7/
11/
05
8­
HR
O3
NAAQS
IMPLEMENTATION
RULE
 
PHASE
2
RESPONSES
TO
FHWA
COMMENTS
COMMENT
1.
The
CMAQ
sections
(
pages
39­
40
and
362­
365)
should
be
significantly
Scaled
back
for
several
reasons:
First,
the
CMAQ
program
is
administered
by
U.
S.
DOT
with
EPA
in
a
consultative
role.
Consequently,
this
discussion
appears
to
be
out
of
place.
The
section
should
only
address
the
comments
received.
The
document
should
clearly
state
that
since
CMAQ
is
a
DOT
program,
readers
should
consult
with
U.
S.
DOT
.
Second,
many
specifics
of
the
CMAQ
program
including
the
funding
formula
are
still
under
active
discussions
as
Congress
continues
the
debate
over
reauthorization.
Until
final
decisions
are
made
on
the
CMAQ
program
in
reauthorization,
it
is
premature
to
include
detailed
information/
speculation
of
the
CMAQ
program
in
this
rulemaking.
Third,
some
of
the
discussions
on
these
pages
seem
to
be
new
interpretation
and
therefore
not
consistent
with
the
previous
stated
Administration
position.
For
example,
on
page
39,
it
states,
"
Hence,
under
the
transportation
statute
CMAQ
funds
cannot
be
apportioned
to
the
States
on
the
basis
of
the
designations
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
that
are
not
also
classified
under
subpart
2."
This
seems
to
imply
that
the
formula
will
account
for
8­
hour
areas
classified
under
subpart
2.
This
is
not
consistent
with
the
Administration's
position
that
the
8­
hour
standard
is
not
part
of
the
existing
apportionment
formula
and
will
not
be
factored
in
without
a
legislated
change
to
the
formula.

Also,
on
page
359,
it
states,
"
The
formula
does
not
account
for
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
not
classified
under
subpart
2
or
particulate
matter
nonattainment
areas."
Also,
"
Hence,
under
the
transportation
statute
CMAQ
funds
cannot
be
apportioned
to
the
States
on
the
basis
of
the
designations
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
that
are
not
also
classified
under
subpart
2."
And
on
page
360,
it
states,
"
How
a
State's
individual
apportionment
of
CMAQ
funds
changes
depends
on
how
a
State's
nonattainment
and
maintenance
area
population
changes
because
of
designation
and
classification
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
revocation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard."
Again,
as
stated
in
the
previous
paragraph,
this
is
not
consistent
with
the
Administration's
position
that
the
8­
hour
standard
would
not
count
at
all
in
the
CMAQ
formula
without
legislation.

RESPONSE
1:
We
have
revised
the
sections
related
to
the
CMAQ
discussion
per
the
FHWA
comments.
Attachment
A
shows
a
redline/
strikeout
version
of
the
changes
from
the
2/
6/
05
version.

COMMENT
2.
On
page
197,
shouldn't
row
6
be
January
1,
2020
­
December
31,
2022?

RESPONSE
2:
Yes.
This
has
been
corrected
in
our
working
version.
Thanks!

COMMENT
3.
On
page
258,
the
document
states,
"
The
EPA
will
be
looking
to
bring
a
group
of
stakeholders
together
to
see
if
the
group
can
come
up
with
and
support
one
or
more
ways
that
we
can
use
existing
programs
and
authorities
to
create
positive
incentives
and
tools
for
communities
to
reduce
sprawl."
EPA
should
work
closely
with
DOT
in
the
establishment
of
any
group.

RESPONSE:
This
comment
has
been
forwarded
to
Larry
Weinstock
of
EPA's
Office
of
Policy
Analysis
and
Review,
who
drafted
the
original
CADC
language.

[
FHWA
response:
We
believe
that
issues
related
to
community
development,
land
use
and
"
sprawl"
will
have
transportation
and
air
quality
implications.
Therefore,
EPA
should
work
closely
with
DOT
to
address
these
issues.]

