.O' 9" UNITED STATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLEPARK: NC27711 

# MAY

# 10i995

AIRQUALITY OFFICE PLANNING OF
MEMORANDUM ANDSTANDARDS

SUBJECT: Reasonable Further Progress; ~ttainment Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone N~na.~tainment Areas Meeting the ozone Natio uality Standard

FROM: John S. Seitz, Directo Office of 

### Air Quality s (MD-10)

TO: Director,Air, Pestici Management Division,Regions Iand 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 ~ivision, Region VI Director,Air and Toxics Division, RegionsVII, VIII, IX,and X

I. Policy

This memorandum sets forth EPAfsinterpretation of certain requirements of subpart 2 of part D of 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) formoderate 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)(l)(A) concerning vehicle miles traveled that are related to RFP requirements.2

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

areas that aremeeting the ozone standard to make the SIP submissions to EPA described in theprovisions as long as the

areas continue tomeet the standard. If such an area were to monitor a violation of the standard prior to being redesignated to attainment, however, the area would have to-addressthe pertinent requirements and submit the SIP revisionsdescribed 

### in those provisions to EPA.

Thismemorandum also describes theprocess by 'whichEPA will determine that an area is.attainingthe ozone standard and need not make these SIP submissions.

11. Interpretationand Legal 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 demonstrated with 3 consecutiveyears of complete, qualityassured air quality monitoring data). The EPA has previously interpreted the generalprovisions of subpart 1 of part D of title I (sections 171 and 172) so as not to require the submission of SIP revisions concerningRFP, attainment demonstrations, or contingencymeasures, and EPA believes it is appropriate to interpret the ozone-specific provisions of subpart 2 in the samemanner.
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 required by thispart or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the applicabledate." 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)(l) and the 3 percent per year requirement of section 182(c)(2)),' 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 requirementwill have

'EPAnotes that paragraph (1)of subsection 182(b) is entitled "PLAN PROVISIONS FOR REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESSwand that subparagraph (B) of paragraph 182(c)(2) is entitled !'REASONABLEFURTHER PROGRESS DEMONSTRATION," thereby making it clear that both 

### the 15 percent plan requirement 

### of section 182(b)(l) 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 revisionsproviding for the further emission reductions described in the RFP provisions of section 182(b)(l) and 182(c)(2)

### (B) and (C)


# .

The EPA notes that it took thisviewwith respect to the generalRFP requirement of section 172(c)(2) in the General Preamble 

### for the Interpretationof Title 

### Iof the Clean ~ir Act Amendments of 1990 (57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992)), and it isnow extending that interpretationto the specificprovisions 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 redesignatenonattainment areas to attainment, that the vrequirements for RFP will not apply in evaluating a request for redesignationto attainment since, at a minimum, the air quality data for the areamust show that the area has already attained. showing that the State will make RFP towards attainmentwill, therefore,have no meaning at thatpointt1(57FR 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)(l) requires that the plan provide for nsuchspecific annual reductions in emissions



# .

# . . as necessary to attain theprimary NAAQS by the attainment date applicable under thisAct." Section 182(c)(2)(A) simply requires a Ifdemonstrationthat 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 factmonitored attainment of the standard, EPA believes there is no need for an area tomake a further submission containing additionalmeasures to achieve attainment. This is also consistent with the interpretationof the section 172(c) requirementsprovided by EPA in the General Preamble to title I,

as EPA stated there that no other measures to provide for attainmentwould be needed by areas seeking redesignation to attainment since I1attainmentwill have been reachedn (57 FR 13564; see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum).

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

2~ee also I1Proceduresfor Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas toAttainment,"from John Calcaqni,Director,Air Quality Management Division, to Regional Air Division Directors, September 4, 1992, at page 6 (stating that the llrequirements for reasonable furtherprogress


## . . . will not apply for redesignationsbecause they only have meaning for areas not attaining the standardtt) (hereinafter referred to as IfSeptember
1992 Calcagni mern~randum~~)



# .requirementsare the contingencymeasure requirements of section 172(c) (9)and section 182(c)(9). The EPA has previously interpreted the contingencymeasure requirement of section 172(c)(9) as no longer being applicable once an area has attained the standard since those Itcontingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainmentby the applicabledatet1 (57 FR 13564;

see also September 4, 1992 Calcagni memorandum). Similarly, as the section 182

### (c)(9) contingencymeasures are linkedwith the 

### RFP requirementsof section 182(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 attainment demonstration and RFP provisions include: (1) the section 182(c) (5) requirementregarding the submission of a demonstration as to whether various parameters related to transportation "are consistent with those used for the area's demonstration of attainmenttt ; (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 SIPrevisions identifying and adopting transportationcontrol 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 of these 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 theAct 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 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 tomonitor attainment of the standard. If such an area experiences a violation of the 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 determin-ation 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 ultimatelyredesignates 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 entiremultistate nonattainment areamust 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 determinationonly that thatpart of the nonattainment area ismonitoring attainment. The EPA1sRegional Offices should coordinate .thesedeterminations for any multistate nonattainment areas that involvemore than one Region.

111. Process

The EPA Regional Officeswill conduct individual rulemakings concerning areas that have 3'consecutive-years of clean air quality monitoring 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 revisions discussed above arepertinent. Since EPA has the relevant air quality data in its possession, no submission from a Statewould be required to initiate this process. 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 area is eligible for these determinations

on the basis of monitored attainment of the ozone'NAAQS.

As noted above, these determinationswould be contingent on the existence of monitoring data for the'areasthat 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 of that determination and would also provide notice to the public in the Federal Reqister. Such a determination would mean that the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent SIP requirements within a reasonable amount of time,which GPA would establish taking into account the individual circumstances surrounding the particular SIP submissions at issue.

The Statemust continue to operate an appropriate air qualitymonitoring network, in accordancewith 40 CFR part 58, to verify the attainment status of the area. The air quality data relied upon for the above determinations must be consistent with
40 CFR part 58 requirements and other relevant EPA guidance and recorded in EPA's Aerometric InformationRetrieval System (AIRS).

Determinations made by EPA in accordance with this interpretationwould not shield an area from EPA action to require emission reductions from sources in the area where thereis 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 theAct

(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 appropriage to dealwith transport situations.

IV. