Office of Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

Attention: Docket No. A-2001-31

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

**Re: 40 CFR Parts 50 \[FRL-7145-5\] National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Ozone; Notice of Public Meetings**

Dear Docket Representative:

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Air Resources
Division (DES) is pleased to offer the following comments on the EPA
proposed 8-hour ozone implementation options as presented to DES by EPA
on April 3, 2002 in Tempe AZ. The comments made here are intended to
supplement the comments and principles previously submitted by the Ozone
Transport Commission (OTC) on April 22, 2002 and to fulfill EPA's
request for additional details on an implementation proposal made by DES
at the Tempe meeting.

**1. Comments on EPA Implementation Options**

[a. Classification of Nonattainment Areas for the 8-Hour
Standard]{.underline}

Of the 4 options proposed by EPA, DES feels that Options 1 and 4 are
technically flawed in that they link 8-hour procedures to 1-hour episode
specifics. Research, including the Ozone Transport Assessment Group
(OTAG) results, has shown that in many areas of the country there are
fundamental differences in how 1-hour and 8-hour ozone episodes develop
along with the severity of those episodes. Designing the 8-hour
implementation program around 1-hour episode detail discounts the
reality that episodes of prolonged ozone levels in excess of 85 ppb can
be very different from short-term severe peaks that exceed 125 ppb. In
the Northeast, these are often distinctly different and targeting
implementation strategies on 1-hour peak episodes will fail to address
the atmospheric chemistry, physics, and mechanics which form the basis
for most of our 8-hour ozone episodes.

Of the 4 options presented by EPA, DES prefers an improved version of
Option 2 in which the classification cut-points are recalculated to be
specific for the 8-hour standard based on the logic applied for
developing the 1-hour cut-points. DES would be happy to work with EPA on
defining these cut-points.

[b. Options on Attainment Dates for the 8-Hour Standard]{.underline}

Attainment dates for well-isolated ozone nonattainment areas can easily
be fit into many options for assigning dates where the influence of
transport is at a relative minimum. However, integrating dates for
contiguous and nearby nonattainment areas can get very complicated where
accounting for transport is a certainty. Under the current 1-hour ozone
standard, several nonattainment areas are less severely classified than
an adjacent upwind nonattainment area and are required to attain prior
to the date assigned for the upwind area despite the fact that the
upwind area is most likely the primary cause of their nonattainment.
Synchronizing the downwind area's attainment date with the upwind area
(delayed attainment) brings logistical relief to the downwind area, but
not necessarily clean air and defies the principle of "as expeditiously
as practicable."

DES would prefer to redefine "rate of progress" to include measurable
ozone reductions in all classifications of nonattainment with the
passing of each classification's attainment date. A linear progression
of measured ozone concentrations should be considered for defining a
glide slope to attainment, allowing for some up-front planning and
implementation of emission mitigation. Under this concept, a downwind
"moderate" nonattainment area should meet its attainment date because
its own required measures are combined with glide-slope improvements
made by upwind higher classified areas. According to the linear
glide-slope concept, an upwind Serious area should reduce the level of
exceedance by one-half after 3 years, and reach attainment in 6 years.
Such linkage of progress would keep all nonattainment areas interested
in coordinating planning and study.

[c. Integration of Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the
8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS]{.underline}

DES prefers a streamlining of 8-hour ozone and PM~2.5~ timelines by
coordinating state implementation plan (SIP) and modeling inventory
efforts wherever and however possible. Given the fundamental linkage of
all air pollutants in atmospheric chemistry, the one-atmosphere concept
approach is preferable and is consistent with the multi-pollutant bills
being pursued by many states as well as under the Clear Skies
Initiative. DES would however find it unacceptable to create delay in
emission control deadlines and attainment dates in order to achieve
synchronization.

[d. Addressing Transport in the 8-Hour Implementation
Program]{.underline}

DES feels that priority should be given to certain national emission
control measures for the benefit and equity of all rather than
passing-along all emission reduction burdens to the states. Some things
are just more cost effective when done on a national basis as it gives
manufacturers more incentive to develop more efficient and cleaner
technology since the market is not divided-up. It is also much easier
and more cost effective for manufacturers to negotiate 50-state
production modifications than it is for them to accommodate individual
state or regional product lines with differing emission limits. Advances
in mobile and area category source emissions and efficiencies would be
logical choices for additional national controls since the distribution
of these sources can ultimately be anywhere in the country.

