This is a list of commenters and a summary of comments received from the members of the general public on the staff draft Framework of the Interim Implementation Policy dated March 18, 1996. This document is placed on the bulletin board for the convenience of the general public and does not represent EPA position or decisions. The policy follows the commenter identification list and each comment summary is inserted into the policy according to the topic addressed in the comment. Questions on this document should be directed to Sharon Reinders, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 919/541-5284.

Summary of Comments Received on the

Interim Implementation Policy (IIP)

May 1, 1996

List of Commenters

Commenter # Commenter Name Commenter Affiliation Date 1 David Baron

Ron White

Bob Palzer

Dr. Rich Ferguson

G. Alex Johnson Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI)

American Lung Association (ALA)

Sierra Club, Oregon

Sierra Club, Sacramento

Citizens Commission for Clean Air in the Lake Michigan Basin (CCALMB) 4/15/96 2 Vincent J. Brisini Genco 4/15/96 3 John Taunton Exxon 4/15/96 4 Beverly Hartsock Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) 4/15/96 5 Alan Krupnick Resources for the Future 4/15/96 6 Ellen Hardebeck Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District 4/12/96 7 Steve Ziman Chevron 3/28/96 8	Intentionally left blank 9 Richard Paul American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA) 4/15/96 10 Herb Williams Texas 3/11/96 11 Else L. Munsell Department of Defense 4/17/96 12 Conrad Schneider Natural Resources Council of Maine (NRCM) 4/18/96 13 Bruce Carhart Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) 4/19/96 14 Karl Schultz DuPont 4/16/96 15 Beverly Hartsock

Bruce Andersen STAPPA/ALAPCO 4/24/96 16 Steve Pezda & David Chock Ford 3/7/96 17 National and Regional Strategies workgroup 4/24/96 18 Bob Kappelman Jacksonville Electric Authority 4/29/96 19 Puget Sound APCA 4/26/96

Staff Draft; Do Not Quote or Cite

March 18, 1996

Framework of the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP)

Table of Contents

1.	Principles of the Policy

2.	Objectives of the Policy

3.	Potentially Affected Programs: Key Elements and Options

1.	Principles of the Policy

Commenter #17 suggested the addition of the following item 1(f): Not withstanding A through C above, current nonattainment areas subject to significant NAAQS pollutant and/or precursor transport, which demonstrate non-significant local and downwind nonattainment area impact based on local emissions, would pursue only the current reasonable progress elements shown effective to attainment of a newly promulgated NAAQS beyond the rate-of-progress requirements, through the date of promulgation.

a.	The interim implementation transition policy becomes effective at the time new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated and remains effective until attainment state implementation plans (SIPs) for the new NAAQS are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Commenter #4 noted inconsistency between EPA's proposal that the IIP should be in effect until SIPs for any new NAAQS are approved, when the Agency's recent White Paper #2 contains a lengthy discussion entitled "Guidance for Improving Implementation of the Operating Permits Program" concerning the problems created by this approach. States often adopt proposed SIP revisions while waiting for EPA to review and approve them, and then typically operate under their most revised version. Problems may arise if states have demonstrated a more effective control strategy to meet the new NAAQS, and EPA continues to hold them to an outdated strategy which was designed to meet the old NAAQS.

Commenter #5's "progress without regrets" principle means (1) improvements in public health are to be emphasized, not necessarily by given percentages or locations for emissions reductions, and (2) expensive actions are not taken unless reasonably likely to be effective toward meeting the new NAAQS. Alternative measurement options include health effects, exposures, and concentrations. A streamlined procedure is necessary to help states classify current & planned Title 1 programs with respect to the new NAAQS and the post-transition policy. Assume a new NAAQS will invalidate Subpart 2. Current programs deemed effective by this procedure in post-transition policy will continue and those that are not will be dropped. Cost-effectiveness calculations could be performed on the basis of emissions, concentration, exposures, risks, or dollars.

Commenter #15 suggests that EPA consider and, as appropriate, implement those aspects of the IIP that can take effect prior to the promulgation of the new NAAQS.

b.	In the event new NAAQS are promulgated, current programs continue in force and effect except for attainment dates which become progress milestones.

Commenter #2 wants the following redlined words added to the previous paragraph: In the event new NAAQS are promulgated, current programs for areas designated non-attainment continue in force and effect except for attainment dates which become progress milestones.

Commenter #5 wants this paragraph to express EPA's intention to keep the time between the promulgation of the new NAAQS and the implementation regulations as short as possible, although it is likely to be five years or more.

Commenters #4 and #10 said the policy should allow flexibility in the continuing requirements so that states could eliminate or modify programs that are not contributing significantly to progress towards attainment.

Commenter #16 recommends that cost/benefit analyses be incorporated into the principles of the IIP. This commenter also recommends that the scope of the analyses reflect the geographical extent of the implementation area (i.e., if a regional approach is taken with control strategies, then the cost/benefit analysis should likewise be regional in scope).

Commenter #18 advises the explanation of the basis of legal authority for the interim policy, related to maintaining programs designed to achieve vacated standards. This commenter also questioned whether the EPA will use a Policy guidance or a Rule to implement the interim policy, because both have inherent advantages and disadvantages.

Commenter #18 also suggests the development of a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of requirements designed to meet old NAAQS prior to the decision to continue their use.

-	3% per year minimum rate of progress and emission reductions necessary to attain the former ozone NAAQS continue.

Commenter #4 and #10 support the need to provide for a continuing rate of progress in reducing emissions, but only to the extent that the reductions are demonstrated to show reductions in ambient levels of the pollutant. For example, experience has shown that blindly requiring a 3% per year reduction in VOC and/or NOx can be a great expense to the local economy without substantially reducing ozone concentrations.

Commenter #4 also suggested the introduction of a periodic process evaluation of the attainment demonstration and SIP process. This periodic review and evaluation could be established on a schedule that roughly coincides with the Clean Air Act requirements for review of the NAAQS. Such a process should include, at a minimum, a comparison of actual monitored air quality levels to the model projected levels, an assessment of any growth assumptions, and an assessment of the effectiveness of implemented control strategies. These assessments should then be used to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the implemented control strategies and identify areas where corrections would be appropriate.

Commenter #4 expressed concern over the issue of equity between states regarding the flat 3% per year minimum rate of progress and emissions reduction. Any requirements for further reductions should be based on a "level playing field", i.e. additional reductions of 3% per year should not be imposed on any state until all have EPA-approved SIPs in place to achieve those reductions up to the present, such as 15% by 1996 for moderate areas, plus 9% for serious and above areas by 1999. This commenter supports the continuation of any programs already implemented, but suggests that further development or implementation of additional strategies not be required unless their benefit to air quality has been demonstrated.

Commenter #7 made the following three suggestions regarding percent emissions reductions:

•	Reductions should contribute to air quality improvement and not be a bookkeeping exercise. Rationale - Some post-1996 plans may claim that reductions have met the percent reduction requirement, while modeling might show that they had no impact on the ozone nonattainment monitor concentrations.

•	The percent emission reduction requirement should be revised in conjunction with the (reasonable further progress) RFP requirement, which is also an annual emissions reduction target. The new requirement would be based on a percentage reduction in population exposure. This should be done as part of the SIP analysis of the selected strategy using modeling. In addition, actual progress should be reviewed every three years using actual monitored data. Rationale - Even if the form of the standard is still based on the peak monitor, that monitor may not reflect the exposed population, which should be the primary driving force for attainment of a health-based primary standard.

•	Require an analysis of why an area cannot meet the percent reductions requirement (whether emissions or population exposure). Require the plan to incorporate additional regulations that address the specific causes. Rationale - Much of the problem in achieving the requisite percent reductions are due to nonstationary source growth, and the emissions which accompany that growth. The present alternative to meeting the RFP requirement would implement draconian measures for stationary sources, including lower thresholds, height offset requirements, and feasible (without regard to cost) measures. These are counterproductive in that they deter new, cleaner facilities or major modification. Further, the additional amount of reductions may be very small, and may not do anything to offset the real increase in emissions.

Commenter #9 said the 3 percent per year minimum rate of progress requirement should be eliminated in favor of progress based on costs, benefits, risks, and flexibility. Command and control requirements should be replaced with market-based incentive programs, because many states have run out of major sources to control and any additional controls on major sources are becoming very costly, with diminishing return. Controls of small local sources and lifestyle changes must be included in the design of an economically sensible overall control strategy.

Commenter #17 suggested the following changes be made to the above paragraph: Rate of progress and emission reductions necessary to attain the former ozone NAAQS continue if these are shown to be effective for both local and regional air quality improvement and are consistent with the newly promulgated NAAQS.

-	Current programs for areas not attaining the annual particulate matter (PM)-10 NAAQS continue.

