WPCzG : Ô#)k5Tbml>+˺ %p0nh&F z 3'SȒcYL RЭ*uc1Óm 97&O͵lÞ:'zlFc{s!̒.rT 8x1Kֆ%Ȝi}u,g^f0Kuli",]b3:qѦOzB];@g.N^x.X[;O1kL?-p( v^({^u{޲.4ozFmϜ|.9H+Un\0vax8x?M56 _-%19O9K8N\A?yojR}֜.8LR"}穩IAZC9vDpFFFFFFFF BGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGU > l$USUS.,    22    _ X$XXXForamorecompletediscussionofNSRasagrowthmeasure,seethepromulgation  preambleatV.C.5.#X$XX X$f#,X3F XXX$(9 Z(Times New Roman   l$USUS.,    9    _#X$XXXEPAsguidanceonsuchdeterminationsappearsin CriteriaforAssessingtheRoleof  TransportofOzone/PrecursorsinOzoneNonattainmentAreas,May1991.U.S.Environmental  ProtectionAgency,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,TechnicalSupportDivision,  ResearchTrianglePark,NC27711.Availableat:http://www.epa.gov/scram001/tt25.htm.Look t forzipfilenamedUAMIVGUIDE.UnziptoaccessfilenameUAMCRIT.#X$XX#X$e#i)i)%&jsjsilvasi<4 9Z+ Courier New  o l$USUS.,    11    _LatestFindingsonNationalAirQuality:2002StatusandTrends.EPAPublicationNo.  EPA454/K-03-001.OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards,UnitedStatesEnvironmental  ProtectionAgency,ResearchTrianglePark,NC (3$ !USUS.,8<XXdXXd8     (3$ !USUS.,8<XXdXXd8     i)(O$i) hvSCEIMQUY]aAutoList222222222i)1)a)i) < l$USUS.,    12    _Memorandum,GuidanceontheReasonablyAvailableControlMeasures(_RACM_)  RequirementandAttainmentDemonstrationSubmissionsforOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreas.  JohnS._Seitz_,Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.November30,1999.Web  site:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1pgm.html. G l$USUS.,    13    _MemorandumofMay10,1995, _RFP_,AttainmentDemonstration,andRelated  RequirementsforOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard,fromJohnS._Seitz_,Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.Available  at:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf.  l$USUS.,    14    _#X$XXXMemorandumofMay10,1995, _RFP_,AttainmentDemonstration,andRelated  RequirementsforOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard,fromJohnS._Seitz_,Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.Available  at:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf.#X$XX#X$f#  l$USUS.,    15    _#X$XXXMemorandumofMay10,1995, _RFP_,AttainmentDemonstration,andRelated  RequirementsforOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard,fromJohnS._Seitz_,Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.Available  at:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf.#X$XX#X$f# l$USUS.,    16    _g f  g ԀDocketdocumentsOAR-2003-0079-0189andOAR-2003-0079-0191.f  g  K l$USUS.,    17    _MemorandumofMay10,1995, _RFP_,AttainmentDemonstration,andRelated  RequirementsforOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality   Standard,fromJohnS._Seitz_,Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.Available  at:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf. G l$USUS.,    18    _MemorandumofMay10,1995, _RFP_,AttainmentDemonstration,andRelated  RequirementsforOzone_Nonattainment_ԀAreasMeetingtheOzoneNationalAmbientAirQuality  Standard,fromJohnS._Seitz_,Director,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards.Available  at:http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/clean15.pdf. l$USUS.,    19    _DocketdocumentsOAR200300790149,0259,0260(TexasCommissionon  EnvironmentalQuality). l$USUS.,    20    _DocketdocumentOAR200300790239(SacramentoMetropolitanAirQuality  ManagementDistrict). l$USUS.,    21    _DocketdocumentOAR200300790140(BayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict).  l$USUS.,    1    _QualitativeAssessmentofAlternativeCoverageandClassificationOptions.First  Addendumto Cost,EmissionReduction,Energy,andEconomicImpactAssessmentofthe  ProposedRuleEstablishingtheImplementationFrameworkforthe8-hour,0.08ppmOzone  NationalAmbientAirQualityStandardPreparedbyInnovativeStrategiesandEconomics t Group,AirQualityStrategiesandStandardsDivision,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningand ` Standards,OfficeofAirandRadiation,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Research L  TrianglePark,NorthCarolina.February20,2004.  l$USUS.,    2    _Additionally,section181(a)(4)establishesa90dayprocessforreclassifyingareas  followingtheinitialdesignations/classifications. B l$USUS.,    3    _Theseareasincluded:(a)thef  g f  g transitionalf  g Ԁareasundersection185A(areasthatwere  designatedasanozonenonattainmentareaasofthedateofenactmentoftheCAAAmendments  of1990butthatdidnotviolatethe1hourozoneNAAQSbetweenJanuary1,1987,and  December31,1989);(b)nonattainmentareasthathadincomplete(orno)recentattainingdata t andthereforecouldnotbedesignatedattainment;and(c)areasthatwereviolatingthe1hour ` ozonestandardbyvirtueoftheirexpectednumberofexceedances,butwhosedesignvalueswere L  lowerthanthethresholdforwhichanareacanbeclassifiedunderTable1ofsubpart2 8  (f  g f  g submarginalf  g Ԁareas).See57FR13498at13524col.3etseq.(April16,1992).  l$USUS.,    4    _QualitativeAssessmentofAlternativeCoverageandClassificationOptions.First  Addendumto Cost,EmissionReduction,Energy,andEconomicImpactAssessmentofthe  ProposedRuleEstablishingtheImplementationFrameworkforthe8-hour,0.08ppmOzone  NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard.PreparedbyInnovativeStrategiesandEconomics t Group,AirQualityStrategiesandStandardsDivision,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningand ` Standards,OfficeofAirandRadiation,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Research L  TrianglePark,NorthCarolina.April8,2004.  l$USUS.,    5    _QualitativeAssessmentofAlternativeCoverageandClassificationOptions.First  Addendumto Cost,EmissionReduction,Energy,andEconomicImpactAssessmentofthe  ProposedRuleEstablishingtheImplementationFrameworkforthe8-hour,0.08ppmOzone  NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard.PreparedbyInnovativeStrategiesandEconomics t Group,AirQualityStrategiesandStandardsDivision,OfficeofAirQualityPlanningand ` Standards,OfficeofAirandRadiation,U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,Research L  TrianglePark,NorthCarolina.April8,2004.  l$USUS.,    6    _AdditionalOptionsConsideredfor ProposedRuletoImplementthe8HourOzone  NationalAmbientAirQualityStandard.U.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency,OfficeofAir  QualityPlanningandStandards,ResearchTrianglePark,NC.March2003.  l$USUS.,    7    _See GeneralPreamblefortheImplementationofTitleIoftheCleanAirAct  Amendmentsof1990;ProposedRuleApril16,1992.57FR1352413525. / l$USUS.,    8    _,X3F XXXMemorandumofJune18,1990fromWilliamG.Laxtonre   OzoneandCarbonMonoxideDesignValueCalculations.Available  at4N 4O  5  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/laxton.htm6-4OA  7 oԀ.#X$X X,X3Fe#http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/laxton.htm d\  `&Times New Roman !USUS.,8$XXdd8     ___  FINALRULETOIMPLEMENTTHE8HOURNATIONALAMBIENTAIRQUALITY  STANDARDFOROZONE(PHASE1)  RESPONSETOCOMMENTS_DOCUMENT  t __ APRIL15,2004 _ `  A.g HOWWILLEPARECONCILETHECLASSIFICATIONPROVISIONSOFSUBPARTS $ t 1AND2?   \    SECTIONA.1.HOWWILLEPACLASSIFYNONATTAINMENTAREASFOR  0  THE8HOURSTANDARD?       `     h _ Classifications. _ԀThisissuewasaddressedinsectionVI.A.oftheJuneproposal(68FR32811)   andinsections51.902and51.903ofthedraftregulatorytext.Itisaddressedinsection51.902   and51.903ofthefinal_rule._ x  _ __I.COMMENTSONPROPOSEDOPTIONS P _GeneralSummaryofComments: ThecommentersontheJune2003proposalweresplitin (x whethertheypreferredOption1,underwhichallareasareclassifiedundersubpart2oftheAct h orOption2,underwhich8hournonattainmentareaswith1hourozonedesignvaluesatthetime T ofdesignationareclassifiedundersubpart2andallotherareas8hournonattainmentareasare @ classifiedundersubpart1.AnumberofcommenterssupportedOption2,butrecommended , variationsofthatapproach.Thesecommentersraisedone(orboth)oftwoconcernswiththe  approachrecommendedbyEPA:(1)sincemostoftheareasfallintothelowerclassifications  withshorttermattainmentdates,itdoesnotprovidesufficienttimeformanyareastoattain;and  (2)sincesomeareasclassifiedundersubpart1willhaveamoresevere8hourozoneproblem  thansomeareasclassifiedundersubpart2,Option2maybeperceivedasinequitable.In x addition,severalcommentersrecommendedoptionsdifferentthaneitheroftheoptionsproposed d byEPA. P   Comment: ManyofthecommentersthatsupportedOption2believethatitmadebetterpolicy ("x  sensethanOption1.OnecommenternotedthatOption2betterpreservesEPAsdiscretionto #h! allowareastodevelopthemostefficientandeffectivemeasurestoachieveattainmentofthe8 $T" hourozonestandard.Thisiscriticalbecause,asdiscussedabove,thebestmixofemission $@ # reductionstrategiesforoneareaisnotnecessarilythebestforanother.Inmanyareas,thehighly %,!$ prescriptiverequirementsofSubpart2willbeneitherappropriatenoreffective.Option2thusis &"% preferablebecauseitenablesEPAandtheStatestoutilizethediscretionaffordedbySubpart1to '#& tailorrequirementsforeacharea. (#'   Also,onecommenternotedthattheadoptionofOption2shouldalsoencourageand x*%) motivateairquality/environmentalagenciestoaccelerateSIPdevelopmentsothatmotorvehicle d+&* emissionsbudgetswillbeinplaceassoonaspossible,therebyensuringthatmotorvehicle P,'+ emissionsremainconsistentwithattainmentplans.ThiscanprovideastrongincentiveforStates <-(, todevelopSIPsexpeditiouslyandforEPAtoreviewtheminatimelymanner.Onecommenter  favoredoption2onlyifacongressionalfixthatreconciledsubparts1and2werenotpossible.   Response: WeagreewiththesecommentersthatOption2makesbetterpolicysenseforthe t reasonsstatedinthepreambletothefinalrule. d  Comment: ManyofthecommentersthatfavoredOption2,notedthatthesubpart2requirements <  aremorerigidthantherequirementsundersubpart1andthatOption2wouldprovidemore , | flexibilitytostateandlocalofficialsindeterminingthemixofcontrolmeasuresappropriateon  h anareabyareabasis.Specifically,thesecommentersbelievedthatOption2giveslocalareasthe  T  mostchoiceandalternativesinreducingozonelevelsandthatlocalleaders,airqualityagencies,  @  andlocalandstategovernmentscanbestidentifyandproposesolutionstoreducingozonelevels ,  thatarearesultoflocalemissions.     Oneofthesecommenterssaidthereseemstobelittle,ifany, practicaldifference   betweenclassifyingareasundersubpart1orclassifyingthemas marginalundersubpart2.   AnothercommentersupportedOption2becausethedistinctdifferencebetweenthese marginal x nonattainmentareasandotherareaswithmorepervasiveozoneproblemsisclearlyidentifiedby d applyingdifferentsubpartrequirements. P   SeveralcommenterssaidOption2isequitablebecauseitprovidesflexibilitytoStatesin (x thedevelopmentofimplementationplans,particularlyinareasthatareclosetoattainingthe8 d hourozonestandardandforwhichprescriptivemeasureswouldnothastenattainmentorbenefit P downwindareas.Inthe13yearssinceenactmentofthe1990Amendments,muchhasbeen < learnedaboutthecomplexchemistryandnumeroussitespecificfactorsthataffectozone ( formation.Ithasbecomeincreasinglyclearthatthebestmixofpoliciesandrequirementsforone  areaisnotnecessarilythebestmixofpoliciesandrequirementsforanother.Certainlythehighly  prescriptiverequirementscontainedinSubpart2makemoresenseforsomeareasthanforothers.  Thus,EPAshouldutilizetheincreaseddiscretionavailableunderSubpart1totailor  requirementsforeacharea. t  Response: WeagreewiththecommentersthatOption2ispreferablebecauseitprovidesmore L! discretionforthoseareasthatCongressdidnotmandatebecoveredbysubpart2. <"   Comment: Severalcommentersthatfavoredoption2noteditalsoprovidesmoreflexibilityin $d" addressingareasthatareimpactedbytransportsinceEPAhasagreaterabilitytodetermine %T # appropriaterequirementsandtoextendattainmentdatesforareasundersubpart1.Oneofthese %@!$ commenterssuggestedthatforareasthatarerural,itdoesnotmakesensetohavethemcovered &,"% undersubpart2andbebumpedupforfailuretoattain.Anotherofthesecommentersclaimed '#& thatsubpart1ismoreappropriatethansubpart2fordownwindareaslikeSanDiegoCounty, ($' wherethehighestozoneconcentrationsareheavilyinfluencedbytransportedpollutionfrom )$( upwindareas.UnderSubpart2,adownwindareathatfailstoattainbyitsattainmentdatemust *%) bebumpedupandimplementstatutorilyspecified,morestringentstationarysourcecontrol x+&* requirementseventhoughtheseadditionaldownwindstationarysourcecontrolsdonotaddress  therootcauseofthecontinuednonattainmentproblem"transportfromtheupwindarea.This  problemisavoidedundersubpart1,whichauthorizesEPAtoprescribeadditionalcontrol  measurestobeincludedintheStateImplementationPlanwhenanareafailstoattain.That t authoritywouldallowEPA,thestate(s),andtheupwindanddownwindareastoworktogetherto ` identifyandimplementappropriatemeasurestoeffectivelyreducetransportandexpeditiously L  correctthefailuretoattaininthedownwindarea. 8   Response: Weagreewiththecommentersthatsubpart1providesmoreflexibilitytoaddress  ` areasthatareaffectedbytransportedpollutionandthatitmakessensetoclassifyareasunder  P  subpart1whereCongresshasnotmandatedthattheybeclassifiedundersubpart2.  <   Comment: Onecommenterbelievedthatsubpart2carriesarigidsetofdeadlinesand   prescriptivecontrolmeasuresthatareneithernecessarynorappropriateforthenew   nonattainmentareasinGeorgia.Allthreeoftherecommendednewnonattainmentareasin   Georgia(Macon,Augusta,andpartofMurrayCounty)areexpectedtoattainthe8hourstandard   oncecertainstateandfederalrequirementsthathavealreadybeenpromulgatedarefully x implemented.Therefore,theimpositionofprescriptivecontrolmeasuresthatwouldbemandated d byanonattainmentclassificationunderSubpart2oftheCAAwouldbeunnecessary.The P flexibilityinadoptingcontrolmeasuresandsettingattainmentdeadlinesaffordedstateandlocal < planningagenciesunderSubpart1willresultinmoresensibleandcosteffectiveattainment (x strategiesthataretailoredtoeachnonattainmentareasuniqueneeds.f  g  d  Response: WheretheActprovidesflexibilitytoplaceareasundersubpart1ratherthanto < classifyundersubpart2,theruleprovidesforsuchareasnottobeclassifiedundersubpart2.We , note,however,thatallareasundersubpart1aswellasthoseundersubpart2mustattainas  expeditiouslyaspracticableandtheycannotsimplyawaitimplementationoffuturecontrolsif  implementationofreasonablemeasureswillexpediteattainment.   Comment: Withrespecttotheissueofwhetheritwouldbe equitablethatsomeareaswould x beclassifiedasModerate(subjecttoalltherequirementsunderSubpart2forModerateareas), h  whileotherswiththeverysame8hourozonedesignvalueswouldberegulatedonlyunder T! Subpart1,onecommenterstatedthattreatingidenticallysituatedareasdifferentlywouldraise @"  legitimateconcerns,butinthiscasetheareasarenotidenticallysituated.Thecommenternoted ,#|! thatsomeareashave1hourozonedesignvaluesthatareatorbelowthe1hourstandard,and $h" someareabovethatstandard.Theareaswith1hourdesignvaluesthatareabovethe1hour %T # standardarethoseareaswhereachievingattainmentwiththeozonestandardhasprovenmost %@!$ difficultandwherethestatutehasalreadyrequiredthemostsubstantialefforts.Thesignificant &,"% differenceamong8hournonattainmentareasdependingontheir1hourdesignvaluesisclearly '#& suggestedbythefactthatapproximately18ofthe278hournonattainmentareasthatwouldbe ($' classifiedasmoderateunderOption1,butthatwouldberegulatedundersubpart1underOption )$( 2areexpectedtoachieveattainmentwiththe8hourstandardby2007.Thecommenternotes *%) thatthereisnoindicationintherecordthatthemoderateareasunderOption2willbeableto x+&* achieveattainmentwiththe8hourozoneNAAQSwithinthesameshorttimeframe.Moreover,  asinterpretedinWhitman,theCAAdoesnotallowEPAtoregulateareasthatarestill  nonattainmentforthe1hourozoneNAAQSundersubpart1.    Response: Wegenerallyagreewiththecommentersremarks.Asprovidedinmoredetailinthe ` preamble,EPAagreesthattheareasclassifiedundersubpart1andthoseclassifiedundersubpart P  2arenotidenticallysituated.AsproposedinJune2003,weplantoconsideraswedevelopthe <  finalPhase2rulewhethercontrolsforcertainareasundersubpart1shouldbesimilartocontrols ( x undersubpart2forareaswiththesimilar8hourdesignvalues.  d  Comment: Somecommentersassociatedthesubpart2controlswithbeingmorecostly.One  <  commentersuggestedthatthesubpart2requirements oftentimesresultinlongerandmore ,  resourceintensivepermittingprocesses.Anothercommenternotedthattheaddedflexibilityof   subpart1meantthatimplementationcouldoccuratalowercost.    Response: Becausesubpart1providesmoreflexibilityinthechoiceofcontrols,weagreethatit   islikelytoleadtolowercosts. |  Comment: SeveralcommentersexplicitlystatedagreementwithEPAthatwithexistingfederal T measuresalreadyinplace(e.g.,NOxSIPCall,cleanfuelengines),manyareasthatwouldbe D subjecttosubpart1wouldattainthe8hourstandardwithoutadditionalcontrolsandthatit 0 wouldbeunnecessarilyburdensomefromanadministrativeplanningandcontrolstrategy l standpointtoplacethoseareasunderthemoreprescriptive/lessflexibleprovisionofSubpart2. X OneofthesecommentersalsocitedtheindustrialMACTStandardsandpotentialMulti D Emissionslegislationthatcouldmoveadditionalareasintoattainment. 0  Response :Weagreethatmanyareasthatwillbeclassifiedundersubpart1willbeabletoattain  the8hourstandardwithoutadoptingadditionalcontrols.Wenote,however,thatsubpart1areas  willstillneedtodemonstratethattherearenotreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasuresthatwill  advancetheattainmentdate.   Comment: Severalcommenterscitedmorereasonableattainmentdatesasareasonfor X! supportingOption2.Onecommenteranticipatedthatothersmightsuggestthatallowingsome H"  areastoimplementthe8hourstandardundersubpart1wouldresultinlessexpeditious 4#! attainment.Thecommenterdisagrees,statingthatsubpart1mandateseffectivelyallofthesame  $p" generalcontrolrequirementsasSubpart2!ademonstrationofattainmentasexpeditiouslyas  %\ # practicable;ReasonableFurtherProgress;ReasonablyAvailableControlTechnology;and %H!$ ReasonablyAvailableControlMeasures.Althoughsubpart2ismoreprescriptivethansubpart &4"% 1,itisnotmoreeffective.Thedetailedstationarysourcecontrolmeasuresforeachclassification ' #& inSubpart2werespecifiedbyCongressin1990,basedona1980slevelofunderstandingofthe ( $' scienceassociatedwith1hourozonecontrol.Itisnotreasonabletopresumethattheseparticular )$( measureswouldnowbethemosteffectivemeasuresforbringingallnew8hourozone *%) nonattainmentareasintoattainmentexpeditiously.Inaddition,insomecasesSubpart2isless +&* stringent.Forexample,areassuchasSanDiegoCountythatwouldbeclassifiedmoderateunder  Subpart2wouldbealloweduptosixyearstoattain.However,underSubpart1suchareaswould  haveonlyuptofiveyearstoattainunlesstheycouldmakeasufficientdemonstrationthatthe  areameetsthespecifiedcriteriatoqualifyforanextensionpursuantto172(a)(2)(A)ofSubpart t 1. `   OnecommentersupportedOption2becausemoreandmoredataandmodelingresults 8  showthatthe8hourozonestandardwillbeextremelydifficult,ifnotimpossible,forsomeareas $ t tomeet.Thus,flexibilityandreasonabletimeframesforimplementationofthestandard(as  ` providedundersubpart1)arecriticaltofacilitiesoperatingintheseareas.  L   Response: Weagreethatsubpart1willnotbe lesseffectivethansubpart2inbringareasinto $  attainmentinatimelymanner.Asthecommenternotes,bothsubpartsrequireareasto   demonstrateattainmentasexpeditiouslyaspracticable.Whiletheinitial maximumtime   periodforattainmentundersubpart1!fiveyears!islongerthantheinitialmaximum   attainmentperiodformarginalareasundersubpart2,itisshorterthantheinitialmaximumtime   periodforattainmentforallotherclassificationsundersubpart2.Todemonstratethatanarea t wouldneedlongerthanfiveyearstoattainthestandardundersubpart1,theStatewouldneedto ` demonstratethattheseverityofthenonattainmentproblemintheareaandtheavailabilityand L feasibilityofcontrolssupportedalongerattainmentperiod.Inaddition,Statesmustdemonstrate 8 thattherearenotreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasuresthatcanexpeditetheattainmentdatefor $t thearea. `   Wealsoagreewiththecommenterthatsubpart1providesadditionalflexibilityinsetting 8 attainmentdates(withinthemaximumtenyearperiodprovidedundersection172(A)(2)),where $ therearetechnicalconstraints.However,wedisagreethatsubpart1providesmoreflexibility  thansubpart2inestablishingimplementationperiods.AsprovidedinthePreamble,Statesmust  demonstrate(underbothsubparts)thatimplementationofcontrolmeasuresisexpeditiousandis  notdelayedbeyondreasonabletimeframesandthattheareawillattainasexpeditiouslyas  practicable. p  Comment: OnecommenterstatedthatadoptionofOption1withoutchangestoSubpart2 H! requirementswouldnotbea reasonablereconciliationoftheActsnonattainmentprovisions 8"  becauseitwouldrequireadditionalregulation forthesakeofregulationwithoutmeasurable $#t! progresstowardattainingtheozoneNAAQS. $`"  Response: SincewearenotadoptingOption1,weneednotaddresswhetherthescenario %8!$ presentedbythecommenterwouldbe reasonable. &("%  Comment: SeveralcommentersnotedthatOption2wasconsistentwiththeSupremeCourts ($' decisionwhichrecognizedthatsomeprovisionsinsubpart2wereill!fittedforimplementation )$( ofthe8hourNAAQS.OnecommenterstatedthatWhitmanaffordstheAgencywithregulatory *%) flexibilityinprovidingareasonableresolutionoftherolesofSubpart1and2inimplementing x+&* the8hourstandard.Existingfederalmeasuresalreadyinplace(e.g.,f  g f  g NOxSIPCall,cleanfuel  engines)willbringmanyareasthatwouldbeclassifiedunderSubpart1intoattainmentwiththe  8hourstandardwithoutadditionalcontrols.Regulationoftheseareasunderthemore  prescriptive/lessflexibleprovisionofSubpart2wouldbeanunnecessaryburdenforbothstate t SIPplanningandcontrolstrategyselection. `   Option1wouldclassifyallareasunderSubpart2!aresulttheCourtclearlyindicated 8  wasnotrequired.EPAspreferredOption2isconsistentwiththeSupremeCourtsopinionin $ t Whitman,andisafarsuperiorapproachthanOption1.  `  Response: AsprovidedmorefullyinthePreambletothefinalrule,weagreethatOption2is  8  legallysupportedbytheCAAasinterpretedbytheCourtinWhitmanandthattheCAAdoesnot (  mandatethatallareasdesignatednonattainmentforthe8hourstandardbeclassifiedunder   subpart2.    Comment: SeveralcommenterswereconcernedthatEPAsmethodologyfordeveloping8hour   classificationsforSubpart2areasdoesnottakeintoaccounttheseverityofanareas8hour x ozoneproblemorhowlongitwilltaketoattainthestandard.Thecommentersnotedthatmany d existing1hourareaswillhavelowerclassificationsunderthe8hourstandardeventhoughthe8 P hourstandardmaybemoredifficulttoattainandthatareaswillhaveallofthemandatorycontrol < requirementsofthehigher1hourclassificationbutwithashortertimeframetoattainamore (x stringentstandard.Manynonattainmentareaswillnotbeabletoachievesufficientemission d reductionstodemonstrateattainmentbytheirdesignateddeadlinesandwillnotbeabletosubmit P approvableSIPs.ThesecommenterssuggestedthatEPAdevelopamoremeaningful < classificationschemeandattainmentdeadlinesthatreflects,asCongressintended,therelative ( difficultyanareamayhaveinachievingthestandard.Thecommentersbelievethesearea   shouldnotstandinjeopardyofbeingpenalizedfornotattainingastandardthatcannotbemetin  thetimeframeprovided.     Someofthesecommenterssupportedthreealternativesforprovidinghigher t classifications(andlongerattainmentperiods)formoreareas: `    (Ay3" 3"   3[2A3  0    Maintainarebuttablepresumptionthatanareas1-hourclassificationwouldberetained 8"  underthe8-hourstandardifthe1-hourclassificationwashigherthanthe8-hour $#t! classification. 3[[݌$`"(#(# Ќ  " 3"   38]2A3  0    Translatetheclassificationtableusingonlyone-halfthepercentageabovethestandard $L # thateachstatutoryclassificationthreshold(orcutpoint)represents.(Thesepercentages %8!$ areshowninTable2oftheproposedrule,68FRat32812,andwerethebasisfor &$"% translatingthe1-hourozonevaluesinTable1ofsection181oftheCAAinto8-hour '#& ozonevalues.)Forfurtherdescription,seep.13ofdocketdocument (#' OAR-2003-0079-0281. 38]e]݌)$((#(# Ќ  " 3"   3`2A3  0    Useadistributionofclassificationsthatmirrorsmorecloselythedistributionofareasin *%) theoriginal1991classifications. 3`3`݌p+&*(#(# Ќ    Anothercommentersuggestedthatstatesbegiventheabilitytoretaintheirexisting1  hourclassificationortoapplyforahigherclassificationthantheminimumrequiredbyEPAin  ordertogivethemselvesreasonabletimetoimplementcontrolstoreachattainment. t   AnothercommenternotedthatEPAhasampleauthorityunderAmericanTruckingto L  maintaincurrent1hourclassificationsunderthe8hourstandard.TheU.S.SupremeCourtheld, 8  inpart,thatSubpart1ofPartDofTitleIoftheActwasnottheexclusivemeansfor $ t implementationofthe8hourstandard.TheCourtwasclearlyawareoftheimportance,under  ` Subpart2,oflongerdeadlinesforareaswithhigherozonelevels.Nothinginthecaseeven  L  suggeststhatEPAisconstrainedtopreservetheprecisepercentagesofthe1hourdesignvalue  8  thresholdsinsettingthe8hourthresholds.Rather,theCourtmadeitabundantlyclearthatEPA $  hasconsiderablediscretiontofashionan8hourimplementationrulewithinthebasicframework   ofSubpart2.ThecommenterrecommendedthatEPAshouldnotrelyonbumpupstoaddressa   classificationsystemthatdoesnotgiveadequatetimeforareastoattain.    