May 1, 2002

TO: EPA Docket \# A-2001-31

> A-and-R-Docket@epamail.epa.gov
>
> Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center
>
> USEPA
>
> 401 M Street, SW
>
> Room M-1500 (Mail Code 6102)
>
> Washington, DC 20460

FROM: Carl Selnick, Air Quality Specialist

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

SUBJECT: District Staff Comments Regarding EPA's 8-hour Ozone
Implementation Public Meeting, Tempe, April 3, 2002

**[General Comments]{.underline}**

#### The District strongly supports coordinating ozone SIPs (both 1-hour and 8-hour) with PM2.5 and regional haze SIP development, to the extent practicable. This would allow for optimizing control strategies, save substantial time and planning resources, and maximize cost-effectiveness in the preparation of SIP revisions.

1.  The District strongly supports maximizing the flexibility available
    to states in implementing the 8-hour ozone standard, to provide for
    the most cost-effective strategies that achieve air quality goals.
    Therefore, EPA should minimize the application of inflexible Subpart
    2 mandatory control requirements.

##### Transitioning Options

###### Problems of EPA's Options

2.  What EPA identifies as "transitioning options" from the 1-hour ozone
    standard to the 8-hour standard actually relate [only]{.underline}
    to the timing of revoking the 1-hour standard.[^1] The options
    ignore the more significant questions related to transitioning.
    Specifically, when would be the most appropriate time to designate
    8-hour nonattainment areas? Should the timing of the designations
    vary according to the situation of the nonattainment area?

3.  Under all options except Option 1, there could be overlapping
    nonattainment designations for both ozone standards for an extended
    period of years. This creates four problems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Differing nonattainment area boundaries (8-hour nonattainment area
    boundaries may differ considerably from 1-hour).

b.  Workload problems caused by duplicative SIP submittals on separate
    schedules.

c.  Possibly differing control strategies for some areas where the
    controls that most effectively lower the highest peak 1-hour
    concentrations may not adequately reduce 8-hour concentrations.

d.  The differing nonattainment area boundaries and inconsistent SIP
    requirements will make mandated Transportation Conformity
    Determinations for some areas quite confusing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  It should be noted that these same four problems would equally
    result from unintegrated ozone and PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIPs, and
    thus these are good reasons to integrate ozone and
    PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIPs.

5.  Option 1 avoids overlapping nonattainment designations, but has its
    own major problem. In some areas, the 1-hour standard would be
    revoked without ever being attained. Thus, CAA Subpart 2 would not
    be allowed to run its course as Congress intended, and therefore,
    law suits would seem likely.

6.  All of EPA's transitioning options assume all 8-hour designations
    would be done simultaneously nationwide. However, there is a major
    problem with designating all areas simultaneously around 2004. In
    those areas that remain 1-hour nonattainment areas, the 8-hour
    designation would precede 1-hour attainment. Because attainment
    dates are figured from the designation date, the remaining 1-hour
    nonattainment areas would thus be allowed [less]{.underline} time
    between their 1-hour and 8-hour attainment dates. However, because
    those nonattainment areas have the [most persistent]{.underline}
    ozone problems, they may actually need [more]{.underline} time to
    attain the 8-hour standard after they have attained the 1-hour.

###### Suggested Option

7.  The District suggests an option (hereafter referred to as "Suggested
    Option"):

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  **For areas remaining nonattainment for the 1-hour standard, EPA
    should withhold 8-hour designations until the 1-hour standard is
    attained and revoked and the maintenance plan is approved.** Like
    Option 1, the Suggested Option applies only one ozone standard to
    any area at a given time, avoiding the confusion of overlapping
    designations, which is inherent to the other options. However, the
    Suggested Option avoids Option 1's major problem of revoking the
    1-hour standard in nonattainment areas before it is attained, thus
    allowing CAA Subpart 2 to run its course as Congress intended.