Commenter #9 said current programs should not necessarily remain in force in the event that new NAAQS are promulgated. For example, eliminating the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS, and implementing a new fine PM NAAQS, would likely require different approaches, modeling, controls, etc. It does not make sense to continue controls for a NAAQS that will no longer exist.

-	Current programs for areas not attaining the 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS continue but case-by-case exceptions may be allowed based on the mix of coarse and fine emission source types for areas where attainment of a potential PM-fine NAAQS is an issue.

Commenter #9 stated "in an effort to keep this process creative and innovative (as requested by EPA), we should be flexible and keep an open mind to altering submittal and attainment dates where appropriate. Again, we need to consider inter-relationships with other pollutants, costs, risks, benefits, etc."

Commenter #10 said the suggested case-by-case flexibility seems to be a reasonable approach, especially with regard to those requirements that have little, if any, proven benefit in progress toward achievement of the NAAQS. However, this flexibility should be extended to many other issues and requirements including, but not limited to, attainment demonstration requirements, attainment dates, classifications, etc."

Commenter #19 wants to know who will decide case-by-case exceptions and whether states will apply for them through SIP revisions.

-	Reasonable progress under the existing visibility program continues.

Commenter #2 said that when a concentration for a pollutant, which is formed in the atmosphere, such as ozone, is changed along with changes in the averaging periods and number of exceedances, existing compliance requirements may become inappropriate. This commenter thinks an appropriate strategy would be an integrated timeline that includes all source categories and accounts for market integration of new pollution reduction measures. This timeline must reflect appropriate modifications to the previous compliance strategies that are no longer appropriate.

c.	SIP submittal and attainment dates for those NAAQS that are not revised continue in force and effect.

Commenter #5 suggests replacing attainment deadlines in Subpart 2 with deadlines consistent with the institutional and policy development that follows from the new NAAQS, and the new regulatory regime. Milestones towards attainment would be developed consistent with the deadlines.

Commenter #9 said that the principle "that current programs continue in force and effect" until SIPs related to the new NAAQS are approved by EPA is far too rigid. This commenter believes that there are several reasons for which a more flexible approach must be taken in the interim period. First, the many problems that have surfaced as the states and EPA have wrestled with the current implementation program for ozone and PM-10 must be addressed in the interim period. If these problems are not addressed for another five or more years, there will be significant harm both to the support for and progress resulting from the nation's air pollution control program. Among these problems are the lack of recognition in the current Act of the role of transport in nonattainment, of the difference between source and receptor areas, of the limits to the use of photochemical models for attainment demonstrations, and of the consequences of the complex, non-linear nature of ozone and secondary PM formation.

Commenter #10 supports the continued implementation of any programs already in place, but suggests that further development or implementation of additional strategies not be required unless their benefit to air quality is demonstrated.

d.	Protection of public health and welfare continues.

Commenter #5 moved item (d) above to item (e) and addressed SIP submittal and attainment dates here under (d). SIP requirements and submittal and attainment dates for unrevised NAAQS continue, at least until EPA issues regulations for the new NAAQS. This commenter noted that new ways of regulating ozone and PM-10 may be incompatible with or superior to the current SIP process for the other pollutants.

e.	Notwithstanding a through c above, states may apply for case-by-case substitutions of measures. Some options for basing substitutions may be on a ton for ton emission base such as substituting mobile for stationary source controls and conversely, and nitrogen oxides (NOX) for volatile organic compound (VOC) control in accordance with current NOx substitution guidance (January 1993) and the Post-96 Rate of Progress guidance (January 1994). Substitution should not be a reason to delay progress.

Commenter #2 thinks case-by-case substitution should be carefully examined prior to approval. Current practice shows a penchant for substituting "politically correct" reductions for reductions with greater control effectiveness. Substitution may not delay reductions, but it could delay attainment, which should be avoided.

Commenter #4 likes the "case-by-case" approach, especially with regard to requirements that have little, if any, proven benefit toward achievement of the NAAQS. This commenter would also like this flexibility to be extended to many other issues and requirements, including attainment demonstration requirements, attainment dates, classifications, etc.

Commenter #5 added an item (f) and an item (g). Item (f) suggests that explicit discussion of "pervasive uncertainty" be incorporated into all statements from the Subcommittee and the Work Groups. Item (g) expresses that the transition policy development period will be used as a trial for new ideas on how to integrate improved scientific understanding, economic incentives, and cost-effectiveness analysis into meeting air quality goals.

Commenter #14 wants the selection of controls to be cost-effective, offer compliance choices, and be based on overall risk-reduction goals. This commenter also wants implementation approaches to take into account the relative impacts of different types of sources (i.e., mobile vs. stationary).

Commenter #18 expressed concern over the basis for approval of the substitution measures. This commenter said that the location of emission release, type of source (i.e., mobile vs. point), and population-weighted exposure all need to be considered.

2.	Objectives of the Policy

Commenter #9 requests sections be added here that speak to the need to improve present models, to get better data (e.g., monitoring), and to carefully identify sources of pollutants and pollutant precursors. This information is necessary as the foundation of the sound science on which decisions should be based. This commenter also requests that sections be added here that speak to the need to obtain sound data on costs, benefits and risks. Again, this information is necessary for sound decision making.

a.	To inform states, locals, and tribes about the implementation transition from the time potential new NAAQS are promulgated to the time SIPs are approved by EPA.

See commenter #4's comments regarding this in 1(a).

Commenter #5 worded this paragraph as follows: To inform states, locals, and tribes about how EPA will operate Title 1 between the time a new NAAQS is promulgated and the time EPA promulgates a new regulatory frame work under Title 1, Subpart 1.

b.	To announce that the interim implementation transition policy becomes effective at the time new NAAQS are promulgated and that the current programs continue in force and effect until that time.

Commenter #5 wants this paragraph to state that EPA will review all current Subpart 2 provisions according to the principles outlined in section 1 of their alternative IIP.

c.	To publish in the Federal Register at the same time as the NAAQS proposal or before.

Commenter #5 made the following change to this paragraph: To publish the transition policy principles and objectives in the Federal Register at the same time as the NAAQS proposal or before. In this commenters version of the IIP, this was the last item included in section 2.

Commenter #9 said the policy should not be published in the Federal Register before the NAAQS proposal because the policy becomes effective at the time new national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are promulgated. The policy should be reviewed along with the NAAQS proposal.

d.	To address ozone and PM implementation issues. An interim implementation policy is not needed for regional haze because there is no current program.

e.	To insure momentum is maintained in the current implementation programs and that work such as the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) and progress toward attainment continues in order to continue progress in protecting public health and welfare.

Commenter #2 said it should be recognized that OTAG is a process that will only define a potential strategy. Due to the voluntary nature of involvement, it is unlikely that any real reductions will be achieved through the process. To implement the potential strategy will most likely require national regulation.

Commenter #4 recommends wording this section as follows: To insure momentum is maintained in the current implementation programs by requiring the implementation of any programs already developed and incorporated into an existing State Implementation Plan. And that all current programs and efforts such as the Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) continue in order to protect public health and welfare, provided it can reasonably be demonstrated that they will benefit any integrated strategy designed to achieve a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard.

f.	To sufficiently discuss and frame interim implementation transition elements in a way to provide support for the proposed NAAQS, a future implementation program for new NAAQS, and the current implementation work of the states.

g.	To be objective in the portrayal of the eventual implementation program for potential new NAAQS i.e., not include any preference or decisions for the future program under potential new NAAQS.

Commenter #18 noted that because of the high cost of these programs on state governments and industry, the sooner a major change in EPA's thinking is made public, the more cost effective the response can be.

h.	To allow the opportunity for the public to comment.

3.	Potentially Affected Programs: Key Elements and Options

a.	Summary information on the atmospheric processes along with preliminary results of air quality analyses showing the impact of new NAAQS will be included in the policy. This summary will describe the following items.

Commenter #2 said it should be recognized that reductions to achieve more clearly defined objectives (e.g., the ozone standard and SO2 limitations) may be beneficial for reductions of other pollutants (e.g., PM-fine and regional haze). These requirements should be used as rate of progress measures before moving ahead with additional strategies that might be based on conjecture.

Commenter #5 moved this "Potentially Affected Programs" section to section 5 in their alternate version of the IIP. The proposed new title for the section is "Science Needed to Develop the Policy."

Commenter #9 wants summary information on sources of the pollutants of concern to also be included.

Commenter #14 said that implementation approaches should reflect the most current atmospheric science validated by empirical data.

(1)	Atmospheric chemistry and diffusion describing the role and linkages of volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and ammonia (NH3) in generating ozone and PM-fine pollutants.