Response: AsweprovideinmoredetailinthePreambleandtheaddendumtothecostanalysis p forthisruleF #  1      ׀webelievethatmostareaswillbeabletoattainthestandardbythemaximum ` attainmentdatespecifiedfortheirclassification.However,itisquiteplausiblethatStatesmay L findduringtheattainmentplanningprocessthatalimitednumberofareasmayneedmoretime 8 toattainthe8-hourstandardthantheirclassificationwouldpermit.Weconsideredthe $t alternativessuggestedbythesecommenterswhenwereopenedthecommentperiodonthe ` proposedrule.Wehaveconcludedthatitdoesnotmakesensetoestablishasystemthatwould L automaticallyplacemoreareasinhigherclassifications.Thesetypesofalternativesnotonly 8 wouldplaceareasthatneedmoretimetoattaininthehigherclassifications,theywouldalsoshift $ tohigherclassificationssomeareasthatEPAbelievesmayattainintherelativelynearterm.As  wediscussinthePreamble,thestatutedoesnotprovidereliefforareasthatareplacedina  classificationthatishigherthanneeded.However,itdoesprovidearemedyforareasthatare  placedinaclassificationthatistoolow.Undersection181(b)(3)oftheAct,aStatecanrequest  ahigherclassification!includingtheclassificationtheareahadunderthe1hourstandard.EPA p mustgranttheStatesrequestandpublishnoticeoftherequestandEPAsapproval.Theresult \  wouldbetoincreasethecostofmeetingthestandard.G #  2       H! Ї  Wedonotbelievethattheoptionofautomaticallyplacingareasintotheclassification  theyhadforthe1hourstandardisconsistentwiththestatute.Section181(a)iswritteninthe  presenttenseandwebelieveCongressintendedclassificationstobebasedonanareasdesign  valueatthetimetheareaisclassified!notona14yearolddesignvalueforadifferentstandard. t   Wedisagreewiththecommenterssuggestionthatareaswillhavelesstimetoattainthe L  8hourstandardeventhoughitmaybemoredifficulttoattainthanthe1hourstandardandwith 8  theirconcernthatareaswillhaveallofthemandatoryrequirementsfortheir1hour $ t classification,butlesstimetoattain.First,itisdifficulttodeterminewhatmeasurementthe  ` commentersareusing.Aretheycomparingthefactthatanareathatwasgiven15years(severe  L  15classification)toattainthe1hourstandardin1990mightnowhaveonly9years(serious  8  classification)toattainthe8hourstandard?Ifso,wenotethatsuchanareahasnowhadalmost $  14yearstomakesubstantialprogressinreducingambientozonelevels.Thusprovidingan   additional9yearstoattainthe8hourstandardisnotunreasonable.     Or,arethecommenterssuggesting,forexample,thatitwillbemoredifficultforanarea   toreduceozonelevelsforthe8hourstandardfrom0.124ppmtolessthan0.085overa9year p periodthanitwasfortheareatoreduce1hourozonelevelsfrom0.185ppmtolessthan0.125 \ ppm?AsnotedinthePreamble,wehavepredictedthatthe8hourattainmentperiodswillbe H appropriateandfeasibleformostareas.IfaStatebelievesanareaneedsmoretimetoattain,the 4 statecantakeadvantageofthevoluntaryreclassificationprovision.  p   Whileitistruethatsomeareasmayneedtoretaincontrolsadoptedforthe1hour H standardevenaftertheyhavemetthatstandard,weseenoevidencethatCongressintendedthose 4 areastoretainthesameclassificationtheyhadforthe1hourstandardforpurposesofthe8hour   standard.Aswestateabove,theclassificationprovisioniswritteninthepresenttenseandEPA   mustconsidertheareascurrentdesignvalue.Furthermore,weseenobenefitinautomatically  placingareasinthese(presumptivelyhigher)classifications.Eveniftheareaweretoreceivea  higherclassification,itwouldstillneedtoattainasexpeditiouslyaspracticableandcouldnot  deferattainmentuntilthemaximumattainmentdatesolelyonthebasisthatadditionalnational l and/orlocalcontrolsmaybringtheareaintoattainmentatthatlaterdate.Thus,webelieveit X  makesmoresensetoadoptOption2andallowthoseareasthatneedmoretimetoattain(because D! therearenotreasonablyavailablecontrolmeasuresthatwillallowthemtoattainbytheir 0"  attainmentdate)torequestahigherclassification. #l!  Comment: OthercommentersopinedthatEPAshouldmodifyOption2tobaseall8hour $D # classificationdeterminationson8hourozonedesignvalues.EPAsproposaltoplace8hour %4!$ nonattainmentareasinSubpart1orinSubpart2onthebasisoftheir1hourdesignvalues & "% createsthepotentialforanomaliesandinequitiesthatEPAitselfrecognizes.Thecommenter ' #& suggestedthatitwouldbemorelogicalandmoreconsistentwiththenatureofthestandardbeing (#' implementedthe8hourstandardforEPAtof  g f  g translatetheTable1thresholdsintoapproximate )$( 8hourequivalents.Therecordinthe1997,8hourNAAQSrulemakingindicatesthatthe *%) approximate8hourequivalentofthe0.120ppm1hourNAAQSis0.090ppm.Thus,ratherthan l+&* startingthetranslatedTable1at0.080ppm(or0.085ppm,inlightofroundingconventionsfor  attainmentdeterminationpurposes),EPAshouldstartitat0.090ppm(or,moreappropriately,  0.091ppm),whichwouldbethelowerboundformarginalareas.Underthisapproach,EPA  shouldusethesame percentagemechanismthatitproposestouseinsettingthresholdsunder t itstranslatedTable1.Areaswith8hourvaluesof0.091ppmorgreaterwouldbeclassified ` pursuanttoSubpart2andthetableabove.Otherareas,whichwouldbeconsidered L   submarginal,wouldbeclassifiedunder,andbesubjectto,Subpart1.Thismodifiedversionof 8  EPAsproposedapproachwouldavoidtheanomalyofsomeareasbeingplacedinsubpart1even $ t thoughtheyhave8hourozonedesignvaluesashighasorhigherthansomeareasthatfallunder  ` Table1insection181andthusarecoveredundersubpart2.Itwouldensurethatallareasare  L  treatedequitablywithrespecttotheirrelative8hourdesignvalues.Oneofthesecommenters  8  believedthisapproachisconsistentwithWhitman,whichrecognizedtheproblemsthatwould $  resultfrom usingtheold1houraveragesofozonelevelsbecausedoingso wouldproduceat   bestaninexactestimateofthenew8houraverages.Thisrecommendedapproachbases   classificationdeterminationsnoton theold1houraveragesofozonelevelsbuton thenew8   houraverages.Atthesametime,itrecognizedthat Subpart2containsagapconsistingof   areasthatviolatethenewstandardbutarebelow theapproximationoftheoldstandardcodified p byTable1,andwouldplacethose gapareasunderSubpart1onthebasisoftheirlower8 \ hourozonelevels. H   Response: IntheOctober21,2003noticethatreopenedthecommentperiod,wesolicited  p commentonthisapproachandalsoincludeditaspartofAlternativeA.Anumberof ` commentersopposedtheideaofregulatorilycreatingarelationshipbetweenthe8hourand1 L hourstandardsandwerealsoconcernedaboutthewayinwhichtherelationshipwasestablished. 8 Theyclaimthattherelationshipisnotscientificallysupported. $   WhileweagreethatintheorythistypeofapproachcouldbeconsistentwiththeCAAas  interpretedbytheSupremeCourt,wehaverejectedit,inpart,becausewealsohaveconcerns  aboutestablishingsucharelationshipbetweenthe1hourand8hourstandards.Forreasons  statedelsewhereinthisRTCandinthepreamble,wearenotpersuadedthatOption2willcreate p inequitiesand,totheextentitmay,thosecanbeaddressedwhenwetakefinalactioninPhase2 \  onhowweinterpretthecontrolrequirementsinsubpart1applytoareas.Forexample,as H! providedintheproposedrulemaking,weareconsideringwhethertodefineRFPinthesame 4"  mannerasitisdefinedundersubpart2forareaswithsimilar8hourdesignvalues.68FR32835.  #p! WealsoproposedasimilarinterpretationoftheRACTrequirement.68FR32838.  $\"  Comment: SeveralcommenterssuggestedthatmoreflexibilitybebuiltintoOption2.These %4!$ commenterssuggestedthatinadditiontoconsideringthe1hourdesignvalueforanareato &$"% determinewhetheritissubjecttosubpart1orsubpart2,EPAshouldalsoconsider(1)anareas '#& pastrecordforachievingthe1hourozonestandard;(2)emissionreductionsandimprovedair (#' qualityexpectedfrommeasuresalreadyrequiredandonascheduletobeimplementedsuchas )$( the_NOx_ԀSIPcall,Tier2standards,theheavydutydieselrule,andtherequirementsforlow *%) sulfurcontentinfuel;and,(3)theamountoftransportanareareceives.Thecommentersnoted p+&* thattheendgoal,attainmentoftheeighthourozonestandard,wouldnotbehinderedbythis  approach!theonlydifferenceisthatSubpart1areasareofferedmoreflexibilityinattainingthe  standard.Anothercommenterappearedtosuggestsomethingsimilarbystatingthatapplication  ofsubpart2requirementstoareascoveredbytheNOxSIPcallorsection126ruleswould t unnecessarilysubjectthemtothestrictertimeframesandrequirementsofsubpart2.Yetanother ` commentersuggestedthatEPAshouldconsideroverwhelmingtransportasafactorindeciding L  whichareaswouldbeclassifiedundersubpart1andwhichundersubpart2. 8   Response: WedonotbelievethattheActallowsforEPAtoconsiderthewidearrayoffactors  ` suggestedbythesecommentersindeterminingwhetheranareashouldbeclassifiedunder  P  subpart1orsubpart2.TheSupremeCourtnotedtherewasagapinthestatuteonlyastothose  <  areaswitha1hourdesignvaluebelowthelowestlevelinTablelinsection181.Thus,EPA (  doesnotbelieveithasdiscretiontoplaceundersubpart1anareawitha1hourdesignvalueator   above0.121ppm.    Comment: Onecommenterbelievesthattheabilitytoimplementthe8hourstandardunder   subpart1isimportantandshouldberetainedbecauseitprovidesmoreflexibilitythansubpart2. x Becauseofthelimitednumberofcountiesthatwouldqualifyforsubpart1applicabilityunder d Option2inthecommentersState,thecommenterrecommendsrevisingthemethodologyin P suchawaytoallowformorecountiestohavetheadditionalf  g flexibility.Thecommentercontends < thattosubjectcountiesintheStatetosubpart2wouldimposeundueeconomicconstraintson (x thoseareaswithoutresultinginairqualitybenefits.Thecommenternotesthatsubpart2was d developedatatimewhenlessknowledgewasavailableaboutthekindsofcontrolsthatwouldbe P moreeffectiveinreducingozone. <  Response: AsprovidedbytheSupremeCourtinWhitman,thestatuterequiresthatareasthat  haveadesignvaluethatmeetstheapproximationofthe1hourstandardinTable1ofsection  mustbeclassifiedundersubpart2.Wedonotseeflexibilitytoshiftadditionalareastosubpart  1.   Comment: Onecommenternotedthatifanareaiscurrentlyclassifiedextremeunderthe1hour d  standardbutisnolongerclassifiedextremeunderthe8hourstandard,itmaynotbeableto T! utilizeauthorityexplicitlygrantedtoExtremeareastoemploySIPmeasuresthatanticipate @"  developmentofnewtechnologies.CAA182(e)(5).Underthisauthority,U.S.EPAhas ,#|! approvedmeasuresthatarenotyetprovenorthataredefinedwithlessspecificitythanithas $h" requiredofotherSIPprovisions.Aninabilitytousesuchmeasuresinanattainment %T # demonstrationwouldlimittheareasoptionsinfashioningnewcontrolmeasures,andcould %@!$ resultinaneedtoresorttomoredisruptiveandexpensivecontrolstrategies.Thiscommenter &,"% alsorecommendedthatifEPAdecidestoadopttheclassificationsystemintheProposedRule, '#& theimplementationruleshouldprovidethat technologyforcingauthorityapplicableto ($' Extreme1hourareasshallcontinueineffectinsuchareasuntiltheyattainthe8hourstandard. )$( Thus,alloftheprovisionsofsection182(e)(whichspecifiescontrolrequirementsforExtreme *%) areas,andwhichincludesparagraph182(e)(5)thatexplicitlyallowstechnologyforcing x+&* measures)shouldremainapplicabletosuchareas.CongressclearlyintendedthatExtremeareas  besubjecttothemoststringentcontrolrequirements,butthattheyalsohaveavailablef  g Ԁthe  additionalf  g toolsallowedbysection182(e)(5).  . t  Response: Section182(e)(5)appliesonlytoareasthatareclassifiedextremefortherelevant ` standard.WebelievethattheActprovidessufficientflexibilityforareastoconsidernew P  technologies.Forexample,inonerecentsituationwhereaStatehadadoptednearlyallNOx <  controlmeasuresthathadbeenadoptedanywhereelseinthecountry,butstillneededadditional ( x _NOx_Ԁreductionstodemonstrateattainment,EPAdetermineditwasappropriatetoacceptan  d enforceablecommitmentfromtheStatetosubmitadditionalmeasureslatertoaddressasmall  P  gapintheemissionreductionsneededforattainment.See66FR57160(November14,2001).  <  Ofcourse,statesarefreetorevisetheirSIPsatanytimetoreplaceorsupplementexisting (  measuressolongastherequirements.ThusaStatewillbeabletocontinuetoconsider   alternativecontrolrequirementsasitmovestowardattainment.Finally,anareacouldrequesta   voluntarybumpuptoextremeifitfeltitneededtotakeadvantageoftheprocedureinsection   182(e).    Comment: OnecommentersupportedOption2becausetheybelievedthatoptionwouldallow ` Texastoaccommodatecountieswhichwereneverdesignatedasnonattainmentareasforthe1 P hourstandard,butwhichhaveadoptedvoluntarycontrolstrategiestoensurethatairqualityin < theregionwasaddressed. (x  Response: WebelievethecommentermayhavemisinterpretedtheproposedruleinthatOption P 2wouldplaceeachwhole8hournonattainmentareasintoeithersubpart1orsubpart2.Itwould @ nottreatdifferentportionsofanonattainmentareadifferentlyfor8hourclassificationpurposes. ,   Comment: OnecommentersuggestedthatunderOption#2thesubpart2requirementsapply  onlyforsolongastheareaisshowingadesignvalueof0.121orgreater.   Response: Itappearsthatthecommenterissuggestingthatanareathatmayoriginallybe | coveredundersubpart2byvirtueofhavinga1hourdesignvalueof0.121ppmorgreater,may l  laterbecoveredonlyundersubpart1ifits1hourdesignvaluedropsbelow0.121.Webelieve X! thattheActdoesnotprovideforreclassifyinganareatoalowerclassificationastheairquality D"  intheareaproceedstoimprove.Rather,itprovidesthatareasareclassifiedas amatteroflaw 0#! basedontheirdesignvalueatthetimeoftheinitialclassification. $l"  Comment: Anothercommenterrecommendedthattoensurenobacksliding,EPAshouldmodify %D!