# Presentation: 686931

## Exceptional Events Rulemaking Proposal

## 	Objectives for the Briefing

- To provide a briefing on the following issues:
- Background and history of exceptional events
- Statutory requirements
- Components of the proposal

## Background: The Setting of the NAAQS and Exceptional Events

- When EPA promulgates a NAAQS, we also promulgate rules on how to use air quality data to show whether the NAAQS are being met in areas.
- Those rules also provide guidance on when data are inappropriate to compare to the NAAQS and should be excluded.
- Data influenced by exceptional events are considered inappropriate to compare to the standards and should be excluded from regulatory consideration.

## Experiences with Exceptional Events

- Since 1977, policies have address air quality data affected by “uncontrollable,” natural, or exceptional events.
- The 1986 “Exceptional Events Policy” provided criteria and procedures for States to flag data for special treatment.
- The 1990 CAA Amendments recognize the need for special consideration for areas influenced by non-anthropogenic sources.
- Section 188(f)- Provides a waiver of PM-10 SIP measures and/or the attainment date for an area where non-anthropogenic sources significantly contribute to violations.
- The 1996 “PM-10 Natural Events Policy” responds to section 188(f).

## The Current EPA Policies that  Address Exceptional and Natural Events are:

- The 1986 Exceptional Events Policy.
- The 1996 PM-10 Natural Events Policy.
- The 1998 Interim Wildland and Prescribed Fire Policy.
- The 1998 ozone Mexican Fire Policy.

## What have We Learned from Implementing these Policies 

- Exceptional and natural events can affect public health, especially sensitive populations, necessitating immediate action.
- States and EPA need more timely resolution of issues related to data affected by these events.
- Adequate demonstrations by States are crucial for good decisions by EPA concerning the exclusion of data.
- Can’t ignore other sources that also contribute emissions on any given day.
- A consistent process must be implemented for flagging and excluding data that is understood and accepted by States, local, and Federal agencies.

## Why Do Instead of Revise Our Current Policies On Exceptional Events?

- There is a court-ordered schedule to review the PM NAAQS.
- CASAC and others have highlighted the need to address exceptional events in connection with any new coarse particle standard.
- SAFE-TEA revised section 319 to require a proposed rule on exceptional events by March 1, 2006, and to finalize the rule within 1 year of proposal.

## Statutory Definition of Exceptional Event

- Section 319 defines exceptional event as an event that:
- Affects air quality
- Is not reasonably controllable or preventable
- Is an event that is caused by human activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location, or is a natural event; and
- Is determined by the Administrator through the process established in the rule to be an  exceptional event.

## Key Requirements of SAFE-TEA

- The exceptional event must be demonstrated by reliable and accurate data.
- The State must show that there is a “clear causal relationship” between the NAAQS _exceedances_ and the event.
- There must be a public review process related to an exceptional event determination.
- The rule must set criteria and procedures for States to petition EPA to exclude data affected by exceptional events.

## SAFE-TEA Temporarily Preserves Existing Policies on Exceptional Events

- SAFE-TEA requires that until the effective date of the rulemaking, the following guidance shall remain in place:
- Guidance on the Identification and Use of Air Quality Data Affected by Exceptional Events (July 1986)
- Areas Affected by PM-10 Natural Events (May 30, 1996)
- Appendices I, K, and N to Part 50 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations

## Components of the Proposed Rule

- Definitions and applicability
- Procedures for flagging, notification and demonstrations to justify exclusion of data
- Criteria for determining when data should be discounted or excluded
- Actions to protect public health

## Proposed Definitions

- Exceptional Event
- Rule: Rely on the statutory definition
- Preamble: Provide interpretative explanations of key elements
- “Affects air quality”
- “Not reasonably preventable or controllable”
- “Unlikely to recur”
- Natural Event
- Rule: Human activity plays no significant or direct causal role
- Preamble:  Provide interpretative explanation of “significant or direct causal role”

## Proposed Applicability of the Rule

- Rule to apply to all pollutants for which NAAQS provide discretion to discount or exclude data, and to the same extent
- Current:  PM and Ozone
- Other pollutants to be considered as NAAQS are reviewed
- If exceptional events cause violations of other standards, EPA would use discretion not to redesignate or to issue SIP calls.

## Requirements of the Rule

- Provide prompt public notification and take immediate action to abate or minimize the impact of the event on the public.
- Flag the data in the AQS database as being influenced by an exceptional event.
- Submit demonstration and documentation to EPA for concurrence on findings.
- The demonstration must show a “clear causal relationship” between the affected data and the event.
- The EPA must concur on the flagged event for the data to be excluded from regulatory use.
- As appropriate, a State must implement /submit a mitigation plan to address future events.

## Public Notification of an Exceptional Event

- States must provide immediate notification to the public concerning an event.
- The States must also take appropriate action to mitigate the impact of the event on the public.
- This includes initiating clean up related to the event as well as addressing contributing anthropogenic sources.
- Providing public education related to the event.
- The State must also take all appropriate measures to reduce emissions related to the event.
- Section 319, together with section 110, provides the authority for EPA to require States to take these actions.

## Documentation of Exceptional Events

- The rule should accommodate varying facts and circumstances, but provide clear guidance on the types of documentation and demonstrations required.
- Required demonstrations should reflect the relative complexity of source mix.
- Eastern urban PM episode may require more detailed analysis of speciated data, while a more remote western episode may not require as much detailed analysis.

## Procedures and Time Line for Flagging Data and Submitting Demonstrations

- The State must flag the data in the AQS database.
- Within 90 days of the end of the quarter that the event occurred.
- The State must submit documentation to the RO related to the event within 180 days of the end of the quarter that the event occurred.
- The State may submit a request for a 90 day extension to the RO for more complex demonstrations.
- The RO must concur on the event within 30 days of receiving the documentation.
- The RO may extend this period up to an additional 30 days.

## The Proposed Requirements for Mitigation Plans

- Plans must provide for immediate public notification and education related to an event.
- Plans must provide for mitigation of public exposure to an event.
- Plans must provide for abatement or minimization of emissions due to all contributing anthropogenic sources related to an event.
- Plans must provide for identification, study, and implementation of practical mitigation measures related to future events.
- Plans must provide for reevaluation every 3-5 years.

## How to Require Mitigation Plans 

- We plan to propose two regulatory options for Exceptional Event Mitigation Action Plans (EEMAPS).
- Making them necessary elements of the CAA section 110 SIPs
- Treating them as separate from SIPs
- For anthropogenic sources interacting with natural events, we plan to take comments on whether BACM should be implemented as opposed to RACM.