Commenter #9 wants the information on atmospheric processes to include a discussion of primary PM emissions, both fine and coarse, as well as a discussion of regional differences in the nature and extent of ozone, PM, and regional haze.

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 3(a).

(2) Transport of precursors and pollutants.

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 3(b).

Commenter #7 said downwind nonattainment areas that are significantly affected by transport from an upwind nonattainment area with a longer attainment date should not be penalized by having a shorter attainment date if they are in a less stringent category. Without this change, a less severe downwind area must make more emissions reductions than equitable in order to meet an earlier attainment date. Furthermore, bump-up provisions should not apply to areas in the above situation, unless it is demonstrated that the area is not making reductions commensurate to its contribution to the nonattainment problem.

Commenter #7 suggests setting up a mechanism that can determine whether and to what degree there is a linkage between two areas (i.e., a transport couple). The mechanism should be based on the best technical analysis methods available.

Commenter #7 wants to establish a mechanism to link planning requirements for upwind and downwind intrastate as well as interstate areas that:

a) establishes emissions reductions requirements for the upwind area to be commensurate with level of contribution to the downwind area; and

b) looks at a matrix of control options for each area such that the selected strategies will both show improvements in population exposure and be the most cost-effective measures for the upwind and downwind areas respectively. For an 8-hour primary standard, VOC controls may be more favored than NOx, yet NOx controls may provide more benefits for downwind areas. Consequently, it is necessary to implement controls that do not adversely impact an upwind nonattainment area even if they help a downwind nonattainment area. Since the primary purpose of the standard is health based, one way to develop a plan for an upwind area is by using per capita population exposure estimates, which entails the use of photochemical modeling.

Commenter #7 also wants to require downwind areas to make reductions that would achieve the standard after taking into account the reductions made by the upwind area. Again, this requires a linked planning process.

Commenter #9 said the discussion of transport should include estimates of the relative role of transport vs. local sources of ozone, PM, and haze for various cities and regions.

Commenters #13, #15, and #17 said reductions in regional transport of ozone and ozone precursors must be a priority during this transition period.

(3)	Preliminary results of monitoring, modeling and emissions analyses showing impacts of potential new NAAQS --

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 3(c). This commenter also added two additional items; 3(d) and 3(e). Item 3(d) is "The role of meteorology" and item 3(e) is "Problems with monitoring and models."

Commenter #9 had the following concerns: "The bullets shown here indicate more monitors, counties, etc. showing nonattainment. EPA needs to provide details as to why this would be the case. What are the assumptions EPA is working under? This information is necessary to efficiently design the best implementation policy. In this regard, it seems imperative that EPA comment on the recent HEI draft report (detailed analyses of Philadelphia data) which we understand indicates that (with respect to the PM/mortality issue) a single pollutant (either TSP, SO2, NO2, or CO) cannot be readily identified as the best predictor of mortality. What are the implications of results in this draft report on the interim implementation transition policy?

Also, the statement that preliminary results showing impacts of potential new NAAQS indicate "more monitors showing air quality in violation of the new NAAQS" appears to violate the objective of neutrality in portraying the eventual implementation program for new NAAQS. For ozone, the range of primary standards in the EPA Staff Paper that was endorsed by Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) includes combinations of levels and form that would result in anywhere from 90% of the monitored counties being out of attainment to fewer than 10% of the monitored counties being out of attainment. The document should describe the implications of the entire range of options endorsed by the CASAC. For PM, CASAC has not come to closure on the Staff Paper. However, after closure, EPA should describe the implications of the entire range of options that CASAC discusses.

Commenter #14 said monitoring to determine attainment designation should reflect exposure consistent with the standard setting process. Monitoring locations should be selected consistent with the assumptions used in the exposure assessment.

Commenter #16 wants the immature state of present regional PM models to be considered when emission controls are being developed.

- More monitors showing air quality in violation of the new NAAQS.

- Greater number of counties and broad geographic areas not meeting the new NAAQS compared to the current NAAQS as shown in preliminary air quality monitoring data and modeling analyses.

- The role of transport.

Commenter #14 suggests that control regions be based on real monitoring data, along with emissions data, to establish contribution rates and "zones of influence."

Commenter #15 believes that regional and interstate transport issues will necessitate a new regulatory structure.

- Broad national/regional control programs and more precursor emission reductions needed to attain new NAAQS compared to current NAAQS.

Commenter #4 recommended caution under this proposed element, due to huge geographical gaps between most monitoring networks, and due to the fact that the use of extrapolation to interpret the levels of ozone in rural areas is highly questionable. This is particularly true because these estimates will be based upon models which were designed for urban assessment and there is tremendous potential for error in assessing air quality in areas located between monitoring networks.

Commenter #5 removed this item altogether.

The following material is a discussion of key elements of current programs and possible options for their treatment in this policy.

b. Introduction to the Interim Implementation Transition Policy

Commenter #2 is concerned about this section's assumption that all of the existing compliance strategies remain correct. This commenter believes this is an extremely dangerous assumption to make in some areas.

Instead of being item 3(b), commenter #5 considers this to be the title of section 4.

Interim implementation of new NAAQS is under the	general authority of Title I, Part D, subpart 1 of the Clean	Air Act (Act).

Commenter #5 considers the above to be item 4(a).

All measures and emission reductions required in Subparts 2 and 4 would continue under the general authority of subpart 1 during the transition period from implementing the current NAAQS to implementing the new NAAQS in order to meet the requirements for reasonable further progress, reasonably available control technology (RACT), and reasonably available control measures (RACM) identified in subpart 1. Congress' specification of these requirements in subparts 2 and 4 means that they are presumptively reasonable.

Commenter #5 considers the above to be item 4(b). In this commenters version, promulgation of a new NAAQS would cause measures, emission reductions, designations, and deadlines required in Subparts 2 and 4 to be reconsidered. Reasonable further progress, RACT, and RACM would continue, but the definition of reasonable further progress would emphasize the protection of health and welfare.

Commenter #9 encourages the Agency to consider Congress' intent rather than its detailed specifications in determining reasonability. This commenter said that an improved understanding of the laws of nature, particularly as they relate to transport issues, should take precedence over Congress' appraisal, which took place prior to the existence of improved science.

Where NAAQS are revised, EPA is exploring the limits of flexibility in the Act to substitute measures as long as the measures provide, in the same timeframe, the progress and emission reductions that were necessary to attain the former NAAQS. Key issues under consideration are what type of demonstrations are necessary to support such substitutions without allowing backsliding or elimination of measures which will be needed to attain the new NAAQS.

Commenter #5 considers the above paragraph to be 4(c) and changed it as follows: Key issues under consideration are: what type of demonstrations are necessary to support progress without regrets to attain the new NAAQS?

Supplementary information on individual programs and options under consideration is provided below.

Commenter #5 considers the above to be item 4(d) and considers the remainder of the IIP to fall under a section 5 entitled "Programs Potentially Affected by the Policy: Key Elements and Options."

c. Attainment Demonstrations

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(a) and suggests the redefinition of the attainment concept to account for transported pollutants from upwind areas.

Existing approved demonstrations and requirements contained in existing guidance for outstanding demonstrations continue to stand.

Commenter #2 said that a new standard must contain an emission reduction "placeholder" strategy that allows time for reaffirmation of the existing compliance strategy, or for the development of a new compliance strategy. This information should then be used to develop a new, integrated timeline with the new standard as the goal. To continue in pursuit of the existing standard and its specific milestones without incorporating them into an integrated strategy and timeline could result in inappropriate measures and costs, as discussed in the comments about section 1(b) above.

States with delinquent demonstrations could redirect	the focus to the new NAAQS. However, they would still have	to determine what their requirements for rate of progress	and emission reductions necessary for attainment would have	been under the former NAAQS and continue to achieve those	levels of emission reductions to meet the requirements of	subpart 1 during the transition period from implementing the	former NAAQS to implementing the new NAAQS. Measures to	achieve these levels would need to be adopted and submitted	as SIP revisions. See the Progress and Documentation for	Substitutions discussion below for related information.

In the event of a NAAQS revision, a new requirement exists for new demonstrations. However, EPA's implementation program for the new NAAQS will address this.

Commenter #3 believes more attention should be given to situations involving existing nonattainment areas that have attained, or will attain, the existing NAAQS during the interim plan; areas that become nonattainment (of either the existing NAAQS or a new NAAQS); or areas that are in a "too close to call" category. This commenter would like more guidance for these situations in terms of maintenance plans, classifications categories, and attendant programs.