$ theclassificationsystemfor8hournonattainmentareassoastoavoidplacingmostareasinto &4"% classificationslowerthantheclassificationthatappliesforthe1hourstandard.Thelower ' #& classificationscouldallownonattainmentareastorescindnondiscretionarycontrolmeasures ( $' requiredbytheCleanAirActforthehigher1hourclassifications(e.g.stringentnewsource )$( reviewthresholds)andconvertsuchmeasurestocontingencystatusuponattainmentofthe1 *%) hourstandard"eventhoughf  g Ԁthe8hourf  g standardhasnotyetbeenattained.Suchreductionin +&* stringencyoff  g rulef  g sinotherareascouldincreasecompetitivedisadvantagesforsourcesinSouth  Coast,andlimitmarketsfor"andincentivestodevelop"newcontroltechnologies.The  commenterrecommendedthatifEPAadoptstheclassificationsystemintheProposedRule  nondiscretionarycontrolrequirementsspecifiedintheCleanAirActfor1hournonattainment t areasshouldcontinueineffectuntilsuchareasattainthe8hourstandard. `  Response: Underthefinalrulesantibackslidingprovisions(section51.905),8hour 8  nonattainmentareaswillnotbeabletoshiftmandatorycontrolmeasuresrequiredforpurposesof ( x theareas1hourstandardclassificationtocontingencymeasures.Theareamustcontinueto  d implementthesecontrolmeasuresuntiltheareaattainsandisredesignatedtoattainmentforthe  P  8hourNAAQS.Wedonotbelievethefinalrulewilldiscouragedevelopmentofnew  <  technologiesorlimitmarketsforsuchtechnology.Asnotedelsewhereinthisdocumentandthe (  preambletothefinalrule,regardlessofanareasclassification,itmustdemonstrateattainmentas   expeditiouslyaspracticable,therebykeepingpressureonthedevelopmentofnewtechnologiesto   helpmeetairqualitygoals..    Comment: SeveralcommenterssupportedEPAsoriginalproposalofa transitional t classificationforareasthatmeetthe1hourstandard,donotcurrentlymeetthe8hourstandard, d butwillmeetbothstandardsupontheimplementationoftheNOxSIPCall.Thecommenters P claimthatareasintheirstatewhichareclassifiedas8hournonattainmentarecertaintobeinthis < situation.ThecommentersbelievethatEPAshouldnotimposeadditionalcontrolmeasureson (x areasthatunderthissituationunlesstheyfailtomeetthe8hourstandardby2007. d   Oneofthesecommentersstatedthatthemosteffectivecontrolmeasuresneedtobe < implementedonalarge(possiblynational)scale,suchasgasolinereformulation,vehicleexhaust ( controls,andcapsonnitrogenoxides(f  g f  g NOx).Forexample,dieselenginecontrolsanddieselfuel  reformulationarelargescalesolutionsthatcantbeeffectivelyimplementedbyasingle  nonattainmentareaorevenasinglestate.Perhapsevenregionalornationalimplementationof  reasonablyavailablecontroltechnology(RACT)requirementsmightbeconsideredaswell.The  commenterconcludesthatbecauseozoneisaregionalproblem,aregionalproblemneeds t regionalsolution. `   Response: Whenweoriginallypromulgatedthe8hourstandardin1997,weindicatedthatwe 8"  wouldimplementthestandardundersubpart1.Weenvisionedatthetimeatransitional (#x! classification(whichwouldhavebeenallowedundersubpart1)forareasthatsubmittedaSIP $d" priortodesignationsforthe8hourstandardsubmittedaSIPdemonstratingthattheareawould %P # attainthe8hourstandardnolaterthanthreeyearsfollowingdesignation.Akeycomponentof %=0.091ppm=subpart2    r   useoriginal6/2/03translationtableforsubpart2classification   " 3"   3-2A3  0 r   Incentivefeatureshouldapplytomarginalareassotheycanbedesignatedattainmentif p projectedtoattain,oratleastcreateatransitionalcategory. 3-Z݌\r(#r(# Ќ  ______" 3"   32A3  0 r   Needtoaddresstransport;marginalareasthatwillattainasaresultoftheNOxSIPcall H shouldbeconsideredattainmentortransitional;don'tuse1hourstandardasstarting_point #X$XX#X$##X$XXX$_ 3%݌4r(#r(# Ќ   r Response: Commentsrelatedtotheuseofanexceedingdesignforthe1hourstandardare  \ discussedelsewhereinthisdocument.BecausewehavenotchoseneitherAlternativeAorBor L anyvariationthatwouldaffectthespreadoftheclassificationsinTable1,commentsreceivedon 8 percentagesother50percentfortheadjustmentofthetranslationofthetableareirrelevanttothe $ finalruleandarenotdiscussedhere.Forthesamereason,commentsrelatedtothemodificationof  the5percentadjustmentfeatureofsection181(a)(4)arealsoirrelevanttothefinalruleandarenot  discussedhere.  _#X$XX#X$o#__ VII._ԀCOMMENTSONDESIGNATIONS  p  r Wereceivedanumberofcommentsconcerningthedesignationprocess.Wesummarize H! thesebelowforinformationalpurposes.However,theJune2,2003proposalexplicitlystatedthat 4"  wewerenotproposinganyruleconcerningthedesignationprocess,andthatdesignationswouldbe  #p! donethroughaseparateaction.  $\" " 3"   32A3  0 r   OnecommenterarguedthatEPAshoulddefernonattainmentdesignationforcommunities %4!$ thatfallintothesocalled gapbetweenattainmentofthe1hourozonestandardand & "% nonattainmentofthe8hourozonestandard,iftheyagreetoexpeditedvoluntaryemission ' #& reductionmeasures,anddemonstrateprogressinimplementingthosemeasures.Deferralis (#' especiallyappropriateforthose gapcommunitiesthatareveryclosetomeetingthe8 )$( hourozonestandardandareprojectedtoattainthestandardwithinthreeyearsorsooner *%) throughmeasuresalreadyimplementedinitscurrentStateImplementationPlan(SIP).The l+&* commenteralsoofferedexamplesofhowdeferralwillavoidincreasedemissionsfrom  sprawlandsustainbrownfieldandsmartgrowtheffects.Denying gapcommunitiesthe  benefitsofnonattainmentdeferralwilldonothingtoimproveairqualityorexpedite  attainment.Thecommentersareaisalreadyprojectedtomeetthe8hourstandardinafew t yearsthroughmeasuresinitscurrentSIPandnationalmobilesourceemissionsmeasures. ` Nonattainmentdesignation,ontheotherhand,willincreasevehicleandsprawlrelated L  emissionsanddelayattainment. 3A݌8 r(#r(# Ќ  " 3"   3y2A3  0 r   OnecommenterarguedthatEPAmustuseitsstatutoryauthorityunderSection $ t 110(a)(2)(D)oftheCAAtodesignateasnonattainmentthosesourceareas,nomatterwhat  ` their8hourdesignvaluesare,thatsignificantlycontributetononattainmentinotherareas.  L  TheirSIPsmustnotbeapproveduntilthedownwindareasachieveattainment.  3y݌ 8 r(#r(# Ќ  ___ _________     r  SECTIONA.2.UNDERTHEFINALCLASSIFICATIONAPPROACH,HOWWILL  EPACLASSIFYSUBPART1AREAS?   _#X$XXX$ _Classificationofsubpart1areas  l AV)) xdEWA X  Comment: #X$XX#X$U#Severalcommenterssupportedinclusionoftheoptionofnoclassificationsforsubpart S  1areas.#X$XXX$OthercommentersagreedthatEPAshouldestablishanoverwhelmingtransport C  classificationforsubpart1areasthatcandemonstratethattheirviolationsareduetooverwhelming /  transport.SomecommentersnotedthatbaseduponEPAsmodelingandprojections,thereare  k  likelytobemanysuchareas,particularlyintheeastandsoutheasternpartsofthecountry.  W  Ѐ  C   Response: Thefinalrule(section51.904(a))providesforasubpart1areatobeclassifiedasan /  overwhelmingtransportareaifitmeetsthecriteriaasspecifiedforruraltransportareasunder   section182(h)oftheAct.AlthoughEPAsJune2,2003noticereferencedanEPAguidance   documentasthecriteriafordeterminingthecontributionofsourcesinoneormoreotherareasare   anoverwhelmingcauseofanareabeingdesignatednonattainment,webelievethatguidanceneeds   tobeupdatedandwillissuerevisedguidanceinthefuture.$ #  9      #X$XX#X$##X$XXX$ԀWhileEPAagreestheremaybea  numberofareasthatareaffectedbyoverwhelmingtransport,wenotethat overwhelming k transportasaddressedbythispolicyisahigherhurdlethanthe significantcontribution,which W wasaddressedbyEPAsNOxTransportrules. C  Comment: Severalcommentersaddressedthecriteriafordeterminingoverwhelmingtransport. k Onecommentersuggestedthatthecriteriaforanareabeingclassifiedasanoverwhelming  [ transportareashouldbeproposedbyEPAwithspecificregulatorylanguageandadequatetime G providedtostakeholdersforinput.Anothercommentersupportedaruraltransportclassification 3 andbumpupprotectionforareasthataretrulyruralincharacterbutrecommendedthatsuchan  areaneedstomakeashowingthattheiremissions(1)areatrivialcomponentoftheirlocalozone   formation;(2)arenotcontributingtoadownwindareasnonattainmentstatus;and(3)donothave  thepotentialtointerferewithadownwindareasmaintenanceofthestandard.Onecommenter  recommendedthatEPArigorouslydefinethecriteriaunderwhichthisclassificationapplies.Each  areamustberequiredtoaddressthelocalsourcesofozoneprecursors,andshouldnotrelyon k  reductionsfrom500to700milesaway. W!   Response: Weplantodeveloprevisedguidanceondeterminationofoverwhelmingtransportand /#" issueitinthefuture,andwewillprovideanopportunityforpubliccommentontheguidanceand $o# ontherequirementsthatwouldapplytosuchareas.   %[ $  %G!%  Comment: Severalcommentersstatedthatourproposalundulyrestrictedtheavailabilityofthe  overwhelmingtransportclassificationtoareasoutsideC/MSAsandaskedthatthecriterianot  includethelimitationthattheareameetthedefinitionofaruraltransportarea.Somenotedthat  theC/MSAboundariesarenotnecessarilyindicativeofurbanareasandinfactcontainruralareas. x Onecommenternotedthatcontrolsthatcouldbeappliedinitsareaifitdoesnotreceivethe d overwhelmingtransportclassificationcouldcrippletheStateseconomywithoutgaining P  attainment.OnecommenternotedthatSection172providesEPAwithbroadauthorityto <  determinetheappropriateclassificationforanonattainmentarea,considering suchfactorsasthe ( x severityofnonattainmentinsuchareaandtheavailabilityandfeasibilityofthepollutioncontrol  d measuresthattheAdministratorbelievesmaybenecessarytoprovideforattainmentofsuch  P  standardinsucharea.Onecommentersupportedtheproposedapproachofrestrictingthe  <  classificationtoruralareas. (   Response: Thefinalrulerequiresthatanoverwhelmingtransportareameetthedefinitionofa   ruraltransportarea.AlthoughtheCAAdoesnotmandatethatanareabeconsideredruralinorder   toreceiveanoverwhelmingtransportclassificationundersubpart1,webelievethatareasthatare   notrural,eveniftheyareaffectedtoasignificantdegreebytransport,ingeneralcontributeatleast x somedegreetotheirownandlikelytootherareasnonattainmentproblems.Wenotethatsubpart d 1doesprovideflexibilitytoareasindevelopingplanstoattainthestandardandthatforthoseareas P affectedbytransportbutthatarenot rural,EPAandtheStatescanconsiderappropriatecontrols < intheSIPdevelopmentprocess. (x  Comment: Onecommenterexpressedconcernedabouttheoverwhelmingtransportclassification P becausetherewere toomanyunknownswiththatclassification.Theseunknownsinclude: @ impacttotransportationconformity,definitionof overwhelmingtransport,thechangeinthe , definitionofMetropolitanStatisticalArea/ConsolidatedMetropolitanStatisticalAreas  (MSA/CMSA)bytheOfficeofManagement&Budget(OMB),andundefinedattainmentdate.   Response: Commentsontheimpactontransportationconformityinrelationtotheoverwhelming  transportclassificationarediscussedbelow.Regardingthedefinitionof overwhelming | transport,althoughtheJune2,2003proposedruleprovidedreferencetoEPAsexisting h  OverwhelmingTransportPolicy,weplantoissueanewguidancedocumentthatwillapplyfor T! purposesofthe8hourNAAQS. #  10      #X$XX#X$##X$XXX$ԀWewillprovidenoticeofandanopportunitytocommenton @"  thatdocument.Section172(a)(2)providesmaximumattainmentdatesforareascoveredunder ,#|! subpart1;wewillapprovea subpart1"areasattainmentdatewhetheritisclassifiedas $h" OverwhelmingTransportornotwhenweapprovetheareasattainmentdemonstration.Thus, %T # thereisnomoreuncertaintyregardinganOverwhelmingTransportareasattainmentdateunder %@!$ subpart1thanthereisforasubpart1area.Theattainmentdateforanynonattainmentareacannot &,"% beknowninadvance,sinceitmustbe asexpeditiousaspracticablebutnolaterthanthe '#&  maximumperiodsallowedundertheAct.#X$XX#X$#RegardingtheMSA/CMSAdefinition,EPAisplanning ($' tousethe1999definitionoftheMSA/CMSAsratherthannewerdefinitions.Thisisconsistent  withtheunderstandingmanyStateshadintheirrecommendationsfornonattainmentareas.#X$XXX$   Comment: OnecommentersuggestedEPAprovideincreasedflexibilityforareasthatwouldbe t classifiedasnonattainment,primarilyforreasonsrelatedtotransport.Aspecialcategoryfor d transportareas,shouldbecreatedforareasthatareinattainmentofthe1hourstandardbut,ifnot P  fortheimpactoftransport,wouldnotbeinviolationofthenew8hourstandard.Theregulatory <  requirementsfortransportareashouldbeminimalandrequiredcompliancedatesshouldextend ( x outatleastaslongastheupwindstates.  d  Response: Wenotethat8-hourozonenonattainmentareascoveredundersubpart1generallywill  <  beclosetoattainingthe1-hourstandard.Webelievethecriteriausedtodetermineoverwhelming ,  transportwillinvariablyresultinasituationwhereanareasubjecttooverwhelmingtransport   wouldbeinattainmentofthestandardbutfortransport.Subpart1providesamaximumof10   yearsfromtheeffectivedateofnonattainmentdesignationforattainment.Wenote,however,that   ifsuchanareabelievesthatitwouldneedanattainmentdatelongerthan10years,itcouldrequest   tobereclassifiedundersubpart2toaclassificationwithalongerattainmentdate.Theareawould, x ofcourse,havetomeettherequirementsofitssubpart2classification(eitheritsrequested d classificationortheruraltransportclassificationifitsoqualifies). P  Comment: OnecommentersuggestedthatEPAprovideflexibilityandreliefforareasaffectedby (x overwhelmingtransportbyallowingadifferentstandardofviolationthanareasthatarenotsubject h tooverwhelmingtransport.Thestandardforviolationsinthoseareasshouldbeextendedtosix T excursionsofthestandardinsteadoffour.Fourexcursionsinthreeyearsisintendedtoaccountfor @ statisticalanomalies,yettransportareascannotimpacttheairqualityintheirarea,andshouldbe , furtherinsf  g uf  g latedfromstatisticalanomalies.Additionalregulatoryburdensshouldnotbeimposed  oncitizensbasedonraremetf  g eof  g rologicalevents.   Response: UndertheCleanAirAct,EPAestablishesnationalambientairqualitystandards,not  standardsthatvaryareabyarea.Thesestandardsarebasedonthelevelsthatareneededtoprotect | publichealthandarebasedonthelevel(i.e.,0.08ppm),theaveragingtime(8hours)andthe h  NAAQSstatistic(theaverageofthe4thhigh).Inthisaction,EPAisconsideringhowtoimplement T! theexistingNAAQSandisnotconsideringarevisiontotheNAAQS,whichiswhatthe @"  commenterisrequesting(i.e.,achangeintheNAAQSstatistic). ,#|!  