b.  **When 1-hour nonattainment areas finally attain the 1-hour
    standard, they would combine development and submittal of their
    8-hour SIP and 1-hour maintenance plan. Then, EPA would final the
    area's 8-hour designation and 1-hour revocation when the area's
    1-hour maintenance plan and 8-hour SIP are approved.** This feature
    has three advantages: (1) it saves planning resources by combining
    two planning efforts into one; (2) it minimizes the delay in 8-hour
    SIP development caused by delaying 8-hour designations; and (3) the
    maintenance plan could adjust and optimize 1-hour SIP control
    requirements, as authorized by CAA (§175A), prior to them being
    locked in for the 8-hour standard by the "no backsliding" provision.

c.  **EPA should require any future 1-hour ozone nonattainment SIPs
    (such as SIPs responding to missed deadlines) to be consistent with
    8-hour ozone control needs and to be integrated with
    PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIPs.** This addresses two concerns some have
    raised that delaying 8-hour designations could slow air quality
    improvement. (First, controls that most effectively lower the
    highest peak 1-hour concentrations may not adequately reduce 8-hour
    concentrations and the health effects associated with them, and
    therefore the development and implementation of strategies that are
    effective in reducing 8-hour concentrations should not be delayed.
    Second, delaying 8-hour designations could interfere with the
    integration of 8-hour ozone and PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIPs.)
    Importantly, it should be noted that delaying 8-hour designations
    for 1-hour nonattainment areas would not slow emission reduction
    progress, because the 1-hour nonattainment areas would continue to
    be required to meet reasonable further progress requirements until
    attainment.

d.  EPA's Ozone Flex Policy provides a precedent for delaying
    nonattainment designation for areas submitting an accelerated SIP
    prior to nonattainment designation. Similar to the Flex Policy, in
    this Suggested Option, 8-hour SIPs would be submitted prior to
    designation, where 8-hour nonattainment designation is delayed until
    1-hour attainment.

e.  EPA could adopt the Suggested Option as the default transition
    policy that would automatically apply to all applicable areas, or
    (more likely) it could be an option, like the Flex Policy, to be
    requested by states for particular nonattainment areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  The Suggested Option combines all the best advantages of EPA's
    "transitioning options" with the advantages of the Flex Policy.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  Like Option 1, it avoids the pitfalls of overlapping designations.

b.  Like Option 1b, it avoids revoking the 1-hour standard before 8-hour
    conformity is required.

c.  Like Option 2, it avoids revoking the 1-hour standard before an
    enforceable approved 8-hour ozone SIP is available.

d.  Like Option 2b, it avoids revoking the 1-hour standard before an
    8-hour ozone emissions budget is available.

e.  Like Option 3, it avoids revoking the 1-hour standard before it is
    attained.

f.  Like the Flex Policy, it avoids the disadvantages of premature
    nonattainment designations, while also ensuring expeditious
    development and implementation of necessary controls, by requiring
    SIPs for participating areas to be submitted before final
    nonattainment designation.

g.  In addition, the Suggested Option fully integrates 1-hour and 8-hour
    ozone and PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIP development, to optimize control
    strategies and minimize planning efforts by integrating and
    combining plans for the different standards.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  Following is a description of how the Suggested Option would work,
    laid out on a timeline.

    a.  2003 or 2004: EPA would [propose]{.underline} 8-hour ozone and
        PM2.5 designations and 1-hour standard revocation for all areas.

    b.  2004-2005: For 1-hour attainment areas, the 8-hour and PM2.5
        designations and the 1-hour standard revocation would be
        [finaled]{.underline}; However, for 1-hour nonattainment areas,
        only the PM2.5 designation would be [finaled]{.underline}.

    c.  2006: EPA would determine which 1-hour nonattainment areas
        (having 2005 or earlier attainment deadlines) managed to attain
        the standard by 2005. For those areas remaining nonattainment in
        2005, EPA would issue a Finding of Failure to Attain, pursuant
        to §179(c) or §181(b)(2). §179(d) then requires a 1-hour SIP
        revision to be submitted 1 year after EPA issues the Finding of
        Failure to Attain.