Commenter #7 believes that the regulatory interpretation of demonstration of attainment is inconsistent with the tool - a photochemical grid model - that is being used to make that demonstration. This commenter states that, at a minimum, the EPA needs to develop an alternative interpretation of "demonstration of attainment" that can define the most effective set of emission controls, including choice of precursors that will lead to ozone reduction. The strength of a photochemical grid model is to ask "what if" questions. The model is deterministic, and the standard is probabilistic. In addition, the model does not, and never will give absolute results, due to uncertainty in the inputs, and assumptions in formulation, and in future growth projections. Nevertheless, if the model undergoes rigorous performance evaluation and sensitivity studies to determine the effects of uncertainty, it should be a good tool for demonstrating which precursors (temporally and spatially) should be reduced.

d. SIPs and 15% Plans

Commenter #5 considers this item 5(b) and retitles it "Reasonable Further Progress." This commenter combined parts of the "SIPs and 15% Plans" and "Progress and Documentation for substitutions" items in the existing IIP under this title.

Commenter #5 divides their section 5 into two parts; (1) options and (2) documentation. Under item 5(b)(1) i.e. options, this commenter wants a definition of progress used that emphasizes improvements in public health and welfare, not necessarily measured by set emissions reductions in predetermined locations.

Existing SIPs and 15% rate of progress plans (ozone) continue to stand. Furthermore, requirements for outstanding SIPs and 15% emission reductions continue to stand. This supports continuing and completing the important work of the ongoing SIP development activities, e.g., the OTAG process, in order to continue progress in protecting public health and welfare.

In the event the NAAQS are promulgated, EPA is exploring whether, in the interim period of transition to implementing new NAAQS, measures could be substituted for those required under the former NAAQS. A new measure substituted for a mandated measure required under subpart 2 or 4 would be required to provide the same amount of emissions reductions in the same timeframe as the mandated measure. New measures would need to be enforceable, real, quantifiable, and permanent.

Commenter #13 suggested that the IIP include an assessment of the impacts of proposed control measure substitution on ozone and ozone precursor transport, and provisions to ensure that transport problems are not exacerbated. This commenter would like the impacts on transport to be integrated into the analysis of these options.

Commenter #15 suggests that if existing controls are found to be ineffective in meeting new standards, the Agency allow appropriate substitutes to be implemented in their place.

- Option 1 is to substitute measures for those	required in the current program as long as the measures	provide, in the same timeframe, the same progress and	emission reductions that were necessary to attain the	former NAAQS and are adopted and submitted to EPA as	SIP revisions.

Commenter #11 supports Option 1, which provides the greatest flexibility during the transition period to potentially much more stringent NAAQS, and encourages EPA to retain this option in the IIP.

- Option 2 is to substitute only measures that are directionally correct towards attaining the new NAAQS, i.e., urban VOC for urban VOC and urban VOC for rural NOx, while still maintaining, in the same timeframe, the same levels of progress and emission reductions necessary for attainment of the former NAAQS and are adopted and submitted to EPA as SIP revisions.

- Option 3 is to not allow any substitution or revision of these plans but wait for the attainment demonstration and new Part D SIPs addressing the new NAAQS are prepared.

For example, an outstanding SIP requirement could be satisfied by a SIP submittal to EPA for approval containing the substitute measure. The submittal would address and identify how the substitute measure provides the same amount of emissions reductions associated with the SIP requirement together with an analysis of the impact of the substitution on the rate of progress and emission reduction levels required to attain the former NAAQS.

Commenters #1 and #12 believe the substitution of measures should only be allowed when the measure proposed for elimination is not explicitly required by the Act, and only when the state proves that: a) the SIP will provide for timely attainment and achievement of all progress milestones, and b) the new measure will provide equal or greater emission reductions.

Commenter #4 suggested the following option as a methodology to achieve the goals of no backsliding, maintaining rate of progress efforts, and equitability between states (i.e., beginning with a "level playing field"):

1)	All areas currently classified as moderate or below which have submitted 15% emission reductions and attainment demonstration SIPs should be required to maintain that level of control, except as allowed in No. 3 below.

2)	All areas currently classified as serious or above which have submitted 15% emission reductions and Phase I (at least 9% rate of progress out to 1999) SIPs in accordance with the March 2, 1995 Mary Nichols memorandum should be required to maintain that level of control, except as allowed in #3 below.

3)	Controls submitted to meet the 15% emissions reductions and Phase 1 requirements could be relaxed only upon a demonstration by the state that they are not needed to achieve or maintain the revised standard.

4)	No further annual percentage reductions should be required until EPA has approved SIPs for all states that achieve at least the levels of control described in 1 & 2 above.

5)	Any recommendations for large-scale regional control strategies out of OTAG, the Grand Canyon Visibility Commission, Southern Oxidant Study, Seasonal Model for Regional Air Quality in the South (SMRAQ-S), or other such similar efforts, must be based on sound scientific evidence that regional background levels of ozone or PM-fine will be reduced and required only to the degree that all affected areas currently classified as nonattainment will be aided in achieving and maintaining the new NAAQS. The OTAG time frame should be reexamined and more realistically applied, and its charter should be amended to benefit the transition process instead of trying to assist the attainment of a NAAQS which will no longer exist when the OTAG recommendations are complete.

Commenter #4 also suggested encouraging the use of early reductions programs by offering incentives for their implementation, such as allowing a greater level of emissions reductions credits for early reductions programs.

See the Progress and Documentation for Substitutions discussion below for related information.

In the event of a NAAQS revision, a new requirement exists for new SIPs; but, similar to demonstrations, EPA's implementation program for the new NAAQS will address this.

Commenters #1 and #12 do not believe that EPA can legally drop the explicit SIP submittal deadlines, control requirements, or attainment deadlines set forth in the ozone and PM 10-specific provisions of the Clean Air Act (i.e.,§§ 181-185B, 188-190) and that EPA cannot waive the precise and mandatory terms by which SIPs are to be developed and attainment achieved merely because the NAAQS are amended. These commenters believe that this could also be disastrous from a policy perspective. It would send the message to states that they need no longer worry about the ozone and PM-10 attainment deadlines, and that control measures explicitly required under current law (e.g., Stage II vapor recovery, VMT offsets, BACM for serious PM-10 areas) can be avoided via "substitution" or other means.

Commenters #1 and #12 further believe that changing the attainment deadlines to "rate of progress" milestones would not repair this damage. It would allow a serious PM-10 area that currently has a 2001 attainment deadline for the 24-hour standard to merely achieve unspecified reductions by then. And an ozone nonattainment area that currently must show attainment by a specified deadline or bump up, might be able to avoid both of these requirements. In addition, the proposed approach would reward areas that delayed in the adoption of adequate SIPs under the pre-existing standards.

Commenter #2 said that a method for expeditious modification of SIPs must be provided. SIPs which are inconsistent with modified strategies and timelines could result in inappropriate enforcement actions and the costs of defending against those actions. This commenter also expressed concern that none of the listed options seem to recognize that different strategies may be necessary, due to standard changes that go beyond differentiation of concentrations (i.e., baseline vs. episodic). As an alternative, an emission reduction "placeholder" option may be the most reasonable option if there is any uncertainty about the formulation of an effective compliance strategy.

Commenter #6 said the effective date and duration of the policy - promulgation of the revised standard to the approval of the SIP - looks reasonable, but it may cause implementation delays while EPA is taking time to approve a revised SIP. Further, while submitters await SIP approval they continue to operate under the transition policy. The SIP approval date may not be a good end point for the policy - Many PM-10 SIPs are still awaiting EPA approval. This commenter said none of their District's four PM-10 SIPs have been approved or acted upon by the EPA.

Commenter #6 suggests, in the framework of the proposed transition policy, that the most expeditious way to implement new PM-2.5 SIP measures would be to wholly substitute the revised SIP measures for the existing SIP measures. If submitters are required to wait for the EPA to approve the SIP revision before implementing controls, the NAAQS will probably not be attained within the statutory time frame. Furthermore, although the proposed transition policy presumes that the PM-10 program continues without interruption prior to the promulgation of a new NAAQS, some areas may have already stalled their efforts in anticipation of a revised PM NAAQS. Some aspects of the transition policy should probably be started sooner than promulgation of the standard, and should possibly be started as soon as the proposal of the standard.

Commenter #9 said "the requirement that new measures substituted for mandated measures provide the same amount of emission reductions in the same timeframe" is too rigid. This commenter believes that the focus should be directionally correct, or if it can be calculated, of equivalent environmental benefit, in terms of ozone, PM, and haze reduction, not ton for ton substitutions. The 15 percent requirement needs to be revisited, especially in light of possible new ozone and PM NAAQS, and in light of the desire to seriously consider costs, benefits, and risks in the new implementation strategies. This commenter supports the idea of substituting measures for those required under the former NAAQS. Lastly, commenter #9 wants requirements pertaining to the old NAAQS to cease when they are eliminated. At that time all efforts, control measures, etc. must focus on achievement of the new NAAQS.

