# APPENDIX ONE Redesignation Guidance from U.S. EPA

### From: Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov

To: Hoch, Joseph A - DNR;
CC: Aburano.Douglas@epamail.epa.gov;Mooney.John@epamail.
epa.gov; Subject: Re: Fw: Ozone Redesignation Questions
Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 4:05:22 PM
Attachments:

Hi Joe,

It is likely that I will be writing the Federal Register notice for the Wisconsin areas, so I'd be happy to work with you on the redesignation requests. I have answered your specific questions below, but it might be useful to set up a call so that we can make sure all of the redesignation requirements are covered and I can answer any other questions you may have. I will be out of the office the rest of this week but will be back in the office on Monday and Wednesday next week. Let me know if either of those days work for you.

Kathleen

______________________ Kathleen D'Agostino Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA - Region 5 Phone: (312) 886-1767 email: dagostino.kathleen@eap.gov

----- Forwarded by Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US on 02/18/2009 09:53 AM

----- "Hoch, Joseph A - DNR" <Joseph.Hoch@wis consin.gov> To Douglas Aburano/R5/USEPA/US@EPA

### 02/18/2009 09:50 cc AM

Subject Ozone Redesignation Questions

Hi Doug,

I'm currently working on a redesignation request for our nine nonattainment counties and have a few questions for you. The current nonattainment counties include Door, Kenosha, Manitowoc, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Sheboygan, Washington, and Waukesha.

1. We intend to use the 2002 inventory for our nonattainment inventory, a 2007 inventory grown from the 2005 inventory for our attainment inventory, a projected 2012 inventory for our interim inventory, and a projected 2020 inventory as our maintenance inventory. Does this sound alright? It sounds fine.

2. Do you have any recommendations for developing a 2020 inventory? The majority of available growth factors, such as the Pechan factors from LADCO, are only available until 2018. Would it be appropriate to switch growth factors after 2018 or do a linear interpolation? We need to use at least a 2020 inventory so the maintenance inventory is 10 years following the EPA's redesignation determination. Linear interpolation is fine.

3. Are we still to use the following guidance documents for the redesignation request: These guidance documents remain applicable. I can provide you with a list of other supporting guidance documents (also issued circa 1992-1994).

### - “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” issued September 4, 1992, to EPA Regional Air Directors

- A September 17, 1993 memo, "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992" from Michael H. Shapiro to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors.

- "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard" dated May 10, 1995 from John S. Seitz to the EPA Regional Air Division Directors.

4. Has there been any updated redesignation guidance issued recently? No.

Thank you for any information you can provide.

Joe Hoch Air Pollution Control Specialist Bureau of Air Management Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources phone: (608) 264-8861 e-mail: Joseph.Hoch@wisconsin.gov

### From: Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov

To: Hoch, Joseph A - DNR;
CC: Subject: RE: 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Redesignation Guidance
Date: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:57:31 AM
Attachments:

No problem. I probably won't get a chance to review your draft until next week though. Sorry.

______________________ Kathleen D'Agostino Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA - Region 5 Phone: (312) 886-1767 email: dagostino.kathleen@eap.gov

"Hoch, Joseph A - DNR" <Joseph.Hoch@wis consin.gov> To Kathleen 04/01/2009 10:49 Dagostino/R5/USEPA/US@EPA AM cc

Subject RE: 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Redesignation Guidance

### Thanks!

-----Original Message----- From: Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Dagostino.Kathleen@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:48 AM To: Hoch, Joseph A - DNR Subject: Re: 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Redesignation Guidance

Here they are.

(See attached file: 11-30-1993 Maintenance Demo.pdf)(See attached file: 4-30-1992 Maintenance Plans.pdf)(See attached file: 5-10-1995 Clean Data.pdf)(See attached file: 6-1-1992 Contingency Measures.pdf)(See attached file: 6-18-1990 Laxton.pdf)(See attached file: 8-17-1993 TSDs - Redes.pdf) (See attached file: 9-4-1992 Calcagni.pdf)(See attached file: 9-17-1993 Shapiro.pdf)(See attached file: 9-28-1992 SIPs-CAA Deadlines.pdf)(See attached file: 10-14-1994 NSR Redesignation.pdf)(See attached file: 11-16-1994 Limited Maintenance.pdf)

______________________ Kathleen D'Agostino Environmental Engineer U.S. EPA - Region 5 Phone: (312) 886-1767 email: dagostino.kathleen@eap.gov

"Hoch, Joseph A - DNR" <Joseph.Hoch@wis consin.gov> To Kathleen 03/31/2009 01:09 Dagostino/R5/USEPA/US@EPA PM cc

### Subject 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard Redesignation Guidance

Hi Kathleen,

In an email dated February 18, 2009 you stated that you could provide me with a list of other supporting guidance documents (also issued circa 1992-1994) besides the following four documents:

- "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," issued September 4, 1992.

- "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines," issued October 28, 1992.

- "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) on or after November 15, 1992," issued September 17, 1993.

- "Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard," issued May 10, 1995.

Could you send me that list? I'm working on putting the EPA guidance appendix together for our redesignation request.

Thanks, Joe1 Hoch, Joseph A - DNR

From: Doty.Edward@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 3:02 PM To: Hoch, Joseph A - DNR Cc: Rosenthal.Steven@epamail.epa.gov Subject: RE: Nonpoint Controls

Hi Joe,

My reading of a May 30, 2007 EPA policy memorandum, "Emission Reduction Credit fo Three Federal Rules for Categories of Consumer and Commercial Products under Section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act", leads me to conclude that you can also apply 75 percent of the total possible VOC emission reductions expected for the expected AIM and consumer products rules in 2007. The policy memorandum mentions "immediate" emission reduction credits and acknowledges that, of the date of the policy memorandum, some AIM coatings and consumer products were already complying with the expected emission reduction credits. This tells me that it is correct to assume the 75 percent crediting is also appropriate for 2007, as well as for 2008.

Unfortunately, EPA has yet to publish the final rules. Therefore, it is incorrect to take 100 percent of the emission reduction credits for 2009 and later. Until EPA completes the promulgation and implementation of the rules, or the State has adopted and implemented its own AIM and consumer products rules, it is not acceptable to assume that 100 percent of the possible emission reductions have been achieved. We would continue to accept the 75 percent of possible emission reductions for the 2009 and post-2009 periods.

Ed Doty

"Hoch, Joseph A - DNR" <Joseph.Hoch@wis consin.gov> To Edward Doty/R5/USEPA/US@EPA 05/26/2009 02:42 cc PM

Subject RE: Nonpoint Controls

Hi Ed,

I am developing a 2007 emissions inventory for our ozone redesignation request. I have a question for you regarding nonpoint emission reduction credits. This relates to the email below from Grant Hetherington. What percentage of reduction would be acceptable for a 2007 emission inventory for the rules mentioned.2 Thanks, Joe Hoch

_____________________________________________ From: Hetherington, Grant D - DNR Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 1:19 PM To: Hoch, Joseph A - DNR Subject: Nonpoint Controls

Joe,

Here are the nonpoint controls that Ed Doty agreed to for the 2008 EI.

a. For revised architectural and industrial maintenance (AIMS) coatings rule, take 75% of 31% (i.e. 23.25%) for a control factor. The reductions apply to 2401001000 and 2401100000. b. For revised household and institutional consumer products rule, take 75% of 29% (i.e. 21.75%) for a control factor. The reductions apply to 2460100000, 2460200000, 2460400000, 2460500000, 2460600000, 2460800000 and 2460900000.

For 2007, you need ask Ed Doty about allowed controls. For 2010 on, you can assume that 100% credit for the controls can be taken.

GrantUNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
RESEARCHTRIANGLEPARK. NC27711 I \. 

# M,4YIO1995

MEMORANDUM OFFICEOF AIRQUALITYPLANNING

ANDSTANDARDS

(MD-10) John S. seitz, Directo Office of Air Quality P FROM: SUBJECT: Reasonable Further**Progress~** and Related Requirements for Meeting the Ozone Nationa

TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI

. Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X

I. policy

This memorandum sets forth EPA's interpretation of certain requirements of subpart 2 of part Dof title I of the Clean Air Act as they relate to ozone nonattainment areas that are meeting the ozone NAAQS. Specifically, it addresses whether such areas must submit SIP revisions concerning reasonable further progress and attainment demonstrations. The requirements at issue include the 15 percent plan and attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) for moderate and above ozone nonattainment

areas and the attainment demonstration and post-1996 RFP requirements of section 182(c)(2) for serious and above ozone nonattainment areas. Related requirements include the moderate

ozone nonattainment requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning contingency measures, the serious ozone nonattainment area requirements of section 182(c)(9) concerning contingency
measures, section 182(c)(5) concerning transportation control

measures and section 182(g) concerning milestones. They also include the elements of the severe and extreme ozone nonattainment area requirements of section 182(d)(1)(A) concerning vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP requirements.2

For the reasons described below, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret these provisions so as not to require

areas that are meeting the ozone standard to make the SIP submissions to EPA described in the provisions as long as the

areas continue to meet the standard. If such an area were to monitor a violation ofthe standard prior to being redesignated to attainment, however, the area would have to address the pertinent requirements and submit the SIP revisions described in thoseprovisions to EPA.

. This memorandum also describes the process by which EPA will determine that an area is attaining the ozone standard and need not make these SIP submissions.

II. Interpretation and Legal Rationale

The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret prov1s10ns regarding RFP and attainment demonstrations, along with related requirements, so as not to require SIP submissions if an ozone nonattainment area sUbject to those requirements is in fact attaining the ozone standard (i.e., attainment ofthe NAAQS is demonstrated with 3 consecutive years of complete, qualityassured air quality monitoring data). The EPA has previously interpreted the general provisions of subpart 1 ofpart Dof title I (sections 171 and 172) so as not to require the' submission of SIP revisions concerning RFP, attainment demonstrations, or contingency measures, and EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the ozone-specific provisions of subpart 2 in the same manner. First, with respect to RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes ofpart Dof title I, RFP "means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment ofthe applicable NAAQS by the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing with the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2), or the

more specific RFP requirements of subpart 2 for classified ozone nonattainment areas (the 15 percent plan requirement of section 182(b)(1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182(c) (2»,1 the stated purpose ofRFP is to ensure attainment by the applicable attainment date. If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement will have

lEPA notes that paragraph (1) of subsection 182(b) is ent,itled "PLAN PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS" and that subparagraph (B) ofparagraph 182(c)(2) is entitled "REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION,II thereby making it clear that both the 15 percent plan requirement of section 182(b)(1) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182(c)(2) are specific varieties ofRFP requirements.

### ( 3 already been fulfilled and EPA does not believe that the area need submit revisions providing for the further emission reductions described in the RFP provisions of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C).

The EPA notes that it took this view with respect to the general RFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the General Preamble for the Interpretation ofTitle I ofthe CleanAir Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992», and it is now extending thatlnterpretation to the specific provis'lons of subpart 2. In the General Preamble, EPA stated, in the context of a discussion of the requirements applicable to the evaluation of requests to redesignate nonattainment areas to attainment, that the "requirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignation to attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the area must show that the area has already attained. Showing that the State will make RFP towards attainment will, therefore, have no meaning at that point" (57 FR 13564).2
Second, with respect to the attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) and 182(c)(2), an analogous rationale leads to the same result. section 182(b)(1) requires that the plan provide for "such specific annual reductions in emissions

. . . as necessary to attain the primary NAAQS by the attainment date applicable under this Act." Section 182(c)(2)(A) simply requires a "demonstration that the plan, as revised, will provide for attainment of the ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date." As with the RFP requirements, if an area has in fact monitored attainment ofthe standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area to make a further submission containing additional measures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretation ofthe section 172(c) requirements provided by EPA in the General Preamble to title I,

as EPA stated there that no other measures to provide for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since "attainment will have been reached" (57 FR 13564; see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum).

other SIP submission requirements are linked with these attainment demonstration and RFP requirements, and similar reasoning applies to them. The first of these additional

2See also "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, September 4,1992, at page 6 (stating that the "requirements for reasonable further progress

. . . will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard") (hereinafter referred to as "September 1992 Calcagni memorandum").

### / 4 requirements are the contingency measure requirements of section 172{c)(9) and section 182{c)(9). The EPAhas previously interpreted the contingency measure requirement of section 172{c)(9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those "contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the applicable date" (57 FR 13564;

see also September. 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). Similarly, as the section 182{c)(9) contingency measures are linked with the RFP requirements of section 182{b)(1) and 182{c)(2), the requirement of section 182{c)(gO) no longer applies once an area has attained the standard.

other requirements related to the attainment demonstration and RFP provisions include: (1) the section 182(c)(5) requirement regarding the submission of a demonstration as to whether various parameters related to transportation "are consistent with those used for the area's demonstration of attainment"; (2) the section 182{g) requirements concerning milestones that are based on the section 182{b)(1) and 182(c)(2)(B) and (C) submissions; and (3) the elements ofthe section 182(d)(1)(A) requirement for SIP revisions identifying and adopting transportation control strategies to achieve reductions in motor vehicle emissions that relate to the RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1)(A) and 182(c)(2)(B). Inasmuch

as each ofthese requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP requirements of section 182(b)(1) or 182(c)(2), if an area is not SUbject to the requirement to submit the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not submit the related SIP revision either.

The EPA emphasizes that this interpretation does not extend to requirements of subpart 2 that are not linked by the language of the Act with the attainment demonstration and RFP requirements. For example, this interpretation does not apply to requirements such as VOC RACT requirements, for which, in contrast to NOx RACT requirements under section 182(f), the Act does not establish a mechanism to grant exemptions if an area has attained the standard, or to the requirements to submit SIP revisions providing for basic or enhanced liMprograms.

