Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0083-0718
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-09-16T04:00Z

1
Recommendations
to
EPA
for
8­
Hour
Ozone
Attainment/
Nonattainment
Areas
Comment/
Response
Document
List
of
Commentators:

1
Donald
Shanis,
Assistant
Executive
Director
Delaware
Valley
Regional
Planning
Commission
111
South
Independence
Mall
East
Philadelphia,
PA
19106­
2515
2
Joseph
Otis
Minott
Clean
Air
Council
135
S.
19th
Street
Philadelphia,
PA
19103
Joe_
minott@
cleanair.
org
3
Harold
D.
Miller,
Director
The
Southwestern
Pennsylvania
Growth
Alliance
Via
e­
mail
from
Kelly
McQuoid
[
kmcquoid@
accdpel.
org]
4
Charles
McPhedran
Senior
Attorney
Citizens
for
Pennsylvania's
Future
(
PennFuture)
Via
email
5
Nancy
Parks
Chair,
Clean
Air
Committee
Pennsylvania
Chapter,
Sierra
Club
201
West
Aaron
Square
PO
Box
120
Aaronsburg,
PA
16820­
0120
2
Comments
and
Responses
1
Comment:
The
commentators
generally
support
Pennsylvania's
recommendations
for
boundaries
based
on
government
and
planning
jurisdictions
as
well
as
commuting
patterns.
(
1,
2)
Response:
DEP
appreciates
the
support
of
the
commentators.

2
Comment:
The
commentator
explains
the
difficulties
for
transportation
planning
that
could
result
from
a
larger
nonattainment
area.
(
1)
Response:
Commuting
patterns
are
a
significant
factor
on
which
metropolitan
statistical
areas
and
related
boundaries
are
based.
Transportation
planning
and
conformity
is
a
resource­
intensive
requirement
of
the
Clean
Air
Act.
DEP
believes
that
preserving
well­
established
agencies
and
processes
will
enhance
the
investment
of
local
officials
in
projects
which
support
clean
air
goals.

3
Comment:
The
commentator
commends
DEP
for
abandoning
its
earlier
proposal
to
designate
certain
areas
as
"
transitional
nonattainment."
(
2,
5)
Response:
As
stated,
the
Department
continues
to
believe
that
most
areas
of
Pennsylvania
should
be
in
attainment
with
the
new
eight­
hour
ozone
standard
by
2007.
However,
use
of
the
term
"
transitional"
is
not
consistent
with
EPA's
proposed
implementation
strategy
and
therefore
is
no
longer
being
used
in
the
proposal.

4
Comment:
DEP
should
look
at
the
emissions
contribution
of
Berks,
Lancaster
and
York
counties
to
see
if
they
contribute
to
downwind
pollution,
and
if
so,
combine
counties
into
larger
nonattainment
areas.
(
2)
Response:
DEP
does
not
believe
that
the
creation
of
large
nonattainment
areas
is
an
effective
way
to
attain
the
ozone
standard.
Pennsylvania
is
part
of
the
Ozone
Transport
Region
and
therefore,
many
reduction
strategies
are
applied
statewide
and
regionwide.
Attainment
of
the
eight­
hour
standard
is
even
more
likely
than
the
one­
hour
standard
to
require
further
reductions
of
nitrogen
oxides
from
regional
or
national
strategies,
rather
than
consideration
of
transport
on
a
county­
to­
county
scale.
Larger
nonattainment
areas
tend
to
complicate
local
consideration
of
air
quality
goals
(
see
response
to
issue
#
2).
DEP
has
revised
and
expanded
the
discussion
for
the
Philadelphia
area
to
more
fully
present
its
rationale
for
Pennsylvania's
recommendation.

5
Comment:
In
the
absence
of
a
demonstration
that
York,
Lancaster,
Lehigh
and
Berks
significantly
contribute
to
nonattainment
in
the
Philadelphia
area,
it
is
appropriate
for
them
to
remain
separate
from
the
Philadelphia
region.
(
2)
3
Response:
The
Department
agrees.
See
response
to
#
4.

6
Comment:
The
commentator
opposes
including
Ocean
County
in
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area.
(
2)
Response:
The
Department
agrees.

7
Comment:
The
commentator
supports
keeping
Mercer
County
NJ
and
Cecil
County
MD
as
part
of
the
Philadelphia
nonattainment
area.
(
2)
Response:
The
Department
agrees.