Commenter #15 wants SIP submittal and attainment dates for those NAAQS that are not revised to continue in force and effect.

Commenter #15 wants new control requirements implemented during the transition period to be creditable towards future SIPs.

e. Progress and Documentation for Substitutions

In order to meet the requirements of subpart 1, the interim policy will require states to meet equivalent progress and emission reduction requirements in the same timeframe as were required by subparts 2 and 4 to meet the former NAAQS. This could be satisfied by applying subparts 2 and 4 or by substitution of measures.

Equivalent progress could be defined as equivalent emission reductions or equivalent environmental benefit. That is,

- defining progress and equivalency decisions on ton for ton emission reductions may not bring an equivalent environmental benefit in the absence of a technical analysis such as dispersion or photochemical modeling; or,

- defining progress and equivalency as an equivalent environmental benefit would better assure that substitution does not impede progress toward attainment of the new NAAQS but raises implementation issues. For example, EPA and states would need to have modeling results to demonstrate the impact of substitutions.

- Option 1: Progress and equivalency in substitutions could be defined in terms of equivalent emissions reductions achieved in the same timeframe as the reductions from measures required for the former NAAQS.

- Option 2: Progress and equivalency in substitutions could be defined in terms of equivalent environmental benefit achieved in the same timeframe as benefits from measures required for the former NAAQS.

- Option 3: Under either option, what level of documentation or technical analysis is necessary to demonstrate the equivalency of the substitutions. For example, should dispersion or photochemical modeling be required for the demonstration?

Commenter #5 moved Option 3 to item 3(d) (which has been renumbered as item 5(b)(2)).

Commenter #9 said that Option 3 on page 6 is not a separate option; it is a question related to the necessary documentation under either option 1 or 2.

See the discussions on Attainment Demonstrations and	SIPs and 15% Plans above for related information.

Commenter #4 wants the references to subparts 1,2 and 4 to be clarified as to their specific reference. This commenter also finds the whole discussion on substitution and equivalent reductions or equivalent environmental benefit confusing and seeks further clarification on this.

f. Classifications

Existing ozone classifications remain at ozone NAAQS promulgation only for purposes of identifying control measures for reasonable further progress, RACT, and RACM which may also be satisfied by substitution of control measures. As noted earlier, EPA is exploring the limits of flexibility for substitution.

Commenter #5 emphasized the definition of reasonable further progress discussed in 3(d).

The attainment dates for the former NAAQS associated with the classifications and the emission reductions needed to attain the former NAAQS transform into rate of progress milestones.

In the case of PM-10, the classification to serious was based on the ability to practicably attain the 24-hour and/or annual PM-10 NAAQS. Thus, the serious classification remains until states can assess the impact of a new NAAQS.

In the rare case where control measures required in regulations refer to classifications by name the requirements in the regulations will continue to apply via the interim policy which may also be satisfied by substitution of control measures. Where regulations refer to activities such as modeling requirements in the new source review program (NSR), the requirements will continue to apply.

The EPA has the option of including classifications in the future program for potential new NAAQS and the implementation program for the new NAAQS will address this.

Commenter #4 said that while it seems appropriate to maintain the current ozone nonattainment classifications during the interim period, it does not appear advisable or reasonable to require reclassification to higher classifications during the same period, especially if the current classification system may not be retained under a new NAAQS.

Commenter #7 wants Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or Consolidated MSA used to designate areas, unless analysis shows these designations are not appropriate because the political boundaries do not reflect air quality basins. This commenter also wants the classification scheme separated from dates. Different dates for areas with the same classifications should be established depending on whether transport is a significant contributor of the overall problem. It is unreasonable to assume a downwind area with an earlier attainment date should bear the burden of additional reductions to offset transported pollutants from an upwind area with a later attainment date.

Commenter #7 wants to incorporate the idea of a summation index for classifying an area, rather than the design value (however that will be defined assuming that it will still use the peak monitor). The index could be an annual or triennial accumulation over a threshold (AOT) type, or a weighted AOT. In this way, both the concentration and the duration are taken into account.

Commenter #7 suggests instituting a "too close to call" category for those areas which are probably capable of meeting the new standard through emissions reductions due to fleet turnovers, reformulated gas, and other federal regulations resulting in continuing reductions throughout the country. According to this commenter, an area should be allowed three years to achieve attainment. No new rules or regulations should be required for stationary sources.

Commenter #9 said there appears to be no discussion in either sections 3(f) or 3(j) as to what happens to areas that are in attainment, or have petitioned to get into attainment when new NAAQS are promulgated. A discussion of the options for every type and status of classification is necessary.

Regarding 3(f), commenter #9 also stated that the section on classifications needs a detailed discussion on the too close to call (TCTC) designation, and how it might be utilized during the interim transition period. TCTC may be a useful tool in this situation, in that it can serve as a "holding" designation until adequate monitoring, modeling, or source apportionment data becomes available to determine proper classifications for potential new NAAQS.

Commenter #15 noted that the Clean Air Act provides EPA with flexibility to develop a new classification system for new NAAQS. The agency should take advantage of this flexibility and develop nonattainment area classifications that reflect the amount of time needed for the area to attain the standard (e.g., "short-term" and "long-term") - based upon factors such as the nature of the nonattainment problem, the difficulty of controlling sources or the contribution of transport, where such a contribution exists - rather than the degree of the pollution problem (e.g., "moderate", "serious", and "severe").

g. Ozone Transport Region (OTR), Ozone Transport Commission	(OTC), and the Photochemical Assessment Monitoring System	(PAMS)

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(d).

The OTR, OTC, and PAMS continue to exist after new NAAQS are promulgated.

h. Transportation and General Conformity

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(e).

Motor vehicle emission budgets in the existing Part D SIPs continue to apply until such time as they are superseded by new or revised Part D SIPs addressing the new NAAQS.

Commenter #11 noted that emissions budgets also often include other mobile sources, such as aircraft and non-road vehicles, that may be important to federal agencies conducting conformity determinations. This commenter wants the first paragraph to be expanded in scope to include all mobile sources. Further, the use of the term "superseded" here is unclear, as most of the IIP refers to "submitted" or "approved" SIPs, not "superseded" SIPs. This commenter recommended the following language for the first paragraph of section 3(h): "Mobile source emission budgets (including motor vehicles) in the existing Part D SIPs continue to apply until such time as new or revised Part D SIPs addressing the new NAAQS are approved by EPA."

Conformity determinations will not be required to address the new NAAQS until SIPs addressing the new NAAQS are submitted to EPA. Conformity will not apply to PM-fine until SIPs are submitted to EPA as identified above.

Commenter #11 said that conformity determinations should be based on approved SIPs only. This is consistent with how the Part 51 General Conformity Rule addresses SIPs in relation to conducting general conformity determinations. In addition, an effective date should be provided to allow completion of ongoing conformity determinations, similar to the grandfathering clause contained in the Part 51 General Conformity Rule. General Conformity determinations are often long, labor intensive and expensive, and the federal agency conducting the determination needs to know at the initiation of the study the basis for comparison and/or the emissions budgets. EPA can and has rejected SIPs, and it is not clear that a Conformity determination based upon a submitted SIP would be allowed to stand if the underlying emissions budget or SIP requirements are determined to be inadequate by EPA. To ensure that a Conformity determination can be completed in a timely and organized manner, only approved SIPs should be used, and an implementation period established. This commenter recommends that the previous paragraph be revised as follows: "Conformity determinations will not be required to address the new NAAQS until 6 months after the SIPs addressing the new NAAQS are approved by the EPA."

If no Part D SIP was required for a nonattainment area under the former NAAQS and, thus, no budget exists, states should perform the build/no build analysis, e.g., marginal ozone areas.

States are free to establish a new budget in advance of a complete SIP attainment demonstration for the new NAAQS which budget would be in addition to the existing budget.

Commenter #11 finds this statement confusing. The existence of two emissions budgets leaves unanswered the question of which one is appropriate for use in a Conformity Determination. This commenter would like the previous paragraph worded as follows: "States are free to establish a new emissions budget in advance of a complete SIP attainment demonstration for the new NAAQS. The federal action proponent should use the emissions budget relied on for the attainment demonstration unless the federal agency and state both concur on using the new budget."

Where requirements such as conformity analyses and modeling for pre-existing nonattainment areas are based on the classification system for the former NAAQS, those requirements continue to apply after new NAAQS are promulgated.

i. PM Precursor Substitution

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(f).

If substitutions of ton for ton VOC or on a percent basis for NOX are acceptable for ozone, the option is raised as to whether to allow substitutions of NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), VOC, and ammonia (NH3) ton for ton for primary PM. PM substitutions are more complex and there are more chemical and technical considerations. NOx, SOx, VOC, and NH3 substitution is not consistent with the forthcoming new source review (NSR) proposed regulations.