The EPA also emphasizes that the lack of a requirement to submit SIP revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, and other related requirements exists only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the standard. If such an area experiences a violation ofthe NAAQS,the basis for the requirements not being applicable would

no longer exist. Therefore, the area would again be SUbject to a requirement to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and would need to address those requirements. Thus, a determination that an area need not submit one of the SIP submittals amounts to
no more than a suspension of the requirement for so long as the

area continues to attain the standard. If EPA ultimately

# ( 5 redesignates the area to attainment, then the area will be entirely relieved ofthese requirements to the extent the maintenance plan for the area does not rely on them.
Also, EPA notes that in the case of a multistate nonattainment area, the entire multistate nonattainment area must have monitoring data demonstrating attainment for the SIP submission requirements to be suspended. Thus, the requirements applicable to one part of such an area may not be suspended on the basis of a determination only that that part ofthe nonattainment area is monitoring attainment. The EPA's Regional Offices should coordinate these determinations for any multistate nonattainment**~reas** that involve more than one Region.

III. Process

The EPA Regional Offices will conduct individual rUlemakings concerning areas that have 3 consecutive years of clean air quality monitoring data demonstratfng attainment ofthe ozone standard to make binding determinations that the areas have attained the standard and need not make whichever ofthe SIP revisions discussed above are pertinent. Since EPA has the relevant air quality data in its possession, no submission from a State would be required to initiate this process.**Howe~er,** a State would be free to submit a petition to the appropriate EPA Regional Office to notify the office that it believes that a certain nonattainment area is eligible for these determinations

on the basis ofmonitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

As noted above, these determinations would be contingent on the existence ofmonitoring data for the·areas that continue to demonstrate attainment. If EPA sUbsequently determines that an
area has violated the standard, the basis for the determination that the area need not make the pertinent SIP revisions would no longer exist. The EPA would notify the State ofthat determination and would also provide notice to the pUblic in the Federal Register. Such a determination would mean that the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent SIP requirements within a reasonable amount of time, which EPA would establish taking into account the individual circumstances surrounding the particular SIP submissions at issue.

The State must continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFRpart 58, to verify the attainment status ofthe area. The air quality data relied upon for the above determinations must be consistentwith 40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS).

Determinations made by EPA in accordance with this interpretation.would not shield an area from EPA action to require emission reductions from sources in the area where there6

is evidence, such as photochemical gridmodeling, showing that emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, other nonattainment areas. The EPA has authority under the Act (section 110{a)(2)(D) in the case of areas in other states and section 110{a)(2)(A) in the case of intrastate areas) to require emissions reductions ifnecessary and appropriate to deal with transport situations.

IV. Consequences for Redesiqnations, Sanctions, and Conformity

Determinations made by EPA that an area has attained the NAAQS and need not make one ormore of the SIP submissions discussed above is not equivalent to the redesignation ofthe

area to attainment. Attainment ofthe standard is only one of the criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) that must be satisfied for an area to be redesignated to attainment. To be redesignated, the State must submit and receive full approval of

a redesignation request for the area that satisfies all ofthe criteria of that section, including the requirement of a demonstration that the improvement in the area's air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions, and the requirements that the area have a fully-approved SIP which meets all ofthe applicable requirements under section 110 and part D, and a fully-approved maintenance plan. '

If an area for which the determination of attainment is made has submitted or subsequently submits a redesignation request, the SIP submissions discussed in this memorandum would not be required for the area's redesignation request to be approved since they would no longer be considered applicable requirements under section 107{d)(3)(E). Ifthe area violates the standard prior to final action on the redesignation request, however, not only would the requirements again become applicable, but the redesignation request could not be approved because the area would no longer meet the criterion ofhaving attained the standard.

As a consequence of a determination that an area has monitoring data demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard, thereby removing, at least temporarily, the pertinent SIP submittal requirements discussed above, any sanction clock that had been started as a consequence of the failure to make such a sUbmission, the incompleteness of such a submission, or the disapproval of such a sUbmission, would be stopped since the deficiency that had led to the starting ofthe clockwould no longer exist.

The issuance of a determination pursuant to this pOlicy will have no immediate impact on the way conformity is demonstrated. Areas will continue to demonstrate conformity using the build/nobuild test and less-than-1990 test (section 51.436-51.446 oftheI 

### ( 7 conformity rule), and the 15 percent SIP if one has been submitted (and attainment/RFP SIP, ifone with a budget has been sUbmitted)

. Since areas that are the sUbject ofdeterminations pursuant to this policy will not be required to submit RFP or attainment demonstration SIP's, those areas will not generally be in the control strategy period for conformity purposes (i.e., have a control strategy SIP approved and build/no-build test no longer required) for so long as the area aoes not violate the standard. Those areas will not generally have approved budgets until a maintenance plan is approved as part of the approval of a redesignation request, so the build/no-build test and less-than1990 test--in addition to any applicable submitted budgets--will be required until then. (A maintenance plan budget does not apply for conformity purposes until the maintenance plan has been approved, except as provided by section 51.448(i) ofthe conformity rule (which applies to areas that are required to submit a 15 percent SIP but submit a maintenance plan instead).)

If an area receiving a determination pursuant to this policy had previously submitted a 15 percent or attainment SIP, itmay choose to withdraw the submitted SIP through the submission of a letter from the Governor or his or her designee in order to eliminate the applicability of its motor vehicle emission budget for conformity purposes. This is because that area would not be sUbject to the 15 percent and attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. Ifthe submitted SIP is not withdrawn, the budget in that submission will continue to apply for conformity purposes. Ifthe submitted 15 percent or attainment SIP is withdrawn, only the build/no-build and lessthan-1990 tests would apply until a maintenance plan is approved.

However, areas that are already demonstrating conformity to
a submitted maintenance plan pursuant to section 51.448(i) may continue to do so, ormay elect to withdraw the applicability of the submitted maintenance plan budget for conformity purposes until the maintenance plan is approved. The applicability may be withdrawn through the submission of a letter from the Governor or his or her designee. Ifthe applicability ofthe submitted maintenance plan budget is withdrawn for conformity purposes, the build/no-build and less-than-1990 tests will apply until the maintenance plan is approved.

For areas which receive a determination pursuant to this policy and whose conformity status has lapsed due to a failure to submit a 15 percent SIP or to the submission of an incomplete 15 percent SIP without a protective finding, the lapse imposed by section 51.448(b) and (c)(1)(ii) will be removed. However, the conformity status of the plan and TIP cannot be restored if/ ( 8
conformity has lapsed for any other reason (e.g., failure to redetermine conformity by a certain date).

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Sally Shaver. The contact persons for this policy are Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347 and Kathryn Sargeant at (313) 668-4441 for transportation conformity requirements.

cc: Rob Brenner Alan Eckert Tom Helms Phil Lorang Rich Ossias Margo Oge Joe Paisie John seitz Sally Shaver Lydia Wegman Dick Wilson

## I·



# C" UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY OfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandards ResearchTrianglePark,NorthCarolina27711 

# NOV161994

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

FROM:

, TO: LimitedMaintenance Plan option for Nonclassifiable**o~,-el ~o~at~reas'** 

# s~~aver, Director Air Quality Strategies &Standards,Division (MO-15)
Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and WasteManagement Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director,-Air and Toxics Division,· Regions VII, VIII, IX, andX

I. Purpose

This memorandum sets forth new guidance on maintenance plan requirements for certain nonclassifiable ozone nonattainment

areas seeking redesignation to attainment.· In particular, nonclassifiable ozone areas whose design values are at or below 0.106 ppm (85 percent ofexceedance levels ofthe ozone NAAQS) at the time ofredesignation may choose to submit a less rigorous maintenance plan than was formerly required. This new option is being termed a limited maintenance plan. Nonclassifiable ozone areas with design values greater than 0.106 ppm will continue to be sUbject to full maintenance plan requirements described in the September 4, 1992 memorandum, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to A'Ctainment," from John calcagni, former Director ofthe OAQPS Air Quality Management Division to the Regional Air Division Directors.

There are three types of nonclassifiable ozone·areas: sUbmarginal, transitional, and incomplete/no data. Adescription ofthese areas is included as Attachment A.2 ( II. Background

section 107(d)(3)(E) ofthe Actprovides that a nonattainment area can be redesignated to attainment ifthe following criteria are met: ,i 1. The-EPAhas-determined that the"NAAQS for the"applicable pollutant has been attained.

2. The applicable implementatiori plan has been fully adopted under section 110(k).

3. The EPAhas determined that the improv.ement in air. quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

4. The state-has met all app"licable requirements" for the

area under section 110 and part D.

5. The EPAhas fully approved a-maintenance plan, including

a contingencyplan, for the area under section 175A.

section 175A-of-the Act

_ provides the-genera-I-framework·for

.maintenance·plans. The maintenance plan mustprovide for

maintenclnce of-th-e-"-NAAQSfor-at-lea-st--lo-yearsafter

- - - ------ redesignation,-t--including

-any additional control measures as-may

--- be-necessary-to-.:.ensure-such maintenance. I"n addition, maintenance plans are to contain such contingencyprovisions as

.EPAdeems necessary to-assure the prompt correction·ofa _ -violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs-after redesignation.The -contingencymeasures must include, at a minimum, a requirement that the·State.wil1 implement all control measures contained in the nonattainment SIP prior to redesignation.
Beyond these requirements, however, section 175A does not define the content of a maintenance plan. Thus, EPA has the authority to exercise reasonable discretion to determine those requirements. The EPA has previously issued guidance on meeting all five criteria for redesignation including maintenance plans (see Attachment B). The EPA now believes that it is justifiable and appropriate to apply a djfferent set ofmaintenance plan requirements (described herein) to a limited category ofozone nonattainment areas--nonclassifiable areas whose monitored air quality is equal to or less than 85 percent of exceedance levels ofthe ozone NAAQS. The EPA does not believe that the full maintenance plan requirements need be applied to these areas because they have achieved air quality levels well below the

'Section l75A also requires that 8 years after redesignation, the State must submit an additional plan to provide for maintenance for a second follow-on lO-year period.

### (: 3

standard without the application ofcontrol measures required by the Act for classified ozone nonattainment areas. Also, these

areas do nothave either a recent history ofmonitored violation ofthe ozone NAAQS or a long prior history ofmonitored air quality problems. The EPA believes that the continued applicability ofprevention of**signif~cant** deterioration**(~SD)** requirements, any control measures already in the SIP, and Federal measures (such as the Federal motor vehicle control program) shouldprovide adequate 1assurance ofmaintenance for these areas.

III. Qualifying for the LimitedMaintenance Plan option

. . To qualify for the limitedmaintenance plan option, the

ozone design value for the**a~ea,** based on the 3 years ofdata used to demonstrate attainment, mustbe at or below 0.106'ppm (85 percent ofexceedance·levels·of**the-·ozone-NAAQS)-~-·-·** ---'

.. - Additionally, the design value for the area must continue to be at or below 0.106 ppmunti-l thetimeo·f f·i-nal--EPA action· on-theredesignation. The method for calculating design values is presented in the June_18, 1990.memorandum,_"Ozoneand.Carbon Monoxide DesignValue Calculations," from William G. Laxton, former Director ofthe·OAQPSTechnical**Support-~Division-**to Regional Air Directors• The memorandum ·focuses--primarily on determining design values for nonattainment areas in orderto classify the areas as.marginal, moderate,-serious, severe, or extreme. Therefore,--.the document discusses determining the designvalue for an a-reabased on the monitors.which·are '. exceeding the standard.

_In the case of a nonattainment area seeking redesignation to attainment, all monitors must be meeting the standard. To assess whether a nonclassifiable area meets the applicability cutoff for the limitedmaintenance plan, a separate design value must be developed for every monitoring site. The highest ofthese design values is the design value for the whole

area. Ifthe area design value is at or below 0.106 ppm, the State may select the limited maintenance plan option for the first 10-yearmaintenance period. Ifthe design value for the

area exceeds 0.106 prior to final EPA action on the redesignation, the area no longer qualifies for the limited maintenance plan and must instead submit a full maintenance plan. The EPA will issue guidance in the future on the applicability of the limitedmaintenance plan option to the second follow-on 10- year maintenance period.

IV. Limited Maintenance Plan Elements
Following is a list of core provisions which should be included in a limited maintenance plan. Any final EPA determination regarding the adequacy of a limited maintenance plan will be made following review ofthe plan submittal in light of the particular circumstances facing the area proposed for redesignation and based on all relevant available information.**c~·** 4

a. Attainment Inventory

The state should develop an attainment emissions inventory to identify a level ofemissions in the area which is sufficient to attain theNAAQS. This inventory shouldbe consistentwith EPA's most recent guidance2 on**emissio~s** inventories for

_ nonattainmentareas avaiiable at the time and should represent emissions during the time period-associatedwith the monitoring data showing attainment. The inventory should be based on actual "typical summer day" emissions ofVOC'and NOx (ozone precursors). Emissions ofCO are not necessary in the attainment inventory because they will not be tracked for maintenance purposes.

b. Maintenance Demonstration

The maintenance demonstration.requirement is considered to be-satisfied for--nonclassifiable-areas--if-the-mon±toring data

----------- show the area is meeting·the air quality criteria discussed ·above.. There is·-no-requirement to-project-emissions over the

.... --.- .------- maintenance period. The EPA believes ifthe area begins the maintenance period.'at-or below.

### as. percent of-.exceedancelevelsr . the air quality along with the continued applicability ofPSD requirements, ·any control measures'already in the SIP, and Federal measures, shouldprovide adequate-assurance of maintenance over the initial 10-year-maintenanceperiod.

When EPA approves a limited maintenance·plan, EPA is concluding that·an·emissions budget:may-.be

.treated as essentially not constraining for the length of·themaintenance periodbecause it is unreasonable to expect that··such-an area will experience so much growth in.that period that a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS would result.

c. Monitoring Network/Verification ofcontinued Attainment

To verify the attainment status ofthe area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPAapproved air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR part 58. This is particUlarly' important for areas using a limitedmaintenance plan**bec~use** there will be no cap on emissions.

.

2The EPA's current guidance on the preparation of emissions inventories for ozone areas is contained in the following documents: "Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors of Ozone: Volume I" (EPA-450/4-91-016), "Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans" (EPA-450/4-91-010), and "Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation: Volume IV, Mobile Sources" (EPA-450/4-81-026d)

.