8
Comment
The
commentator
supports
inclusion
of
some
Ohio
counties
in
an
interstate
nonattainment
area
in
western
Pennsylvania
but
questions
why
eastern
Ohio
counties
were
not
included
in
the
Beaver
Valley
area
(
2,
3)
Response:
Ohio
counties
were
included
in
the
Mercer
County
recommendation
because
they
are
part
of
the
MSA
as
defined
recently
by
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget/
Census.
None
of
the
West
Virginia
or
Ohio
counties
were
included
for
the
Pittsburgh
area.
Additionally,
West
Virginia
and
Ohio
have
adopted
and
EPA
has
approved
regulations
requiring
levels
of
nitrogen
oxide
controls
on
electric
generating
units
identical
to
those
in
Pennsylvania.
DEP
believes
inclusion
of
the
additional
counties
from
West
Virginia
and
Ohio
in
the
Pittsburgh
nonattainment
planning
area
would
be
of
little
benefit
to
Pennsylvania.

9
Comment:
The
commentator
urges
EPA
to
take
stronger
action
on
the
issue
of
pollution
transport.
(
2)
Response:
The
Department
believes
"
transport"
of
pollution
is
a
major
issue
for
Pennsylvania
and
will
continue
to
work
aggressively
on
this
issue
for
all
sources
of
transported
air
pollution.

10
Comment:
The
commentator
opposes
the
designation
of
southwestern
Pennsylvania
as
a
nonattainment
area
without
adequately
addressing
transport
from
upwind
sources.
(
3)
Response:
Air
quality
values
from
86
to
95
parts
per
million
clearly
indicate
that
southwestern
Pennsylvania
will
be
included
in
a
nonattainment
area
no
matter
what
the
size
or
interstate
nature
of
the
area.
The
seven
counties
recommended
as
the
nonattainment
area
are
the
same
as
those
for
the
one­
hour
standard
in
order
to
preserve
existing
planning
institutional
relationships.
The
commentator's
opposition
to
the
designations
is
noted.
However,
EPA
is
obligated
to
promulgate
designations
by
April
15,
2004.

11
Comment:
The
commentator
recommends
that
the
Pittsburgh
nonattainment
area
should
include
portions
of
Ohio
and
West
Virginia,
because
transport
should
be
the
most
important
factor
in
determining
4
nonattainment
boundaries.
The
commentator
provides
justification
for
that
position
which
include
monitoring
data;
basis
in
EPA
guidance
for
consideration
of
factors
such
as
emissions,
commuting
patterns,
levels
of
control
in
each
area;
the
proposal
of
other
multistate
nonattainment
areas;
economic
development
inequities
between
Pennsylvania
and
Ohio/
West
Virginia;
reliance
on
other
regulatory
initiatives
and
the
enforcement
by
other
states
of
controls
such
as
the
NOx
SIP
call.
(
3)
Response:
Pennsylvania
has
fought
effectively
to
address
the
issues
of
transport.
We
have
commented
extensively
on
this
issue
to
EPA
on
their
implementation
strategy,
taking
some
of
the
same
positions
as
the
commentator.
The
NOx
SIP
Call
is
being
fully
implemented
in
Pennsylvania,
and
due
to
court
action,
will
not
be
implemented
fully
until
May
2004
in
Ohio
and
West
Virginia.
When
the
NOx
SIP
Call
is
fully
implemented,
we
are
projecting
that
the
Pittsburgh
area
should
attain
the
standard.
DEP
does
not
believe
that
making
large
nonattainment
areas
will
solve
the
problem.
DEP
further
believes
that
it
would
be
difficult
to
justify
inclusion
of
Ohio
and
West
Virginia
in
the
nonattainment
area.
(
See
also
response
to
#
8)

12
Comment:
DEP's
public
participation
process
failed
to
provide
sufficient
time
or
information
to
enable
the
public
to
properly
evaluate
the
options.
(
3)
Response:
DEP
agrees
that
the
time
period
was
short,
but
points
out
that
the
state
has
three
more
opportunities
to
revise
its
recommendations
before
EPA
promulgates
final
designations
in
April
2004.
EPA
did
not
publish
a
proposed
implementation
rule
until
June
2,
2003;
DEP
decided
to
wait
to
make
its
proposal
until
EPA
laid
out
some
of
the
possible
implications
of
designation.
State
recommendations
were
actually
due
July
15,
but
DEP
decided
to
take
additional
time
for
public
and
legislative
input.
The
implications
of
designation
will
only
fully
be
understood
once
EPA
finalizes
its
implementation
regulation,
expected
by
the
end
of
the
year.
DEP
will
then
seek
the
input
of
interested
parties
in
any
changes
to
its
recommendations.
It
is
likely
that
there
will
also
be
a
short
time
period
allowed
by
EPA
for
Pennsylvania
to
comment
between
publication
of
the
federal
implementation
regulations
and
EPA's
final
decision.

