UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 

MAY 10 1995 OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

MEMORANDUM AND STANDARDS 

SUBJECT: Reasonable Further Progress~ 

and Related Requirements for 

Meeting the Ozone Nationa~~~ 

FROM: John s. Seitz, Directo 

Office of Air Quality P 

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 

(MD-10) 

Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, 

I. Policy 

Region VI . 

Director, Air and Toxics Division, 

Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X 

requirements 

This memorandum sets forth EPA's interpretation pf certain 

Act as they relate 

of subpart 2 of part D of title I of the Clean A~r 

the ozone NAAQS. 

to ozone nonattainment areas that are meeting 

Specifically, 

must submit SIP 

it addresses whether such areas 

and attainment 

revisions concerning reasonable further progress 

the 15 percent 

demonstrations. The requirements at issue include 

plan and attainment demonstration 

section 182(b) 

requirements of 

(1) for moderate and above ozone nonattainment 

requirements 

areas and the attainment demonstration and post-1996 RFP 

nonattainment 

of section 182(c) (2) for seripus and above ozone 

areas. Related requirements 

ozone nonattainment 

include the moderate 

contingency measures, requirements of section 172(c) (9) concerning 

requirements 

the serious ozone nonattainment area 

measures, 

of section 182(c) (9) concerning contingency 

section 182(c) (5) concerning 

measures 

transportation control 

include 

and section 182(g) concerning milestones. They also 

the elements of the severe and extreme ozone 

concerning 

nonattainment area requirements of section 182(d) (1) (A) 

requirements. 

vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP 
2 

For the reasons described below, EPA believes that it is reasonable to interpret these provisions areas that are meeting so as not to require the ozone standard to make the SIP submissions to EPA described in the provisions as long as the areas continue to meet the standard. monitor a violation of If such an area were to 

to attainment, however, 

the standard prior to being redesignated the area would have to address pertinent requirements the and submit the SIP revisions described in those provisions 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 provl.sl.ons 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 attaining the ozone standard is in fact (i.e., attainment of the NAAQS is demonstrated 

assured air quality 

with 3 

monitoring 

consecutive years of complete, qualityinterpreted the general data). The EPA has previously provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I (sections 171 and 172) so as not to require submission of SIP the 

demonstrations, revisions qoncerning RFP, attainment 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 of part D of title I, RFP "means such annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are 

Administrator 

required by this 

for part or may reasonably be required by the 

applicable NAAQS by 

the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 

with the general RFP 

the applicable date." Thus, whether dealing 

more specific RFP requirements requirement of section 172(c) (2), or the of subpart 2 for classified ozone nonattainment 

182{b) (1) and the 

areas 

3 percent 

(the 15 percent plan requirement of section 

182{c) (2)), per year requirement of section 1 the stated purpose of RFP 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 

1

EPA notes that paragraph entitled "PLAN PROVISIONS (1) of subsection 182(b) is FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS" and that subparagraph "REASONABLE FURTHER (B) of paragraph 182{c) (2) is entitled PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION," thereby making it 

182(b) 

clear that 

{1) and 

both 

the 

the 

3 

15 percent plan requirement of section 

182{c) {2) are specific percent per year requirement of section varieties of RFP 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) (1i 

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 

Amendments 

Preamble for the Interpretation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

of 1990 {57 FR 13498 {April 16, 1992)), and it is now 

extending that interpretation to the specific provisions 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 a~tainment of the 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 of the 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 requiremen-ts, and similar 

reasoning applies to them. The first of these additional 

2See also "Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Management 

Areas to Attainment," from John ~alcagni, Director, Air Quality 

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 

172(c) 

are the contingency measure requirements of section (9) and section 182(c) (9). The EPA has previously interpreted · the contingency measure requirement of section 172(c) (9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the 

ensuring 

standard 

RFP 

since those "contingency measures are directed at 

see 

and attainment by the applicable date" (57 FR 13564; also September. 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). Similarly, as 

RFP 

the section 182(c) (9) contingency measures are linked with the requirements of section 182(b) (1) and 182(c) (2), the 

has 

requirement attained 

of section 182(c) (~) no longer applies once an area the standard. 