### ( 5

d. contingency Plan

section 175Aofthe Act requires that a maintenance plan include contingencyprovisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation ofthe NAAQS that occurs afterredesignation ofthe

area. These contingency**~easures** do**~t** have to be fully adopted at the time ofredesignation. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part ofthe SIP and should ensure that the contingency measures**are~adopted** expeditiously once they

are triggered by a specified event. The contingencyplan should identify the measures to be promptly adopted and provide a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation ofthe

measures. The State should also identify specific indicators., or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency

measures need to be**implement~d.** While a violation ofthe NAAQS is an acceptable trigger, States may wish to choose a previolation action level as a trigger, such as an exceedance of the NAAQS. By taking early action, a State may be able to prevent any actual violation-of-the NAAQS

-and, there-fore,"eliminate any need on the part ofEPA to redesignate an areaback to nonattainment.



## v. Conformity Determinations Under LimitedMaintenance Plans

The transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188; November 24, 1993) andthe general conformity rule (58 FR 63214; November 30, 1993) apply to nonattainment areas andmaintenance

areas operating under maintenance plans. "Under either rule,'one means ofdemonstrating"conformity ofFederal actions· is to

.indicate that expected emissions from planned actions are

consistentwith the emissions budget for the area. As discussed above in section IV(b)

, emissions budgets in limitedmaintenance plan areas may be treated as essentially not constraining for the length ofthe initial maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that such an area will experience so much growth in that period that a violation ofthe ozone NAAQS would result. In otherwords, EPA would be concluding that emissions need not be capped for the maintenance period. Therefore, in

areas with approved limited maintenance plans, Federal actions requiring conformity determinations under the transportation conformity rule could be**con~idered** to satisfy the "budget test" required in sections 93.118,'93.119, and 93.120 of the rule. Similarly, in these areas, Federal actions subject to the general conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the "budget test" specified in section 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) of the rule.

For further information regarding the limited maintenance plan option for nonclassifiable ozone areas, please contact Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347. For information regarding transportation conformity requirements, please contact Kathryn Sargeant of the Office ofMobile Sources at (313) 668-4441. For6
(.... information regarding general conformity requirements, please contact Doug Grano at (919) 541-3292.

Attachments

...



## ..

## (- ATTACHMENTA

The EPA used 1987-89 as the primary data years in determining designations and classifications for ozone areas set forth in the November 6, 1991 final rule onAir Quality Designations and Classifications (56 FR 56694)

. certain ozone nonattainment areas could notbe classified as marginal or above under Table 1 of section 18I(a)(1)**of~the** CleanAir Act either because of-incomplete monitoring data-or because they were nonattainrnent**pre~enactment** but did not violate the standard during 1987-89. These areas are·collectively called nonclassifiable areas. Nonclassifiable ozone areas consist of transitional, submarginal, and incomplete/no data areas.
Transitional areas

An area is considered**t~ansitional** under section 185A ifit

was designated nonattainment both prior to enactment and at the time ofenactment,-and did not-violate the primary NAAQS for

ozone over the 3-yearperiod from 1987-1989.

section 185A ofthe Act required EPA to make a determination, byJune 30, 1992, whether the designated transitional areas had continued to meet the ozone NAAQS through December 31, 1991.

-All 12 transitional areas were attaining the NAAQS through December 31, 1991 and none are known to have -violated the standard since. InMay-and June of 1992; Regional

Administrators sent letters to Governors of States with

-transitional areas notifying them of EPA'sdetermination.

Submarginal areas compliance with-the ozone NAAQS is determined on the basis ofexpected exceedances which include an adjustment for missing data.! The submarginal category includes areas that violated the

ozone NAAQS during 1987-89 but had a design value for the period of less than .121 ppm (the lower limit for marginal areas) due to the adjustment for missing data when calculating expected exceedances. Presently, there are no submarginal areas. Incomplete/no data areas

certain ozone areas designated nonattainment prior to

-enactment and at enactment aid not have sufficient air quality

monitoring data to determine whether they were or were not violating the NAAQS. These areas are termed incomplete/no data

areas. These include areas which do not have monitors. Currently, there are 47 incomplete/no data areas.

IThis adjustment procedure is described in 40 CFR part 50.9, appendix H.

# · ' ATTACHMENT B '. 

## (' The EPA policies for implementing sections 107 and 175Aof the Act for redesignations are contained in the following' memorandums.

1. "Procedures for.processing Re,quests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air QualityManagement Division, September 4,1992.

2. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas SUbmittingRequests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and CarbonMonoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)on or after N·ovember·**~5,** 1992,-" Michael Shapiro,·:Acting AssistantAdministrator for Air and Radiation, September 17, 1993.

3. "State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions·Submitted in Response to CleanAirAct (CAA) Deadlines," John Calcagni, .Director, Air. QualityManagement Division, October 28,1992.

4. "ContingencyMeasur.es_for Ozone and.Carbon.Monoxide (CO) Redesignations," G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/CarbonMonoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.

5. "General Preamble·for the Implementation ofTitle I of the CleanAirActAmendments of 1990" (57 FR 13498; April·16, 1992)•

# 57



# • UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAlPROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON,D.C.**~O** .

orRCEOF AMANDMDlATJON


### MEMORANDUM

.SUBJECT: Part DNew SourceReview (partDNSR) R.quirements for Areas RecntestinqRec1esignation to Attainment

.
FROM: Nichols.

### ~1('~t Admini tor 'torAir andRadiation (6101)

I. Introduction 

# • TO: Director, Air,**Pes~icides** andToxics ManagementDivision, Regions I and IV Director, Air andWasteManagement**D~vision,** Region II

. Director, Air, Radiation andToxies Division, Region III

. Oirector, Air andRadiationDivision,

.Region V

. Director, 

### Air, Pesticides andToxies Division RegionVI Director, Air andToxies Division, Regions**VI~,** VIII, IX, andX

with this memorandum, EPA is amending one aspect ofguidance issued september 4, 19921 and september 17, 19932regarding requirements for nonattainmentareas requesting redesignation to attainment. In these previous memoranda, EPA indicated that states must submit andreceive full approval ofany partDNSR regulations that were**req~ired** by theAct to be sUbmitted taEPA prior to or atthe time ofthe submission ofa complete redesignation request. The EPAhas'reconsidered that policy, however, and is establishing a newpolicy underwhich

IMemorandum entitled, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment, II fromJohn Calcagni, Director;· Air Quality ManagementDivision, to Regional Air Division Directors.

2Memorandum entitled, "SIP Requirements for Areas Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment ofthe Ozone and CO NAAQS On or After November 15, 1992," from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to Regional Air Division Directors

. 

# •

55 5-19 

### @ 'PrintedOilRecyde-JPaper

-'I

.. -- ., 

### I",-, '.--1

....**.J~)** -/

# ,. 2

nonattainment areas may redesignated to attainment notwithstanding the lackof a fully-approved part D

### NSRprogram, providedthe program is notreliedupon for maintenance. In addition, EPA is notrequiring that existingpart 0 NSR rules be placed in the-contingency portion ofthe maintenanceplan pursuant to section 17SA

### otthe'Act. As discussed below,'

, however, EPA believes it$ newpolicywill assure that the statutory goals**o~** part 0 NSRand section 17SAto protect"ana :maintainthe NAAQS are achieved.

-
The EPA the Agency's to statutory requirements (See Alabama 1979).] believes thatthis newpolicy is justifiable under general authority to establish de minimis exceptions requirements where the application ofthe statutory would be oftrivial or no value environmentally. Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 360-61 (D.C. Cir.

"



# •

• II. BacKground/CleanAir Act Requirements

Section 107(d)(J)(E) oftheAct**requir~s** that a statehave in place a fully-approved SIPmeeting all the requirements applicable to a nonattainmentarea under section 110 and part,0 of title I 

### ot the Act in orderfor the areato be redesignated to attainment•

, In addition, section 175Arequires that the area musthave a fUlly-approved.maintenance plan containing contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the applicable NAAQS that occurs afterredesignation of the area. At a minimum, the contingency planmust "include a requirement that the state will implement all measures with respect to the control ofthe air pollutant concernedwhich were contained in the state implementationplan for the area before redesignation of the area as an attainmentarea."

The NSR requirements are contained in section 110(a)(2)(C) and in parts**C'~nd** 0 oftitle I ofthe Act. Broadly speaking, section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Actmandates the development ofa preconstruction review programto assure that the construction or modification of any stationary source is consistent with attainment of the NAAQS. The nonattainment NSRprogram in part 0 NSR and the attainment area prevention of significant deterioration (PSO) program inpart Capply to major new sources and modifications of existing major sources. (Implementing

. regUlations that set forth minimum requirements for state or local programs and Federal permitting programs have been promulgated at 40 CFR part 51 SUbpart I and appendix S, and 40 CFR section 52.21, respectively.)

To assure'that major new ormodified sources do not interfere with reasonable further progress towards attainment, nonattainment area part D NSR requires installation of control

,....."

# •

•

• 3 ,technologyrepresentingthe lowest achievable eais.ions rate**(LAE.~)** and emission offsets. To prevent "clean air" areas from

significantdegradation, thePSDprogramrequires in.tallation of best available control technology (BACT) andmodeling to show that the new**ormodi~ied** sourcewill notcause or contributeto violation ota NAAQS or.aPSOairqualitygrowth**~ncremen~.** Previously, EPA interpretedthese provisions tovether."to-.**~equire** that any area seekingredesignationto attainment**~ust** have**~ully-approved** part 0 NSRrules as part**o~** the required fully-approved SIP. Inaddition, upon**~edesignation,** thepart 0 NSR rules were to beplacedinthemaintenanceplan contingency provisions in accordancewithsection 175AoftheAct unless the

area neededto continue implementing part 0 NSR as one elementof themaintenance strategy_

III. NSR Policv and Legal Rationale

The EPAnowbelieves that a de minimis exception.tothe requirement ofsection**1~7(~U~)(E) ~or**  part 0 NSR 1.**justi~iAble** because requiringthe adoptionand full approval of • part 0 NSR program as a prerequisitetoredesignationwould not be of

.**signi~icant** environmental value in certaincircumstances. The EPAhas reconsidered its**ear~ier posit~on**  because, once an area ' is redesiqnatedto attainment, the part 0 NSRproqrqpy be. replacedbythe corollary'PSDproqram', ifitis shown through the maintenance demonstration thatthe areawill maintain without part 0 NSR andbecausepart 0 NSRneednotbecomepartot··the contingencyplan.

. . A. PreconstructionReviewPrograms inAttainment:"Areas"

There are several provisions in theActand in

### EPA'S regulations that requirepreconstructionreview ofnew or modified major sources in attainment areas to assess the impact ofthe proposed emissions increases onthe applicable NAAQS. These include the PSOprogramwhich covers 100 ton per year (tpy)

or 250 tpy or greater sources (depending onthe source category), the preconstructionreview requirements of40 CFRSl.165(b) that

cover 100 tpy orgreater sources, and the Interpretive offset Rule. As to ozone, there are somepartiCUlar requirements that apply. The EPA believes theseprograms will ensure that major'

new sources and modifications are given adequate preconstruction review.

After redesignation to attainment, state PSD rUles, or Federal PSD rules in a delegated program, must ensure, as required by sections 165(a)(3)(B) and 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act, that preconstruction review ofnew and modified major sources will prevent increases in emissions that would cause or contribute to violations ofthe NMQS. [See 40 CFR 51. 166(k), 40 CFR 52.21(k) •J 

## 1501

5-21

# •

•

• 4

In addition, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR51.165(b) require that SIP's contain preconstructionreviewrequirementa that apply to new ormodified 100tpyor greater sources ot a pollutant in areas designated attainmentorunclassifiable for the pOllutant.in cases where the new ormodified source would contribute to a violation ofa NAAQS. This requirement provides for preconstruction review for sources that are exempt from PSD due to PSD's higher (250 tpy) major source threshold

### tor certain
source categories.

,. In the absence of SIPprovisions that complywith 40 CFR 51.165(b) or a partDNSRprogram, States wouldhave to use the Interpretive OffsetRule at40 CPR Sl appendix S as a surrogate rule for permitting new andmodifiedmajor sources in these attainment areas. (See 45 FR 31310, May 13, 1980.)

For 

### so" PH-l0, N01, and CO, EPAhas established levels of ambient impacts to determinewhether the major new or modified

source would cause or contribute to a violation: Where the

source is found to cause or contribute to**aViolation~** the source would be sUbject··to Dlore stringenttechnology and emiSsions mitigationrequirements ofappendix S or a 40 CFR5l.165(b) program.

Withparticularrespectto ozone, because 

### otthe difficulty in modeling the impact··ofemissions from specific sources on
ozone formation, EPAregulations [40 CFR Sl.16S(b)(3) and appendix S] do not fully address how emissions ofozone precursors**shou~d** be treatedto assure thatmajor new or modified

sources do not cause or contribute to a NAAQS violation. Nevertheless·, ifpreconstruction monitoring or other intormation indicates the area is not continuing to meet the standard after redesignation to attainment, appendix S or a 40 eFR Sl.16S(b) program would also apply. The EPA believes that in any area that is designated or redesignated as attainmentunder section 107, but experiences violations ofthe NAAQS, these provisions· (and any implementing SIP provisions) should be interpreted as requiring majornew ormodified sources to obtain

### voe emission offsets of at least a 1:1 ratio, and as·presuming [consistent with section 182(f») that 1:1 NOx**off~ets** are necessary.)

In addition, attainment (PSO) plans require that major new and modified sources apply BACT. Generally, BACT differs from LAER by enabling permitting authorities to justify, based on

)The EPA is in the process of revlslng EPA's rules for NSR and PSD, some of which will replace appendix S. However, the proposed revisions will not change the substantive permitting requirements where an attainment area is violating the ozone NAAQS.

5-22

# •

•

• 5
economic, energy, and environmental impacts, the u•• of control technologies less**e~fective** thanthemost stringent available. In an area that is notmeetingtheNAAQS, EPAbelieves that due to consideration'ot the NAAQS violations, the state may impose a more**stringen~** level ofcontrolthanmightbe otherwise selected

as BACT. (See DraftNew SourceReviewManual, page 8.54 (,october 1990).)

. 

# ".

.. Takentogether, thesepreconstructionreview programs can ','assure thatmajornew or1Iodifiedsources achieve the statutory

goals otpart DNSRand themaintenanceprovisions of section 175A.