Beyond what can be best pursued on a national basis, regional
implementation strategies represent the best choice for achieving ozone
reductions in regions where transport has been found to be a significant
factor (i.e., the NOx SIP call states). The development of multiple
regions of similar airshed and transport characteristics (scientifically
determined rather than politically determined) for regional planning and
coordination may be highly desirable to bring states with a common
problem together to coordinate efforts with the strength of several
states rather than to go-it alone (see April 22, 2002 OTC comments,
section V. for more detail). Nonattainment areas that are clearly
well-isolated from other nonattainment areas and nearby major sources
(such as in the Western United States) can bypass regional coordination
and move directly to local measures.

[e. Guidance for 8-Hour Attainment Demonstration]{.underline}

Attainment demonstrations for 8-hour ozone, PM~2.5~, and regional haze
should be based on a combination of weight-of-evidence and modeling. The
weight-of-evidence should be heavily researched and include scientific
sample collection and measurement. The scientific research community
should be involved in utilizing aircraft, satellite, and ground based
monitoring equipment and focused on improving current conceptual models
involving atmospheric chemistry and transport mechanisms for all
pollutants of interest. The product of this research is needed to
justify and normalize model performance and its application. Despite the
absolute performance of regional models to-date, when used in a relative
sense, they are without doubt the best tools available for evaluating
implementation strategies.

[f. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) Requirement Under the 8-hour Ozone
Standard]{.underline}

DES feels that the concept of requiring a steady rate of emission
reductions in problematic areas is a good concept that is now in need of
updating based on the results of many years of study. RFP is primarily
focused on reductions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which may or
may not be the best choice for measurably reducing ozone. There are some
provisions for allowing NOx reductions in place of VOC reductions, but
such a trade is not required in the event that NOx reductions have been
shown to be the best choice for reducing ozone in an area. Instead, the
current RFP program allows a state to target the pollutant that is
easiest to reduce rather than which one is most effective. DES feels
that the RFP requirement needs to be updated to include whatever
reductions are necessary to be consistent with the attainment
glide-slope described above, rather to maintain a simple 3% per year
bookkeeping exercise. Case-in-point, despite RFP progress in the
Northeast and supposed upwind transport mitigation, many areas still
monitor ozone nonattainment. The ingredients did not add-up to the
desired product.

[g. Flexibility]{.underline}

DES feels that flexibility for implementation is desirable provided that
an ozone-measured rate-of-progress is maintained. Blind adherences to
Clean Air Act (CAA) measures are not always effective and can be quite
expensive. If allowing flexibility fails to bring about sufficient and
timely measured ozone improvements because states/regions are not
seeking emission reductions aggressively enough, it would seem
reasonable for EPA to exercise fall-back default options including
enforcing CAA measures.

**2. An Alternative Approach:**

The concept of the DES proposed 8-hour ozone implementation approach is
to provide tough, but flexible emission reduction measures for achieving
8-hour ozone attainment while adhering to the subparts 1 and 2
in-so-that EPA can abide by court directives. DES believes that EPA can
afford to be flexible in how implementation proceeds as long as
implementation plans use existing Clean Air Act requirements as backstop
in the event of failure to achieve required progress. Such flexibility
is the premise of the ozone flex policy that Texas pursued for the city
of Austin.

In the interest of trying to capture the spirit of flexibility endorsed
by many states, the DES proposed implementation plan relies on regions
of common airsheds working together to achieve common goals and for
addressing transport within their region. For lack of something better
to call these organizations, they will be referred to here as "Airshed
Partnerships." Areas well-isolated from the effects of transport
(producing and receiving) such as in the West could proceed without
participating in an Airshed Partnership. Each Airshed Partnership
established should be logically defined based on established transport
patterns rather than political commonalities. Once defined, the Airshed
Partnerships can pursue solutions acceptable to the region with the
flexibility of what works best for them provided that steady progress
toward attainment is made. This proposal requires regional planning and
cooperation in exchange for flexibility. Transport between Airshed
Partnership regions can be addressed by ensuring that crossover states
are established (states that are in 2 Airshed Partnerships), thus
representing both upwind and downwind interests.

