April 1, 2002

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

Docket Number A-2001-31

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

401 M. Street, SW

Room M-1500 (Mail Code 6102)

Washington, D. C. 20460

Dear Sirs:

Please accept the following comments from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission concerning the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed options for implementation of the 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) . These comments are intended to be general in nature to suggest some basic principles upon which EPA should base its development of a proposed rule for implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. More specific comments and recommendations will be submitted in response to the EPA's formal rule proposal during the public comment period. We have taken the liberty of including with these comments a suggestion of an additional classification option for your consideration.

EPA should include the following basic principles in the development of a proposed rule for implementation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

1. In making determinations regarding implementation, EPA should separate areas that are currently nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard from areas that are currently attainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, but would exceed the 8-hour ozone standard. Current 1-hour nonattainment areas are already subject to the prescriptive subpart 2 requirements, and considering EPA's proposed "anti- backsliding" provisions, would not be able to remove those requirements under the new 8-hour implementation rule. New areas that are nonattainment only for the 8-hour ozone standard typically monitor lower levels of ozone, and thus should have more flexibility in the development and implementation of plans to meet their specific air quality needs under the 8-hour ozone standard. Providing the flexibility afforded under subpart 1 for these new areas will allow them to develop air quality improvement plans specifically tailored to address their individual problems without imposing the prescriptive measures of subpart 2 that in many cases will provide very little air quality improvement. For these new areas that are nonattainment only for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA's implementation process should include the prescriptive subpart 2 provisions only as a backstop to the subpart 1 provisions as proposed in the suggested additional classification option discussed at the end of these comments.

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center

Page 2

April 1, 2002

2. Designations should be based on monitored data and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) should not be the absolute basis for designation of areas. Each county in or near a potential nonattainment area should be evaluated based on its impact on the nonattainment area and included in the area only as appropriate. Counties with a single or very small number of stationary sources or significant mobile and area sources whose emissions may impact the nonattainment area should not be included if the state implementation plan (SIP) includes adequate provisions to address those emissions. Furthermore, counties with insignificant impact should not be included just because they happen to be part of the CMSA. This approach would focus the nonattainment designation on those counties whose emissions significantly contribute to the nonattainment status rather than including perimeter counties with insignificant emissions. The use of emissions inventories and modeling information may be necessary to demonstrate which counties have insignificant impacts on nonattainment areas, but the information used to determine any nonattainment designation should be based primarily on monitored data. Modeling or impact on other areas should be considered only when and to the extent that monitored data does not exist.

3. The transition from the 1-hour NAAQS to the 8-hour NAAQS should minimize the time an area is subject to both standards. Minimizing the period of overlapping standards will reduce confusion among the public and local or state officials concerning the applicable ozone standard and will allow states to focus resources on resolving the more significant health related air quality issue (the 8-hour ozone standard).

4. Areas significantly impaired by transported pollutants from upwind areas must have the same attainment dates as the upwind areas, because such areas are dependent on attainment by the upwind area for their own attainment.

5. EPA should allow the flexibility for states to add or delete counties that are currently designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard from 8-hour ozone nonattainment designation if they do not violate the 8-hour standard nor significantly contribute to such violations.

6. The rule should include a flexible plan for voluntary early emission reduction actions leading to early attainment and addressing attainment maintenance.

Suggested additional classification option:

Separate treatment of new areas and counties violating the 8-hour ozone NAAQS and areas that currently violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

•	Implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for those areas that currently violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS under subpart 2, because these areas are already subject to subpart 2 and implementation under subpart 2 would generally result in the imposition of minimal new subpart 2 requirements plus the submission of an 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment
demonstration state implementation plan.

•	Implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for those new areas and counties adjacent to or near areas that currently violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS under subpart 1, because subpart 1 allows more flexibility for such areas and counties to design and implement air quality improvement plans to address their specific needs rather than the prescriptive measures of subpart 2 that in many instances will result in insignificant air quality improvement. Include a provision that if a new area fails to meet it obligations or attainment date under subpart 1, it automatically becomes subject to subpart 2 with an appropriate classification and associated prescriptive measures.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide these preliminary comments and look forward to continuing to work with the EPA in development of plans to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If you have questions or would like further information on these issues please feel free to contact me or Mr. Herb Williams at (512) 239-5588.

Sincerely,

Ralph Marquez, Commissioner

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

cc:	Mr. Robert J. Huston, Chairman

Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White, Commissioner

Mr. Jeffrey A. Saitas, Executive Director

Mr. John Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mr. Gregg Cooke, Regional Administrator, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6