S-TEAM

. LIBRARY ' 

# WY

*,7€0 sr4, 3 . , 2. 

### fi%ji UNITED STATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

## AGENCY

' RESEARCHTRIANGLEPARK. NC27711 

## MAY

# 101995

AIR QuAI.In OFFICE PUNNING OF ANDSTANOAROS MEMORANDUM

.. .
SUBJECT: 

### Reasonable Further Progress,Attainment Demonstration, and Related Rt?quirernentsfor 

### Ozone NonattainmentAreas Meeting 

### the 0::one Natio 

### ity Standard

FROM: 

### John S. Seitz, 

### ~irecto Office of Air Quality

TO: 

### Director,Air, Pestici Management Clivision, Regions 

### I and IV 

### Director,Air and Waste Management Division, Region I1 

### Director,Air, Radiation and Toxics 

### Division, Region I11 

### 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. 

### Policv

This 

### memorandum set:; 

### forth EPAts

### interpretation 

### of certain requirementsof subpart 2 

### of part 

### D 

### of title I of the Clean

### A-ir Act as 

### they 

### relate to 

### ozone nonattainment areas 

### that 

### are meeting the ozone NAAQS. 

### Specifi.cally, 

### it addresseswhether such areas 

### must submit SIP revisions;concerning reasonable furtherprogress and 

### attainmentdemonstrat;ions. The requirements 

### at 

### issue include the 15 

### percent plan and attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(1)

### formoderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas 

### and the attainmentdemonstration and post-1996 RFP 

### requirements of section 182(c)(2) 

### for serious and above ozone nonattainment areas. Related 

### requirements include themoderate


### 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(y) 

### concerning milestones. They also include the elements of the severe and 

### extreme ozone nonattainment area requirements of 

### section 182(d)(l)(A) 

### concerningvehicle miles 

### traveled that are 

### related to RFP requirements.For the reasons described below, 

### EPA believes that 

### it is

. reasonable to interpret 

### these provisions so 

### as not to require


### areas that aremeeting the ozone standard tomake 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 of 

### the standardprior 

### to being redesignated I. 

## -
to attainment,however, 

### the area would have to address the pertinent requirementsand submit the SIP revisionsdescribed 

### 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.

11. Intermetation and Leaal Rationale

The EPA believes it is reasonable to interpretprovisions regardingRFP 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 of the NAAQS is demonstratedwith 3 consecutive years of complete, qualityassured 

### air quality monitoring data). The EPA has previously 

### interpreted the general provisions of subpart 1 of part D of title 

### I (sections171 

### and 172) so as not to require the submission

### of SIP revisions concerning RFP

## , attainment demonstrations, or continqencymeasures, and 

### EPA believes it 

### is appropriate to interpret 1:he ozone-specific provisions 

### of subpart 2 in the samemanner.
~irst, with respect 1:o RFP, section 171(1) states that, for purposes 

### of part D of title 

### I,RFP llmeans

### such annual incremental reductions in emissions 01; the relevant air pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the 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 25 percent plan requirement of section 182(b)(l) and the 3 percent per 

### year requirementof section 182(c)(2))

## ,

# ' the stated

### purpose of 

### RFP 

### is to ensure attainment by the applicableattainment date. If an area has in fact attained the standard, the stated purpose of the RFP requirement

### will have

'EPAnotes that paragraph (I),of subsection 182(b) is entitled "PLAN PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS" and that subparagraph (B) of paragraph 182(c)(2) is entitled 

### "REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION,I1thereby

### 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 of RFP requirements.already been fulfilled and EPA does not 

### believe that the area need 

### submit revisions providing for the further emission reductionsdescribed in the

### RFP provisions of section 182(b)(l)' 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

### of Title I of 

### the Clean Air Act 

### Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)), and 

### it is now extending that interpretationto the specific provisions of subpart 2. In the General Preamble, EPA stated, in the context of a discussion of the rtiquirements~appLicableto the evaluation 

### of 

### requests to redesignatenonattainment 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 Statewill make RFP towards attainment will, therefore,have no meaning at thatpointN (57 FR 13564).2
Second,

### with respect to the attainment demonstrat-ion 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 applicableunder this Act." Section 182(c)(Z)(A) simply requires a Itdemonstration that the plan, 

### as revised,will provide for attainment 

### of the ozone NAAQS by the applicable

'. attainmentdate." As with the RFP requirements, 

### if an area has in factmonitored attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is

### no need for an area to make 

### a further submission containing additionalmeasures to achieve attainment. 

### This is also consistentwith the interpretation of the 

### section 172(c) requirementsprovided by EPA in the General Preamble to title I,
as EPA stated there that no othermeasures to provide 

### for attainmentwould be needed 

### by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since "attainm.entwill have been reachedu (57FR 13564; see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum).

Other 

### SIP submissionrequirements are linked with these attainment demonstrationand 

### RFP requirements, and similar reasoning 

### applies to them. The first of these additional

'see also ?Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,It fromJohn C,alcagni,Director,Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, September 4, 1992,at pagta 6 (statingthat the wrequirementsfor reasonable furtherprogress 

## .

# . . will not apply for redesignationsbecause 

### they only havemeaning for areas not attaining the standard1@) (hereinafterreferred to 

### as "September 1992 Calcagnimemorandumti) 

# .

### requirementsare the con1:ingency measure requirements of 

### section. 172

### (c)(9) and section 182(c)(9)

# . The 

### EPA has previously interpreted the continge~lcy measure requirement of section 172(c) (9) 

### as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the 

### standard since those ucontingencymeasures are 

### directed 

### at ensuring RFP and attainmcint by 

### the applicable dateu (57

### FR 13564; " *



### see also September 4, 1992 

### Calcagni memorandum). 

### Similarly,

### as the section 182(c)(9) 

### coritingencymeasures are linkedwith the RFP 

### requirementsof secti.on182(b)(1)

### and 182(c)(2), 

### the requirement of section 182(c) (9)no longer applies once 

### an area has 

### attained the standard.

Other requirements related to the attainmentdemonstration 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 

### consistentwith 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 of the section 182(d)(l)(A) requirement for SIP 

### revisions identifying and adopting transportation control'strategies to achieve reductions in motor vehic1.eemissions that relate to the RFP 

### requirements of section 182

### (b)(1)

### (A) and 182(c)(2)(B)

# . Inasmuch
as each 

### of these requirem12ntsis linked with the attainment demonstration or RFP 

### requirementsof section 182(b)(I) 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 interpretationdoes not 

### extend to requirementsof subpart 2 

### that are not linked 

### by the language of theAct 

### with the 

### attairrment demonstration and RFP 

### requirements. 

### For example, this interpretationdoes not apply 

### to requirements such as VOC KACT 

### requirements, for which, 

### in contrast to NOx 

### RACT requirementsunder 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 I/M 

### programs.

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 of the NAAQS, 

### the basis for the 

### requirementsnot being applicablewould
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

### redesignates the 

### area to attainment, then 

### the area 

### will be 

### entirely relieved of these requirements to 

### the extent the maintenance plan for 

### the area does not rely on them.
Also, EPA 

### notes that: in the case of amultistate



### .. . 

### nonattainment area, the entirernultistate nonattainment

### area

### must have monitoring data demanstrating attainment for the SIP 

### submission requirementst,obe 

### 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 of the nonattainment area is monitoring attainment. The EPAfsRegional 

### Offices should coordinate these determinations for any m~ltistate nonattainment areas that 

### involvemore than one Region.

111. 

### Process

The EPA 

### Regional Offices will 

### conduct individual rulemakings concerning areas that have 3 

### consecutive.yearsof clean air qualitymonitoring data demonstrating attainment of the ozone standard tomake binding determinations that the areas have 

### attained the standard and need not make whichever of 

### the SIP 

### revisionsdiscussed above are pertinent. Since EPA 

### has the relevant air 

### quality data in its possession, no submission from a 

### Statewould be required tc:, initiate thisprocess. However, a 

### Statewould be free 

### to submit a 

### petition to the appropriate 

### EPA Regional Office to notify the 

### office that it believes that a certain nonattainment areir is eligible for these 

### determinations
on the basis of monitored attainment of the ozone NAAQS.

As 

### noted above, thesc?determinationswould be 

### contingent on the 

### existence of monitoring data for the'areasthat continue to 

### demonstrate attainment. Sf 

### EPA subsequently determines that an area has violated the starrdard, the 

### basis for the determination that the area need not make the

### pertinent SIP 

### revisionswould no longer 

### exist. The EPA 

### would notify the State of that determination and would al.soprovide notice to the public in the 

### Federal Reqister. Such a determinationwould mean that the area 

### would thereafterhave 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 

### CFR 

### part 58, 

### to verify the attainment status of the area. The 

### air quality data relied 

### upon for 

### the above 

### determinationsmust be 

### consistentwith 40 CFR 

### part 58 

### requirements and other relevant EPA 

### guidance and recorded in EPAts

### Aerometric InformationRetrieval System (AIRS).

Determinations made by 

### EPA in accordancewith this 

### interpretation,wouldnot shield an area 

### from EPA 

### action to 

### require emission reduction~sfrom sources 

### in the area 

### where there

### is evidence, such as 

### photochemical 

### grid modeling, showing that

, 

### emissions from sources in the area contribute significantly to

. 