Comment: OnecommentersuggestedthatEPAexploreadditionalwaysofaddressingtransport, %T # sinceamonitorcanbelocatedinanMSAoradjacenttoanMSA,butbeimpactedbytransport %D!$ fromotherareasduetocomplexterrainorotherfactors. &0"%  Response: Inaseparaterulemaking(69FR4566,January30,2004),EPAiscontinuingto ($' examinewhethertofurtherregulatesourcesofinterstatetransportofozoneanditsprecursors. )$( Additionally,asnotedelsewhere,subpart1providestheStatesandEPAwithsomeflexibility *%) whendevelopingattainmentplansforareas. +&* Ї Comment: Onecommenterrecommendedthatthefinalruleshouldprovideenoughflexibilityso  thatrecipientsofoverwhelmingozonetransportpollutionineitheraruralareaoranareacontained  withinaMSAcanreceiveadelayedortransitionaldesignationthatallowstimeforupwindareasto  meettheattainmentdatebeforeformallydesignatingthedownwindareas. x  Response: TheCAAdoesnotprovideforadelayedortransitionaldesignationsuggestedbythe P  commenter.Thefinalrulewouldallow8hournonattainmentareasclassifiedundersubpart1and @  thatareruralandthatareaffectedbyoverwhelmingtransporttobeclassifiedassuchandreceive , | anattainmentdate(upto10yearsfollowingdesignation)thataccountsfortheupwindareas  h attainment.  T   Comment: Severalcommentersrecommendedthatareasimpactedoverwhelminglybytransport ,  beexemptedfromperformingtransportationconformity.Onereasonprovidedwasitdoesnot   providebenefit,itonlyshowsthattheozonestandardsarebeingexceededbypollutantswhichare   comingfromsourcesoutsidetheareabeingmodeled.Thisisparticularlyapplicableinruralareas   wheretheconformityprocesswillbeadrainonstateandlocalresources.Anothercommenter   notedthatconductingtransportationconformityiscostlyandrestrictive,andthetransport | classificationcouldintensifytheonerousrequirementoftransportationconformity.Another h commenternotedthatfortheseareasitisclearlynotlocaltransportationfacilitiesthatarecausing T ozonef  g exceedancesf  g . @  Response: UndertheAct,wecannotexemptnonattainmentareas!eventhoseoverwhelmedby h transport!fromtheconformityrequirement.Infact,theruraltransportclassificationwhich X addressesoverwhelmingtransportforareasundersubpart2,makesclearthatsuchareasarestill D subjecttotherequirementsthatwouldapplytoareasclassifiedasmarginal,whichwouldinclude 0 conformity.TheJune2,2003proposedruleindicatedthatwewerecontemplatingmoreflexibility  inhowconformityappliesforsuchareas.Inourproposedtransportationconformityrulepublished  onNovember5,2003(68FR62690),wedidnotproposeanyspecificconformityflexibilityfor  theseareasbutmanyoftheproposedoptions,includingthetypesofemissionstestsusedin  conformity,wouldbeavailabletoareasaffectedbytransport,aswellasothertypesof8-hour | ozoneareas.Inaddition,theexistingconformityrulealreadyprovidesflexibilityinsuchthingsas h  transportationmodelingrequirementsforsmallerareaswithlessseverelocalairqualityproblems. T!  Comment: OnecommentersupportedEPAsconceptfor lessrestrictiveNSRrequirementsin ,#|! areassubjecttoSubpart1andthatwouldqualifyforthe overwhelminginterstatetransport $l" classification.ThecommenterreservedfurthercommentregardingthisissuesinceEPAhasnot %X # identifiedtherequirementsofa lessrestrictivenonattainmentNSRinthisproposalandproposes %D!$ todosoinaseparate,futurerulemaking. &0"%  Response: Inourproposedozoneimplementationrule,weindicatedthatwewerecontemplating ($' moreflexibilityforNSRforsuchareas.Weintendtoissueaseparateproposalonthis. )$(   *%)  Comment: Onecommenterwhoobjectedtousingsubpart1atallforimplementationofthe8   hourstandardalsoobjectedtotheproposedprovisionthatwould graftintosubpart1aprovision  ofsubpart2thatallowsruralozonenonattainmentareastoescapecertainprescriptivesubpart2  nonattainmentrequirementsiftheirnonattainmentproblemiscausedbysourceslocatedoutsidethe x areaboundary,ratherthanclassifyingallozonenonattainmentareasundersubpart2oftheAct,as d Congressintended.Thecommenterbelievesthatallareasshouldbeclassifiedundersubpart2 P  andthenthesection182(h)authoritywouldbeavailabletosuchareas. __ <   Response: Weaddresswhycertain8hourozonenonattainmentareasshouldbecoveredby  h subpart1elsewhereinthisresponsetocommentdocumentindiscussionofcommentsreceivedon  X  theclassificationapproach.Thecommentisunclearaboutwhyitisimpropertoestablishunder  D  subpart1anoverwhelmingtransportclassificationforareasthatmirrorstheruraltransport 0  provisioninsection182(h).   #X$XX#X$]# INTRASTATE_TRANSPORT   ____ Comment: Severalcommentersrecommendedthat EPAalsoofferanIntrastateTransport | Classification.Onecommenternotedthattheremaybeasmanyassix8hournonattainmentareas l inthecommentersstateandthatTexasissimilarinsize,geographically,tothesizeofmanyofthe X Northeasternstatescombined.f  g f  g However,thecommentersStatesnonattainmentareasare D confinedtoonestateunlikeintheNortheasternUnitedStates.(SeeAttachment1todocketnumber 0 0260formapdemonstratingtherelativegeographicsizeofTexascomparedtoseveralNortheast l statesinthef  g NOxf  g ԀSIPcall.)Also,onecommenterbelievedthesubpart2classificationsystem X shouldaccountforintrastatetransport.Thecommenterclaimedtheexistingclassificationstructure D inSubpart2oftheCleanAirActthatrelatesmandatoryrequirementsandattainmentdatestolocal 0 ozonelevelsiseffectiveandshouldbeusedfor8-hournonattainmentareasthatcontribute  substantiallytotheirownpollutionproblems.However,Subpart2doesnotworkwellforthe  commentersStatesruralareasthatareoverwhelmedbyairpollutiontransportbecauseitimposes  agreaterburden,eventhoughtheseareasdonothavethecorrespondingabilitytoaccelerate  attainmentinthelocalregion.Fortheseruralareas,thegeneralrequirementsinSubpart1aremore | appropriate.CommenterrecommendsahybridofU.S.EPAsproposedoptionsfor8-hourozone h  classificationstodistinguishbetweenthesetypesofnonattainmentareas.Underthisapproach T! majorurbanareasinthecommentersStatewouldcontinuetoimplementfederalCleanAirAct @"  ozoneprogramsunderSubpart2,regardlessoftheirozonelevels,andthenew,rural, ,#|! transport-impactednonattainmentareaswouldimplementthe8-hourstandardunderthemore $h" flexibleframeworkofSubpart1. %T #  Response: Thefinalrule(section51.904(a))setsforthanoverwhelmingtransportclassification &,"% undersubpart1thatappliesregardlessofwhetherthetransportisinterstate,intrastate,oreven '#& international. EPAdoesnotbelievethattheCAAallowsforEPAtoplaceareasinsubpart1based ($' onwhethertheareaisaffectedbytransport.Asprovidedinmoredetailelsewhere,theSupreme )$(  Courtheldthatthereisnotagapinthestatuteregardingareaswitha1hourdesignvalueator *%) above0.121ppm.Ruralareasthatarecoveredundersubpart2maybeabletoqualifyforrural  transportareatreatmentundersection181(h)oftheCAA.__   __  t  _ r SECTIONA.3.WILLEPAADJUSTCLASSIFICATIONS?   0 r A.ClassificationAdjustmentUnderSection181(a)(4) r(#r(#  Comment: SeveralcommenterssupportedtheusetotheextentpossibleofprovisionsinSection \ 181(a)(4)toallowadjustmentofaclassificationifanareasdesignvalueiswithin5%ofanother L  classification.Ifanareawouldnotbenefitsignificantlyfromtheincreasedcontrolsofthehigher 8  classification,reasonablecostsavingswouldberealizedforcitizensbydroppingtothelower $ t classification.  `   r Onecommenternotedregardingthesection181(a)(4)provisionthattheAdministrator  8  shouldconsiderseveralfactorsinmakingtheadjustment,includingthenumberofexceedancesof $  thestandardandthecomplexityoftheproblem.Thecommenternotedthatitsarea,basedonthe   proposedrule,willfallintotheseriousclassification,butitisalsoanareawiththemost8hour   ozoneexceedancesinthenationforthelastthreeyears.Theareasdesignvalueisrightonthe   edgeofthis5%thresholdbasedon20002002data,andcouldbeoneoftheareasthatwillfitinto   this5%windowwhenthe2003databecomesavailable.ThecommenterrequestedthatEPA p explainhowtheAdministratorwouldmakethisdecisionandtheprocessthatwillbeused.The \ commenterrecommendedthatEPAregionsthathaveareasthatwillfitintothe5%windowshould H beginnowtoworkdirectlywiththeareasthatcouldbeaffected.Waitinguntilafterfinalizationof 4 theimplementationrule(December2003orlater)tobeginthesediscussionswithaffectedair  p agencieswouldnotallowadequatetimeforfullconsiderationoftheissuesbydecisionmakers  \ priortothereleaseofthedesignations.Anothercommenterrecommendedtheactualtestof H compliancewiththeprovisionsofsection181(a)(4)shouldincludeallowanceformeteorological 4 fluctuationinordertoavoidstateshavingtomeetanaveragedesignvaluewellbelowthestandard   beforedeemedincompliance.    Response: EPAguidanceonthe5percentadjustmentprovisioninsection181(a)(4)iscontained  intheNovember6,1991FederalRegister(56FR56698)whichestablishedtheinitialdesignations  andclassifications.InaFederalRegisternoticedesignatingandclassifyingareasforthe8hour p NAAQS,EPAisinvitingStatestosubmitrequestsforthe5percentadjustment.Section181(a)(4) \  authorizestheAdministratortoadjustaclassificationwithin90daysaftertheinitialclassification. H! Thereclassificationprovisioninsection181(a)appliesonlytoreclassificationsundersubpart2 4"  anddoesnotprovideforreclassificationfromsubpart2tosubpart1.  #p!  [ENDOFCOMMENTSON3.WILLEPAADJUSTCLASSIFICATIONS?] $H #   %4!$ _ _ r _4._ԀPROPOSEDINCENTIVEFEATURE_(Section__VI.A.ofproposedrule;68FR  32815;Section51.903(b__)ofthedraftregulatorytext;nocorrespondingprovisioninfinalrule)_  ____VI.A.6.Proposedincentivefeature  T AV)) xdE? A @   Comment: Ingeneral,thecommentersthatopposeuseoftheincentivefeatureraisedthreeissues: ;  theincentivefeatureviolatestheCAA;itreliesonmodelingwhichisinaccurateanduncertain + { comparedwithmonitoring;andEPAfailedtoidentifythetypeofmodelingthatwouldprovidethe  g  basisforalowerclassification.Thecommentersthatsupporttheuseoftheincentivefeature  S  primarilyapplaudeditsusetoprovidemoreflexibilitytoanareatoavoidmorerestrictiveplanning  ?  obligationswheretheareacoulddemonstrateitwouldattainbytheattainmentdateforalower +  classification.Thesecommentsandresponsetothemareprovidedbelow.    Response: Thefinalruledoesnotincorporatetheincentivefeatureasproposed.Thefeature   wouldnothavehelpedverymanyareas.Of21hypotheticalnonattainmentareas(basedon2000   2002airqualitydata),ourmodelingprojectsthatonly3wouldhavequalifiedwithoutfurther { controlsforthefeature.Noseriousorhigherclassifiedareawouldhavequalifiedwithoutfurther g controls.Veryfewareaswouldevenreceiveaclassificationhigherthanmoderate.Inaddition, S evenifweallowedthefeature,wedonotbelievetherewouldhavebeenenoughtimeforareasthat ? wouldhavebeenclassifiedmoderatetosubmitaplanwithlocalcontrolsthatdemonstrated +{ attainmentbyaSpringattainmentdatein2007,sincetheywouldhavetocomplete g implementationofthecontrolsbySpring2006.Inaddition,wewouldhavetodevelopguidance S forthedemonstration.Furthermore,althoughmanycommenterssupportedhavingthefeature, ? manyothercommentersobjectedtothefeatureonanumberofgrounds,asnotedbelow.We + believethedifficultiesinvolvedinadministeringsuchaprogram,togetherwiththeunfavorable  timing,andtheanticipatedlownumberofareasthatcouldbenefitfromthefeatureleadustoavoid  incorporatingthefeatureinthefinalrule.   Comment: AnumberofcommentersclaimedthatEPAdoesnothavethelegalauthoritytorely w onmodelingratherthanmonitoringdatatoestablishclassifications.Onecommenterstatedthat g  theSupremeCourtmadeclearthatSubpart2contains carefullydesignedrestrictionsonEPA S!  discretionindesigningrulesforimplementationofanewozoneNAAQSand eliminates ?"! regulatorydiscretionthatSubpart1allowed.JustasSubpart2providesnoregulatorydiscretion +#{" toavoidreclassifyingareastoahigherclassificationwhentheyfailtoattaintheNAAQSbytheir $g# statutoryattainmentdeadline,Subpart2providesnoregulatorydiscretiontomoveareastoalower %S $ classification(subjecttoanearlierattainmentdeadline)thanthatprovidedbythestatute.Another %?!% commentercontestedEPAspositionthattheSupremeCourtdecisionprovidesroomforadopting &+"& theincentivefeature,notingthatinWhitman,theCourtstated: WhileSubpart1permitstheEPA '#' toestablishclassificationsfornonattainmentareas,Subpart2classifiesareasasamatteroflaw ($( basedonatable.Onecommenteranalogizedtheincentivefeaturetotheattainmentdate )$) extensionsthatseveralcourtsfoundwerenotallowedundertheCleanAirAct,citingSierraClub *%* v.Whitman,130F.Supp.2d78(7thCir.,2001);SierraClubv.Whitman,294F.3d155(D.C.Cir. w+&+ 2002);SierraClub,etal.,v.EPA,314F.3d735(5thCir.2002);SouthernOrganizingCommittee  forSocialandEconomicJustice,etal.,v.USEPA,333F.3d1288(11thCir.2003).The  commenterstatedthatincentivefeaturehasthesameeffectastheattainmentdateextensions!  