Commenter #2 remarked that precursor substitution for one pollutant may result in an increase in another pollutant. While SO2 and NOx may be interchangeable for PM, they are not interchangeable for ozone.

Commenter #3 said that issues related to emission reductions and pollutant substitutions need to be clarified. Also, EPA needs to clarify how such options would be addressed when emission reductions may be at cross purposes with the simultaneous attainment of two NAAQS.

Commenter #5 wants references to substitutions not based on Subpart 1 concerns to be deleted. Substitution implies that there is a preferred approach that can be substituted for in special cases. Such approaches should be redefined to be consistent with the new NAAQS and the post-transition implementation plan.

Commenter #9 said that although they would be supportive of ton for ton pollution substitutions in certain situations, they believe that such a discussion for PM is premature at this time. The importance of health effects must be taken into account before this discussion continues.

Another option exists and that is to evaluate these on a case by case basis.

Commenter #3 endorses the idea of allowing case-by-case evaluations when there is merit in doing so.

j. Pre-existing Nonattainment Area Designations

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(g). Also, this commenter listed the bulleted items found here as J(1) through J(3), as Options 1 through 3. (i.e., 5(g)(1) "Option 1: The nonattainment designation remains until the designation process for the new NAAQS.")

Commenter #15 believes requirements for nonattainment areas under a new NAAQS should be based on the general requirements of Section 172 of the Clean Air Act.

Commenter #15 also wants a combination of monitoring data and modeling results to be used as the basis for designation of ozone nonattainment areas. This commenter believes all PM-fine areas should be designated as "unclassifiable" until there is a minimum of two years of actual Federal Reference Method monitoring data available and there has been a thorough consideration of other reasonable interpretation tools (particularly when establishing boundaries), at which time potential PM-fine nonattainment areas can be identified.

Pre-existing designations stand until redesignated by EPA.

(1) Options for pre-existing nonattainment areas with	ozone air quality data showing attainment of the new	NAAQS

- The nonattainment designation remains until the designation process for the new NAAQS.

- The areas are redesignated to attainment under section 107(d) of the Act based on states' complete requests accompanied by maintenance plans.

Maintenance plans based on a showing of emissions analyses for the new NAAQS similar to policy for redesignating under the 0.12 parts per million NAAQS would be acceptable. States would also be free to submit modeling demonstrations showing the estimated emissions level and concentration (increase or decrease).

Commenter #2 said monitoring data should be acceptable for attainment demonstrations as outlined in John Seitz's May 10, 1995 memorandum.

Commenter #4 said the requirement for maintenance plans should only be imposed if the area demonstrated that they would have been in violation of the new NAAQS prior to any 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment controls.

Commenter #9 supports the option in the second bullet, which is the logical option given that monitoring data indicate attainment. This commenter continues to urge use of the TCTC category here and elsewhere in this policy.

Commenter #11 said the following of Paragraph 3(j)(1): "EPA presented three options for pre-existing nonattainment areas with air quality data showing attainment of the new NAAQS to demonstrate achieving the NAAQS. The third option allows for a maintenance plan to be deemed acceptable based on a showing of emissions analyses for the new NAAQS similar to the policy for redesignating under the existing NAAQS. DOD supports the third option as it provides the most flexibility in implementing the new NAAQS, and will be the most effective in reducing the burden on the regulated facilities."

(2) Options for pre-existing nonattainment areas with ozone air quality data showing they do not attain the new NAAQS

- The areas remain designated nonattainment and the nonattainment designation would be re-affirmed under the process for the new NAAQS.

- Since the 0.12 ppm NAAQS no longer exists, the areas could be redesignated to attainment under section 107(d) of the Act if states submit complete requests accompanied by maintenance plans.

(3) Pre-existing designated 24-hour PM-10 nonattainment areas could be addressed in several ways.

- The areas could retain their designation until PM-fine data are collected showing whether the area is attaining the new NAAQS.

- The areas could retain their designation until PM-fine data are collected but states may be allowed to substitute directionally correct control measures based on sources' emissions mix of course and fine particles and submit them as SIP revisions.

- The areas could be redesignated to unclassified for PM-fine which has the same practical effect as being designated attainment.

Commenter #11 supports the third option, where the existing PM nonattainment areas could be redesignated to unclassified for PM-fine, which has the same effect as being designated as attainment. Because little data is available on the extent of potential PM-fine NAAQS, and the wide variation in the sources of PM-fine emissions across the nation, the designations of nonattainment should be based on current, accurate measurements.

k. Waivers

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(h) and suggested the title of "NOx and PM Waivers."

(1) NOx

NOx waivers under the 0.12 ppm NAAQS were granted by EPA on the basis of three separate types of showings: a) the area had three years of clean air quality data showing attainment; b) modeling showing that additional NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment; or, c) modeling showing that NOx reductions resulted in attainment disbenefits. Whether previously granted NOx waivers would continue under a new NAAQS could depend on which of the rationales were relied on. The options follow.

- Option 1: All waivers could be revoked regardless of the rationale for granting the waiver because they were issued under NAAQS that no longer exist.

Commenter #4 said it appears that Option 1 contradicts the previously stated or implied position that progress should be continued to be made toward the old standard in spite of the pending change, and even though that change may be directionally incorrect.

- Option 2: If an area was granted a waiver based on a showing of clean data and it does not meet the new NAAQS, the waiver could be revoked because the basis for granting the waiver no longer exists.

- Option 3: If an area was granted a waiver based on a modeling analysis showing that NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment or would result in attainment disbenefits, the waiver could be revoked if it couldn't be determined through available modeling that reductions would not contribute to attainment of the new NAAQS or would produce disbenefits.

- Option 4: Waivers could remain until the state reviews the basis of the waiver against the new NAAQS, e.g., fully completes its analyses for the new NAAQS, and determines whether NOx reductions are needed or beneficial. If the results show that the waiver is inconsistent with the new NAAQS, it would be revoked.

Commenter #2 said Option 4 is the appropriate course of action. However, transport effects on downwind areas must be part of the analysis.

Commenter #4 said Option 4 appears to be the most reasonable from a sound scientific basis approach.

Commenter #7 has the following to say about NOx reductions: the two sections, 182(c)(2)(C) and 182(f) need to be revised and joined together into a framework that addresses the benefits of NOx reductions in attainment planning and transport mitigation. Rather than an Opt-Out, or a substitution, a policy that tries to achieve balance between the competing interests of an upwind and downwind area should be predicated on reducing population exposure. This commenter stated that recognition of the advantages and disadvantages of NOx controls should be viewed in terms of: a) a multi-hour standard which may switch the direction of precursor control to make hydrocarbon control more favorable in many cases; and b) the potential that NOx reductions can have positive impacts on downwind ozone levels. These two potentially conflicting results need to be dealt with in a consistent technical manner which aims to minimize any adverse effects, and does so in a cost effective manner.

Commenter #9 supports option 4 since it would use sound science as the basis for a decision. Decisions based on sanctions should incorporate cost/benefit analyses, similar to determining the times allowed for individual areas to reach attainment.

Commenter #11 supports Option 4 because it would be the least disruptive, and provide for the most analytical decisionmaking process. Option 4 would allow that waivers remain in place until the state reviews the basis of the waiver against the new NAAQS. If the results show that the waiver is inconsistent with the new NAAQS, it would be revoked.

In any event, if a waiver is revoked, there would not be any immediate consequences because EPA would have to take action to make the revocation effective because the NOx waiver actions are codified in the Code of Regulations.

Commenter #5 suggests labeling the above paragraph as item 2 within this NOx and PM Waivers section.

The EPA's eventual implementation program for the new NAAQS could address the following waiver actions.

Commenter #5 suggests labeling the above paragraph as item 3 within this NOx and PM Waivers section.

- NOx waivers could be issued in the future implementation program for the new NAAQS and, although preliminary scientific analyses for new NAAQS indicate that both VOC and NOx reductions are needed to meet the alternative new NAAQS currently under consideration, a case could be made for individual areas.

- Subject to further discussion, NOx and PM waivers could possibly be integrated in such a way that their continuance or approval would be based on impacts on both.

Commenter #3 said the options presented related to NOx waivers do not seem consistent with the "continue with current programs" approach. These options require further clarification.

Commenter #9 said the discussion of NOx waivers should include a discussion of the options for the modeling tools and endpoints that should be evaluated in the decisions regarding NOx waivers. The importance of using appropriate grid sizes in the models should be emphasized along with overall population-based ozone risk assessments.