### nonattainment in, or interferewith 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 if necessary and appropriate to deal with transport situations.

IV. 

### Consequences for Redesianations. Sanctions,and Conformitv

Determinationsmade 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 of the 

### area to attainment. Attainment of the standard is only one of the criteria set.forth in section l07(d)(3)(E) 

### thatmust be 

### satisfied for 

### an area to be 

### redesignated to attainment. To be redesignated,the State must submit and receive full approval of
a 

### redesignationrequest for the area that satisfies all of the criteria of 

### that section, including the requirement of a demonstration that the improvement in the area's air quality isdue 

### to permanent and enfo1:ceable reductions,and the requirements that the area have a fully-approved SIP 

### which 

### meets all of the applicable requirementsunder 

### section 110 

### and part D, 

### and a 

### fully-approvedmaintenance plan.

If an area for which the determination of attainment 

### is made has submitted or subsequently submits a redesignationrequest, the SIP 

### submissions discus:sedin thismemorandum 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). 

### If the area violates 

### the standard prior 

### to final action on 

### the redesignation request,however, 

### not only would the 

### requirementsagain become applicable,but 

### the redesignationrequest could not be approved because the area would no longer meet the criterion of having attained the standard.

As a 

### consequence of a de'termination that 

### an area has monitoring data demonstrating attainment of 

### the ozone standard, thereby removing,at least temporarily, the 

### pertinent SIP 

### submittal requirementsdiscussed 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 thathad led to the starting 

### of the clock would no longer exist.

The issuance

### of a det,ermination 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 of 

### theconformity 

### rule), and the 15 percent SIP 

### if 

### one has 

### been submitted (and attainment/RFP SIP, 

### if one with 

### a budget has been submitted).

Since areas that are the subject of determinationspursuant to 

### this policy will not be required to submit

### RFP or attainment '' 

### - demonstration SfPfs,those areas will not generally be in the control strategyperiod for conformitypurposes (i.e., have 

### a control strategy SIP approved and buildlno-build test no longer required) for so long 

### as 

### the

### area does not violate the standard. Those areas will not generally have approved budgets until a maintenanceplan 

### is approved as part 

### of the approval of a redesignation request, so the buildlno-build test and less-than1990 test--in addition to any applicable submitted budgets--will be required until then. (Amaintenance plan budget does not apply for conformitypurposes until themaintenance plan has been approved, except as provided by section 51.448(i) of the conformity rule (whichapplies to areas that are required to submit a 15 percent SIP but submit a maintenance plan instead).)



### If an area receiving a determinationpursuant to this policy 

### had previously.submitteda 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 conformitypurposes. This is because that 

### area would not be subjectto the 15 percent and attainment demonstration requirements of section 182(b)(l) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. If the submitted SIP is not withdrawn, thebudget in that submission

### will continue to apply 

### for conformity purposes. 

### IS the submitted 15 percent or attainment 

### SIP 

### is withdrawn, only the build/no-build and lessthan-1990 testswould apply until a maintenance plan 

### is approved.

However, areas that are already demonstrating conformity to
a submitted maintenanceplan pursuant to section 51.448(i) may continue to do so, or may elect towithdraw the applicability of the submittedmaintenance plan budget for conformitypurposes until themaintenance plan is approved. The applicabilitymay 

### be withdrawn through the submission of a letter from the Governor or his or her designee. If the applicability of the submitted maintenance plan budget is withdrawn for conformitypurposes, the build/no-build and less-than-1990 tests

### will apply until the maintenance

### plan is approved.

For 

### areaswhich receive a deperminationpursuant 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 cannotbe restored ifconformity has lapsed for any other reason (e.g., failure to redetermine conformity by a certain date).

If you have any quesl:ions, please feel free to callmeo'r Sally Shaver. The.contac1: persons for this policy are Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347 iind 

### Kathryn Sargeant 

### at (313) 668-4441

,. for transportation conforrnity requirements.

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