avoidingtheadditionalcontrolandSIPrequirementsassociatedwithreclassificationwhile t extendingtheattainmentdate!andthussuffersfromthesamedefect.Finally,anothercommenter ` arguedthatthe incentivefeatureisnotauthorizedbytheCleanAirAct,andindeed,isdirectly L  contrarytoitsexpresstermsandCongressionalintent.NoprovisionoftheActallowsEPAto 8  bumpdownanareabasedonmodeling:Tothecontrary,theActrequiresreclassificationtobased $ t onmeasureddesignvalues!notmodeling.  `  r OnecommenterthatappearedtosupporttheincentivefeaturenotedthatEPAmustprovide  8  additionallegaljustificationregardinghowitisallowedunderSubpart2.Thecommenter $  indicatedthatwhileSubpart2clearlyappliestheuseoftheozonedesignvaluetoclassifyanarea,   anda bumpupprovisionforareaswhichdonotmeetthestandardbytheattainmentdate,itdoes   notincludea bumpdownprovisionforareaswhichneedlesstimetoattainthestandard.    r Othercommentersthatsupportedtheincentivefeatureindicatedthatitwasareasonable p methodofharmonizingthe8hourozoneclassificationprocesswiththe illfittedprovisionsof \ Subpart2. H  r Finally,onecommenterrecognizedthatsection181oftheCAArequiresareastoattainthe  p standardasexpeditiouslyaspracticableandindicatedtheincentivefeatureisthusconsistentwith  \ thecongressionalintentofSubpart2.Thecommenterstatedthattheincentivefeatureis H particularlyappropriateforareasthatwanttocommittoquickerimplementationofcontrol 4 measuressothatthe8hourozonestandardisattainedmoreexpeditiouslythanrequired.    Response :BecauseEPAhasdeterminednottoadopttheincentivefeature,wedonotneedto  addresstheproblemscited.   Comment: Manyofthecommentersaddressedthemodelingthatwouldbeusedasthebasisof p theincentivefeature.Thecommentersthatopposedtheincentivefeatureraisedgeneralconcerns `  thatmodelsandmodelingareuncertainandweakandafewwerespecificallyconcernedthat L! regionalscalemodelingmightbeusedtosupportuseoftheincentivefeature.Manyofthe 8"  commentersthatsupportedtheincentivefeatureaddressedthetypeofmodelingthatshouldform $#t! thebasisforanareasrequesttoreceivealowerclassification. $`"  r Thecommentersopposedtotheincentivefeatureclaimedthatmodelingisweakand %8!$ uncertainandthatitwouldbeinappropriatetoallowstatestoavoidthemandatorycontrolsofa &$"% higherclassificationbasedontheseweakanduncertainmodelingresults.Onecommenter '#& specificallynotedthattheseareaswould escapemorevigorousNSRrequirements,transportation (#' conformity,andotherrequirements.OnecommenterclaimedthatEPAsmodelingis highly )$( suspectasistheinputdata.Anothercommenterstatedthattheabuseorinaccuracyofmodeling *%) wascitedbytheSenateEnvironmentandPublicWorkscommitteeasamajorreasonforalackof p+&* successinreducingozonelevelsinthe1980sandthattheburdenfallsonEPAtojustifythebroad  substitutionofmodelingforemissionsreductionthatiscontemplatedinseveraloftheoptions  foundintheproposal.Yetanothercommentersaidthatitwouldbeinappropriateandrecklessto  attempttoreplacerelianceonmonitoringdatawitharelianceonpredictionsandprojections. t Finally,anumberofthesecommenterswereconcernedthatEPAhadfailedtoidentifythetypeof ` modelingthatstatescouldrelyontoreceivealowerclassificationortoprovideanydetailsabout L  themodeling. 8   r Onecommenter,insupportofstatementsthatmodelingisunreliable,notedthatin  ` meetingswithSouthCarolinaDHEConMarch25of2003,DHECofficialsstatedthattheirmodel  L  showedthatitwouldbedoubtfultoreachattainmentby2007withoutfurthercontrolsonindustry  8  andanelectricitygeneratingunit.However,onJune26thof2003,afterEPAsproposalonthe $  incentivefeature,SouthCarolinaclaimedtheywouldbeabletoreachattainmentby2007based   uponnewmodeling.    r Manycommentersthatopposedtheincentivefeatureaswellassomewhosupportedit,   opposedtheuseofregionalscalemodelingforthispurpose.Severalcommentersclaimedthat p regionalscalemodelingdoesnotmeetEPAsmodelingguidanceforattainmentdemonstrations. \ OnecommenterstatedthatEPAitselfadmits isnotconsideredsufficientforanapprovable H attainmentdemonstration. 4  r Mostofthecommenterswhosupportedtheincentivefeatureandthataddressedtheissueof  \ thetypeofmodelingthatshouldbeusedsupporteduseofEPAregionalscalemodelingtomake H determinationsofwhichSubpart2areasshouldreceivealowerclassification.Oneofthese 4 commentersnotedthatEPAshouldalsouseregionalscalemodelingtoidentifywhichareaswill   notattainbytheirproposeddeadlines.    r OnecommenterrecommendedthatEPAcanuseregionalscalemodelingtodetermine  whichareascaninitiallyreceivealowerclassification,buttheAgencyshouldstillallowstatesto  completelocalmodeleddemonstrationsiftheychoose.Ineithercase,priortoclassifications,EPA l shouldconsidermodeleddemonstrationsratherthanrevisingclassificationsatalatertime.(P.2) X   Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeatureandthusdoesnotneedto 0"  addresswhatwouldbetheappropriatemodelstoberequiredforimplementingtheincentive  #p! feature.  $\"  Comment: Thosecommentersthatopposedtheincentivefeaturebelieveditlargelywould %4!$ provideamechanismforareastoavoidcontrolsthatwouldotherwisebemandatedandthatare &$"% necessaryforcleanair.Commenterswhosupporteduseoftheincentivefeaturebelievedit '#& providedamechanismforareastoavoidrigorousandunnecessaryplanningrequirements.Those (#' opposingtheincentivefeaturenotedspecificprogramstheybelievedareaswouldbeabletoavoid, )$( suchasNSRandRACTbecauselowerclassificationshavehighermajorsourcethresholdsfor *%) certainstationarysourcecontrolsrequirementsandloweroffsetratios.Anothercommenter p+&* indicatedsourceswouldbeabletoavoidtherequirementtopayemissionsfeesandthatcertain  areaswouldnotbesubjecttoreformulatedgasandcleanfuelprograms.Yetanothercommenter  notedthatareasreceivingamarginalclassificationwouldnotberequiredtohavecontingency  measuresoranattainmentplan. t  r OnecommenterclaimsEPAisobligatedtoensurethatareascanmeettheNAAQSasearly L  aspracticableanduseoftheincentivefeaturewouldnotfulfillthatobligation. 8  _ Response: BecauseEPAhasdeterminednottoadopttheincentivefeature,weneednotaddress  ` whetheritsusewouldhaveallowedareastoavoidcontrols.  P   _ Comment: Anumberofcommentersraisedconcernsaboutwhatwouldhappenifanareathat (  tookadvantageoftheincentivefeatureandfailedtoattainbytheearlierdate.Onecommenter   believedthatfurtherdelayincleaningairwouldoccur.Onecommenterraisedtheconcernthatif   anareafailstoattainbytheearlierattainmentdateanditisthenreclassifiedbacktotheoriginal   higherclassification,thestatewillhavelesstimetogetappropriatemeasuresinplaceandlikelybe   delayedfurtherinattainingthestandard.Itmakesmoresensetomaintainthecurrentsystemwhere x anareashowingactualimprovedairqualitytothelowerclassificationcanbereclassifiedatthat d time. P  Response: _ԀBecauseEPAhasdeterminednottoadopttheincentivefeature,weneednotaddress (x whatwouldhappeniftheareareceivedalowerclassificationanddidnotattainbytheattainment h date.Ingeneral,ifaStatebelievesanonattainmentareahasaclassificationforwhichthe T attainmentdatemaybetooshortmayrequestEPAundersection181(b)(3)foravoluntary @ reclassificationtoahigherclassification;EPAisrequiredtograntsuchrequests. , ___ Comment: SeveralcommentsonthedraftSec.51.903(b)provisionthatEPAwould takeinto  accounttheextenttowhichtheareasignificantlycontributestononattainmentorinterfereswith  maintenanceinadownwindarea.Thecommenterssuggestedthattheprovisionisvagueand  needsmorespecificity.Thecommentersbelievethat,whenafindingofsignificantcontributionto | nonattainmentorinterferencewithmaintenanceismade,EPAmustensuretheprovisionsof h  section110(a)(2)(d)oftheCleanAirAct(CAA)aremet.EPAmustclearlydelineatehow T! contributionstodownwindnonattainmentareaswillbeaddressedinthiscontext.Another @"  commenteralsonotedthelackofspecificityofthisprovisionandfurtherstatedthatprovision ,#|! couldnotlawfullybeappliedinsituationswhereitwouldadverselyaffectdownwindareas!for $h" example,byerasingupwindareacontrolrequirementsaddressingpollutionthatimpactsdownwind %T # areas;thecommenterreferencedsection110(a)(2)(D)oftheAct. %@!$  Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeatureandthusdoesnotneedto '#& addresshowthefeaturewouldworkrelatedtoanareascontributiontodownwindnonattainment. ($'  Comment: OnecommenteraskedEPAtoidentifyinclearregulatorylanguagehowtheearly *%) attainmentincentivefeaturewouldwork,whatmodelingdemonstrationswouldbeacceptable,and +&* theconsequencesforfailuretomeettheearlyattainmentdatesothatStatescandecideifpursuitof  thisoptionwouldbeintheirbestinterest.Asanexample,thecommenternotedthatEPAproposes  todoawaywith bumpupprovisionsforareasthatfailtomeetthe1hourstandard.Unless  Statesfaceconsequencesforfailingtomeettheearlierattainmentdesignationundertheincentive t feature,EPAsuseofanincentivefeaturemaybeinconsistentwithits antibackslidingpolicy. `  Response :BecauseEPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeature,thereisnoneedforittoaddress 8  howthatfeaturewouldwork.EPAnotesthatthecommentermaybeinterpretingEPAs ( x statementsaboutthebumpupprovisionsnolongerapplyingforthe1hourstandardtoalsomean  d thatEPAwouldnotapplythoseprovisionsforthe8hourstandard.Thatisnotso.Ifanareafails  P  toattainthe8hourstandardbyits8hourattainmentdate,EPAwouldberequiredundersection  <  181(b)(2)to bumpupthearea. (   Comment :Onecommenter_whosupportedtheincentivefeaturealsosuggested__that_Ԁifanareacan   demonstratethatfederalmeasuresalonewillbringitintoattainmentofthe8hourstandardthenit   shouldhavetheabilitytorequestasinglebumpupor_reclassification. _    Response: _Werenotsureifthecommentermeanttousetheterm bumpdown.The_ԀCAA d requiresareastoattainthenationalambientairqualitystandardsasexpeditiouslyaspracticable. T See,e.g.,CAAsections172(a)(2)and181(a)(1).Ifanareabelievesthatitcannotattainthe8hour @ ozoneNAAQSbytheattainmentdateforitsclassification,itcanrequesta bumpuptoahigher ,| classificationundersection181(b)(3).Ifanareaisreclassifiedtoahigherclassification,it h becomessubjecttoalloftherequirementsapplicableforthatclassification. T  Comment: Severalcommenterssuggestedthattheuseoftheincentivefeaturebeexpandedto , allowmarginalareastoqualifyforalowerclassification(e.g.,amarginalareatobereclassified  undersubpart1).Similarly,onecommentersuggestedthatthesameideabehindtheincentive  feature!theconceptofconsideringbenefitsthatwillbeoccurringfromscheduledemission  reductions!shouldalsobeusedtodeterminewhetheranareashouldbeSubpart1orSubpart2.  Ѐ Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAhasdeterminednottoadopttheincentivefeature.However, h  evenifEPAdidadopttheincentivefeature,EPAdoesnotbelievethatitcouldbeusedtorelieve X! marginalareasoftherequirementsofsubpart2.InWhitman,theSupremeCourtheldthatthereis D"  nogapinthestatuteandthatsubpart2appliestoareaswithairqualitylevelsatorabove0.121for 0#! the1hourstandardthelevelreflectedintable1insection181(a)(1).EPAdoesnotseealegal $l" basisallowingareastobereclassifiedfromsubpart2tosubpart1. %X #  Comment: Onecommenterthatsupportedtheincentivefeaturefeltthatitshouldbeusedto &0"% furtherreducetheamountoftimethatanareawassubjecttotransportationandgeneralconformity ' #& !specificallynotingtherequirementthatanarearemainsubjecttoconformityduringthetwo ( $' successive10yearmaintenanceplanperiods(foratotalof20years)afteranareais_redesignatedto )$(  attainment. *%)  Response: Section176(c)(5)oftheCAA makesclearthatanarearequiredtohaveamaintenance   planundersection175Aremainssubjecttogeneralandtransportationconformity.Section175A  requiresareasthatareredesignatedfromnonattainmenttoattainmenttodevelop2maintenance  plansthatprovideformaintenancefor20yearsfollowingredesignationtoattainment.EPAsees x nolegalauthorityformodifyingthisstatutorymandate. d  Comment: OnecommenterurgedEPAnottoconsiderwhetheranareacontributesto <  nonattainmentdownwindindecidingwhethertolettheareatakeadvantageoftheincentive , | feature.ThecommentersuggestedthattheEPAshouldconsideradditionalcontrols upwindonly  h ifEPAapprovedmodelingpredictsadownwindareawillnotmeetthe8hourozonestandardasa  T  resultofreductionsfromthef  g NOxg ԀSIPcall,theFederalMotorVehicleEmissionsControlProgram,  @  other onthewaycontrols,andadditionallocalcontrols(beyondthe onthewayregionaland ,  nationalcontrols)willnotbringtheareaintoattainment.    r Similarly,anothercommenterraisedaconcernthatthereferenceto significantdownwind   contributionisvagueandmightultimatelybeusedastherationaleformakinganareaineligiblefor   alowerclassificationoreligiblefarahigherclassification.Thecommentersuggestedthatthe x purposeofanareasclassificationistoindicateboththeseverityoftheozoneproblemandthe d timeneededtoprovideforattainmentandthattheareasdownwindcontributionisaseparate P matterfromtheclassificationprocess.IfEPAchoosestousesignificantdownwindcontributions < asafactorwhendeterminingtheadequacyofaSIP,thenthatshouldbespelledoutinthe (x regulatoryproposalandnotintertwinedwiththeissueofclassifications. d  Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeatureandthusdoesnotneedto < addresstherolethattransportedemissionsmightplayindeterminingwhetheranareaiseligibleto , receivealowerclassificationundertheincentivefeature.   