B. Part D NSR and contingencyProvisions
Requiring the full**appr~val** ofa part 0 NSRprogramwould

ensure thatthe programwould.become a contingency provision in the maintenance plan. As stated above, pursuant to section 175A(d) and section 107(d)(3)(E), the contingencyplan must contain, at a minimum, all measures contained 

### in th." nonattainment SIP." However; EPA is interpreting the term "measure" as used in se'ction 175A(d)

,so as notto inolude partD NSR,'

The term "measure- is,notdefined in section 17SA(d) and' Congress utilizedthattermdifferently,indifferentprovisions oftheAct with'respectto the PSOand part.D NSRpermitting

. programs. For example, in section 110(a)(2)(A), Congress required that SIP's include "enforceableemission limitations and other control measures, means,**o~** techniques • "'., as may be necessary or appropriate to meetthe applicablerequirements of the Act." In section 110(a)(2)(C), Congress required that SIP's include "a programto provide forthe enforcementofthemeasures described in subparagraph (A), 

### ADSregulation ofthe modification and construction ofany stationary sourcewithin the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality standards are achieved, inclUding a permit program as required in parts Cand 0 (i.e., PSO andpart 0 NSR)." (Emphasis added.)

If the term lImeasures,ll as used in sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(a)(2)(C), had been intended to include PSO and part 0 NSR, there would have been no pointto requiring that SIP's include both measures and preconstruction reviewunder parts Cand 0 (PSD

or part 0 NSR). Thus, in sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C), it is apparent that Congress distinguished the requirement for IImeasures" from the requirement for preconstruction review programs. On the otherhand, in otherprovisions of the Act, such as section 161, Congress appears to have included pSD within

__ the scope of the term "measures. 1I

5-23

# •

•

I



# • 6

The fact that Congress usedthe undefinedterm "me.sure" differently in differentprovisions oftheAct indicate. thatthe term is susceptibleto more than one interpretation and that EPA has the discretionto interpret itin a reasonable manner in the context of section 175A. Inasmuchas Congress itselfh•• used the term in a mannerthat excludedPSD andpartDNSR from its scope, EPA believes it is reasonable to interpret "meaaure,·**~s** used in section 17SA(d)

,.notto inclUdepart 0 NSR. The.·

....

f"reasonableness ofthis interpretation is further supportedby the

,fact thatPSD, a programthat isthe corollary ofpart DNSR for

attainment areas, goes into effectin lieu ofpart D NSR,4 and that, as discussedabove, EPA intends to implement the PSD and other NSRprograms in a way thatwill achievethe basie atatutory goals ofpart 0 NSR. Therefore, EPAdoes notbelieve that part 0 NSRneed be part ofan area's contingency plan.

IV. other RequiredPrograms··

The EPA is not changing its previously stated**p~licy** with respect to the needfor states to adopt andreceive fUll approval of otherprograms required by theAct prior.to or at the time of the submission ofa redesignationrequest. The existence ofa corollaryprogramfor attainment areas distinguishes part 0 NSR from other requiredprograms undertheAct, suchas enhanced inspection andmaintenance andreasonably available centrol technology (RACT) programs, whichhave no corollary program. Moreover, EPAbelieves thatthose otherrequiredprograms are clearly within the scope ofthe term "measure" as used 1n section 175A.

For further informationregarding part 0 NSRrequireroents for areas redesignating to attainment, please contact Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347; for general information about 

### PSo requirements for attainment areas, contactDennis crumpler at (919) 541-0871.

cc:

.Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X**~EPA** is not suggesting that NSR and PSD are equivalpnt, but merely that they are the same type of program.**~I**

## 6:

## 4

### MEMORANDUM**UN"~lJ** STAll::SENVIRONMENTAL PIiOILUI()1\! A(;I r'J( 't Of liceof All OualltyPlanl1lf1!-l ,IIHI**Sldlh~,11** d'.**Fh~~l~dlcll lrlitl1!-llt~**  Park, Nurllll:.".oIl1l.t :'i"; : 

# NOV301993

SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO: Use ofActual Emissions inMaintenance Demonstrations for Ozone andCarbonMonoxide (CO)**Nonat;ainme~** 

### Areas

D. Kent Berry, Acting Director (MD-1

# j)~~j-f-5':~r AirQualityKanaqementDivision 

# £;' 

# tI

Director, Air, Pesticides andToxics ManagementDivision, Regions I and IV Director, Air andWaste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation andToxics Division, Region III

. Director, AirandRadiation Division, RegionV**~irector,** 

### Air, Pesticides andToxics Division, RegionVI Director, Air andToxics.Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X

This memorandumprovides guidanceonthe use of actual emissions inmaintenancedemonstrations for ozone and CO nonattainment areas seekingredesignation to attainment. This guidance supersedes previous Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance set forth inthe September4, 1992 memorandum from John calcagni to AirDivisionDirectors, "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas toAttainment" (redesignation policy), whichrequired emissionprojections for these areas to be based on allowable emissions.

The EPAhas previously issued guidance on the use of actual emissions in projecting emissions to meetthe requirements for the 15 percent rate-of-progress plans for ozone nonattainment

areas. 1 

### For consistency, this memorandumextends the policy of using actual emissions to maintenance projections for ozone and CO areas, as well. This guidance is not intended to apply to emissionprojections in control programs for the other criteria pollutants (see discussion under"Other pollutants").

lSee Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 PercentRate-ofProgress Plans (EPA-452/R93-002, March 1993).

7-14

# .

. 2

Ozone and CO Policy

Actual emissions from a source are the emissions based on the source's actual operatinghours, production rates, and control equipment for the processes carried out at the source. Actual emissions take into consideration normal operating conditions as well as instances when deviations occur. For ozone and CO areas, the term allowable emissions refers to emissions estimates based onenforceable emission rates and actual production rates andhours.

Consistentwith the earlierrate-of-progress plan guiaance,

ozone and CO maintenanceprojections may be based on actual emissions for sources or source categories that are currently sUbject to a regulation and that the statedoes not anticipate sUbjecting to additional regulation. Similarly, the maintenance projections may bebased on actual emissions for sources or source categories that are currently unregulated and are not expected to be sUbjectto future regulation. (The State still has the option ofusing allowable emissions for these"'two cases.) However, for sources that are expected to be sUbject to additional regulation, the projections.must be based on the new allowable emissions limits because the new actual emissions are not yet known.
Upon approval ofaredesignation request and associated maintenance planbyEPA, all futurep-lUissions calculations or projections to implement other air quality requirements for an area must be consistentwiththe maintenance demonstration (unless a more stringentrequirement applies). Forexample, if projected emissions from a sourceused in the maintenance demonstration are based on actual emissions, that source must use actual emissions indetermining the credit available for emissions trading, innovative strategies, economic incentive plans, and emissions bUdgets.

Other Pollutants

Under the redesignation policy, emissions projections for particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (S02)
, nitrogen dioxide, and lead (Pb) nonattainment areas are still required to follow current EPAmodelingguidance.2 The modeling guidance requires that maximumallowable emission limits for major point

sources be used in demonstrating maintenance of short-term

2Irhe EPA-approvedmodeling guidance may be found in the following documents: "Guideline on Air QualityModels (Revised)lI (EPA-450/2-78-027R, July 1987) and "PM-10 SIP Development Guideline" (EPA-450/2-86-001, June 1987).

7-153
standards.] It is necessary to continue the use ofmaximum allowable emissions when projecting emissions for these nonattainment areas because, in some cases, large point sources operating at full capacity could by themselves cause an exceedance of the applicable national ambient airquality standard. In contrast, large point sources are not likely to be dominant emission sources in inventories for ozone and CO nonattainment areas, and it is unlikely that the multitude of smaller sources would be operating at maximum capacity simultaneously.

For further information regarding the use ofactual aAd allowable emissions for maintenance demonstrations for ozone and CO areas, please contactCarla Oldham at (919) 541-3347. For information on projecting emissions for S02, PM-10, and Pb nonattainment areas, please contact Robin Dunkins at (919) 541- 5335.

cc: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X John Cabaniss, OMS Mary Henigin, OAQPS Bob Kellam, TSD Rich Ossias, OGC John Rasnic, SSCD John Seitz, OAQPS Ann Goode, OAR Lydia Wegman, OAQPS

]Maxicurn allowable emissions are calculated using the enforceable (i.e., allowable) emission rate mUltiplied by the maximum operating capacity ofthat source at continuous operation (unless there are federally-enforceable limits on the hours of operation).

7-16MEMORANDUM UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY WASHINGTON,D.C. 20460



### SEP 

## I71993 OFFICEOF AIRAND RADIATION

SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO:

I. State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas SubmittingRequests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and Carbon**MonOXide~(co)** National AmbientAir Quality Standards (N QS) on 0 a eF November 15, 1992



# . Michael H. Shapiro

. Acting AssistantAministra 0 for Air andRadiation**(ANR~443)** Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air andWasteManagement Division, Region II

. Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X

Purpose

The purpose ofthis memorandum is to address State requests to redesignate from nonattainment to attainment ofthe ozone and CO NAAQS under section 107. Specifically at issue are requests submitted on or afterNovember 15, 1992 where outstanding Clean AirAct (Act) requirements have not beenmet. This memo provides guidance on the statutorily-mandated control programs thatmust be in the EPA-approved SIP ifEPA is to approve the redesignation request. The Act's requirements for redesignation and a list of EPA's redesignation pOlicy and guidance are included in Attachments Aand B. In the future, further guidance may be provided for redesignations submitted after November 15, 1993.



# ro Recycled/Recyclable 

## n-

## n PrintedwithSoy/canolaInkonpaperthat '0<;7 containsatleast50%recydedfiber2

II. Policy Summary

section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) ofthe Act as amended (amendedAct) provides that the state must have met all applicable requirements of section 110 andpart Din order to be redesignated. Furthermore, section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) provides that the State must have a fully-approved SIP for the area seeking redesignation.

The EPA is interpreting these section 107 provisions to require satisfactory completion ofthe currentActplanning requirements. Specifically, before EPA can act favorably upon any State redesignation request, the statutorily-mandated control programs of section 110 andpart D (thatwere due prior to the time ofthe redesignation request) musthave been adopted by the State and approved by EPA into the SIP.
Thus, with respect to redesignation requests submitted on or after the Act's deadline for submittal ofthe required programs, States must generally adopt and provide for implementation of their regulations for all ofthe programs thatwere due. States must submitthese plans to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.l This would include such requirements as emissions inventories andlor emission statements. Suchrequirements mustbe met in order for the area to have a fully-approved'SIP thatmeets all requirements applicable to the areaunder section 110 and part D.

The amendedAct, however, also provides that upon redesignation, a State maymove measures from the implemented SIP to the contingencyplan portion ofthe SIP ifthe State demonstrates that suchmeasures are not needed for maintaining the NAAQS. Many areas soughtredesignation at or about the same time they were required to adopt and implement the requirements due on November 15, 1992. Inmany instances, the State will be able to immediatelymove these measures to the contingencyplan without implementation.

III. Exceptions to Policy

The EPA decided to review the requirements to determine if something less than full adoption ofthese regulations would be acceptable under the Act for areas seeking redesignation. Exceptions to this policy on the States' need to complete the full planning and adoptionprocess for the November 15, 1992 mandatedprograms are very limited. The language in the Act allows a degree of flexibility in only four programareas. These

are: (1) basic inspection andmaintenance 

### (11M), (2) annual updates ofvehicle miles traveled (VMT) forecasts and annual

lNote that this represents a departure from earlier guidance for part Dnew source review (NSR) regulations.3

estimates of actual VMT for CO nonattainment areas, (3) nitrogen oxides (NOx) reasonably available control technology (RACT), and (4) small business programs (SBP).

These exceptions are only applicable in areas for which EPA approves a redesignation. The states should be aware that ifEPA denies a redesignation request, rules submitted in accordance with this guidance may also be disapprovable. Finally, because EPA anticipates issuing onboard regulations by January 1994, states seeking redesignation of areas classified as moderate may have some flexibility with respect to the stage II requirement.

Our guidance for state submittals covering these four programs is described in the following paragraphs.

Basic 11M

For areas where maintenance plans do not rely on implementation ofa basic 11Mprogram immediately following redesignation, the 11Mcomponent ofthe SIP should include:

1. Legislative authority for basic 11M such that implementing regulations can be adopted without any further legislative action.

2. Aprovision in the SIP providing that basic 11Mbe placed in the contingencymeasures portion ofthe maintenance plan upon redesignation.

3. An enforceable schedule and commitment by the Governor

orhis designee for adoption and implementation of a basic 11M programupon a specified, appropriate triggering event.

Note that, for purposes ofconsideration ofa redesignation request submitted after November 15, 1992, the commitment as described in the 11Mregulation (see 57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992) is not sufficient to meet the Act's requirement for a fUlly-approved SIP.

In addition, please note that, EPA's final 11Mregulations in 40 CFRpart 51 require a fully-adopted 11Mprogram by November 15, 1993. At this time, ourpreliminary interpretative guidance on basic 11Min this memo is not discussed in the 11M regulations. Therefore, EPA is proceeding to establish this interpretation through regulatory action, thus enabling EPA to accept legislative authority and a commitment to adopt and implement basic 11Mregulations for those areas being redesignated to attainment.4

VMT Forecasting

The VMT forecasting SIP for CO should include:

1. Annual forecasts ofVMT (i.e., average daily VMT for the peak 3-month CO seasons for 1993, 1994, and 1995 inmoderate

areas above 12.7 ppm, and until 2000 in serious areas).

2. An enforceable commitmentby the Governor or his designee to estimate actual annual VMT for each ofthese years (by September 30 ofthe following year) and to update the forecast ofthe VMT in the remaining years.

3. Arequest that the commitmentbemoved to the contingencyplan portion ofthe SIPupon redesignation, becoming

a contingencyprovision triggered by a specified triggering event.

4. Adopted contingencymeasures to reduce CO emissions. The implementation of suchmeasures is contingentupon either: (a) an annual estimate of actual VMT or updated forecast ofVMT exceeding the previous forecast for that year, or (b) the area failing to attain by the CO attainmentdeadline. These contingencymeasures mustmeet the requirements of section 187(a)(3) as interpretedby the April 16, 1992, "General Preamble for the Implementation ofTitle I ofthe Clean AirActAmendments of 1990," including the requirement that no further action by the State is needed for themto take effect.

