150 SOUTH NINTH STREET ELCENTRO,CA92243-2850 TELEPHONE: (442) 265-1800 FAX: (442) 265-1799 

### AIR POLL

January 19, 2016

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Docket Center Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0572 Mail Code 2821T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 

### DISTRICT

RE: Imperial County APCD Comments on EPA's proposed revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule

To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to the solicitation for public comment published in the Federal Registerby U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on November 20, 2015 (80 FR 72839), the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) is pleased to provide the following comments on EPA's proposed revisions tothe 2007 Exceptional Events Rule (EER). First and foremost, ICAPCD would like to express our recognition and appreciation to EPA forthe effort made in reviewing, preparing, and working with air agencies in proposing these changes to the 2007 EER. As a small air agency, it is imperative that we receive consistent and reliable assistance from EPA on such ascientific and technical process that is getting concurrence on demonstrations of Exceptional Events that may have huge consequences in planning efforts and attainment status. Due to the applicability ofthis rule to current and future Exceptional Events in Imperial County, the ICAPCD has continued to be engaged in the process forthe review and guidance ofthe EER. Our last comment letter dated August 30, 2012 outlined ourconcerns with the Draft Exceptional Events Guidance and its related documents. To recap briefly, the concerns we shared atthattime dealt with our beliefthat changes needed to come in the form ofrule revisions and notguidance, disagreements with EPA's high wind event, "reasonable control", and "butfor" interpretations, notto mention the extreme rigor in analyses that seemed open ended and the resources required for event submittals.

AN EQUALOPPORTUNITY IAFFIRMATIVEACTIONEMPLOYER 

### 1

### With this current proposed rulemaking, EPA has addressed one ofour main concerns which is we believe that revisions needed to occur as part ofan official rule making process. We understand that this is, and has been, avery lengthy process but we feel itwas necessary in orderto remove much ofthe uncertainty and clarity issues that have plagued the process in the past. While we agree and appreciate the helpful proposed general changes with respect to clarifying what constitutes and exceptional event which include:
• Revising the definition ofexceptional event by including the concept ofconsidering the combined effects.ofan event and resulting emissions. • Removing the "but for" element • Moving the "clear causal relationship" element into list ofcriteria that must be met • Subsuming the "affects air quality" element intothe "clear causal relationship" element. • Removing the term "historical fluctuations" and replacing itwith text referring to a comparison to historical concentrations, identifyingtypes ofanalyses that are necessary in ademonstration
. However, we feel there is still a need forfurther revisions throughout the draft rule which are explained below. As ageneral comment, we would like to see the proposed changes in strikeout/underline format (same as required ofairagencies to provide EPA when adopting new or revised rules) to minimize time comparing differentversions ofthe rule and tofacilitate more focused review. Scope and Applicability 

### EPA is proposing to limit exceptional event requests to aspecific set ofregulatory actions (i.e., initial area designations, classifications, attainment determinations, determinations regarding requests for attainment date extensions, and findings ofSIP inadequacy leading to aSIP call). However, there may be othercompelling reasons why states and local air agencies would want EPA action on an exceptional event demonstration, including exceedances that maycontribute to aviolating design value in afuture year; exceedances that may impact modeling orstatistical analyses; exceptional event demonstrations that use historical data comparisons; and to address public perception ofairquality in a region. ICAPCD urges EPA to not limit demonstrationstojustthe five types of regulatory actions in the proposed rule, butto also include an option forthe region and state to decide on a case-by-case basis that data from an event outside the listed regulatory actions may be considered for exclusion as an exceptional event. We appreciate that EPA is proposing to issue an alternative to the rule itselfforexcluding exceptional events 

### (Draft Guidancefor Excluding SomeAmbientPollutant Concentration Datafrom Certain Calculation andAnalysisfor Purposes Otherthan Retrospective Determination of Attainmentof the NAAQS), suggesting thatthis will address exceptional events that do notfall into the listoffive proposed in the Rule. However, because this guidance will not be available before the Exceptional Event Rule revisions are final, states cannot rely on itto address the above concerns. While the forthcoming 

### 2

### guidance may provide other options, without knowing what will be in this document, and for states that must rely on requirements within a rule, the Rule should contain the option to consider otherevents for exclusion on acase-by-case basis
.

Not Reasonably Preventable and Controllable 

### As acondition forapproval ofan exceptional event request, states are required to demonstrate, to EPA's satisfaction, that any control measures that could "reasonably" have been in place at the time ofthe event must have been in place, including escalating control measures in areas subject to recurring dust events and wildfire events. ICAPCD supports EPA's proposal to consider relevant control measures included in non-attainment and maintenance SIPs approved within five years ofthe event sufficient to meet this criterion and appreciate EPA's recognition ofthe role SIP's play in establishing reasonable control measures. Additionally, to clarify the proposed rule language at S0.14(b)(7)(iv): 11 ••• 

