### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 Health Effects Information

 Page 48. For consistency with the controlled

- exposure studies cited in the previous paragraph, please provide information about the ozone concentration levels typical

in these studies. Can these studies detect effects of reducing concentrations from 75 ppb to 70 ppb, for example? That is, would predicting hospital admissions and emergency department visits require an out

- of

- sample extrapolation of the statistical model? These questions are answered later in the preamble, a nd the purpose of adding this information here would be to conform with the preceding paragraph.

 Pg 62

- 63. It would be helpful to understand in more detail the scientifically relevant surrogate for health effects outcomes for people with heart and lung d isease as it applies to healthy people and the severity of these effects. Additionally, it would be helpful to understand better how EPA extrapolates from samples of healthy volunteers to get the proportion of healthy individuals that are likely to experi ence clinically meaningful changes in lung function following exposure. Please provide interagency reviewers with a copy of the new studies referenced at the bottom of page 62 and bottom of page 63.

 Page 92. Please be more precise in this section about t he range of ozone concentrations that were typical in these studies. How relevant are these results to the range of ozone standards being considered in this rule?

 Page 93. It is not clear why such behavioral responses are provided as a source of

under

- est imation. These behavioral/averting responses may include costs, such as the cost of staying indoors instead of going outside. But in this example the costs of staying indoors are presumably lower than the costs of going outside. Therefore, an

estimate of h ospital admissions that did not include behavioral responses would actually over

- estimate the true cost of higher ozone concentrations. The health costs of higher concentrations should account for averting behavior, because such averting behavior would act ually occur.

 Page 138. As commented on page 93, accounting for averting behavior (for example, by controlling for averting behavior in a multivariate regression) would lead to larger health effects than failing to do so. But if we believe that individuals will actually try to avoid high

- ozone concentrations, the actual health effects of higher ozone concentrations would be net of such averting behavior. Therefore, accounting for averting behavior would yield over

- estimates of the health benefits that would actually occur if ozone concentrations decrease.

 Page 210. Given the uncertainties noted elsewhere about the epidemiological evidence, this emphasis makes sense. However, the controlled human exposure

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2 studies mostly include young and healthy adults. This section should draw a stronger connection between the evidence for young and healthy adults and the population groups discussed in the exposure analysis

— particularly, children. Specifically, if the epidemiological evidence is discounted, what is the remai ning evidence that children in the real world would experience the same (or worse) effects as the young and healthy adults in the controlled exposure studies?

 Page 212. What is the evidence that this similarity across population groups persists
at 60, 70 , or 80 ppb? Is this evidence more solid that the overall epidemiological evidence, about which a variety of uncertainties were noted above? Children could be more or less sensitive than other groups at these low concentrations. Suggest providing clearer e vidence that children are indicative of exposure patterns for other groups.

 In the section describing the Administrator’s proposed decision on the primary NAAQS, would it benefit the proposal to explain the Administrator’s reasoning more explicitly for w hy a standard in this range would protect sensitive populations (given the case law that suggests this should be an important consideration)? Is the emphasis in the discussion of the primary standard on asthmatic children sufficient

to cover all sensitive populations?

Form

 Page 227. Please explain in more detail how this reflects the continuum of health effects associated with increasing ambient concentrations. Under this form, a monitoring site could record three very, very high levels of ozone concent ration each year and remain in attainment.

Monitoring

 Page 476. Please be more explicit about what changes the EPA might consider. For example, would the EPA consider year

- round monitoring for all locations? The argument for extending further would be a) more accurate determination of ozone attainment and b) data that would be useful in determining future standards, which could conceivably push below the levels currently being considered.

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

 Page 542. Some commenters not that t his grandfathering provision is very sensible, overall, but it does raise one concern: what is the likelihood that this provision will yield to an increase in applications between publication of the proposed rule and

finalization? Beca use the question here is specifically about the period between

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3 proposal and finalization, this question is somewhat different from the discussion that begins on page 549 about the transition to the new standards.

Different primary and secondary ozone NAAQ S and the General Conformity

determination thresholds.

 If the final primary and secondary ozone NAAQS will be different and if the classification threshold methodology that EPA uses for the secondary NAAQS differs from that of the primary NAAQS, it is pos sible that the tables in the General Conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.153(b) will need to be revised, accordingly.

In paragraph VII.A.4 of the draft preamble to the proposed rule for the ozone NAAQS, EPA discusses the possibility that the primary and s econdary ozone NAAQS could end up being different. To account for this possibility, EPA is considering methodologies for establishing air

- quality based thresholds for assigning the CAA §

181 classifications to areas that are not in attainment with a secon dary ozone NAAQS that differs from the primary ozone NAAQS. If the secondary ozone NAAQS does end up being different from the primary ozone NAAQS, then not only will EPA need to consider a separate classification threshold methodology for the secondary

oz one NAAQS, but EPA will also need to consider the possibility that the tables in the General Conformity regulations at 40 CFR 93.153(b) will need to be revised, accordingly, to ensure that the tables continue to be viable.

