"
Flynn,
Amy
E."
<
Amy_
E._
Flynn@
omb.
eop.
gov>

07/
07/
2005
03:
48
PM
To
John
Silvasi/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
cc
Subject
FW:
EPA
Final
Rule:
8­
hour
Ozone
Implementation
(
Phase
II)

Below
are
some
comments
on
the
8­
hour
ozone
implementation
(
phase
II)
rule
from
DOT/
FHWA.
Please
note,
the
page
numbers
may
be
slightly
off
due
to
formatting
differences
between
WordPerfect
and
MSWord.
Please
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.

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

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.

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."

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.