NOx RACT

section 182(f) provides that States may request an exemption from the NOx RACT requirements. The NOx RACT requirements of section 182(f) do not apply ifadditional reductions ofNOxwould not contribute to attainment.2 In an area that did not implement the section 182(f) NOx requirement but didmeet the ozone standard, as demonstratedby adequate monitoring data consistent with EPA guidance, it is clear that the additional NOx reductions required by section 182(f) would not contribute to attainment, although they might contribute to maintenance. Therefore, EPA believes that if a State submits a redesignation request along with a section 182(f) exemption request based onmonitoring data demonstrating attainment ofthe ozone NAAQS, further documentation is not required. The State may follow one oftwo approaches in making such a submittal:

2Note that the section 182(f) exemption for NOx RACT and NSR requirements described in this section is applicable only for States outside an ozone transport region, since only those States fall under the section 182(f) "contribute to attainment" provision.5

1. Submit a redesignation request along with a section 182(f) exemption request based solely upon monitoring data showing that the area's air quality is meeting the ozone NAAQS; and submit a maintenance plan SIP revision, which includes a NOx RACT program as a contingencymeasure. In lieu of adopted NOx RACT rules, such a NOx RACT programmay consist of an enforceable schedule and**commi~ment** by the Governor orhis designee to adopt and implement the NOxRACT rules upon a specified, appropriate triggering event.

2. An exemption request based on both ambientmonitoring and urban airshed modeling consistentwith EPA guidance that shows additional NOx reductions would not contribute to attainment in the area. In this case, NOx RACT rules do not have to be included as a contingencymeasure ofthe maintenance plan.

For several reasons, the Act canbe interpreted as not requiring the section 507 SBP submittal in order for EPA to approve a redesignation request. The SBP submittal is required regardless ofwhether there are any designated nonattainment

areas within the State. In addition, the SBP is not a control

measure intended to contribute to the emissionreductions achieved by an area; rather it is a service provided to help small businesses complywithrequirements ofthe Act. For the above reasons, EPA is interpreting the SBP as not being an applicable requirement for any specific nonattainment area that is seekingredesignation. However, EPAwill continue to ensure that States make SBP submittals in a timely fashion.
Stage II VaporRecovery

stage II vapor recovery remains an applicable requirement for moderate ozone nonattainment areas until EPA promulgates onboard vapor recovery regulations. section 202(a)(6) ofthe Act provides that once onboard regulations are promulgated, the Stage II regulations required under section 182(b)(3) are no longer applicable for moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Therefore, final redesignation for a moderate nonattainment area that occurs after EPA's onboard regulations are promulgated does not have to include a Stage II SIP control program. Forredesignation requests that are submitted before EPApromulgates onboardrules and that do not include Stage II rules for moderate areas, Regional Offices may prepare rulemaking actions proposing to approve the redesignation, ifappropriate, as long as final approval occurs after EPA promulgates onboard regulations.6

IV. Coordination of SIP Submittals and Redesignation Reguests

Ifthe State elects to follow the approach above, the State should submit the SIP control program as described above along with the redesignation request andmaintenance plan. The EPA will review the required SIP sUbmittal(s) against EPApolicy and guidance and in coordinationwith the redesignation request and maintenance plan. Approvability ofthe redesignation is directly related to the approvability ofthe SIP submittals (i.e., EPA is precluded from approving a redesignation to attainment ifthe SIP is not approvable).

As a general policy, a State may not relax the adopted and implemented SIP for an area upon the area's redesignation to attainment. States should continue to implement existing control strategies in order to maintain the standard. However, section 175Arecognizes that States may be able to move SIP measures to the contingencyplanupon redesignation ifthe State can adequately demonstrate that such action will not interfere with maintenance ofthe standard. The type ofdemonstration necessary is dependent upon the pollutant for which the area has been redesignated to attainment.

In order to make such a demonstration for an area redesignated to attainment for CO, EPA believes that the State could submit a revised control strategy demonstration showing that the measure is not necessary to maintain the standard. For ozone, the State would need to submit an attainment modeling demonstration consistentwith EPA's current "Guideline on Air Quality Models," showing that the control measure is not needed to maintain the standard. The EPA intends to be very cautious in approving such revisions in cases where the control measures were implemented during the time the area attained the standard; the State's demonstration should indicate an ample margin of safety with respect to maintenance ofthe standard.

V. Conclusion

In summary, full adoption ofall ofthe statutorily-required programs, as well as a schedule and an enforceable commitment for

an implementation date, are necessary for redesignation to attainment from nonattainment for ozone or CO ifthe redesignation request is submitted after the statutory due date for the program. The few exceptions to this requirement are basic 

### 11M, annual updates ofVMT forecasts, and estimates of actual VMT, NOx RACT, and SBP.

Ifyouhave any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders at (919) 541-5284, orAnnie Nikbakht at (919) 541-5246.AttachmentA

criteria For Redesignation Under Section 107(d)

section 107{d)(3)(E) ofthe Act states five criteria that must bemet before the Administratormay redesignate an area to attainment. The criteria are:

1. The EPAhas determined that the NAAQS have been attained.

2. The applicable implementationplan has been fully approved by EPAunder section 110{k).

3. The EPAhas determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

4. The State has met all applicable requirements for the

area under section 110 and part D.

5. The EPAhas fUlly approved a maintenance plan, including

a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.Attachment B

The EPApolicies for implementing section 107 ofthe Act for redesignations are contained in the following memorandums.

1. "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment," John Calcagni, Director, Air QualityManagement Division, september 4, 1992.

2. "state Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in Response to CleanAirAct (CAA) Deadlines," John calcagni, Director, Air QualityManagement Division, October 28, 1992.

3. "contingencyMeasures for Ozone and CarbonMonoxide (CO) Redesignations," G. T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/CarbonMonoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992.

4. "Maintenance Plans for Redesignation ofOzone and Carbon Monoxide NonattainmentAreas," G. T. Helms, Chief, ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992.

In the event that EPA does not approve the redesignation, the applicable I/Mprogramrequirements and guidance can be found in 57 FR 52950, November 5, 1992 and in 40 CFRpart 51. The applicable VMT forecast guidance is described in the document entitled, "Section 187 VMT Forecasting and Tracking Guidance," January 1992.

# ./

UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL**P~OTECTION** AGENCY OfficeofAirQualityPlannlngandStandards ResearchTrianglePark, NorthCarolina27711



# 1'1AUG1993
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Technical support Documents (TSD's) for Redesignation Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas

.'

### /~-~. FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief //0) Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X

The purpose of· this memorandum is to request your help in trying to upgrade the TSD's prepared by the Regional Offices which support Federal Register notices of proposed and final rulemaking actions on ozone and CO redesignations.

To make the review process flow more efficientl reduce Headquarters review time and move State' ement ion plan (SIP) actions from Table 1 to Table 2, 1t is important for Headquarters to quickly process redesignation packages. To do this, we will rely heavily on the Regional Offices to review the State submittals and present the results of their reviews in the TSD. 1 Therefore, it is important that the Regional Offices present documentation in the TSD to support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) evaluation of the submittals along with the complete technical basis for EPA's rulemaking action.

For redesignations, the TSD should answer basic questions such as:

- What years are the supporting air quality data covering? Where are the monitors located? What are the relevant concentrations?

- For what years were emissions inventories prepared and how

were they developed? In the interim, what are the total

lNote thata TSD shouldbepreparedfortheproposedrUlemaking action or a direct final action. If EPA's position changes prior to final rUlemaking, the reasons for the changes are normally addressed in the notice of final rulemaking rather than redrafting the TSD. General information on TSD's is in the document entitled, "Processing Procedures For SIP Revisions For Part 52, Part 62 111(d) Plans, and Part 81 Redesignations."• J

2 season-day and/or annual emissions bypollutant for point, area, and mobile sources for the attainment and maintenance years?

- What transportation, emission, and/or dispersion models

were used? Whatwere the significant inputparameters; including air quality data and assumptions used in the demonstration? What are the model results?

- What are the maintenance plan triggers, commitments, and contingency measures? What is the process for tracking the plan and reportiqg results to EPA? What are the adoption and implementation schedules for the contingency measures? How is maintenance demonstrated in the interimyears? Are additional controls to be adopted and implemented in the future to offset emission increases, and what is the impact ofthese controls on emissions inventory planning cap(s)?

- When was the public hearing and what are the results of any comments received by the state? What is the status of

an outstanding SIP call or findings letter, if any?

-What is EPA's evaluation ofthe State's supporting materials that accompanied the sUbmittal, such as the technical data and commitment letters, and how do these materials conformto EPApolicy, guidance, and the Clean Air Act?
Hopefully, you are checking the emissions inventories submitted for redesignations and they are ofthe same quality as those submitted to meet nonattainment area requirements. Ifthis is not the case, you should start transitioning to better inventories. You may use the relevant portions ofthe document entitled, "QualityReview Guidelines For Base Year 1990 Emission Inventories," as a guide to summarizing the inventories in the TSD.

Ifyou have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders at (919) 541-5284.

# • UNITED**S~AT,ES ~NVIRONMENTAL**  PROTECTIONAGENCY Office(ri,A!rQualityPlanningandStandards ResearchTrianglePark.NorthCarOlina27711 

# OCT281992

MEMORANDUM



# .' SUBJECT:

FROM:

TO: State Implementation Plan (SIP)_Actions Submitted in Response to Clean Air Act**~ct) D~ines** 

.."**.~. ".~.:.**  John Calcagni, Director**~.** I

..Z**;.~~** Air Quality Management

### D~~ision, OAQPS\{MO-15)



# , .' Director, Air,**Pestici~s** and Tdxics: Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air aryd Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Region VI '': Director, Air and Taxies Division, .Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X



# • The purpose of this memorandum is to**cla~ify** issues related to redesignation requests and SIP actions submitted in response to Act deadlines, and specifically address SIP elements that are due November 15, 1992. The following topics are addressed below: completeness determinations on commitment submittals; requests for parallel processing to meet Act deadlines; effect of redesignation requests on mandatory Act SUbmittals; completeness determinations on emission inventory SUbmittals; and issuing letters to the States making a finding of failure to submit a required SIP, or SIP element.
Completeness Determinations on Commitment Submittals

In anticipation of commitment SIP's being SUbmitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as authorized by section 110(k)(4) of the Act, my staff are working with the Office of General Counsel (OGe) to revise the completeness criteria in Appendix V of 40 CFR Part**51.~** Specifically, it is our intent to include specific completeness criteria for committal SIP's

.
AJuly 22, 1992 memorandum from Michael Shapiro identified a number of statutory requirements for which EPA is inclined to accept committal SIP's. (A clarification of that memorandum was issued by Michael Shapiro on September 16, 1992.)



## 61 

## 21,-/-r'

I,., .)

# •

."

• 2

The current completeness criteria do not address commitments submitted under section 110(k)(4) of the Act. However, we are interpreting section 110(k)(4) as allowing EPA to accept commitments from a State as complete submittals even though commitments will**.~ack** some of the substantive elements required under the current completeness criteria. Consequently, committal SIP's submitted to EPA should be reviewed against only those**e~ements** of the completeness criteria that are directly applicable to commitments in order to be determined complete. The elements of the completeness**cri~eria** that are.applicable to commitments are:

1. Aformal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee requesting EPA approval of the commitment.

2. The commitment was SUbject to a pUblic hearing pursuant to 40 eFR 51.102.

3. The submittal contains a schedule for the adoption of the statutorily required measures. Additionally, States should be encouraged to submit documentation and a justification explaining the need for a commitment

.. If a Regional Office receives a submittal that contains one or more commitments in association'with other rules or control measures, the Region should consult with the responsible Headquarters program office to determine if a commitment is acceptable in that specific circumstance. (Please refer to my July 9, 1992 memorandum entitled "Processing of State Implementation Plan SUbmittals," specifically the part on conditional approvals.) If EPA determines that it will consider the commitment under the conditional approval process, the commitment should be reviewed only as to the criteria that would be applicable for commitments. However, if EPA determines that a commitment cannot be used to meet the statutory requirement, the submittal should be reviewed against all elements of the completeness criteria.
Requests for Parallel Processing to Meet Act peadlines

The EPA expects a number of States to request parallel processing of draft rules as a way to meet Act deadlines. A State request for parallel processing is not an official submittal satisfying a statutory deadline since it is a draft rule (i.e., the State has yet to adopt the regulation).

When the completeness criteria were promulgated with an exception for parallel processing, EPA was not anticipating submittals SUbject to statutory deadlines. The intent was to continue the timesaving concept of parallel**processi~g** Stateinitiated actions. However, the exceptions in the completeness criteria could be interpreted**~s ~equiring**  EPA to accept draft 

## 2076

# •

•

• ..

3

rules 

### in order to meet statutory deadlines. As noted above, draft submittals are not considered plan submittals under the Act because they have not been adopted by the State. Consequently, EPA is not precluded from making a finding of failure to submit a required SIP element when a State submits a draft rule.

If a request for parallel processing is sUbmitted.to EPA before the statutory deadline, EPAmay agree to parallel process the action. However, EPA will not make a completeness finding under section 110(k)(1) since that section applies to official plan submittals and hot draft rules. However, it the statutory deadline passes and a State has not submitted the fully-adopted regulation, the Regions should make a finding of failure to submit under section 179(a)(1). This will initiate the sanctions time clock.
Subsequently, ifa State submits a fUlly-adopted rule or maintenance plan, EPA will review the submittal aqainstthe completeness criteria. The EPA will commence rulemaking action if the submittal is complete. Ifthe completene•• criteria are met, a finding of completeness will stop the time clockfor

.**sanctions~** Ifthe completeness criteria are not met, EPA should make a finding of incompleteness, therebymaintaining the previous time clock for sanctions.

Because the parallel processing exception could be interpreted to require EPA to acceptdraftrules as meeting a statutory deadline, we are presentlyrevising the completeness criteria to remove the parallel processing exception. It should be noted, however, that although parallel processing submittals

are not official plan SUbmittals, EPAwill continue to use parallel processing as an effective avenue for approving State rules expeditiously.