COMMENT
4.
On
page
264,
the
document
states,
"
We
will
facilitate
the
development
of
workshops
and
training
opportunities
to
assist
MPO
and
air
quality
staff
who
are
working
on
PM2.5
inventories."
EPA
should
work
closely
with
DOT
in
the
development
of
any
workshops
and
training.
The
sentence
should
be
modified
to
read
"
We
will
work
closely
with
US
DOT
to
facilitate
the
development
of
workshops
and
training
opportunities
to
assist
MPO
and
air
quality
staff
who
are
working
on
PM2.5
inventories."

COMMENT
5.
On
page
269,
in
response
to
a
comment
about
requiring
states
must
use
MOBILE
to
calculate
inventories,
EPA
stated
"
We
cannot
use
the
word
"
must"
in
guidance
unless
the
guidance
refers
to
a
requirement
mandated
by
the
statute
or
our
regulations.
In
this
case,
neither
the
statute
nor
our
regulations
specifically
requires
the
use
of
the
latest
approved
version
of
MOBILE
(
currently
MOBILE6.2).
in
SIPs.
"
We
are
not
sure
we
totally
agree
with
EPA
on
this
point.
The
conformity
rule
(
40CFR93.110)
states
that
"
The
conformity
determiantion
must
be
based
on
the
latest
emissions
estimation
model
available."
So
EPA
should
at
least
note
this
requirement
for
conformity
purposes.

RESPONSES
TO
4
AND
5:
The
responses
have
been
redrafted
and
are
attached
(
Attachment
B)
ATTACHMENT
A
7/
11/
05
CMAQ
EXCERPT
FROM
8­
HR
O3
NAAQS
IMPLEMENTATION
RULE,
PHASE
2
Summary
of
Section
VII:
Other
Considerations
A.
How
will
EPA's
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
affect
funding
under
the
Congestion
Mitigation
and
Air
Quality
Improvement
(
CMAQ)
Program?
Eligibility
for,
and
the
apportionment
of
CMAQ
funds
is
defined
by
statute
in
the
Transportation
Equity
Act
for
the
21st
Century
(
TEA­
21).
The
program
is
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
with
EPA
in
a
consultative
role.
How
CMAQ
funding
may
be
affected
for
specific
areas
will
be
determined
by
U.
S.
DOT.
See
DOT
guidance
issued
December
13,
2004.
(
http://
www.
fhwa.
dot.
gov/
environment/
cmaqpgs/
revoke1hrozone
mem.
htm)
The
Administration
proposed
changes
to
include
the
new
NAAQS
areas
in
the
formula
in
its
surface
transportation
reauthorization
proposal.

[
FHWA
Comment:
Since
issues
concerning
CMAQ
funding
formula
are
still
being
discussed
in
the
reauthorization
of
TEA­
21,
details
related
to
what
may
happen
to
the
CMAQ
program
is
at
this
point,
speculation.
We
recommend
all
the
detailed
discussions
related
to
CMAQ
funding
formula
and
eligibility
be
deleted.]
*
*
*
*
*

VII.
OTHER
CONSIDERATIONS
A.
How
will
EPA's
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS
affect
funding
under
the
Congestion
Mitigation
and
Air
Quality
Improvement
(
CMAQ)
Program?
1.
Background
In
the
proposal,
we
noted
that
the
Transportation
Equity
Act
for
the
21st
Century
(
TEA­
21)
establishes
eligibility
for
the
use
of
CMAQ
program
funds
in
certain
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas,
designated
under
section
107(
d)
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7407(
d)),
provided
the
area
is,
or
was,
also
classified
in
accordance
with
CAA
subpart
2,
sections
181,
186,
and
188.
All
areas
designated
nonattainment
after
December
31,
1997
are
also
eligible,
but
without
regard
to
classification.
The
amount
of
CMAQ
funds
available
to
States
for
use
in
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
is
also
set
at
levels
authorized
by
TEA­
21.
The
funds
are
apportioned
to
States
through
the
statutory
formula
contained
in
section
104(
b)
of
title
23.
The
formula
is
based
primarily
on
the
classifications
of
ozone
and
CO
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas
as
specified
in
the
Clean
Air
Act,
and
the
population
in
such
areas.
2.
Current
position
The
impact
of
the
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
standard
takes
place
in
two
primary
stages.
First,
the
newly
designated
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
became
eligible
for
the
use
of
CMAQ
funds
at
the
time
of
designation.
It
is
also
important
to
note
that
under
the
8­
hour
standard
there
is
a
net
increase
in
eligible
nonattainment
areas
and
covered
populations,
but
the
overall
funds
authorized
annually
for
the
CMAQ
program
at
the
national
level
is
fixed.
The
second
impact
occurred
when
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
was
revoked
for
most
areas
on
June
15,
2005.
On
December
13,
2004
DOT
issued
guidance
to
address
the
use
of
CMAQ
funds
in
areas
where
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
was
revoked.
A
copy
of
the
guidance
is
available
at
http://
www.
fhwa.
dot.
gov/
environment/
cmaqpgs/
revoke1hrozonem
em.
htm
[
FHWA
comment:
DOT
issued
guidance
on
December
13,
2004
on
CMAQ
and
revocation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard.
EPA
should
reference
DOT's
guidance
instead
if
they
want
to
address
this
issue.]

