STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF 8-HOUR O3 NAAQS

Introduction

•	In July 1997, EPA revised the ozone NAAQS

•	EPA initially indicated it would implement under more flexible requirements ("subpart 1") rather than more prescriptive requirements ("subpart 2") and issued a public review draft guidance document (November 1998)

•	EPA was sued in U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit over the standard itself and its implementation approach

•	May 1999–Appeals Court ruled on unconstitutional delegation of authority and improper implementation approach

•	EPA appealed to Supreme Court

•	February 2001–Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of air quality standard setting but held that EPA could not ignore subpart 2 when implementing the 8-hour standard

Status of Planning

•	EPA considering optional approaches for resolving both transition from 1-hr ozone NAAQS and inconsistency between subparts 1 and 2

•	EPA working closely with STAPPA/ALAPCO to develop approaches

•	EPA wanting to reach out to stakeholders to obtain input and concerns

.

Key issues

Subpart 1 or 2 preference

Relevance/desirability of mandatory subpart 2 requirements

Classification method for Table 1 of subpart 2

Timing (SIP submission, attainment dates)

Geographic coverage differences

8-HOUR OZONE NAAQS IMPLEMENTATION

OVERALL APPROACHES FOR TRANSITION FROM 1-HR TO 8-HR STANDARD

2-Standard Approach

Basic approach: First attain the 1-hour standard, then prepare new plan to attain the 8-hour standard

Issues

1.	For 8-hour areas isolated from 1-hour areas, should 8-hour implementation begin immediately upon designation?

2.	Should current 1-hour nonattainment areas continue to implement the 1-hour standard until: (a) air quality meets the standard; (b) their (original? extended/bumped-up?) 1-
hour attainment date; or (c) until they attain?

-	EPA would need to explore mechanisms to achieve this sequential implementation; options that could be discussed include deferring the effective date of 8-hour designations for 1-hour nonattainment areas; deferring the SIP submission requirements for the 8-hour standard; deferring SIP implementation requirements for the 8-hour standard

3.	Should areas violating the 1-hour standard but designated attainment be required to immediately begin implementing the 8-hour standard or should they first be required to plan for attainment of the 1-hour standard?

4.	How do we address counties that do not meet the 8-hour standard but are near/adjacent to 1-hr areas?

1-Standard Approach

Basic approach: Implement the 8-hour standard only; revoke 1-hour standard in the near term. No backsliding from 1-hour implementation; maintain measures from existing (1-hour) SIPs. No currently designated nonattainment area would be designated attainment without an approved maintenance plan.

Issues

1.	Should the 1-hour standard for an area be revoked once its 8-hour ozone SIP is approved, at designation, or upon SIP submittal?

2.	Should areas that are classified for the 1-hour standard: (a) retain their current classification; (b) shift to another classification in subpart 2; or (c) shift to a lower classification in either subpart 1 or 2?