The
intent
of
Congress,
to
provide
newly
designated
nonattainment
areas
a
full
1­
year
grace
period
to
develop
their
conformity
determinations,
should
not
be
thwarted
by
delays
in
an
EPA
rulemaking
procedure.

2.
Page
7
of
the
preamble
states
that
EPA
plans
to
issue
a
proposed
General
Conformity
Rule
update
in
spring
2004.
DOT
would
like
to
be
involved
in
review
of
the
draft
rule,
and
would
appreciate
information
on
the
key
issues
being
considered
and
the
proposed
schedule.
3.
Page
85,
Under
"
When
will
EPA
revoke
the
1­
hour
standard,
c.
comments
and
Response",
the
paragraph
started
with
"
We
disagree
with
comments..."
the
document
states
"
We
believe
that
such
timing
would
create
a
time
when
conformity
would
not
apply,
which
could
hamper
a
State's
ability
to
develop
an
8­
hour
attainment
demonstration
if
major
projects
are
allowed
to
proceed
in
the
year
following
designation
under
the
8­
hour
standard
(
since
conformity
does
not
apply
until
1
year
after
designation)."
We
disagree
with
this
statement.
It
is
highly
unlikely
that
"
major
projects"
could
be
approved,
not
only
in
the
plan
and
TIP,
but
also
at
the
project
level
in
one
year.
Further,
it
is
very
unlikely
that
enough
projects
could
be
approved
in
one
year
that
would
even
affect
the
regional
emissions
analysis
significantly.
We
recommend
that
EPA
delete
"
which
could
hamper
a
State's
ability
to
develop
an
8­
hour
attainment
demonstration
if
major
projects
are
allowed
to
proceed".
The
deletion
of
this
clause
would
not
alter
the
meaning
of
this
sentence.
4.
For
8­
hour
attainment/
1
hour
nonattainment
area
(
starting
on
page
133)
 
it
seems
odd
that
areas
that
are
designated
attainment
under
the
8­
hour
standard
are
subject
to
3
demonstrate
"
maintenance"
for
the
standard
that
these
areas
have
never
violated.
We
have
2
questions
associated
with
the
maintenance
plan
 
a.
What
is
the
boundary
for
the
8­
hour
area?
We
presume
that
the
maintenance
plan
will
cover
the
existing
1­
hour
nonattainment
area
boundary.
If
this
correct,
this
should
be
clarified
in
the
preamble.
b.
Will
these
areas
be
referred
to
as
"
8­
hour
maintenance
areas"?
5.
Page
160,
in
section
51.905(
c),
1.
background,
second
paragraph
 
the
sentence
started
with
"
The
first
exception ",
there
appears
to
be
a
fairly
significant
typo.
It
appears
that
"
attainment"
in
the
first
paragraph
on
the
page
should
really
be
"
nonattainment."
Otherwise,
the
discussion
in
the
rest
of
the
paragraph
is
inconsistent
and
needs
clarification.
6.
Page
177,
in
section
51.905(
e),
last
paragraph
under
subsection
3.
a.,
the
document
states
"
EPA
notes
that
although
States
could
not
implement
conformity,
they
could
still
require
their
MPOs
to
estimate
regional
emissions
that
would
be
generated
by
planned
transportation
activities
to
see
whether
a
violation
could
occur,
and
could
even
limit
the
MPOs
from
growing
beyond
a
certain
amount."
We
do
not
agree
with
this
statement.
We
believe
most
States
do
not
have
this
authority,
especially
with
regards
to
limiting
growth.
MPOs
do
not
do
land
use
planning
or
zoning.
But
even
more
so,
it
is
not
the
purpose
of
the
MPO
to
perform
this
air
quality
planning
activity.
We
proposed
suggested
revisions
that
would
change
the
paragraph
to
show
that
States
could
still
analyze
these
activities,
at
their
own
discretion.
7.
Page
203,
EACs
­
The
rule
only
mentions
these
areas
very
briefly,
and
states
that
they
will
address
comments
in
the
final
rule
to
defer
the
effective
date
for
EAC
areas.
We
believe
it
may
be
worthwhile
to
at
least
mention
that
existing
1­
hour
maintenance
areas
will
still
need
to
address
the
obligations
under
the
1­
hour
standard,
including
conformity
before
they
are
designated
attainment
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
What
are
EPA's
plans
regarding
finalizing
the
rulemaking
for
Early
Action
Compact
areas?
DOT
would
like
to
be
involved
in
the
EAC
rulemaking,
since
it
has
implications
for
transportation
conformity
and
transportation
programs.

Attached
is
a
red­
line
of
DOT
specific
comments,
including
a
few
edits.
Please
see
pages
2,
48,
49,
54,
85,
86,
89,
98,
160
and
177.
(
EPA
was
sent
this
document
previously
by
email