13
Comment:
No
designations
for
southwestern
Pennsylvania
should
be
submitted
to
EPA
until
appropriate
stakeholders
are
convened
to
discuss
the
options
and
reach
consensus.
(
3)
Response:
The
Clean
Air
Act
provides
a
specific
opportunity
for
the
Commonwealth
to
submit
recommendations
and
EPA
has
laid
out
the
timetable
for
its
designation
process
based
on
a
settlement
agreement.
The
Commonwealth
has
delayed
its
submission
to
EPA
to
allow
public
input
but
further
delay
will
not
be
fruitful
and
would
5
remove
Pennsylvania
from
deliberations
at
the
federal
level.
Again,
DEP
will
have
additional
opportunities
for
dialog
(
including
revisions
to
the
recommendations)
with
EPA
and
will
reconsider
the
views
of
the
commentators
at
that
time.

14
Comment:
DEP
has
not
identified
areas
that
contribute
to
nonattainment
in
downwind
areas.
(
4)
Response:
All
areas
of
Pennsylvania
are
included
in
the
Ozone
Transport
Region
(
OTR).
All
areas
within
the
OTR
are
effectively
treated
as
"
moderate"
nonattainment.
Nonattainment
status
is
thus
of
little
consequence
for
compliance
purposes
because
sources
located
in
attainment
areas
must
comply
with
the
nonattainment
requirements
for
VOC
and
NOx.
DEP
did
examine
factors
in
the
guidance.
With
low
population
density
and
emissions
density
of
nearby
areas,
we
believe
that
their
contribution
to
the
nonattainment
areas
is
not
significant.

15
Comment:
DEP
provides
no
evidence
of
attainment
in
those
areas
without
monitors
that
have
been
recommended
as
attainment.
The
commentator
suggests
some
approaches
from
EPA's
guidance
that
could
be
used.
(
4)
Response:
DEP
used
the
factors
from
EPA's
guidance
(
see
Figures
4­
7
in
the
proposal).
While
statistical
analysis
techniques
were
not
applied,
we
also
examined
data
from
nearby
monitors
to
determine
if
nonattainment
would
be
expected.

16
Comment:
Neither
PA
nor
NJ
has
examined
in
sufficient
detail
evidence
to
include
Ocean
County
in
an
appropriate
nonattainment
area.
(
4)
Response:
Pennsylvania's
justification
for
including
Ocean
County
in
the
New
York
City
nonattainment
area
has
been
clarified.

17
Comment
All
counties
designated
as
nonattainment
should
receive
a
specific
classification
during
the
EPA
submission
process.
(
5)
Response:
EPA
asked
states
to
address
designation
only
in
these
recommendations.
The
classification
process
and
the
ensuing
emission
reduction
requirements
will
be
addressed
by
EPA
in
the
context
of
finalizing
their
implementation
rule,
proposed
June
2,
2003.
In
commenting
on
that
rule,
DEP
supported
the
option
that
would
require
all
nonattainment
areas
to
be
classified.

18
Comment
The
commentator
had
various
recommendations
for
requirements
for
nonattainment
areas
including
Reasonably
Available
Control
Technology,
inspection/
maintenance,
new
source
review,
conformity,
motor
vehicle
emissions
control.
(
5)
Response:
These
suggestions
will
be
addressed
in
EPA's
final
implementation
rule;
once
those
requirements
are
known,
Pennsylvania
will
embark
6
upon
a
planning
process
for
its
nonattainment
areas.

19
Comment:
Emission
reduction
requirements
should
be
put
in
place
that
will
allow
Pennsylvania
to
reach
attainment
on
its
own.
(
5)
Response:
Ozone
is
a
regional
problem
which
will
require
a
mix
of
national,
regional,
state
and
local
strategies.
Pennsylvania
cannot
reach
attainment
on
its
own
and
recognizes
the
importance
of
its
contributions
to
downwind
nonattainment
areas.

20
Comment:
Additional
monitoring
stations
may
be
necessary
to
identify
PA's
responsibility
for
transport
into
Ocean
County,
New
Jersey.
(
5)
Response:
Since
EPA
is
suggesting
that
ozone
monitoring
networks
be
reduced,
not
expanded,
other
tools
will
be
used
to
identify
transport
patterns.
The
Ozone
Transport
Region
will
continue
to
be
the
major
tool
to
address
interstate
transport
among
Northeast
states.