Comment: OnecommenterclaimedthattheNAAQSclassificationandSIPplanningprocesswill  havelittleeffectonfuturereductionsinozoneprecursorsandthatthisarguesforclassifyingas  manyareasaspossibleunderSubpart1,andadoptingtheincentivefeaturethatwouldallow | additionalareastobeclassifiedunderlessrestrictiveandbureaucraticregulatoryregimes. h   Response: EPAdisagreeswiththegeneralpremisestatedbythecommenter!thatclassifications @"  andthedevelopmentofSIPspursuanttothoseclassifications!willprovidelittleinthewayof 0#! emissionreductions.Regardless,forthereasonsprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingthe $l" incentivefeature.However,EPAnotesthatoneofitsgoalsintheimplementationrulemakingisto %X # provideareaswithflexibilitywhereallowedbytheCAA. %D!$  Comment: Onecommenterwasconcernedthattheincentivefeaturedoesnothelp '#& downwindareasaffectedbytransport,suchasmanyWestMichigancounties,whichareunableto ( $' demonstrateattainmentuntiltheupwindareameetsitsattainmentdate. )$(   *%)  Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeature.Thecommenteris   correct,however,thatifadopted,itwouldnotproviderelieftoareasthatwouldbeunableto  demonstrateattainmentuntilanupwindareaorareasinstallsufficientemissioncontrols.   Comment: Severalcommenterssupportedallowingareastosubmittherequireddemonstrationof d attainmentaftertheinitialclassificationatahigherlevel,ratherthanrequiringsuchsubmittals T  priortotheinitialclassificationbecauseofthequicklyapproachingdesignationdateofApril15, @  2004wouldprovidelittleopportunityfortheshowingbeforedesignation. Onecommenterstated , | thatEPAshouldallowforthemodeleddemonstrationtobesubmittedaftertheinitialclassification  h toallowstatesthetimetofullyevaluatethisoptionandconductthemodelingnecessarytosupport  T  thelowerclassification.Thecommenternoted,however,thatifEPAdeterminesthattheincentive  @  featuremustbeappliedforpriortotheinitialclassifications,areasshouldbeallowedtouseEPAs ,  regionalscalemodelingratherthanurbanscalemodelingtomakethedeterminationofthelower   classification.OnecommenterspecificallynotedthatormanyareasinCaliforniastateoftheart   photochemicalozonemodelingiscurrentlybeingdevelopedtobetterunderstandtheprocesses   involvedinozoneformationandtransportthroughoutCaliforniaandsuchmodelingwontbe   availableuntilafterthedesignations. x  r Othercommentersbelievedthedocumentationshouldbesubmittedandresolvedatthe P timeoftheinitialdesignationandclassificationinApril2004.Thesecommentersgenerally < supportedrelianceonregionalscalemodelingtoestablishtheinitialclassification.Andone (x commentersuggestedthatstatesberequiredtofollowupwithinayearorsoofdesignationswith d localscalemodeling. P  Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeatureandthusdoesnotneedto ( addresswhatwouldbetheappropriatetimingforsubmissionofmodeleddemonstrationsto  supporttheuseoftheincentivefeatureinaparticulararea.   Comment: OnecommentondraftSec.51.903(b)notedthatthesectionallowsStates12months  torequestalowerclassificationforareasdesignatedunderTable1andtodemonstratethatthearea | willattainbytheearlierattainmentdate.Thecommenternotedacompletemodelingstudycannot h  becompletedinthetimeframeEPAhasset.Ataminimum,Statesshouldbeallowedto T! demonstrateattainmentnotonlythroughmodeling,butalternativelybyaweightofevidence @"  approachusingmonitoringdataandtrendsanalysis.Thesectiondoesnotindicatewhatrecourse ,#|! StateshaveifEPAfailstotakeactionwithinthe24monthsallottedforitsdecision. $h"  Response: Asprovidedabove,EPAisnotadoptingtheincentivefeatureandthusdoesnotneedto %@!$ addressthedetailsofthemodeleddemonstrationneededundertheincentivefeature,norwhat &0"% recourseStateshaveifEPAfailstotakeactionwithinthe24monthsalloted. '#&  f  g  |+&*     B. r ATTAINMENTDATES     r 1.HOWWILLEPATREATATTAINMENTDATESFORTHE8HOUROZONE  STANDARD?  l  AttainmentDates  @   Comment: SeveralcommentersreiteratedtheCAAsrequirementthatareasattainthestandardas  h  expeditiouslyaspracticable.Theyfeltthattheattainmentdeadlinesintheproposedrulewould  X impedetheprogressthatareashavemadeandwouldsubjectthegeneralpublictoyearsof  D  unhealthyairquality.OnecommentersuggestedthatEPAcreateenforceableshortterm  0  compliancedatestoassurecitizensanddownwindstatesthatupwindstatesaremeetingtheir   longertermcompliancedeadlines.Othercommentersfeltthattheattainmentdatesunderboth   subpart1and2thatwereproposeddidnotprovideenoughtimeforareastoattainforanumberof   reasons,suchas:areaswouldnotbeabletotakecreditforemissionsreductionsfromFederal   measures,theslowturnoverofmobilesourcefleetswouldnotachievetheneededmobilesource |  reductionsinthetimeframesproposed,EPAsClearSkiesmodelingshowsthatanumberofareas h inthemidAtlanticandnortheastwillnotcomeintoattainmentbeforethemiddleofthenext T decade,itwouldnotbefeasibletohavestationaryandmobilesourcecontrolsinplacethreeyears @ beforetheattainmentdatesforpurposesofmonitoring,etc.However,anumberofcommenters ,| agreedwithEPAsproposaltoestablishattainmentdatesthatcorrespondtothetimeframes h establishedundersubpart2oftheCAAfromthedateof8hournonattainmentdesignations.In T addition,acommenterstatedthattheproposaldidnotclearlyaddresshowattainmentdatesfor @ subpart1areaswouldbeset.Finally,severalcommentersrecommendedthatEPAchangethe , attainmentdatestoNovemberorDecemberoftheattainmentyearratherthaninAprilsoareascan  usetheozoneseasonairqualitydatafromtheattainmentyeartodemonstrateattainment.   r OnecommenterclaimedthatinbothOptions1and2,EPAhasnotestablishedreasonable  deadlinesforattainment.EPAmustuseitsdiscretionaryauthoritytoallowarealistictimeframe x forattainment.Flexibilityisacriticalprincipleforimplementingthenewstandardtoensurethat d areasimplementthemostefficientandeffectiveSIPs. P   Response :AsstatedinourJune2,2003proposal,undersubpart2oftheCAA,maximum ("x  attainmentdatesandmostSIPsubmittaldatesarefixedasafunctionofanonattainmentareas #h! classificationunderTable1.TheCAAprovidesthatanareasattainmentdatemustbe as $T" expeditiousaspracticablebutnolaterthanthedateprescribedinTable1forthatareas $@ # classification.Thedateswerespecifiedasthenumberofyearsfromthedateofenactmentofthe %,!$ CAAAmendments,whichwasNovember15,1990,whichwasalsothedateofdesignationand &"% classificationbyoperationoflawformostsubpart2areas.Webelievethatapplyingthe '#& attainmentdatesasexpresslyprovidedunderTable1wouldproduceabsurdresults,sinceastrict (#' applicationofTable1wouldresultinattainmentdatesthathavealreadypassedforareasinthe )$( lowerclassifications.Consequently,wehavedeterminedthatattainmentdateswillrunfromthe x*%) effectivedateofdesignationsandclassificationsforthe8hourozoneNAAQS.Weanticipatethat d+&* thedesignationswillbeeffectiveonJune1,2004,whichmeansthecorrespondingattainmentdates  wouldbeJune1oftheappropriateyear.   r Althoughadirectapplicationofthestatuteaswrittenwouldproduceabsurdresults,wedo t notbelievethatthisgivesEPAbroaddiscretioninrewritingthestatute.Rather,webelievewe ` mustapplythestatuteasCongresswouldhaveintended.WebelievethatCongresswouldhave L  intendedforareasdesignatednonattainmentandclassifiedundersubpart2forthe8hourNAAQS 8  tohaveattainmentperiodsconsistentwiththoseinTable1(e.g.,3yearsformarginalareas,6years $ t formoderateareas,etc.)Thiswouldresultinthe8hourmarginalattainmentdatebeingthreeyears  ` fromtheeffectivedateofdesignationsforthe8hourstandardin2007,themoderateattainment  L  beingsixyearsfromtheeffectivedateofdesignationsforthe8hourstandardin2010,etc.  8   r EPAdoesnothavetheauthoritytoshortenattainmentdatesorlengthenattainmentdatesto   allowareastotakecreditforemissionsreductionsfromfutureFederalorregionalmeasuresfor   areassubjecttosubpart1or2asseveralcommenterssuggested.Allareasarerequiredtoattainas   expeditiouslyaspracticableandcannotdeferattainmentiftherearereasonablecontrolsavailable.   Forareasclassifiedundersubpart1,attainmentdateswillbesetundersection172(a)(2)(A),which p providesthattheSIPmustdemonstrateattainmentasexpeditiouslyaspracticablebutnolaterthan \ 5yearsafterdesignationor10yearsafterdesignationiftheseverityoftheareasairpollutionand H theavailabilityandfeasibilityofpollutioncontrolmeasuresindicatemoretimeisneeded.Under 4 subpart1,wewillestablishanattainmentdateforanareaatthetimeweapproveanattainment  p demonstrationforthearea.Consequently,ifanareasubmitsanapprovableattainment  \ demonstrationshowingthattheycanattainthe8hourstandardin,e.g.,fouryears,theareas H attainmentdatewillbefouryearsfromtheeffectivedateofdesignationsforthe8hourNAAQS.  4  Comment: Onecommenterthinksthattheappropriatecommencementdateforthe   implementationstrategyshouldbethedatethatareasaredesignatedbyEPAunderthe8hour  ozoneNAAQS.Thisissuealsoencompassesanumberoftimingsubissuesincludingwhenthe1  hourozoneNAAQSshouldbemadeineffective,whenshouldattainmentdatesoccur,whenwill  newrateofprogress(ROP)submissionsbemade,whenshouldattainmentdemonstrationsbedue, p andwhendotransportationconformityrequirementstakeeffect.Allofthesetimingissuesshould \  workfromthesamereferencepointthedateareasaredesignated. H!  Response: Weagreewiththecommenter.ThetimeframesinthefinalruleforSIPsubmissions  #p! (attainmentdemonstrationsandreasonablefurtherprogressplans)andattainmentdatesrunfrom $`" theeffectivedateof8hourdesignations.Asnotedintheproposedrule,conformityappliesone $L # yearaftertheeffectivedateofanonattainmentdesignation. %8!$   '#&  r  B.2.HOWWILLEPAADDRESSTHEPROVISIONREGARDING1YEAR  EXTENSIONS?    Comment: ThecommentersgenerallysupportedEPAsproposedinterpretationforgrantingupto l two1-yearattainmentdateextensions.Onecommenterrequestedclarificationthatthe4thhighest \ dailyaverage8-hourozoneconcentrationthatwouldbeusedtogranttheextensionswouldbe H  calculatedonamonitorbymonitorbasis.Thecommenterfurtherexpressedsupportforthis 4  approachsinceitisconsistentwithhowEPAdetermineswhetheranareaisviolatingthe8-hour  p NAAQS.  \  Response :NocommentersopposedthisaspectofEPAsproposal.Thefinalruleclarifiesthatthe  4  areas4thhighestdaily8-houraverageshallbefromthemonitorwiththehighest4thhighestdaily $  8-houraverageofallthemonitorsthatrepresentthatarea.        C.HOWWILLEPAIMPLEMENTTHETRANSITIONFROMTHE1HOURTOTHE8  HOURSTANDARDINAWAYTOENSURECONTINUEDMOMEf  Nf  g TUMINSTATES  EFFORTSTOWARDCLEANERAIR?  0 r 1.f  g f  g f  g f  g WHENWILLEPAREVOKEf  g ԀTHE1HOURSTANDARD? (SectionVI.C.2.of P proposedrule;68FR32819;Section50.9(b)ofthedraftregulatorytextandfinalrule)< r(#r(#  VI.C.2.WhenwillEPArevokethe1hourstandard?   d  GeneralSummaryofCommentsf  g : AnumberofthecommentersindicatedsupportforOption1!  <  thatthe1hourstandardberevokedinwholeoneyearfollowingdesignationsforthe8hour  ,  standard,whileonlyafewcommenterssupportedOption2!partialrevocationofthe1hour   standardoneyearfollowingdesignationsforthe8hourstandard.Thecommenterswhosupported   Option1seemedtodifferontheextenttowhichplanningobligationsforthe1hourstandard   shouldremaininplace.Anumberofthecommenterscitedthestrongantibackslidingprovisions   asthebasisfortheirsupportforrevokingthe1hourstandardoneyearafter8hourdesignations. x  Others,however,urgedEPAtoeliminate1hourplanningobligationssothatareascouldfocuson d planningforthe8hourstandard. P f  g  r f  g ManycommentersdidnotsupporteitheroptionproposedbyEPAand,instead, (x recommendedtheirownalternatives.Ingeneral,thesecommenterscomprisedtwogroups.The d firstgroupurgedthatthe1hourstandardberevokedimmediatelyupondesignationsforthe8hour P standard.Thesecondgroupgenerallydisfavoredrevocationofthe1hourstandarduntiladditional < actionshadoccurred.Manyoftheselattercommenterssuggestedthatrevocationbelinkedto ( progressinmeetingthe1hourstandard!i.e.,thatitnotberevokedforanareauntilthatareamet  the1hourstandard.Otherssuggestedrevocationbelinkedtoprogressunderthe8hourstandard!  