The
amount
of
CMAQ
funds
apportioned
to
each
State,
and
thus
available
to
nonattainment
and
maintenance
areas,
will
also
change
under
the
current
apportionment
formula.
How
a
State's
individual
apportionment
of
CMAQ
funds
changes
due
to
designations
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
revocation
of
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
are
determined
by
DOT.
3.
Comments
and
responses
Comments:
The
EPA
received
several
comments
expressing
concern
that
implementation
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
may
negatively
impact
an
area's
eligibility
for
CMAQ
Program
funds
and/
or
the
amount
of
CMAQ
funding
the
State
would
receive.
The
comments
indicated
that
projects
and
programs
to
reduce
air
pollution
in
their
area
was
supported
thru
CMAQ
funding.
Some
commenters
stated
that
their
area
was
attaining
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
and
thus
would
become
ineligible
for
CMAQ
funding
when
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
is
revoked.
Other
commenters
expressed
concern
that
any
increases
to
the
number
of
nonattainment
areas
or
changes
to
classifications
of
nonattainment
areas
could
reduce
the
amount
of
CMAQ
funds
available
to
the
area.
Response:
The
EPA
is
aware
that
eligibility
for
use
of
CMAQ
funds
is
dependent
on
designation
as
a
nonattainment
or
maintenance
area,
and
apportionment
of
CMAQ
funds
is
calculated
yearly
and
varies
according
to
changing
nonattainment
and
maintenance
area
population,
and
the
severity
of
air
pollution.
Eligibility
for,
and
the
apportionment
of
CMAQ
funds
is
defined
by
statute
in
the
Transportation
Equity
Act
for
the
21st
Century
(
TEA­
21).
The
program
is
administered
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
with
EPA
in
a
consultative
role.
The
EPA
is
only
taking
action
to
implement
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
and
has
no
authority
to
make
changes
to
the
eligibility
criteria
or
apportionment
formula
contained
in
TEA­
21.
Reauthorization
of
TEA­
21
is
being
discussed
in
Congress,
and
adjustments
to
the
eligibility
criteria
and
apportionment
formula
may
be
possible.
We
understand
the
importance
of
CMAQ
funding
to
States
and
nonattainment
areas.
Recognizing
the
importance
of
this
issue,
the
Administration's
surface
transportation
reauthorization
proposal
had
provisions
to
include
the
new
NAAQS
areas
in
the
CMAQ
apportionment
formula.
We
are
prepared
to
work
with
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Transportation
(
DOT)
and
Congress
to
minimize
the
unintended
impact
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
on
those
funds.
ATTACHMENT
B
Comment:
One
commenter
urged
EPA
to
improve
the
quality
of
PM2.5
rates
in
MOBILE6.2
so
that
areas
will
have
a
more
reliable
tool
for
creating
a
2002
base­
year
inventory
and
SIP
planning.
The
commenter
was
concerned
about
developing
PM2.5
emissions
inventories
because
PM2.5
emissions
factors
in
MOBILE6.2
are
based
largely
on
the
old
Part
#
5
emission
model
and
are
not
as
sophisticated
as
the
rates
for
CO,
NOx,
and
VOC.
The
commenter
also
expressed
concern
about
the
lack
of
knowledge
and
techniques
available
for
performing
on­
road
mobile
source
fine
particulate
emissions
inventories.
Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations
(
MPOs)
and
air
quality
agency
staff
need
to
have
a
more
reliable
tool
and
acceptable
methods
for
creating
base
year
PM2.5
inventories
and
for
SIP
planning.
Response:
This
comment
is
not
directly
relevant
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
rule.
However,
in
the
interest
of
providing
clarification
on
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenter,
we
provide
the
following
background
information.
Particulate
emission
factors
in
MOBILE6.2
are
based
on
the
best
technical
information
available
at
the
time
the
model
was
developed
and
we
believe
that
it
is
the
best
available
tool
for
estimating
on­
road
emission
factors
for
PM2.5.
We
are
currently
collecting
additional
PM
data
which
will
be
incorporated
in
future
versions
of
the
EPA
mobile
source
emission
factor
model.
We
continue
to
work
to
improve
models
and
inventory
methods
for
all
pollutants.
We
have
released
technical
guidance
on
the
use
of
MOBILE6.2
and
on
methods
for
developing
annual
inventories
in
SIPs
and
conformity
analyses
to
help
MPOs
and
air
quality
agency
staff
perform
on­
road
mobile
source
fine
particulate
analyses.