Other requirements related to the attainment demonstration and RFP provisions include: (1) the section 182(c) (5) 

whether 

requirement various regarding the submission of a demonstration as to parameters related to transportation ••are 

attainment"; 

consistent with those used for the area's demonstration of 

milestones (2) the section 182(g) requirements concerning that are based on the section 182(b) (1) and 

section 

182(c) (2) (B) and (C) submissions; and (3) the elements of the 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 

as 

requirements of section 182(b) (1) (A) and 182(c) (2) (B). Inasmuch each of these requirements is linked with the attainment demonstration 

182(c) 

or RFP requirements of section 182(b) (1) or (2), if an area is not subject to the requirement to submit 

submit 

the underlying attainment demonstration or RFP plan, it need not the related SIP revision either. 

The EPA emphasizes that this interpretation does not extend 

of 

to requirements of subpart 2 that are not linked by the language the Act with the attainment demonstration and RFP 

requirements 

requirements. For example, this interpretation does not apply to such as VOC RACT requirements, for which, in 

does 

contrast 

not 

to NOx RACT requirements under section 182(f), the Act 

attained 

establish a mechanism to grant exemptions if an area has the standard, or to the requirements to submit SIP revisions providing for basic or enhanced I/M programs. 

submit 

The 

SIP 

EPA also emphasizes that the lack of a requirement to revisions concerning these RFP, attainment demonstration, and other related requirements exists only for as long as a nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of 

NAAQS, 

the standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the 

no 

the basis for the requirem~nts not being applicable would 

requirement longer exist. Therefore, the area would again be subject to a 

would need 

to submit the pertinent SIP revision or revisions and to address those requirements. Thus, a determination 

no 

that 

more 

an area need not submit one of the SIP submittals amounts to 

area 

than a suspension of the requirement for so long as the continues to attain the standard. If EPA ultimately 

.. . 
5 

redesignates the area to attainment, 

entirely relieved of 

then the area will be 

these requirements 

maintenance plan 

to the extent the 

for the area does not rely on them. 

nonattainment 

Also, EPA notes that in the case of a multistate 

area, the entire multistate nonattainment 

have monitoring data demonstrating 

area must 

attainment submission requirements for the SIP 

applicable to one part 

to be suspended. Thus, the requirements 

of such an area may not be suspended on 

the basis of a determination 

nonattainment area 

only that that part of the 

Offices should coordinate 

is monitoring attainment. The EPA's Regional 

these determinations 

nonattainment ~reas 

for any multistate 

that involve more than one Region. 

III. Process 

The EPA Regional Offices will conduct individual 

concerning areas 

rulemakings 

quality monitoring 

that 

data 

have 3 consecutive years of clean air 

demonstrating 

standard to make binding determinations 

attainment of the ~zone 

attained the standard 

that the areas have 

and need not make whichever of the 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 

State would be free to submit 

this process. However, a 

a petition Regional Office to notify to the appropriate EPA the office that it believes 

certain nonattainment area 

that a 

on the basis of monitored 

is eligible for these determinations 

attainment of the ozone NAAQS. 

As noted above, these determinations would be contingep~ on 

the existence of monitoring data for the ·areas that continue t9 . 

demonstrate attainment. If EPA subsequently determines that an 

area has violated that the area need 

the st~ndard, the basis for the determination not make the pertinent SIP revisions would no 

determination 

longer exist. The EPA would notify the State of that 

Federal Register. 

and would 

Such 

also 

a determination 

provide notice to the public in the 

would thereafter have 

would mean that the area 

to address 

within a reasonable 

the pertinent SIP requirements 

taking into account 

amount of time, which EPA would establish 

the individual circumstances surrounding the 

particular SIP submissions at issue. 

The State must continue 

quality monitoring network, 

to operate an appropriate air 

in accordance with 40 CFR part 58, to 

verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data 

relied upon for the above determi~ations must be consistent with 

40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and 

recorded in EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). 

interpretation

Determinations made by EPA in accordance with this 

.would not shield an area from EPA action to 

require emission reductions from sources in the area where there 
6 

emissions 

is evidence, 

from 

such 

sources 

as photochemical grid modeling, showing that 

in the area contribute significantly 

nonattainment in, or 

to 

nonattainment 

interfere with maintenance by, other 

(section llO(a) 

areas. The EPA has authority under the Act 

section llO(a) 

(2) (D) in the case of areas in other States and 

emissions reductions (2) (A) in the case of intrastate areas) to require if necessary and appropriate 

transport situations. 

to deal with 

IV. Consequences for Redesignations, Sanctions, and conformity 

Determinations made by EPA that an area has attained 

NAAQS and need not make 

the 

discussed one or more of the SIP submissions above is not equivalent 

area to attainment. Attainment 

to the redesignation of the 

the criteria set forth 

of the standard is only one of 

satisfied for an area 

in section 107(d) (3) (E) that must be 

to be redesignated to attainment

redesignated, 

. To be 

a redesignation 

the 

request 

State must submit and receive full approval of 

criteria of that section, 

for the area that satisfies all of the 

including 

demonstration 

the requirement of a 

that the improvement 

due to permanent and enforceable 

in the area's air quality is 

that the area have 

reductions, and the requirements 

applicable requirements 

a fully-approved SIP which meets all of the 

fully-approved maintenance 

under section 110 and part D, and a 

plan. 