### approvedby the EPA within 5years ofthe date ofademonstration submittal
. ..1 11 

### we urge EPA revise the language to say"
...

### approvedby the EPA within 5years ofthe date ofan eventatissue
..." The revision aligns with the language in the preamble at 72861, center column, first full paragraph. It makes sense that the approval date ofthe SIP should fall within five years ofthe event and not ademonstration submittal, which may be submitted an unspecified number ofyears afterthe event. We also agree that the implementation ofmeasures that would materially provide public health protections against unhealthy levels ofair pollution make sense, such as those measures outlined in Section VI ofthe preamble, states and local air agencies should not be required to guess what additional measures EPA would find acceptable to qualify as "reasonable" underthe exceptional events rule
. We therefore reiterate our previous comments that if EPA believes that any state SIP is deficient, it is EPA's responsibility to clearly identifythe deficiency and the measures they believe are necessary to provide for attainment and maintenance ofthe relevant airqualitystandard. Finally, while we agree that in areas with recurring events, a periodic review ofcontrols is appropriate, an increasing level ofcontrol may not necessarily be eitherfeasible or effective. Mitigation 

### ICAPCD supports the requirements of40 CFR 51.930 to take appropriate and reasonable actions to protect public health by providing prompt public notification, public education concerning actions individuals may take to reduce exposure, and implementation ofappropriate measures to protect public health. In the preamble to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule, EPA stated that states should take reasonable and appropriate measures to protect public health, and that states should determine what measures constitute those that are reasonable and appropriate
. Based on experience to date in implementingthe Exceptional Events Rule, ICAPCD believes this approach continues to be the most effective method for addressing public notification and mitigation requirements. We note that many states and local air agencies have existing documents or mechanisms in place that address these requirements. ICAPCD therefore continues to support EPA's current approach that provides flexibility

3and deference to states in determining the most appropriate mitigation and public notification efforts and mechanisms. Submittal of Exceptional Event Requests by Federal Land Managers ICAPCD has concerns about EPA allowing federal agencies (land managers) to flag data and submit demonstrations independent ofthe state and local airagencies. While we welcome collaboration from federal agencies in preparing demonstrations for exceptional events where regulatory-grade federal monitors have measured exceedances orthe event originated on federal land, we do not believe it is appropriate to grant authorityfor these decisions to an agency otherthan an air quality agency, because other agencies have differentfunctions and priorities. Although the proposal provides that the federal agency should proceed with developing the demonstration only after "discussing" the event with states, granting land managers the authorityto submit demonstrations is inappropriate. Instead, while the decision to develop and the development ofademonstration may be ajoint one, between the air agency, land manager and EPA, the responsibility for air quality in astate, including exceptional event requests, rests with the state agency. Therefore, ICAPCD does not support the section ofthe proposal that grants flagging and demonstration submittal authorityto federal land managers. Timing ICAPCD believes that EPA should make atimely determination on all submittalsthat meetthe criteria in the proposed Exceptional Events Rule, orthatthe state and EPA have decided on acase-bycase basis to consider. This was EPA's intentwhen itdrafted the, Interim Guidance on the Preparation of Demonstrations in SupportofRequests to Exclude AmbientAirQualityData AffectedbyHigh Winds Underthe ExceptionalEvents Rule in May, 2013. On page 33 ofthat document, EPA proposed to conduct a complete initial review and send a letterto the state, "outlining preliminary assessment of completeness ofpackage/need for additional Information" within 120 days ofreceipt ofthe demonstration. EPA further proposed that states would then have 60 days to respond. We request that EPA include, within the proposed Exceptional Events Rule, asimilartimeframe underwhich EPA must respond to state submittals with acompleteness letterand note any additional informationthat is needed. We also believe that EPA should include, within this proposed rule, a 12 month deadline from the datethe submittal was received in which EPA must concur on asubmittal orexplain whythey cannot. Dispute Resolution Process As noted in our previous comments, ICAPCD continues to believe thatthe Exceptional Events Rule should contain an administrative dispute resolution process to resolve disagreements over concurrence orapprovals before a significant regulatory action is taken. We agree that establishing early and regular communication with EPA regional office staffis a positive step. As part ofthis communication process, we support EPA's proposal regarding requirements for initial notification of exceptional event requests states and air agencies expect to pursue. This initial notification will help



### 4establish a dialog between EPA, states and air agencies regarding expectations for subsequent documentation thatwill support development ofapprovable demonstrations. However, situations may still occurwhere states and air agencies will disagree with an EPA regional office action to disapprove ademonstration package. We therefore reiterate our recommendation for EPA to develop an administrative dispute resolution process. This process should ensure that states and air agencies have the ability to present their concerns to EPA Headquarters staff directly, or could alternatively involve athird party with technical expertise to provide for an independent review ofthe documentation prepared by a state and air agency as well as the EPA regional office assessment. In closing, the ICAPCD appreciates EPAs efforts to date and we also appreciate the opportunityto share our comments and concerns with EPA and do look forward to our continued collaboration on the proposed Exceptional Events Rule. We believe this rule is absolutely necessary and avital tool forthe ICAPCD and otherair agencies to use and will allow us to focus on effective air quality effortsthat benefit public health.

Brad Poiriez Air Pollution Control Officer

cc: Imperial County Air Pollution Control Board ofDirectors California Air Resources Board U.S. EPA Region IX California Air Pollution Control OfficersAssociation (CAPCOA) Western States Air Resource Council (WESTAR) National Association ofClean Air Agencies (NACAA)



### 5