Commenter #5 suggests adding a third bulleted item here worded as follows: Procedures for deciding whether to grant or revoke NOx waivers following the promulgation of new NAAQS should be designed to account for benefits and disbenefits to all affected areas. Efficiency could be used to balance the needs of urban areas with those of rural transport areas.

l. Sanctions and Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs)

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(i).

Sanctions and FIPs should be consistent as to their treatment in the interim policy. Also, if they were placed under the authority of subpart 1, they stand. The options follow.

Commenter #4 said this section fails to mention other repercussions that may be defined as sanction, but which will be perceived as having a negative impact on the states such as reclassification to a higher level upon failure to meet an existing attainment date. This commenter believes the suggestion they made in item 3(f) above would resolve this issue.

- Option 1: Existing sanctions clocks could continue but states would have flexibility to substitute alternative measures.

- Option 2: Sanctions clocks could be terminated while retaining the requirements for which they were started.

- Option 3: Lastly, EPA could rely on its authority to do SIP calls for failures to meet subpart 1 requirements. EPA would have flexibility in whether or make SIP calls and in the timing of SIP calls.

Commenter #2 said Option 3 is the appropriate option, as it provides the EPA with flexibility and some discretion.

Commenter #11 supports Option 3 for addressing sanction clocks, which would allow EPA to rely on its authority to do SIP calls for failure to meet subpart 1 requirements. This commenter urged EPA to take advantage of the Act's flexibility to work with, not against, states.

m. New Source Review (NSR)

Commenter #5 considers this to be item 5(j).

Commenter #6 stressed the importance of EPA providing clear direction on the NSR/PSD program during the transition period for the PM NAAQS. History has shown that incorrectly processing a permit application can have dire consequences for projects that are being opposed by environmentalists, labor unions, or business competitors. New sources and modifications will be proposed and constructed during the transition period and it must be clear whether they follow NSR or PSD regulations, or both.

Commenter #6 added that the area designations for PM-10 and PM-2.5 will affect which new source rule applies during the transition period. This commenter supports the suggested option to retain the PM-10 designations until sufficient data is collected to designate the area for PM-2.5. This would keep the current NSR and PSD permitting programs in place until a correct PM-2.5 designation can be made. Initially redesignating PM-10 nonattainment areas as "unclassified" for PM-2.5 will cause confusion for permitting rules. It may also encourage backsliding because the current regulations and programs address a defunct standard.

Moreover, commenter #6 added that, as an option for areas that are unlikely to be nonattainment for PM-2.5, it may be advantageous to modify their current NSR rule for PM-2.5 before a PM-2.5 designation is made. This could be done in any area that would be likely to limit increases in PM-2.5 emissions before the PM-2.5 nonattainment designation becomes official. Keeping the current NSR and PSD permitting programs in place for PM-10 during the transition period would provide EPA with more time to develop the PM-2.5 permitting program and other necessary policies. Then designations can be made for PM-2.5 with a workable permitting program. The list of NSR/PSD permit program decisions includes establishing new source and modification emission thresholds; developing offset and emission reductions credit (ERC) policies that address PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions and impacts; translating current PM-10 ERCs to PM-2.5 offsets; incorporating PM-2.5 precursors into PM-2.5 emissions and ERCs; and establishing PSD applicability thresholds and a PM-2.5 increment. If these policies are written at the same time the guidance is needed to process the permits, the burden on industry and permitting agencies would be heavy.

Commenter #15 wants EPA to consider the implications of a new NAAQS on existing NSR and PSD programs.

(1) Part D

If the nonattainment designation remains in place for an area, no options are being raised as to whether Part D new source review applies. Interim implementation, however, could be addressed in several ways.

(a) Options New or Modified Sources:

- Option 1: The status quo, i.e., major source definitions and offset ratios associated with the old classifications continue to apply.

- Option 2: Major source definitions and offset ratios revert to the provisions in subpart 1, i.e., 100 tons for major sources and 1:1 offsets.

Commenter #2 said Option 2 is the appropriate action, as offsets are going to be difficult to obtain, and this option at least maintains the status quo.

Commenter #5 suggests adding the following as an Option 3: NSR requirements can be eliminated for pollutants subject to a trading program and upon demonstration that no local "hotspots" will be created.

(b) Options for obtaining offsets:

- Status quo, i.e., offsets must be obtained from nonattainment areas based on the old classifications.

- Offsets could be obtained from any nonattainment area resulting in a net air quality benefit because the classifications no longer stand. The OTR attainment area exception stands.

- Offsets could be obtained from any area resulting in a net air quality benefit because the classifications no longer stand. The justification would be based on existing scientific analyses showing benefits. Also, since classifications no longer directly apply, the requirement for limiting offsets to nonattainment areas falls away as well.

Commenter #2 said offsets should be obtainable from the broadest geographic market possible with case-by-case review to ensure no local problems are created.

Commenter #11 supports Option 3 above, which allows offsets to be obtained from "any areas resulting in a net air quality benefit because the classifications no longer stand." Just as classification boundaries need to be more realistic, the area from which offsets can be obtained needs to be flexible to allow states to account for actual conditions.

(2) Performance-based Standards

Best Available Control Technology (BACT), Lowest Achievable Emission Reductions (LAER), and New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) requirements remain unchanged.

(3) Part C

(a) PM Increments (There are no increments for ozone.)

- Option 1: Retain PM-10 increments until PM-fine increments are developed.

Commenter #2 said Option 1 is the appropriate course of action.

- Option 2: Accelerate development of PM-fine increments to promulgate as the same time as the potential new PM NAAQS.

(b) Monitoring Requirements

EPA will need to develop an interim monitoring policy for compliance pre-construction review for the PM-fine NAAQS.

(c) PM Precursor Substitution for New Sources

If substitutions are allowed on a ton for ton VOC or on a percent basis for NOX, the question is raised as to whether EPA wants to substitute NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), VOC, and ammonia (NH3) ton for ton for primary PM. PM substitutions are more complex and there are more chemical and technical considerations. NOx, SOx, VOC, and NH3 substitution is not consistent with the forthcoming new source review (NSR) regulations. The option exists, however, to consider these on a case by case basis.

Staff Draft; Do Not Quote or Cite

Commenter #5 suggests adding an item 5(k) entitled "Monitoring." After this title, the following text is proposed: As part of its interim policy, EPA will encourage the development of a monitoring policy that minimizes the present policy's disincentives to placing additional monitors.

Miscellaneous

Commenters #1, #12, and #15 support the antibacksliding and maintenance of progress concepts in the IIP.

For the reasons cited previously under section 3(d), Commenters #1 and #12 believe the EPA cannot and should not waive any of the existing deadlines, control strategies, or requirements for ozone and PM-10. This suggests two possible options for transition policy:

(a) Require continued compliance with all specific requirements and deadlines under current law for ozone (1-hour) and PM-10 (annual and 24-hour) planning and attainment. These requirements and deadlines would apply to the pre-revision NAAQS. The state would prepare a separate SIP under § 172 (b) to attain the new NAAQS, or

(b) Require continued compliance with all specific SIP submittal deadlines, control requirements, and attainment deadlines in current law, but allow the state the option of demonstrating progress toward and attainment of the new NAAQS. For example, a state currently classified as serious for PM-10 would have the option of demonstrating attainment of the new NAAQS (rather than the old NAAQS) by the end of 2001. The SIP submittal would be due at the same time as the serious area SIP under current law, and it would have to meet all the same requirements (e.g. Best Available Control Measures). If these requirements were met, the state would not have to make a separate demonstration as to the old 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS. This option assumes repeal of the 24-hour PM-10 and 1-hr. ozone NAAQS. These commenters oppose such a repeal, but that is a matter that they will address in the NAAQS review process.

According to these commenters, the above options avoid the problems that would arise under a case-by-case approach that allows states to evade current attainment deadlines and control strategy requirements.

Commenter #3 said the interim policy must support a program that minimizes, if not eliminates, revision of existing rules and regulations, or the creation of new rules or regulations until a final implementation plan is in place. This commenter also said the development of a final implementation plan must be spelled out more clearly and integrated into the interim plan as much as possible.

Commenter #3 feels that the schedule being imposed will not allow adequate time for deliberation by the participants. This commenter also wants the basis for an integrated program spelled out more clearly, including specific scientific support providing clear and convincing evidence that an integrated program is necessary and beneficial. Lastly, this commenter noted some progress in factoring in economic considerations, but stressed that the ultimate implementation program must ensure that benefits exceed costs.

Commenter #4 strongly requests that the proposed IIP be developed to provide incentives to the states and regulated community to continue to develop and implement programs to achieve the NAAQS, especially incentives for early control. Simply mandating the continuation and even expansion of existing programs without some incentives, or at least justification for their need in light of a changing standard, is not likely to be well received by many states or the regulated community. This commenter also supports the inclusion of cost/benefit analysis in the development of the IIP, and in other efforts to develop policies to implement the NAAQS.