Effect of Redesignation Requests on Mandatory Act Submittals

It has come to our attention that some States plan to submit redesignation requests prior to November 15, 1992 with the understanding that this will exempt them from implementing mandatory Act programs due to start in November (e.g., oxygenated fuels program, stage II vapor recovery rules, etc.). The approvability of a redesignation request is ba

## 7 ed on the requirements applicable as ofthe date of submlttal of.a complete redesignation request. 2 States, however, are statutorlly

2 For a redesignation request to be complete, any portions of the redesignation request that are SIP revisions (e.g., maintenance_plans and any additional control measures) must meet the completeness criteria for SIP revisions. Redesignation**request~** submitted for parallel proces

## 7ing will not"be considered official submittals; therefore, they wl11 not be treated as complete submittals. 

## 20!

## !

## 2D/e) 

# •

•

• ..

4
obligatedto meet SIP requirements that become due any time before an area is actually redesignated to attainment. Such redesignation occurs when EPA has taken final rulemaking action to approve 8 redesignation request.
-.". Hence, if there is a failure by the State to meet a statutory deadline'for an area (before EPA has redesiqnated the

area as attainment), a finding of failure to submit should be made. This, in turn, begins the sanctions process under section 179(a) (see September 4, 1992 memorandum, entitled "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment"). The findings letter should recognize any pending redesiqnation request, note the State's statutory obligation to implement any mandatory requirements that are due, and indicate that one ofthe**sanct~ons ~ill**  be imposed after 18 months unless EPA approves the redes1gnat10n request before the 18-month period has ended. Thus,

.the Regions**S~9~ld ~p.** ":e all reasonable attempts to ensure that the redesignation approval process does not take over 18 months.
completeness Determinations on Emission Inventory Submittals

In a September 29, 1992 memorandum fromWilliam Laxton and myself addressing pUblic hearing requirements for emission inventory submittals, it was stated that EPAwas providing a "de minimis" deferral of the pUblic hearing requirement 

### toremission inventory submittals. In thatmemorandum, it-was also stated that if emission inventory submittals do not meet the completeness criteria (except for the deferred public hearing requirement), EPA should make a finding of incompleteness. However, thatmemorandum did not specify the process for making completeness determinations on emission inventory sUbmittals that only lack the pUblic hearing element.

After discussion with OGe, we have determined that for the ·emission inventory submittals that are only lacking evidence of a public hearing, EPA should make a finding of completeness contingent upon the state fulfilling the pUblic hearing requirement. The completeness letter to the state should indicate that the completeness determination is contingent upon the state's fulfilling the pUblic hearing requirement by the time identified in the September 29 memorandum. If the pUblic hearing requirement is not met by the time specified, then EPA will make

a finding of incompleteness on the original emission inventory

. submittal. The completeness letter should further state that the public hearing requirement must be met before or at the time of submittal of a rate-of-progress or maintenance plan, or at the time the inventory takes on regulatory significance Such as providing a basis for banking or trading.

# •

•

• -

5

As noted in the September 29 memorandum, EPA also is providing a "deminimis" deferral ofthe requirement for EPAto take action onthe emission inventory submittals. The 12-month statutory timeframe for approving or disapproving the emission**inven~ory** 

### submittal will start at the time the public hearing requirement is met. IfEPAhas found the submittal incomplete, EPA will not be 

### required to take approval action on the

.submittal.

Issuing Letters to the States Making a Finding Qf Failure tQ Submit a Required SlYQr SIP Element

The Regional Offices should be 

### planning tQ issue**fin~ings** 

### Qf failure to submit to States nQt meeting the NQvember 1992 (and other) statutory deadlines. The Agency has taken a strong stance that such findings shQuld be 

### made soon after a due date has passed. Notice that a State has failed tQ sUbmit. SIP, or SIP element, is made in the form ofa letter from the Regional Administrator.to the GQvernQrofa State. Please refer**~o** 

### the July 22, 1992 Shapiromemorandum, entitled "Guidelines for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals Due November 15, 1992," for further information. Furtherguidance will be 

### made available on the schedule and format ofthe findings•

Ifyou have any questions on this memorandum, please contact Denise Gerth at (919) 541-5550.

cc: Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X JQhn Cabaniss Jeff Clark Denise Devoe TQmHelms Steve Hitte Steve·HQQver Ed Lillis David MQbley Rich ossias JQe Paisie Lydia Wegman



## 2013! '.,

,. '", 

# .'

UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY OfficeofAirQualityPlannmgandStandards ResearchTrianglePark, NorthCarolina27711 

# 4SEP1992

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:**Proce~ures** for Processing to Attainment

Director, Air, Pestic' es and Toxics nt Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III ' Director, Air and Radiati6n Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X FROM:**~6hn Calc~ni,** **Directo~~~~** Air Quality Management

TO:,

Purpos@

The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQP5) expects that a number pf redesignation requests will be submitted in the near future. Thus, Regions will need to have guidance on the applicable procedures for handling these requests, including maintenance plan provisions. This memorandum, therefore, consolidates the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) guidance regarding the processing of requests for redesignation of nonattainment areas to attainment for ozone (03)'**ca~bon** monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM-10), sulfur dioxide (502)' nitrogen dioxide (N02), and lead (Pb). Regions should use th1s guidance as a general framework for drafting Federal Register notices pertaining to redesignation requests.**5pe~ial** concerns for areas seeking redesignation from unclassifiable to attainment will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Background

Section l07(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, states that an area can be redesignated to attainment if the following conditions are met:2

1. The EPA has determined that the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) have been attained.

2. The applicable implementation plan has been fUlly approved by EPA under section 110(k).

3. The EPA has,determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions.

4. The state has met all applicable requirements for the

area under section 110 and Part D.

5. The EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including

a contingency plan, for the area under section 175A.

Each of these criteria is discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs. Particular attention is given to maintenance plan provisions at the end.of this document since maintenance plans constitute a new requirement under the amended Clean Air Act. Exceptions to the guidance will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

1. Attainment of the standard

The state must show that the area is·attaining the applicable NAAQS. There are two components involved in making this demonstration which should be considered interdependently. The first component relies upon ambient air quality data. The data that are used to demonstrate attainment should be the product of ambient monitoring that is representative of the area ofhighest concentration. These monitors should remain at the

same location for the duration of the monitoring period required for demonstrating attainment. The data shouldbe collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR 58 and recorded in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS) in order for it to be available to the pUblic for review. For purposes of redesignation, the Regional Office should verify that the integrity of the air quality monitoring network has been -preserved.

For PM-10, an area may be considered attaining the NAAQS if the number of expected exceedances per year, according to 40 CPR 50.6, is less than or equal to 1.0. For 03, the atea must show that the average annual number of expected exceedances, according to 40 CFR 50.9, is less than or equal to 1.0 based on data from all monitoring sites in the area or its affected downwind environs. In making.this showing, both PM-IO**~nd** 03 must r

## 7ly on 3 complete, consecut1ve calendar years ofqual1ty-assured a1r quality monitoring data, collected in accordance with 40 CFR 50, Appendices Hand K. For CO, an area may be considered attaining the NAAQS ifthere are no violations, as determined in accordance3

with 40 CFR 50.8, based on 2 complete, conSecutive calendar years of quality-assured monitoring data. For S02' according to 40 CFR 50.4, an area must show no more than one exceedance annually and for Pb, according to section 50.12, an area may show no exceedances on a quarterly basis.

The second component relies upon supplemental EPA-approved air quality modeling. No such supplemental modeling is required for 03 nonattainment areas seeking redesignation. Modeling may be necessary to**det~rmine** the representativeness of the monitored data. For pollutants such as S02 and CO, a small number of monitors typically is not representative of areawide air quality

or areas .of highesttoncentration. When dealing with S02' Pb, PM-10 (except.for a limited number of initial moderate nonattainment areas), and CO (except moderate areas with. design values of 12.7 parts per million or lower at the time of passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990), dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to evaluate comprehensively sources'· impacts and to determine the areas of expected high concentrations based upon current conditions. Areas which were designated nonattainment based on modeling will generally not be redesignated to attainment unless an acceptable modeling analysis indicates attainment. Regions should consult with OAQPS for further guidance addressing the need for modeling in specific circumstances.

2. state Implementation Plan (SIP) Approval

Thr SIP for the area must be fully approved under section 110(k),andmust satisfy all requirements that apply to the

area. It should be noted that approval action on SIP elements and the redesignation request may occur simultaneously. An area cannot be redesignated if a required element of its plan is the" SUbject of a disapproval; a finding of failure to submit or to implement the SIP; or partial, conditional, or limited approval. However, this does not mean that earlier issues with regard to the SIP will be reopened. Regions should not reconsider those things that have already been approved and for which the Clean Air Act Amendments did not alter what is required. In contrast, to the extent the Amendments add a requirement or alter"an existing requirement so that it adds something more, Regions should consider those issues. In addition, requests from areas known to be affected by dispersion techniques which are inconsistent with EPA guidance will continue to be/considered unapprovable under section 110 and will not qualify for redesignation.

1Section 110(k) contains the requirements for EPA action on plan submissions. It addresses completeness, deadlines, full and partial approval, conditional approval, and disapproval.4

3. Permanent and Enforceable Improvement'in Air Quality

The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in air quality to emission reductions which are permanent and enforceable.2 Attainment resulting from temporary reductions in emission rates (e.g., reduced production or shutdown due to temporary adverse economic conditions) or unusually favorable meteorology would not qualify as an air quality improvement due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions.

.
In making this showing, the state should estimate the percent reduction (rrom the year that was used to determine the design value for designation and classification) achieved from Federal measures such as the Federal MotorVehicle Control Program and fuel volatility rules as well as control measures that have been adopted and implemented by the state. This estimate should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other related information to clearly show that the air quality improvements are the result of implemented controls. The analysis should assume that sources are operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic.

4. section 110 and Part DRequirements

For the purposes of redesignation, a state must meet all requirements of section 110 and Part Dthat were applicable prior to submittal of the complete redesignation request. When evaluating,a redesignation request, Regionsshouid not consider whether the state has met requirements that come due undjr the Act after submittal of a complete redesignation request.

2T his is consistent with EPA's existing policy on redesignations as stated in an April 21, 1983 memorandum titled "Section 107 Designation Policy summary." This memorandum states that in order for an area to be redesignated to attainment, the State must show that "actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the recent air quality improvement." This element ofthe policy retains its validity under the amended Act pursuant to section 193. [Note: other aspects ofthe April 21, 1983 memorandumhave since been supersededby sUbsequent memorandums; interested parties should consult with'OAQPS before relying on these aspects, e.g. those relating to required years of air quality data.]

3under section 175A(c), however, the requirements of Part D remain in force and effect for the area until such time as it is redesignated. Upon redesignation to attainment,**~the** requirements that became due under section 175A(c) after submittal of the complete redesignation request would no longer be applicable.for section are We will 5
However, any requirements that came due prior to submittal of the redesignation request must be fully approved into the plan at or before the time EPA redesignates the area.

To avoid confusion concerning what requirements will be applicable for purposes of redesignation, Regions should encourage states to work closely with the appropriate Regional Office early in the process. This will help to ensure that a redesignation request submitted py the State has a high

.likelihood ofbeing approved by EPA. Regions should-advise

States of the practical planning consequences if EPA disapproves the redesignation request or ifthe request is invalidated because ofviolations recorded during EPA's review. Under such circumstances, EPA does not have the discretion to adjust schedules for implementing SIP requirements. As a result, an area may risk sanctions and/or Federal implementation plan implementation that could result from failure to meet SIP submittal or implementation requirements.

a. section 110 Requirements

section 110(a)(2) contains general requirements nonattainment plans. Most of the provisions of this the same as those contained in the pre-amendedAct. provide guidance on these requirements as**~eeded.4** b. Part DRequirements

Part Dconsists of general requirements applicable to all

areas whicp are designated nonattainmentbased on a violation of the NAAQS•. The general requirements are followed by a series of subparts specific to each pollutant. The general requirements appear in sUbpart 1. The requirements relating to 03, CO, PM-10, S02' N02, and Pb appear in subparts 2 through 5. In those instances where an area is sUbject to both the general nonattainment provisions in subpart 1 as well as one of the pollutant-specific subparts, the general provisions may be subsumed within, or superseded by, the more specific requirements of sUbparts 2 through 5.

If an area was not classified under section 181 for 03, or section 186.for CO, then that area is only subject to the provisions of sUbpart 1, "NonattainmentAreas in General." In addition to relevant provisions in sUbpart 1, an 03'and CO area, which is classified, must meet all applicable requlrements in subpart 2, "Additional Provisions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas," and subpart 3, "Additional Provisions for Carbon Monoxide

4General guidance regarding the requirements for SIP's may be found in the "General Preamble to Title I of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments," 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).6

Nonattainment Areas," respectively, before"the area may be redesignated to attainment. All PM-IO nonattainment areas (whether classified as moderate or serious) must similarly meet the applicable general provisions of subpart 1 and the specific PM-I0 provisions in subpart 4, "Additional Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas." Likewise, S02' N02, and Pb nonattainment areas are sUbject to the applicable general nonattainment provisions in subpart 1 as well as the more specific requirements in sUbpart, 5, "Additional Provisions for Areas Designated Nonattainment for Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Leaa.,,'

i. Section 1?2(c) Reguirements

This section contains general requirements for nonattainment plans. Athorough discussion ofthese requirements may be found in the General Preamble to Title I [57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)]. The EPA anticipates that areas will already have met most or all of these requirements to the extent that they are not superseded,by more specific Part Drequirements. The requirements for reasonable further progress, identification of certain emissions increases, and other measures needed for attainment will not apply for redesignations because they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standard. The requirements for an emission inventory will be satisfied by the inventory requirements of the maintenance'plan. The requirements of the Part Dnew source review programwill be replaced by the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program once the

area has been redesignated. However, in order to ensure that the PSD**progr~m** will become fully effective immediately upon redesignation, either the State must be delegated the Federal PSD program or the State must make any needed modifications to its rules to have the approved PSD program apply to the affected area upon redesignation.

ii. Conformity

The State must work with EPA to show that its SIP provisions are consistent with section 176(c)(4) conformity requirements. The redesignation request should include" conformity procedures, ifthe State already has these procedures in place. Additionally, we currently interpret the conformity requirement to apply to attainment areas. However, EPA has not yet issued its conformity regulations specifying wHat areas are sUbject to the conformity requirement. Therefore, ifa State does not have conformity procedures in place at the time that it submits a redesignation request, the state must commit to follow EPA'S conformity regulation upon issuance, as**applic~ble.** If the State submits the redesignation request SUbsequent to EPA's issuance of the conformity regulations, and the-conformity requirement became applicable to the area prior to SUbmission,7

the state must adopt the applicable conformity requirements before EPA can redesignate the area.