i.e.,atthetimeEPAapprovesan8hourSIPforanarea..Finally,anumberofcommenters  proposedspecificrevocationapproachesforspecifictypesofareas(e.g.,anareathatisattaining  bothstandardsandEarlyActionCompactareas).Thecommentsaddressingthetimewhenthe1 t hourstandardwillberevokedaredescribedmorefullybelow.Totheextentthesecommenters ` raisedrelatedissuesconcerningthecontinuedobligationtoadoptand/orimplementmeasuresfor L  the1hourstandard,wesummarizeandrespondtothosecommentsinsectionC.2.ofthisRTC 8! document. $"t  f  g f  g Commentf  g : f  g Ԁf  g ԀAlargenumberofcommentersstatedgeneralsupportforOption1,butdidnot #L" providesignificantreasonsbeyondthosestatedbyEPAinitsproposal. $< #  r Anumberofcommentersf  g statedthattheyf  g supportedOption1becauseitwouldsimplify &"% implementationandavoidwastingStateresources.Thesecommenterseithergenerallyorinmore '#& detailsuggestedthatretainingthe1hourstandardforalongerperiodoftimewoulddivertstate (#' resourcesfromplanningforthe8hourstandard.Theynotedthatimplementationofthe8hour )$( standardwouldrequirecommitmentofsignificantresourcesbystatesandlocalareasandthat t*%) expeditiousphaseoutofthe1hourstandardisessentialtosuccessfulimplementationofthe8 `+&* hourstandardsothatstateandlocalgovernmentscouldfocuslimitedresourcesonimplementation  ofthe8hourNAAQS.OnecommenterstatedthatbyhavingonlyonestandardinplaceEPAwill  befacilitatingthedevelopmentandimplementationofmeasurestoadvanceattainmentofthe8  hourozonestandardmorequicklythanifareasweresubjecttotwodifferentstandards t simultaneously.Requiredimplementationofexisting1hourozoneSIPswillensurethatprogress ` continueswithoutinterruptionbutwillallowStatestoconcentrateeffortsondevelopingSIPSfor L  attainmentofthe8hourstandardandwillhelpstateenvironmentalandtransportationagencies 8  bestutilizelimitedresourcesindevelopingattainmentandconformitySIPstomeetthe8hour $ t ozonestandard.Onecommenteralsonotedthatifthe1hourstandardisretained,stateandlocal  ` agencieswouldneedtodevoteresourcestotrackingcompliancewiththe1hourstandardandthat  L  sucheffortsareduplicativeandcounterproductiveforstateagencieswithlimitedresourcesinlight  8  ofthefactthatthe8hourstandardismorestringentandmoreprotectiveofhumanhealthandthe $  environment.OnecommenterbelievedthatrequiringMPOs,statesandfederalagenciestowork   withtwodifferentstandardswouldbeburdensomeonstaffandwouldresultinnegligible   additionalbenefitsandnotedthatEPAhasstatedpreviouslythatthe8hourstandardisabetter   measureofharmfulimpactsonhumanbeingsanditsupercedesthe1hourstandardinprotecting   thepublic.Anothercommenterstatedthatwhileprogresstowardcompliancewiththe1hour p standardshouldnotbesacrificed,fullresourcesshouldbeappliedtowardcompliancewiththe8 \ hourstandard.Stateplanningresourcesarefiniteandsimultaneouslymanagingtheplanning H processforbothstandardsdilutestheefficiencyandefficacyofthatprocess.f  Onecommenter 4 preferredthefirstrevocationoptiontothesecondbecauseitseemedtothecommentertoprovide  p morecertaintyintheconformityprocess.ThiscommenterisconcernedthatOption2would  \ requirethatconformitybedoneforboththe1hourstandardandthe8hourstandardatthesame H time,untilareasattainthe1hourstandard.However,thecommenteracknowledgedthatif 4 conformitydoesnotapplyforbothstandardsatonce,thenoption2couldbeacceptable.One   commenter,insupportingrevocationofthe1hourstandard,claimeditiswastefulofvaluable   resourcesforStatestobedevelopingmultipleplansyieldingpotentiallyconflictingcontrol  measures.   r SeveralcommenterssupportedOption1(revocationinwhole)becauseitissimplerandless l confusingthanOption2(revocationinpart).Onecommenteralsonotedthatsincebothoptions X  wouldachievethesameresultintermsofantibacksliding,thelessconfusingoption!Option1! D! shouldbechosen. 0"   r ManyofthecommenterswhosupportedOption1notedthatitisnotnecessarytokeepthe $X" 1hourstandardineffectbecausethe8hourstandardismoreprotectiveandtherearestronganti $D # backslidingmeasures.Elaboratingonthispoint,onecommenterrecognizedthattheproposal %0!$ wouldensurethatsufficientprotectionswouldremaininplacetoallowareastotransitionf  g Ԁfrom &"% compliancewith1hourozonerequirementstocompliancewiththe8hourozonerequirements. '#& Forexample,requiringtheimplementationofexisting1hourozoneSIPswillensurethatprogress (#' continueswithoutinterruptionandallowStatestoconcentratetheireffortsondevelopingSIPSfor )$( attainmentofthe8hourstandardanddecidingwhatadditionalcontrolsmaybeneededtoaugment |*%) existingorplannedfederalandstatecontrols.Yetanothercommenterconditionedsupportof h+&* Option1ontheexistenceofstrongandeffectivestepsbeingtakentopreventanypotentialfor  backslidingduringthetransition.  f  g f  g f  g  r AcoupleofcommentersindicatedthattheybelievedOption1isconsistentwithWhitman t !whichclearlyrejectedanysimultaneousimplementationapproach.Severalothercommenters ` saidthatOption1isreasonableinlightoftheSupremeCourtsrulingunderf  g f  g Whitmanf  g f  g Ԁbecause L  EPAhasmaintainedtheintegrityoftheCAASubpart2provisionsthroughstrongantibacksliding 8  measuresforexisting1hourcontrolsandsubsequent8hourclassificationswhileproviding $ t appropriateflexibilitytostateandlocalplanningentities.Thisprovidesadequateprotectionof  ` humanhealthandtheenvironment.Withamoreprotective8hourstandardandstronganti  L  backslidingmeasurestokeepexisting1hourcontrolsinplace,theadministrativeandplanning  8  requirementsforkeepingthe1hourstandardineffectarenotjustified,arenolongernecessary, $  andthuswouldbeanunreasonableseveredrainonlimitedstateandlocalresources.   f  g  r f  g Onecommentf  g erf  g Ԁnotedthateachofthetwopreviousversionsof40C.F.R.50.9(b)!i.e.,   asoriginallypromulgatedin1997andasrevisedin2000!requiredrevocationratherthan   indefiniteretentionofthe1hourNAAQS.Neitherthe1997northe2000rulemakingactions p addressingrevocationwerethesubjectofatimelychallengeintheU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe \ D.C.Circuit.SeeCAA307(b).Thecommenterbelievesthatthefundamentalpolicydecisionthat H the1hourNAAQSshouldberevoked,adecisionmadebyEPAmorethansixyearsago,should 4 notberevisited.ThecommenteralsobelievesthatEPAsbasicproposaltorevokethe1hour  p NAAQSinallareasoneyearaftertheeffectivedateof8hourdesignationsisappropriateforthe  \ reasonsgiveninEPAsJune2proposalandshouldbemadefinal.f  g  H f  g f  g Responsef  g : Thefinalruleincorporatesf  g theoptionsupportedbythesecommenters!f  g Option1f  g    revocationofthe1hourstandardinwholeoneyearaftertheeffectivedateofthe8hour  designations.f  g f  g Wegenerallyagreewiththepointsthecommentersmakeaboutthebenefitsof  Option1,suchasitwouldsimplifyimplementation,avoidwastingStateresources,andfacilitate  thedevelopmentandimplementationofmeasurestoadvanceattainmentofthe8hourozone  standardmorequickly.ItissimplerandlessconfusingthanOption2,itisnotnecessarytokeep p the1hourstandardineffectbecausethe8hourstandardismoreprotectiveandtherearestrong \  antibackslidingmeasures,andOption1isconsistentwithWhitman. H!  r WenotethatseveralcommentersindicatedthattheybelievedthatOption1isconsistent  #p! withtheSupremeCourtsdecision.However,theissueofwhenthe1hourstandardshouldno  $\" longerapplywasnotraisedtoandthuswasnotaddressedbytheCourt.Thesoleimplementation $H # issuebeforetheCourtwaswhetherareasdesignatednonattainmentforthe8hourozoneNAAQS %4!$ weresubjecttotheclassificationprovisionsofsubpart2.Asindicatedmorefullyinthepreamble, & "% aspartofourNAAQSsettingauthority,EPAalsohastheauthoritytodeterminethatastandardis ' #& nolongernecessarytoprotectpublichealth.EPAmadethatdeterminationin1997andwasthen (#' facedwiththedecisionastohowtotransitionfromtheexistingstandard(whichisnotnecessaryto )$( protectpublichealth)tothenewhealthbasedstandard.TheCAAdoesnotexplicitaddressthis *%) issuewhenthenewNAAQSismorestringentthantheexistingNAAQS.EPAbelievesOption1, l+&* inconjunctionwiththestrongantibackslidingprovisionsinthisrule,appropriatelybalancesthe  needtoensurecontinuedprogresstowardreducingozonelevelswhilenotundulyencumbering  stateswithcontinuedobligationsfortheoldstandard.   Comment: f  g OnecommentersuggestedthatEPAconsiderotheroptionswithregardtothetimingof ` therevocationifastatesubmitsan8hourattainmentdemonstrationpriortooneyearafterthe P  effectivedateofthe8hourdesignation.Otheroptionscouldinclude:uponsubmittalofan8hour <  attainmentdemonstration,oruponEPAsdeterminationofcompletenessofan8hourattainment ( x demonstration.f  g   d f  g f  g Responsef  g : TheJune2,2003proposalnotedthatwedidconsiderotheroptionsforrevokingthe1  <  hourstandard.See68FR32820.f  g f  g Thef  g Ԁoptionf  g f  g surgedf  g Ԁbythecommenterf  g Ԁwouldpotentiallyresultin ,  revocationofthe1hourstandardonlyafewmonthspriortothetimewhenrevocationwould   normallyresultunderoption1whichweareadopting.f  g f  g Optionssuchasthosesuggestedbythe   commenterwouldaddalevelofadministrativecomplexitysince,becausethesedatesare   uncertain,EPAwouldneedtotakeactiontorevisetheCFRtoreflectthatthestandardhadbeen   revokedforaspecificareawhentheeventoccurred.Ingeneralf  g ,wedonotanticipatethatmany x areaswouldbeabletotakeadvantageofsuchaprovisionf  g f  g Ԁduetotheshortperiodinwhichthey d wouldneedtotakeactionandthusanysuchprovisionwouldhavef  g Ԁlimitedapplicabilityf  g f  g .Similarly, P sincethestandardwouldberevokedwithinoneyearofdesignations(onlyslightlymorethanone < yearfromnow)therewouldbelittletonobenefittotheareasaffected.Thus,wedonotbelieve (x thatthisoptionwarrantsf  g Ԁtheadministrativeeffortf  g f  g . d  Comment: f  g Anothercommenterbelievef  g df  g Ԁthatthemosteffectivewaytocontinueprogressduring < thetransitionfromthe1hourtothe8hourstandardistoretainthe1hourstandarduntilEPA , approvesan8hourSIPforeachnonattainmentarea.f  g f  g Thecommenterf  g Ԁnotef  g df  g ԀthattheJune2,2003  proposedrule(40CFRPart51pp.32819)heldthatthe decidingfactorsupportingtheschedule  fortherevocationistoensurethatareasdonothavetoperformconformityanalysesforboththe1  hourandthe8hourstandardsatthesametime.Thecommenterbelievesthatthepremiseforthis  decisionisflawedsincebudgetsareestablishedintheSIPdevelopmentprocessandthereforean8 x hourbudgetwouldnotbeestablisheduntil2007attheearliest.Ifthe1hourbudgetsnolonger d  applyinthe2005timeframe,areaswillsimplyhavetoconducta build/nobuildtestuntil8 P! hourbudgetsareestablished.Inadditiontonotrevokingthe1hourozonestandarduntilan8hour <"  SIPisapprovedbyEPA,thecommenterrecommendsthatareasshouldbeboundtotheir (#x! established1houremissionbudgetsuntil,new8hourbudgetsareapprovedthroughtheSIP $d" developmentprocess. %P # f  g f  g Responsef  g : EPAproposedconformityregulationsforthenew8hourozonestandardandnewfine &("% particulatematterstandardonNovember5,2003(68FR6269062729).Weproposedthatnew8 '#& hourozoneareasthathave1hourozoneSIPswouldmeetoneofseveraltestsforfulfilling8hour ($' ozoneconformityrequirements.Weproposedtoofferamenuofoptionsdependingonhowthe8 )$(  hourareaboundaryrelatestothe1hourareaboundary.Wewillconsidertheissueraisedbythe *%) commenterandprovideafullresponseinthecontextofthatrulemaking.Seedocketnumber  OAR20030049forthecompleteresponsetothesecomments.    Comment: f  g ԀAfewcommentersfavoredOption2!revokingthe1hourstandardinpartoneyear t afterdesignationsforthe8hourstandard.Ingeneral,thesecommentersbelievedthatthisoption d wasmoreprotectiveofairqualityandmoreconsistentwiththeantibackslidingrequirements.One P  commenterbelievedthatpartialrevocationisamoreclearapproachbecause,asEPAdiscusses, <  CongressintendedforstatesobligationsunderSubpart2tocontinuetoapplyasamatteroflaw, ( x andthe1hourdesignationsarethemechanismCongressidentifiedfortriggeringapplicabilityof  d theserequirements.Onecommenter,whichsupportedadelayinrevokingthestandardindicated  P  thatofthetwooptionsproposedbyEPA,Option2waspreferablebecausealthoughEPAhas  <  assuredthepublicthatthesameemissioncontrolrequirementswouldremaininplaceregardlessof (  whichoptionischosen,personsconsideringinvestingresourcestodevelopnewemissioncontrol   technologieswillnotperceiveasseriousarollbackofattainmenteffortsifthestandardisonly   partiallyrevoked.   f  g f  g Response: Wef  g ԀbelievethatOption1ispreferabletoOption2sinceitismorestraightforwardand t easiertof  g f  g understandthanOption2,asevidencedbythesignificantsupportforthisoption.Since d bothoptionswouldproducethesamesubstantiveresult,wehaveselectedOption1. P  Commentf  g : ThecommentersthatopposedbothoptionsproposedbyEPAdidsobasedonavariety (x ofpolicyandlegalconcerns.Manyofthesecommentersopposedthetwooptionsbecausethe h commentersbelievedtheywouldundermineongoingstateplanningprocessesinmajor T metropolitanareasdesignedtolowerharmfulozoneconcentrationsaspartoftheeffortstoachieve @ the1hourozonestandard.Inparticular,anumberofthecommentersstatedthatthetwoproposed , revocationoptionswoulddelaythetimeareasarerequiredtoreduceemissionstomeettheozone  healthstandardbecausetheareaswillbegivenanew,laterdateforattainmentoftheozone  standard.Forexample,f  g onecommenternoted,f  g underthelhourstandard,thePhiladelphiaarea  mustreachattainmentby2005,but,undertheexpected8hourclassificationforthearea,  Philadelphiawillnothavetoattainuntil2010.Thecommenterbelievedthatf  g Option1createdan x absurdresultbynotrequiringtheareatomeetthe2005attainmentobligation.f  g f  g Anotherf  g Ԁcommenter d  referredtoAtlanta,whichhasa1hourattainmentdateof2004,butwilllikelybeclassifiedas P!  severe15withanattainmentdateof2019forthe8hourstandard.Currently,iftheareafailsto <"  meetits2004attainmentdate,itwillbebumpeduptosevere,whichwouldtriggeradditional (#x! controlrequirements.Becauseofthelongerattainmentdateforthe8hourstandard,Atlantawill $d" avoidhavingtotakeanumberofmeaningfulactionstoreduceozonepollutionforanother15 %P # years.Theabandonmentofthe1hourstandardinthismannerdisregardsCongressionalintentto % #  15      _  _  P   Comment: f  g One_ commenter_ ԀurgedEPAtoensurethatmomentumisnotlostandrequestedthat ( x areasthathavenotsubmittedanattainmentdemonstrationforthe1hourozonestandardbe  h requiredtosubmitaf  g SIPf  g Ԁrevisioninarelativelyshortf  g _ timeframe_ _ f  g .f  g f  g _   T