Commenter #4 expressed concern that the manner in which the IIP has been presented implies that many of the principles are already established and thus are open to only limited debate. Despite assurances to the contrary, made by Mr. John Seitz at the March 21, 1996 FACA Subcommittee meeting, this commenter has already experienced the mindset that this proposal is becoming the "guiding" principle by which some of EPA's Regional Office' staff are negotiating with states on current SIP issues. It does not appear that Mr. Seitz's message is being communicated very effectively to the rest of the Agency.

Commenter #4 also noted questions on the part of several interested stakeholders about why EPA is forcing the development of such a comprehensive policy in two months and then allowing a full year for public comments. This commenter suggested a more equitable balance between time allowed for development of the IIP and the public comment period. Otherwise, a reasonable justification as to why more time is not being allowed for development of the proposed policy would assist in its gaining acceptance.

Another concern of commenter #4 is the lack of a process in the proposed policy to allow for periodic evaluation and corrections. The transition period should include a procedure for "mid-course" evaluations and implementation of any necessary corrections. Examples of this include the many changes in emission inventory techniques, data collection, and modeling technology occurring since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were passed. This commenter wants the interim period used to update the baseline emissions inventories and compare any projected air quality levels with actual monitored levels.

Commenter #4 stressed the need for a strong commitment to obtaining the requisite data to develop successful plans. Incentives to develop more comprehensive monitoring systems should be an integral part of the proposed IIP. Providing adequate time to develop, implement, and obtain funding for a more comprehensive data gathering process should likewise be an integral part of the proposed IIP. This commenter suggests putting the IIP process on the same schedule as the standard review to provide adequate time to accomplish this objective.

Commenter #5 wants the IIP to be issued in two phases, with the first consisting of principles and objectives only, and the second containing all the necessary rules for the transition period. The first phase should be issued prior to promulgation of the new NAAQS and the second phase should become effective at the time the new NAAQS are promulgated, and will remain effective until EPA promulgates new regulations for the new NAAQS.

Commenter #5 noted two serious downsides to maintaining current and planned programs in "full force and effect" except "case-by-case" substitutions. The first is the possible continuation of costly programs which may later be seen as inconsistent with the new NAAQS. And the second is the possibility that states may choose inaction rather than to waste resources, while waiting for the new rules to come out.

Commenter #5 said the the alternative IIP they have proposed, predicated on the principle of "progress without regrets" will offer increased credibility - and therefore compliance - during the transition period, as well as the potential to develop a regulatory strategy that is more cost-effective and flexible than the current strategy.

Commenter #6 expressed agreement with most of the proposed policy, especially regarding the continuation of existing PM-10 programs. However, this commenter said the NSR/PSD program and the effective duration of the IIP should be looked at in more detail.

Commenter #7 was unsure of the intended purpose of the IIP. Though this is a draft, and it is interim, there is enough there to provide a sense of where EPA sees implementation going for a new set of standards. This commenter found it disturbing that the draft does not "look outside of the box". This commenter also felt that most of what is in this draft reflects the status quo with some very minor changes. Finally, the commenter feels that the process is moving much too rapidly for any but the most rudimentary scientific input.

Commenter #7 feels that the underlying issue that has not yet been addressed has to do with the fact that if this is a health based primary standard, then the primary goal should be to reduce per capita population exposure to ozone levels above the standard. The IIP focuses on reducing the peak, and that does not necessarily equate to reducing human exposure.

Commenter #7 was also concerned over why conventional approaches to implementation were not being challenged.

Commenter #7 said that the relationship between emission reductions and changes in population exposure need to be explored more fully. This commenter was also concerned that the inadequacy of modeling for demonstrating attainment had not yet been fully recognized.

Commenter #7 identified the following as major implementation/planning issues to consider if EPA chooses to revise the ozone standard: classification, attainment dates, use of new index for classification scheme, the "too-close-to-call" category, attainment data for certain downwind transport areas, linkage in planning between transport couples, transport mitigation, revision of percent reduction and RFP requirements, new metrics for progress, new requirements for areas not meeting progress metrics, revision of NOx requirements.

Commenter #7 said that if there is a secondary standard in the form of a 3 month block average (SUM 06=xppm), examples that have been looked at thus far suggest that a primary standard planning process may not address the attainment of the secondary standard. This is because it does not occur at the same time, nor peak in the same location. Also, it is not known how to show that any emissions reductions will result in attainment. The models developed for the primary standard are episodic in nature, and are not meant to be used to provide cumulative averages; nor are they necessarily well suited to modeling ozone levels that approach background.

Commenter #9 was concerned that the draft policy does not reflect the key points discussed at the March 21, 1996, FACA Subcommittee meeting related to flexibility, the use of sound science as the basis of decisions, costs, benefits, risks, and exposure. This commenter recommends a separate discussion on the importance and use of these concepts in the IIP, and that such concepts be incorporated into the existing (modified) text as appropriate.

Commenter #9 also pointed out that because of the non-linear nature of ozone formation, it is not clear that an implementation plan designed to reduce peak 1-hour ozone concentrations will be optimal to reduce 8-hour ozone concentrations or overall risk from ozone. A new ozone standard may necessitate different relative emphasis on NOx and VOC reductions.

In addition, this commenter believes that the main principle behind the IIP should be "to continue reasonable progress" in reducing ozone and whatever measure of PM is determined to be causally related to demonstrated adverse health effects. With the new information provided by OTAG and other sources, this commenter believes that the Agency should revisit the definition of what combination of regional and local controls will lead to reasonable continuing progress in reducing ozone.

Commenter #9 is concerned that the transition policy as written does not include incorporation of the "too close to call" (TCTC) concept or the population weighting of monitors concept.

Commenter #9 also noted that one of the stated objectives of the policy is "to be objective in the portrayal of the eventual implementation program for potential new NAAQS" and "not include any preference or decisions for the future program under potential new NAAQS". In addition to this, this commenter said the objective should be expanded "to be objective in the portrayal of the range of possible new NAAQS by including information about the range of options supported by the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee."

Finally, commenter #9 also pointed out that there is a dearth of information on the nature of fine PM air quality (level, composition, relative role of transport vs. local sources) in most areas of the country. This commenter seems to feel that it would be wise to wait until more is known about PM-fine before developing a new NAAQS, and that promulgation of a new PM NAAQS, if it could not be implemented smoothly, might result in a significant public backlash leading to the reopening of the Clean Air Act.

Commenter #10 supports the inclusion of consideration of costs versus benefits, to the extent possible, in development of the interim policy. While cost/benefit considerations are not a factor in setting the NAAQS, they should be in development of policies to implement the NAAQS.

Commenter #10 was concerned about the rapid pace of development of the IIP. This commenter believes that all issues should have opportunity for adequate discussion by the Work Group members before any action is taken on them. This commenter also believes that the proposed objectives of the Interim Implementation Policy need to be subject to a higher level of review and discussion and suggests that the Work Group refrain from adopting any such objectives until after opportunity for thorough review and discussion.

In general, the comments of commenter #11 highlight particular agency Conformity Determination concerns, and overall this commenter supports policy options that provide the most flexibility to states in designing programs that meet their local needs. In addition, this commenter encourages EPA to assure that the IIP fully embraces flexibility in the form of emissions trading wherever possible.

Commenter #13 wants the IIP to be carefully reviewed and revised to emphasize a regional approach to the ozone problem.

Commenter #14 believes implementation strategies should integrate flexibility, market programs, cost-effectiveness, reduction goals, and the special needs of Class 1 areas, Tribes, and small sources.

Commenter #15 stressed that work should begin immediately to develop and implement a comprehensive and sophisticated national public education and outreach strategy to enhance public awareness and understanding of issues related to the NAAQS revisions and implementation of new standards.

Commenter #15 suggests that an independent panel of experts should be convened immediately to identify and develop several options for near-term progress. These progress options should be designed so that they provide cost savings and air quality benefits and/or scientific knowledge.

Commenter #15 believes the EPA should eliminate disincentives to the early implementation of control measures and additional, improved monitoring. These commenters also request that the EPA establish incentives for such efforts.

Commenter #15 said it is imperative that adequate funds be made available to facilitate the considerable research, monitoring, assessment, planning, and outreach efforts necessary to implement new ozone and PM NAAQS.

Commenter #15 wants EPA to take expeditious action towards adopting the most effective national control strategies possible.

Commenter #19 said it is confusing to combine PM and ozone requirements, because the ozone requirements are complex and PM are not. This commenter also expressed frustration about the length and complexity of the IIP.