5. Maintenance Plans

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the amended Act stipulates that for

an area to be redesignated, EPAmust fUlly approve a maintenance plan which meets the requirements of section 175A. Astate may submit both the redesignation request and the maintenance plan at

.the same time and rUlemaking on both.may proceed on a parallel

track. Maintenance"plans may, ofcourse, be submitted and approved by EPA before a redesignation is requested. However, according to**sectio~** 175A(c), pending approval ofthe maintenance plan and ·redesignation request, all applicable nonattainment area requirements shall remain in place.

section 175A defines the general framework of a maintenance plan. The maintenance plan will constitute a SIP revision and must provide for maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in the area for at least 10 years after redesiqnation. section 175A further states that the plan shall contain such additional measures, if any, as may be necessary to ensure suchmaintenance. Because the Act requires a demonstration of maintenance for 10 years after an area is redesignated (not 10 years after submittal of a redesignation request), the State should plan for some lead time for EPA action on the request. In otherwords, the maintenance demonstration should project maintenance for 10 years, beginning from a date which factors in the time necessary"for EPA review and approval action on the redesignation request. In determining the**amoun~** of lead time to allow, States should consider that section 107(d)(3)(D) grants the Administrator up to 18 months from receipt of a complete submittal to process a redesignation request. The statute also requires the State to submit a revision of the SIP 8 years after the original redesignation request is approved to provide for maintenance of the NAAQS for

an additional 10 years following the first la-year period [see section 175A(b)].

In addition, the maintenance plan shall contain such contingencymeasures as the Administrator deems necessary to
ensure prompt correction of any violation ofthe NAAQS [see section 175A(d)]. The Act provides that, at a minimum, the contingency measures must include a requirement that the state will implement all measures contained in the**nonatt~inment** SIP prior to redesignation. Failure to maintain the NAAQS and triggering ofthe contingency plan will not necessitate a revision of the SIP unless required by the Administrator, as stated in section 175A(d).

The following is a list of core provisions that we anticipate will be necessary to ensure maintenance of the relevant NAAQS in an area seeking redesignation from8

nonattainment to attainment. We therefore"recommend that states seeking redesignation of a nonattainment area consider these provisions. However, any final EPA determination regarding the adequacy of a maintenance plan will be made following review of the plan submittal in light of the particular circumstances facing the area proposed for redesignation and based on all relevant information.available at the time.

a. Attainment Inventory

The State should develop an**att~inmeni** emissions inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attai"the NAAQS.5 This inventory shouldbe consistent with EPA's most rece{l.t guidance on emission. inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and should include the emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.6

Source size thresholds are 100 tons/year for so , NO
, and PM-10 areas, and 5 tons/year for Pb basedupon 40 CFi 51.fOO(k) and 51.322, as well'as established practice for AIRS data. ·The

source size threshold for serious PM-I0 areas is 70 tons/year

5Where the state has made an adequate demonstration that air quality has improved as a result ofthe SIP (as discussed previously), the attainment inventory will generally be the actual inventory at the time the area attained-the standard.

6T he EPA's current guidance on the PFeparation of emission inventories for 0 and CO nonattainment areas is contained in the following documen.fs: "Proceduresfor the p'reparation ofEmission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and Precursors ofOzone: Volume I" (EPA-450j4-91-016), "Procedures for the Preparation of Emission Inventories for Carbon Monoxide and precursors·lofOzone: Volume II" (EPA-450/4-91-014), "Emission Inventory Requirements for Ozone State Implementation Plans" (EPA-450j4-91-010), "Emission Inventory Requirements for CarbonMonoxide Implementation Plans" (EPA-450/4-91-011), "Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban AirshedModel"**(EPA~450j4-91­** 013), "Procedures for Emission Inventory Preparation: Volume IV, Mobile Sources" (EPA-450/4-81-026d), and "Procedures for Preparing Emission Inventory Projections" (EPA-450/4-91-019). The EPA does not currently have specific guidance on attainment emissions inventories for S02. In lieu thereof, States are referred to the guidance on emissions data to be used as input to modeling demonstrations, contained in Table 9.1 ofEPA's "Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)" (EPA-450/2-78-027R), July 1987, which is generally applicable to all criteria pollutants. Emission inventory procedures and**~equirements** documents are currently being prepared by OAQPS for PM-I0 and Pbi these documents are due for release by summer 1992.9 according to Clean Air Act section 189(b)(3). However, the inventory should include sources below these size thresholds if these smaller sources were included in the SIP attainment demonstration. Where sources below the 100, 70, and 5 tons/yearsize thresholds (e.g., areas with smaller source size definitions) are sUbject to a State's minor source permit program, these sources need only be addressed in the aggregate to the extent that they result in areawide growth.

For 03 nonattainment areas, the inventory should be based on actual "typical sumnier day" emissions of03 precursors (volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides) dur1ng the attainment year. This will**gen~rally** correspond to one of the periodic inventories required for nonattainment areas to reconcile milestones. For CO.nonattainment areas, the inventory should be based on actual "typical CO season day" emissions for the attainment year. This will generally correspond to one of the periodic inventories requ\red for nonattainment areas.

ib. Maintenance Demonstration

AState may generally demonstrate maintenance of the NAAQS by either showing that future emissions of a pollutant or its .precursors will not exceed the level ofthe**a~tai~m8nt inventor~,** 

or by modeling to show that the future mix of sources and emission rates will not cause a violation of**-th~** NAAQS. Under the Clean Air Act, many areas are required to submit modeled attainment demonstrations to show that proposed-reductions in emissions will be sufficient to attain**the~applicable** NAAQS. For these**area~,** the maintenance demonstration·'should

-be basedupon the same level ofmodeling. In areas where no such modeling was required, the State should be able to rely on the attainment inventory approach. In both instances, the demonstration should be for a period of 10 years following the redesignation.

Where modeling is relied upon to demonstrate maintenance, each plan should contain a summary of the air quality concentrations expected to result from application of the control strategy. In the process, the plan should identify and describe the dispersion model or other 

### air quality model used to project ambient concentrations (see 40 CFR 51.46).

In either case, to satisfy the demonstration requirement the State should project emissions for the 10-year period following redesignation, either for the purpose of showing that emissions will not**~ncrease** over the attainment inventory or for conducting modeling. The projected inventory should consider future growth, including population and industry, should be consistent

7Guidance for projecting emissions may be found in the emissions inventory guidance cited in footnote 6.10

with the attainment inventory, and should document data inputs and assumptions. All elements of the demonstration (e.g., emission projections, new source growth, and modeling) should be consistent with current EPA modeling guidance.8 For 03 and CO, the projected emissions should reflect the expected actual emissions based on enforceable emission rates and typical production rates.

For CO, a State should address the areawide component of the maintenance demonstration either·by showing that future CO emissions will not increase or by conducting areawide modeling. Preferably, the State should carry out hot-spot modeling that is consistent with the**~uideline** on Air Ouality Models (Revised), in order to demonstrate maintenance ofthe NAAQS. In particular, if the nonattainment problem is related to a pattern of**hot~spots** then hot-spot modeling should generally be conducted. However, hot-spot modeling is not automatically required. For example, if the nonattainment problem was related solely to stationary point sources, or if highway improvements have been implemented and the associated emission reductions and travel characteristics can be qualitatively documented, then hot-spot modeling is not required. In suchcases, adequate documentation as well as the concurrence of Headquarters is needed.
Any assumptions concerning emission rates must reflect permanent, enforceable measures. In other.words, a State generally cannot take credit in the maintenance demonstration for reductions unless there are regulations in place requiring those reductions or the reductions are otherwise shown to be permanent. Therefore, the State will be expected to maintain its implemented control strategy despite redesignation to attainment, unless such

measures are shown to be unnecessary for maintenance or are replaced with measures that achieve equivalent reductions (see additional discussion under "contingency Plan"). Emission reductions from source shutdowns can be considered permanent and enforceable to the extent that those shutdowns have been reflected in the SIP and all applicable permits have been modified accordingly. Modeling used to demonstrate attainmentmay be reli$d upon in the maintenance demonstration where the modeling conforms to current**EP~** guidance and where the state has projected no significant changes in the modeling inputs during the intervening time. Where the original attainment demonstration may no longer be relied upon, states will be expected to remodel using current

8The EPA-approved modeling guidance may be found in the following documents: "Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)," OAQPS, RTP, NC (EPA-450/2-78-027R), July 1986; and "PM-10 SIP Development Guideline," OAQPS, RTP, NC**(EPA-450/2-86~** 001), June 1987.11

EPA referenced techniques.9 This may be necessary where, for example, there has been a change in emissions or a change in the siting of new sources or modifications such that air quality may
no longer be accurately represented by the existing modeling.

c. Monitoring Network

Once an area has been redesignated, the state should continue to operate an appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58, to verify the attainment status"of the area. The maintenance plan should contain provisions for continued operation of air quality monitors .that will provide such verification. In cases where measured mobile source parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled congestion) have changed over time, the state may also need to perform a saturation monitoring study to determine the need for, and location of, additional permanent monitors.

d. Verification of Continued Attainment

Each state should ensure that ithas the legal authority to implement and enforce all measures necessary to attain and to maintain the NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(2)(B) and (F) ofthe Clean Air Act, .as amended, and regulations promulgated at 40 eFR 51.110(k), suggest that one such measure is the acquisition of ambient and source emission data to demonstrate attainment and maintenance.
Regardless ofwhether the maintenance demonstration is based

on a showing that future emission inventories will not exceed the attainment'inventory or on modeling, the state submittal should indicate how the state will track the progress ofthe maintenance plan. This is necessary due to the fact that the emission projections made for the maintenance demonstration depend on**~ssumptions** of point and area source growth.

One option for tracking the progress ofthe maintenance demonstration, provided here as an example, wouldbe for the

.state to periodically update the emissions inventory. In this

case, the maintenance plan should specify the frequency of any planned inventory updates. Such an update could be based, in part, on the annual AIRS update and could indicate new source growth and other changes from the attainment inventory (e.g., changes in vehicle miles travelled or in traffic patterns). As

an alternative to a complete update ofthe inventory, the state may choose to do a comprehensive review of the factors that were used in developing the attainment inventory to show no significant change. If this review does show a significant change, the State should then perform an update of the inventory

.

. 9See references for modeling guidance cited in footnote 8..-"

12

Where the demonstration is based on modelihg, an option for tracking progress would be for the state to periodically (typically every 3 years) reevaluate the modeling assumptions and input data. In any event, the state should monitor the indicators for triggering contingency measures (as discussed below)

.

e. contingency Plan

section 175Aofthe Act also requires that a maintenance plan include contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation of the"area. These contingency measures are distinguished from those generally required for nonattainment

areas under section 172(c)(9) and those specifically required for 03 and co nonattairiment areas under sections 182(C)(9) and 187(a)(3), respectively. For the purposes of section 175A, State is not required to have fully adopted contingency measures that will take effect without further action by the State in order for the maintenance plan to be approved. However, the contingency plan is considered to be an enforceable part of the SIP and should ensure that the contingencymeasures are adopted expediently once they are triggered. The plan should clearly identify the measures to be adopted, a schedule and procedure for adoption and implementation, and a specific time limit for action by the State. As a necessary part of the'plan, the State should also identify specific indicators, or triggers, which will be used to determine when the contingency measures"need to be implemented.

Where'the maintenance demonstration is based on the inventory, the State may, for example, identify an "action level" of emissions as the indicator. If later inventory updates show that the inventory has exceeded the action level, the State would take the necessary steps to implement the contingency measures. The indicators would allow a State to take early action to address potential violations of the NAAQS before they occur. By taking early action, States may be able to prevent any actual violations of the NAAQS and, therefore, eliminate the ne.ed on the part of EPA to redesignate an area to nonattainment.

other indicators to consider include monitored or modeled violations of the NAAQS (due to the inadequacy ofmonitoring data in some situations). It is important to note that air quality data in excess of the NAAQS will not automatically necessitate a revision of the SIP where implementation ofcontingency measures is adequate to address the cause ofthe violation. The need for

a SIP revision is sUbject to the Administrator's discretion.

The EPA will review what constitutes a contingency plan on a case-by-case basis. At a minimum, it must require that the state will implement all measures contained in the Part 0 nonattainment13
plan for the area prior to redesignation [see section 175A(d)]. This language suggests that a state may submit a SIP revision at the time of its redesignation request to remove or reduce the stringency of control measures. Such a revision can be approved by EPA if it provides for compensating equivalent reductions. A demonstration that measures are equivalent would have to include appropriate modeling or an adequate justification. Alternatively, a state might·be able to demonstrate (through EPA-approved modeling) that the measures are not necessary for maintenance of the standard. In either case, the contingency plan would have to provide for implementation of any measures that were reduced or removed after redesignation of the area. Summary

As stated previously, this memorandum consolidates EPA's redesignation and maintenance plan guidance and Regions should rely upon it as a general framework in draftinq Federal Register notices. It is strongly suggested that tne Regional**Office~** share this document with the appropriate states. This should give the states a better understanding ofwhat is expected from a redesignation request and maintenance plan under existing policy. Any necessary changes to existing Agency policy will be made through our action on specific redesignation requests and the review of section 175Amaintenance plans for these particular areas, both ofwhich are sUbject to notice-and commentrulemaking procedures. Thus, in applying this memorandumto specific circumstances in a rulemaking, Regions should'consider the

. applicability ofthe underlying policies to the particular facts \'and to comments submittedby any person. Ifyour staffmembers

have questions which require clarification, they may contact Sharon Reinders at (919) 541-5284 for 03- and CO-related issues, and Eric Ginsburg at (919) 541-0877 for S02-' PM-10-, and Pb-related issues.

cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X John Cabaniss, OMS Denise Devoe, OAQPS Bill Laxton, TSD Rich Ossias, OGC John Rasnic, SSCD John Seitz, OAQPS Mike Shapiro, OAR Lydia Wegman, OAQPS

### ". UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY OfficeofAirQuality Planningand Standards ResearchTriangle Park, North Carolina27711


### COpy 

# 1JUN1992



# - MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Redesignations

FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X

Several Regions have asked for specific examples of what a contingency plan should contain. In general, a contingency plan should identify the measures that the State will adopt and the factors that will determine when the measures will be adopted. An example of this is attached. The attached example is only one approach to the contingency plan; it is not the only approach.