    d.  2007-2008: All 1-hour attainment areas that have been designated
        nonattainment for the 8-hour and/or PM2.5 standards would submit
        their 8-hour and/or PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIPs, which would be
        integrated as appropriate. Any 1-hour nonattainment area that
        has attained by that time, but is still exceeding the 8-hour
        and/or PM2.5 standards, would submit its 1-hour maintenance
        plan, combined with the 8-hour and/or PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIP.
        However, those areas not yet attaining the 1-hour standard would
        be required to submit another 1-hour SIP, which would be
        required to be consistent with 8-hour control needs, and also be
        integrated with a PM2.5/Regional-Haze SIP if the area is
        nonattainment for PM2.5.

    e.  2008 and Later: EPA would then approve the SIP submittals
        sometime in 2008 or later; and then, for those areas that
        submitted a combined 1-hour maintenance plan and 8-hour SIP, the
        8-hour designation and 1-hour revocation would finally be
        [finaled.]{.underline}

10. The following illustrates what was presented above, and shows how
    the Suggested Option would work for areas with 1-hour attainment
    dates later than 2005.

> Year X: Attainment Date (e.g., 2010 for Extreme);
>
> Year X+1: EPA determines if 1-hour standard attained in Year X
> \[§179(c)\];
>
> Year X+2: Combined 1-hour maintenance plan and 8-hour SIP due for
> areas that attain 1-hour;
>
> 1-hour §179(d) SIP due for areas not attaining 1-hour;
>
> Year X+3: SIP submittals are approved;
>
> For areas with combined 1-hour maintenance plan and 8-hour SIP, 8-hour
> designation and 1-hour revocation final.

#### **Classification Options**

11. At the Public Meeting in Tempe, EPA mentioned another option could
    be separate classifications for downwind areas impacted by
    transport. The District strongly supports such an option. The local
    control requirements for downwind areas should relate only to that
    portion of their air quality problem that is actually caused by
    their local emissions.

#### **No Backsliding**

12. At the Public Meeting in Tempe, EPA requested comments regarding
    whether no-backsliding applies to NSR thresholds and offset ratios.
    Note that EPA's maintenance plan guidance (Mary Nichols, 9/14/94),
    allows the Part D NSR requirements that applied prior to attainment
    to be excluded from the contingency provisions of a maintenance
    plan, as long as sufficient equivalent NSR requirements are
    included. Therefore, while NSR offsets are still required for 8-hour
    ozone nonattainment areas, the same NSR thresholds and offset ratios
    specified under §182 for classified 1-hour nonattainment areas do
    not need to be maintained for the 8-hour nonattainment areas, if the
    area qualifies for a lower classification under the 8-hour standard.
    Instead, the NSR requirements in the contingency provisions of the
    1-hour maintenance plan should provide the 'floor' for 8-hour NSR
    requirements. Thus, under the no-backsliding provisions, each 8-hour
    nonattainment area would be subject to whichever is the more
    stringent of either:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a.  NSR requirements in the contingency provisions of 1-hour maintenance
    plan; or

b.  NSR requirements specified for the area's 8-hour classification.

#### **Flex Policy SIP Detail**

13. At the Public Meeting in Tempe, there was discussion of the Texas
    proposal to extend the Ozone Flex Policy to the 8-hour standard, and
    EPA asked for comments on what level of detail and analysis should
    be included in SIPs submitted under the Flex Policy prior to
    designation. Requirements similar to those for maintenance plans
    would be appropriate.

[^1]: **Option 1**: Revoke 1-hour standard upon 8-hour designation
    (\~2004);

    **Option 1b**: (Presented in Tempe) Revoke 1-hour standard one year
    after 8-hour designation, when conformity is required after 1-year
    grace period;

    **Option 2**: Revoke 1-hour standard upon 8-hour WIP approval
    (\~2009);

    **Option 2b**: (Presented in Tempe) Revoke the 1-hour standard when
    EPA issues an emissios budget adequacy finding for the 8-hour SIP
    submittal;

    **Option 3**: Revoke 1-hour standard when attained, after 8-hour
    designation.