The following are suggested steps for implementing this plan:

1.  Establish 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas and classifications
    consistent with the Clean Air Act (classification criteria should be
    updated for the 8-hour standard base on scientific principles, per
    comment on classification options above).

    -   Glide-slope defined (linear track of required ozone reduction
        from designation to attainment).

2.  Application of appropriate national emission reduction measures
    where possible and reevaluation of the need for more national
    measures should be made in coordination with 8-hour ozone attainment
    dates, or about every 3 years.

> 3\. Designation of multiple Airshed Partnerships. Consider starting
> with the NOx SIP Call states at a minimum (see Attachment A for one
> possible arrangement of ozone Airshed Partnerships). Each state should
> participate in a minimum of one Airshed Partnership and states may
> participate in more than one to protect crossover interests.

4.  States within each Airshed Partnership work together to achieve
    attainment throughout the region, using appropriate flexibility in
    defining emission reduction measures needed to achieve required
    ozone reduction progress according to the glide-slope schedule. All
    areas within each Airshed Partnership (including more severe areas
    with later attainment dates) must find appropriate emission
    reductions to bring lesser-classified areas into attainment by their
    earlier attainment dates. More severe areas must also improve their
    level of exceedance at a rate linear to the amount of time left to
    their attainment date.

    -   For example, a moderate area may have 3 years to attain, a
        nearby serious area has 6 years to attain. The serious area must
        reduce the amount of their exceedance (measured at the date of
        designation) by one-half by the date that the moderate area is
        due to attain (3 years into a 6 year timeline). The remaining
        ozone reductions are due after 3 more years in order to reach
        attainment on schedule.

    -   Lesser-classified nonattainment areas should not be targeted
        alone for failure of the Airshed Partnership to reduce measured
        ozone on schedule.

5.  Conduct a mid-course review for each Airshed Partnership every 3
    years (linked to attainment dates) to review progress and make
    adjustments if necessary.

6.  The existing Reasonably Further Progress program could serve as a
    backstop if acceptable regional measures are not developed by the
    Airshed Partnership, or if progress timelines are not met. RFP
    should be tracked but not enforced unless ozone reduction timeline
    goals are not met.

7.  All areas within the Airshed Partnerships are to remain in the
    planning process to prevent emission growth from becoming
    problematic.

Considerations:

-   Monitored ozone values may require meteorological adjustment to
    accurately track progress. DES recommends that such an adjustment,
    or a reasonable facsimile, be used to track progress.

-   Could the existing Regional Planning Organizations (RPO) structure
    be used as a surrogate for Airshed Partnerships? DES would recommend
    against this at least as a direct replacement. The Airshed
    Partnerships should be distinct and based on documented airflow
    patterns (which the RPOs are not), but there is no reason why the
    RPO structure couldn't provide the technical research and modeling
    tools for the Airshed Partnerships and arrange for strategic
    meetings for the state(s) involved.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any
questions regarding these comments please contact me at (603) 271-1370.

> Sincerely,
>
> Jeff Underhill, Ph.D.
>
> NHDES Air Resources

Attachment

Cc: G. Dana Bisbee, Asst. Commissioner, DES

Robert Scott, DES

######## Attachment A

(Equivalent to the April 22, 2002 OTC Comments)

######## An Option for Creating Ozone Airshed Partnerships

Note that there are "crossover" states indicated here to help ensure the
interests of adjacent Airshed Partnerships are addressed:

[1. The Northeast Airshed Partnership]{.underline} [(NEAP):]{.underline}

Virginia, District of Columbia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire, and Maine

[2. The Southeast Airshed Partnership]{.underline} [(SEAP):]{.underline}

Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and
Virginia; possibly include Florida

[3. The Ohio Valley Airshed Partnership]{.underline}
[(OVAP):]{.underline}

Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia; possibly
include Illinois, Tennessee, Maryland, and Virginia

[4. The Great Lakes Airshed Partnership]{.underline}
[(GLAP):]{.underline}

Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio; possibly
include Pennsylvania and New York

[5. The Gulf Coast Airshed Partnership]{.underline}
[(GCAP):]{.underline}

Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; possibly include Alabama and Florida