If the final primary and second ary ozone NAAQS will be different and if the classification threshold methodology that EPA uses for the secondary NAAQS differs from that of the primary NAAQS, then EPA will need to ensure it considers whether

the tables in 40 CFR 93.153 will need to be re vised, accordingly.

Secondary Standard

 When outlining the Administrator’s proposed decision on the secondary NAAQS, rather than phrasing the proposed level as “within a range identical to the proposed range for the primary standard,” why doesn’t EPA instead refer to the numeric range (65 to 70)? This may strengthen the agency’s case that the proposed secondary standard reflects a careful step

- by

- step analysis of whether a given 8

- hour level (65

- 70) can achieve the appropriate seasonal/cumulative aver age outcome and may help avoid the misimpression that EPA is trying to achieve a pre

determined outcome of not setting a separate secondary standard.

 EPA requested comments (p. 533) on the unique implementation issues that would

arise if the EPA were to e stablish a separate and distinct secondary standard, including impacts to conformity demonstrations. On page 558, under “Will Transportation and General Conformity Apply to a Distinct Secondary O3 NAAQS, if

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

4 One is Established?,” the preamble states that “b ecause the CAA refers to the NAAQS without distinguishing between them, conformity applies to both the primary and secondary NAAQS for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, if a distinct secondary O3 NAAQS is established, both transportation and general app ly in any areas designated nonattainment for such a NAAQS.” Some commenters support the option of setting the secondary standard to match the primary standard in form and in level. A distinct secondary standard using a weighted seasonal average would

pre sent a new set of transportation conformity challenges for the highway program. For example: How would conformity be demonstrated in areas solely designated for the secondary standard? What would be the metric for emissions quantities appropriate to a wei ghed seasonal standard? (Currently, transportation practitioners use tons per (summer) day for the parts per million form for ozone.) What transportation data would be appropriate to generate on

- road emissions estimates from the transportation sector for a weighted seasonal average? Are these transportation data available? Are they accurate? How would conformity apply once areas designated nonattainment for the secondary standard are redesignated attainment (e.g., maintenance areas) because areas designated under a secondary standard are not required to complete a CAA Section 175A maintenance plan, which is the definition for maintenance areas under the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93).

To meet these new requirements, substantial resources ar e expected to be needed from state/local transportation and air agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (staff and board members), and federal agencies to analyze conformity with implementation plans for a distinct secondary standard. It is not

clear if on

- road mobile source emissions play a significant role. If environmentally protective of vegetation/public welfare, utilizing a secondary standard matching the primary standard would considerably lighten the resource load for the on

- road transportati on community for implementing the new NAAQS, and spend the limited resources on the primary standard that we know a reduction in mobile source emissions can play an important role in protecting human health.

State, local and tribal agency ozone SIP invent ories should be maintained on an

annual basis

 State, local and tribal agencies that use ozone SIP inventories as a method of determining conformity of planned federal projects to ozone SIPs need to ensure

that their inventories are current to facilitate c ompliance of federal agencies with CAA § 176(c).

It has been the experience of some federal agencies that in conducting conformity determinations, ozone SIP inventories maintained by state and local agencies are

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

5 sometimes not current enough to facilitate making a timely determination that planned federal projects conform to an ozone SIP. In such instances, state and local agencies must take the time to update their ozone SIP inventories in order to make a determination regarding whether planned federal pr ojects conform to an ozone SIP. Such delays hinder the ability of federal agencies, to comply with CAA § 176(c) and have the potential for delaying planned federal projects and adversely impacting the ability of federal agencies to accomplish their missio n.

In the preamble to the proposed rule for the ozone NAAQS, EPA should encourage state, local and tribal agencies that use ozone SIP inventories as a method of determining conformity of planned federal projects to SIPs to make sure that the

inventories are c urrent to facilitate compliance of federal agencies with CAA § 176(c). Section VII.E.5 of the preamble to the proposed rule appears to be an appropriate location for EPA to include language to encourage state, local and tribal agencies to maintain current ozone SIP inventories.

Some commenters suggests adding the following language just before the last sentence of the first paragraph in section VII.E.5: “However, because some federal agencies may not have an established emissions budget in the SIP, stat e, local and tribal agencies are encouraged to maintain ozone SIP emissions inventories on an annual basis, at a minimum, to facilitate compliance of federal agencies with CAA § 176(c).”