Ifyou have any further questions concerning this sUbject, please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541-5511.

Attachment



### OAQPS:AQMD:OCMPB:LAURELSCHULTZ:JKING:EXT. 5511:5/22/92

I •1,\'-/ CONCURRENCES 

# =:

..**~~** 

# :'J,!

- - - .**OAT~ ···~iiii~i··**  

# . - - .

I!P4 P_1320-1 02.70)ATTACHMENT
Example of Ozone contingency Plan Provisions:

The following provisions might be included in a contingency plan:

1) Inclusion of several potential scenarios that could**trigge~** implementation of the contingency plan

-

...•
A state may choose to establish a number of indicators to trigger contingency measures. For example, one scenario for

ozone may be an increase in volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions which exceeds a predetermined "action line" level (encroaching into the emission margin of safety), but does not necessarily produce ozone violations. Another situation, regardless of the actual VOC emissions, may involve actual violations of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone. For CO, the trigger will probably have to be based on ambient concentrations, but a specified emission level may be used as a supplement in some situations.

2) structured levels of measures to be implemented due to the extent of the problem

-

Once the state has established the indicators and trigger levels, it may identify specific measures to correspond to each of the triggers. For example, if the first scenario involving

ozone occurs with no violations, then certain defined measures may be taken, such as: (a) requirement for VOC emission offsets for new and modified major sources at 1.1 to 1, as required for "marginal" areas under the Clean Air Act; (b) completion of comprehensive VOC emission inventory; and (c) implementation of

one or more transportation control measures sufficient to achieve at least 0.5 percent reduction in actual areawide VOC emissions. Where violations do occur, additional defined measures may be implemented, such as stage II vapor recovery or enhanced inspection/maintenance program. Finally, if the above controls still are not successful in curtailing violations of the ozone NAAQS, additional measures may be employed (e.g., requirement for VOC emission offsets for new and modified major sources at 1.15 to 1, as required for "moderate" areas pursuant to the Act). Even more extreme measures may be implemented, such as requiring VOC controls on minor new sources (less than 100 tons) and requiring reasonably available control technology on sources covered by new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) control techniques guidelines documents. As a last resort, if the above

measures fail to bring the area back into attainment, the state could commit in its contingency plan that it will request designation to nonattainment at the appropriate classification. This last measure is not essential, as EPA has the authority under section 107 to unilaterally redesignate an area.2
3) Detailed description ofparticularmeasures to be undertaken

-

The state should provide as much detail as possible concerning the contingency measures to be implemented. For example, if transportation control measures are included, the plan**s~ould** specify the levels to which they will apply. For instance, such specifications could include trip reduction programs for employers of more than number of employees that will mandate a specified vehicle occupancy rate; transit improvements such as purchase ofy number of buses to be placed

on specified routes; traffic flow improvements (e.g., no left turns at specified blocks); alternative fuels programs for fleet vehicle operations over a specified size fleet; vehicle antitampering programs; and other innovative transportation control

measures. 4) Discussion ofpreparatory actions necessary before actual implementation of certainmeasures

-

The plan should identify the procedure to be used to adopt and implement the contingency measures to ensure promptness. For instance, before implementation of stage II vapor recovery, affected individuals/industries need proper notification. Local and state officials should be well informed of any changes. An official notification scheme should be included as part of the contingency plan. In addition, the state should submit a . schedule of when each of these elements of the procedure will be completed. The schedule should also account for the time needed by the state to adopt specific measures.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

June 18, 1990

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Design Value Calculations

FROM: William G. Laxton, Director Technical Support Division (MD-14)

TO: See Below

In discussions related to the Clean Air Act legislation, design values for ozone and carbon monoxide are receiving particular attention. Previously, it sufficed to designate areas as either attainment or nonattainment but now areas will be further classified into different categories based upon the magnitude of the appropriate design value. This additional classification step places added emphasis on the need to accurately determine these design values. The classification will be done according to concentration cutpoints, and on a schedule, specified in the legislation.

Obviously, once this process is set in motion we will be working very closely with you to develop these design values. However, I thought it would be appropriate to reiterate our design value computation procedures in advance to help people anticipate the types of data review questions that may arise. The computation procedures stated here are consistent with our previous methods. There are differences between the procedures for ozone and carbon monoxide because the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) is structured in terms of expected exceedances while the carbon monoxide NAAQS uses the older "once per year" format. The most apparent difference is that the CO design values are based upon 2 years of data while design values for ozone use 3 years. Another difference is that the ozone NAAQS uses the daily maximum ozone value while the CO NAAQS considers running 8-hour averages so that, even though they must be non-overlapping, it is possible to have more than one CO exceedance per day. Because of these differences, it is convenient to discuss each pollutant separately. With respect to terminology, you may hear the CO design value approach referred to as "the highest of the second highs', while the ozone design value is frequently simplified as "the fourth high in 3 years."

One point to remember is that all locations within an area have to meet the standard (NAAQS). Therefore, when we do our evaluations, we look at each individual site to make sure that every site meets the standard. A separate design value is developed for each site that does not meet the NAAQS, and the highest of these design values is the design value for the area.

Page 2 Carbon MonoxideCO design values are discussed in terms of the 8-hour CO NAAQS, rather that the 1-hour NAAQS, because the 8-hour NAAQS is typically the standard of concern. However, a 1-hour design value would be computed in the same manner. For 8-hour CO, we simply look at the maximum and second maximum (non-overlapping) 8-hour values at a site for the most recent 2 years of data. These values may be readily found on an AIRS AMP450, "Quick Look", printout. Then we choose the highest of the second highs and use this as our design value for that site. We then look at all design values within an area and the highest of these serves as the design value for the area. Note that, for each site, individual years of CO data are considered separately to determine the second maximum for each year - CO data are not combined from different years. It is probably worth commenting on this. The CO NAAQS requires that not more than one 8-hour average per year can exceed 9 ppm (greater than or equal to 9.5 ppm to adjust for rounding). We evaluate attainment over a 2-year period. If an area has a design value greater that 9 ppm, it means there was a monitoring site where the second highest (non-overlapping) 8-hour average was greater that 9 ppm in at least 1 year. Therefore, there were at least two values above the standard during 1 year at that site and thus the standard was not met.

Hypothetical Case (two CO sites in an area)

(8-Hour Averages) MAX 2nd High SITE 1 1987 14.6 8.9 1988 13.9 10.9 10.9 is the Design Value for Site 1

(8-Hour Averages) MAX 2nd High SITE 2 1987 12.2 11.1 1988 10.8 10.4 11.1 is the Design Value for Site 2

11.1 ppm would be the design value for the area.

Ozone

The form of the ozone NAAQS requires the use of a 3-year period to determine the average number of exceedances per year. In its simplest form, the ozone standard requires that the average number of exceedances over a 3-year period, cannot be greater than 1.0. An area with four exceedances during a 3-year period, therefore, does not meet the ozone standard because four exceedances in 3 years averages out to more than once per year. Now, if the fourth highest value was equal to the level of the ozone standard, i.e. 0.12 ppm, then the area would have no more than three exceedances during the 3-year period and the average number of exceedances per year would not be greater 3

Page 3 than one. This assumes no missing data and is how the fourth high value in 3-years came to be used as the design value. Actually, an adjustment is specified in the ozone NAAQS to account for missing datain determining the expected exceedances for ozone. Because of considerations associated with control strategy modeling, the following basic approach for ozone design values has been in use since 1981. If there are 3 complete years of ozone data, then the fourth highest daily maximum during the 3-year period is the data, then the fourth highest daily maximum during the 3-year period is the design value for that site. If only 2 complete years of data are available, then the third highest is used and, if only one complete year is available, then the second highest is used. In this approach, a year of ozone data is considered complete if valid daily maximums are available for at least 75 percent of the ozone season. Note that because of the form of the ozone NAAQS, data are combined over multiple years but they are not combined from different sites.

Hypothetical Case (two O3 sites in an area, each year at least 75% complete)

FOUR HIGHEST DAILY MAXIMUM VALUES

Max 2nd Hi 3rd Hi 4th Hi

SITE 1 1986 .127 .123 .122 .110

1987 .129 .124 .121 .116

1988 .142 .136 .134 .115

The design value for Site 1 is 0.129 ppm, the fourth highest daily maximum value during the three year period.

FOUR HIGHEST DAILY MAXIMUM VALUES Max 2nd Hi 3rd Hi 4th Hi

SITE 2 1986 .110 .100 .095 .090

1987 .110 .100 .095 .090

1988 .180 .175 .160 .110

The design value for Site 2 is 0.110, the fourth highest value during the three year period.

0.129 ppm would be the design value for the area.

There are a few additional comments warranted on the ozone example. First, note that data from each site was treated independently in computing the design value for that site. Assuming no missing data, the second site would meet the ozone NAAQS but the area would not because the other site shows that the NAAQS is not being met. Also, it should be noted that the high

Page 4 values for a year are considered even if the data for that year did not satisfy the 75 percent data completeness criterion. For example, if a site had 2 years of data that met the 75 percent data completeness requirement and 1 year that did not, then the third highest value during the 3-year period would be the design value because there wereonly 2 complete years of data but the data from all 3 years would be considered when determining the third highest value. This ensures that valid high ozone measurements in a particular year are not ignored simply because other data in that year were missing. When computing data completeness, the number of valid days can be increased to include days that may be assumed to be less than the standard level as stated in the ozone NAAQS. Also, for new sites that have just come on line, the 75 percent data completeness requirement for the start-up year may be applied beginning with the first day of actual monitoring as long as the data set is at least 75 percent complete for June through August.

A final practical complication that must be addressed in determining ozone design values is the case where a site reports data but has no year that meets the 75 percent data completeness requirement. Admittedly, this is an unusual situation but, for the sake of completeness, it needs to be addressed. At the same time, however, the reason for this consistent data completeness problem should be examined because ozone monitoring data completeness is typically greater that 90 percent. In general, if a site has no complete years of data and fewer than 90 days of data during the 3-year period, the design value will be determined on a case by case basis. In such cases, the data base is so sparse that it would be extremely difficult to describe general rules that would apply and a careful evaluation would have to be made to determine why this situation occurred and what is the most appropriate way to use the data. For a site without a single complete year of data but at least 90 days of data during the 3-year period, the following steps are followed in determining the ozone design value:

1. Divide the number of valid daily maximums during the 3-year period by the required number of monitoring days per year. As noted earlier, the number of valid days can be increased by including the number of days that may be assumed to be less than the standard level as specified in the ozone NAAQS.

2. Add 1.0 to the above total and then use the integer portion of the result as the rank of the design value.

These steps are not as complicated as they may initially appear. For example, suppose a site with a required ozone monitoring season of 214 days each year reports 0, 121, and 130 valid days of ozone data during the 3-year period. Step 1 would give (0+121+130)/214=1.17. In step 2, 1.0 is added to this total giving 2.17. The integer portion of 2.17 is 2 and so the design value is the second highest value during the three year period. Again, this type of situation should not occur that often and the reasons for the data completeness problems should be identified.

When discussing data completeness for ozone, it is important to recognize that monitoring sites are occasionally discontinued for valid

Page 5 practical reasons. In such cases, if data are available from another site that is representative of the same situation, then data from the discontinued site may be superceded by data from the other site. The intent is to ensure that a single year of data from a monitor that was discontinued 2 years ago, does not dictate the design value if data areavailable from another, equally representative, site. This is not intended to eliminate the missing data penalty when a site is discontinued and there is no data available from a similar monitor.

I have not discussed certain basic data handling conventions, such as computing 8-hour CO averages with missing data, determining the non-overlapping second maximum 8-hour average, or the definition of a valid daily maximum 1-hour ozone daily maximum. All of these conventions have been in place since the 1970's and are routinely incorporated into AIRS outputs so I have not bothered to discuss these points.

Addressees: Director, Environmental Services Division, Regions I-VIII, X Director, Office of Policy and Management, Region IX Director, Air Management Division, Region III Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X

cc: J. Calcagni (MD-15) R. Campbell (MD-10) T. Curran (MD-14) D. DeVoe (ANR-443) J. Farmer (MD-13) T. Helms (MD-15) W. Hunt (MD-14) S. Meiburg (MD-11) R. Ossias (LE-132A)

------------------------- end of original document -----------------

Note to reader:

This copy of the Laxton memo is a retyped version of the original. As a result, the page breaks had to be forced after the last word on each page on the original document.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY Office ofAirQuality Planningand Standards

. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711
COpy



# :30APR1992

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas

FROM: G.T. Helms, Chief Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch (MD-15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I-X

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide clarification of an issue related to maintenance plans for ozone and carbon monoxide. This issue concerns the maintenance demonstration and, in particular, the projection of emissions. In order to make the review of the demonstration easier for both EPA Regions and Headquarters, State submittals should clearly show the procedure used to project future emissions. There has been some concern that if the procedure is not clear, it is very difficult to evaluate the demonstration. The procedure used should be consistent with the guidance contained in the EPA document "Procedures for Preparing Emission Inventory Projections" (EPA450/4-91-019). According to this document, projected emissions should reflect the allowable emission rate and the expected actual production or activity level.

If you have any further questions concerning this subject, please contact Laurel Schultz at (919) 541-5511.