*
*
*
*
*

Comment:
One
commenter
supported
the
use
of
MOBILE6
in
the
8­
hour
emissions
inventory
analyses
and
believed
that
EPA
should
change
the
guidance
with
respect
to
the
use
of
MOBILE6
from
"
should
be
used"
to
"
must
be
used."
The
commenter
cautioned
that
MOBILE6
still
significantly
overpredicts
emissions
from
passenger
cars
and
light
duty
trucks
for
many
reasons
including
the
following:
1)
the
model
does
not
adequately
account
for
the
benefits
of
onboard
diagnostic
regulation
in
non­
IM
areas;
and
2)
the
model
does
not
reflect
the
decline
in
trips
per
day
versus
vehicle
age.
Response:
EPA's
January
18,2002
SIP
and
conformity
policy
guidance
document
("
Policy
Guidance
on
the
Use
of
MOBILE6
for
SIP
Development
and
Transportation
Conformity",
memo
from
John
Seitz
and
Margo
Oge
to
EPA
Regional
Air
Division
Directors)
states,
"
In
general,
EPA
believes
that
MOBILE6
should
be
used
as
expeditiously
as
possible.
The
Clean
Air
Act
requires
that
SIP
inventories
and
control
measures
be
based
on
the
most
current
information
and
applicable
models
that
are
available
when
a
SIP
is
developed."
EPA's
February
14,
2004
SIP
and
conformity
policy
guidance
document
("
Policy
Guidance
on
the
Use
of
MOBILE6.2
and
the
December
2003
AP­
42
Method
for
Re­
Entrained
Road
Dustfor
SIP
Development
and
Transportation
Conformity",
memo
from
Margo
Oge
and
Steve
Page
to
EPA
Regional
Air
Division
Directors)
updates
this
by
stating
that
"
All
states
other
than
California
should
use
MOBILE6.2
for
future
VOC,
NOx,
and
CO
SIP
and
conformity
analyses
in
order
to
take
full
advantage
of
the
improvements
incorporated
in
this
version."
MOBILE6.2
is
the
most
current
applicable
model
and
is
based
on
the
best
information
available
at
the
time
of
its
development
and
release.
Therefore,
EPA
has
indicated
that
it
should
be
used.
We
do
not
believe
that
more
on­
board
diagnostic
benefits
in
non­
I/
M
areas
was
justified
based
on
available
data
at
the
time
of
the
release
of
MOBILE6.2.
Likewise,
we
did
not
have
sufficient
data
to
develop
alternative
assumptions
about
the
relationship
between
trips
per
day
and
vehicle
age.
We
are
working
to
continually
improve
emission
factor
models
and
inventory
methods
for
on­
road
vehicles
and
will
review
these
issues
during
the
development
of
the
next
emission
factor
model.