Implementation

 EPA notes (p. 530) its intention to use the same general framework of the 2008 ozone NAAQS for implementing the revised (2014) ozone NAAQS and proposes to issue a SIP Requirements Rule. The 1997 ozone standard was revoked for conformity purposes under the Classifications Rule for the 2008 ozone standard as opposed to the SIP Requirements Rule mentioned in the NPRM., Some commenters
support revocation of the 2008 ozone standard for conformity purposes, however we prefer the general approach of revoking the p revious ozone standard entirely. This will avoid transportation and general confo rmity practitioners completing conformity determinations to multiple ozone standards simultaneously. This revocation adequately provides air quality protection while reducin g the resource load of implementing a new standard and providing increased certainty for the on

road transportation community.

How Background 0 3 is addressed in CAA Implementation Provisions

 In the discussion of relief mechanisms associated with manageme nt of background

0 3 EPA should consider including a discussion of economic development zones

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

6 (EDZs) per section 173(a)(1)(B) of the CAA in nonattainment areas as an additional vehicle for regulatory relief.

 EPA should clearly recognize the current effect of wildfires on ozone and consider the future trends of wildfire which indicate a growing impact on air quality in the US through direct inclusion into all definitions of background used in the rule. Additionally current language of the rule does not add ress the role of prescribed fire as a critical fuels management technique which has been previously recognized by EPA as able to “reduce the risk of adverse health and environmental impacts due to catastrophic wildfire.” EPA should clearly define the natu ral role of prescribed fire in response to the wildfire threat and the importance of this and other fuels management tools for long

- term vegetation management and health that could potentially be limited in subsequent nonattainment areas.

 EPA should include language which clearly outlines the need to address fuels management and protect the use of natural prescribed fire in areas which may become nonattainment for either the primary and secondary standard.

 It is highly likely that the growing impact of wildfire may mask indication of progress towards improving air quality as has been found in addressing regional haze. It is critical that EPA address the role of wildland fire in all three types of background cited in the rule. The constructive use of the three types of background

for this rule with direct consideration of wildland fire can address a number of issues and could aid considerably in reducing risk to public and firefighter safety by allowing natural fuel build

- ups to be addressed. In the Rule EPA should: 1) cite the importance of natural prescribed fire for reducing the risk of wildfire; 2) insert the importance of addressing fuels management including use of fire within nonattainment and transport areas; 3) directly acknowledge the role t hat fire

dependent ecological systems play in maintaining the nation’s carbon security; and 4) insert a process by which natural prescribed fire can be included in the appropriate background for ozone. An annual assessment of background including

wildland fire impacts by EPA could appropriately guide and allow progress towards meeting the standard.

 The influence of Canadian and Mexican wildfires on ozone is also significant and needs to be considered as a background component addressed by directly in th e rule and by EPA. Reliance on the Exceptional Event Rule to track the important influence of these wildfires is not feasible by states. The current criteria for ozone exceptional events is to consider only when there is an ozone exceedance and not just elevated levels which could be critical when addressing the secondary standard as well for areas with little margin due to high background ozone levels. It is far beyond the scope of single states in terms exceptional events of international

wildfire’s inf

luence on ozone levels.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

7  Under the CAA amendments of 1977, the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) have the responsibility to set air quality related values (AQRVs), including identifying the ozone exposure thresholds to protect the vegetation Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs) for feder ally mandated Class I areas. The FLM’s retain the ability to cite impacted AQRVs (even when an area complies with the primary and secondary standards) in New Source Review, PSD, and other decision

- making arenas affecting ozone exposures in Class I areas. Some commenters request that this be recognized

in the new rule.

 Some commenters are concerned that the 8

- hour daily exposure period will be inadequate for some Class I areas, where peak ozone levels may occur after 8:00 PM due to the regional transport of ozone. In the AQRVs analysis, it may be helpful to
use values for the entire 24

- hour period and take into consideration the frequency of acute ozone exposures.

 It is critical in this rule to have EPA reaffirm that General Conformity can be

addressed for prescribed fire activity when conducted under a Smoke Management Program or using Basic Smoke Management Practices (as defined by USDA, 2011) .

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

 It is not clear how the Agency has determined that the provisions of UMRA do not apply to this rulemaking and while at the same time acknowledging that the action is an Economically Significant” action because it is likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It is unclear how these two premi ses can be consistent. Can EPA provide some additional analysis or explanation for why sections 202, 203 and 205 of UMRA do not apply to this rulemaking?

 Similarly, it would be helpful if EPA could provide some additional explanation regarding the conclusion that this rulemaking will not have Federalism implications. Please provide additional analysis specifically regarding the premise that “states

will ha ve a substantial interest in this rule and any corresponding revisions to associated SIP requirements and air quality surveillance requirements” contained in the Federalism section of the preamble (pp. 578).

Other General Comments

 Discussion in the pro posed rule of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule should be updated to reflect the fact that on October 23, 2014, the DC Circuit issued the attached order lifting the judicial stay of CSAPR

.

### Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

8  The pin cite to ATA III on p. 33 of the proposed rule should be c orrected as follows: ATA III, 283 F.3d at 279 379

 On page 2 of the preamble please clarify that EPA is proposing to revise the 8 hour primary standard.