If an area for which the determination of attainment has submitted or subsequently is made submits a redesignation 

the SIP submissions 

request, 

discussed 

required for the area's 

in this memorandum would not be 

redesignation 

since 

request to be approved 

under section 

they would 

107(d) 

no longer be considered applicable requiremen~~ 

(3} (E). If the area violates 

prior to final 

the standard 

action on the redesignation 

only would the requirements 

request, however, not 

redesignation request again become applicable, but the 

would no longer meet 

could not be approved because the area 

the criterion of having attained 

standard. 

the 

As a consequence of a determination 

monitoring data 

that an area has 

demonstrating 

thereby removing, 

attainment of the ozone standard, 

at least temporarily, 

submittal requirements 

the pertinent SIP 

had been started as 

discussed above, any sanction clock that 

submission, the incompleteness 

a consequence of the failure to make such a 

disapproval of 

of such a submission, or the 

deficiency that 

such 

had 

a submission, would be stopped since the 

led to the starting of the clock would no longer exist. 

The issuance of a determination pursuant 

have no immediate 

to this policy will 

impact on the way conformity 

Areas will 

is demonstrated. 

continue 

build test and 

to demonstrate conformity using the build/noless-than-1990 test (section 51.436-51.446 of the 

.. 
7 

conformity 

submitted 

rule), and the 15 percent SIP if one has been 

submitted). 

(and attainment/RFP SIP, if one with a budget has been 

Since areas that are the subject of determinations 

to this policy will 

pursuant 

not be required 

demonstration SIP's, 

to submit RFP or attainment 

control strategy period 

those areas will not generally be in the 

control strategy SIP 

for conformity purposes (i.e., have a 

approved and buildjno-build 

required) for so 

test no longer 

Those areas will not 

long as the area does not violate the standard. 

maintenance plan 

generally have approved budgets until a 

redesignation request, 

is approved as part of the approval of a so the build/no-build 

1990 test--in addition 

test and less-thanbe required until 

to any applicable submitted budgets--will 

apply for conformity 

then. (A maintenance plan budget does not 

approved, except as provided 

purposes until the maintenance plan has been 

conformity rule 

by section 51.448(i) of the 

(which applies to areas that are required 

submit a 15 percent 

to 

SIP but submit a maintenance plan instead) .) 

If an area receiving a determination pursuant 

had previously submitted 

to this policy 

choose to withdraw 

a 15 percent or attainment SIP, it may 

the submitted SIP through the submission of a letter from the Governor or his or her designee 

eliminate the applicability 

in order to 

for conformity purposes. 

of its motor vehicle emission budget 

subject to the 15 percent 

This is because that area would not be 

and attainment demonstration 

continues 

requirements 

to attain 

of section 182(b) (1) for so long as the area 

withdrawn, the budget 

the standard. If the submitted SIP is not 

in that submission will continue 

for conformity purposes. 

to apply 

attainment SIP is withdrawn, 

If the submitted 15 percent or · . 

only the build/no-build and less- · 

than-1990 tests would apply until a maintenance plan is approved. 

However, areas that are already demonstrating conformity to a submitted maintenance plan pursuant 

continue to do so, or may 

to section 51.448(i) may 

elect to withdraw the applicability of 

until 

the submitted 

the maintenance 

maintenance plan budget for conformity purposes 

withdrawn through the submission 

plan is approved. The applicability may be 

his or her designee. 

of a lette~ from the Governor or 

maintenance plan 

If the applicability of the submitted budget is withdrawn for conformity purposes, 

build/no-build and 

the 

less-than-1990 

maintenance plan 

tests will apply until the 

is approved. 

For areas which receive a determination pursuant 

policy and whose conformity 

to this 

submit a 15 percent SIP or 

status has lapsed due to a failure to 

percent SIP without a protective 

to the submission of an incomplete 15 

finding, 

section 51 .448(b) 

the lapse imposed by 

and (c) (1) (ii) will be removed. However, 

conformity status of 

the 

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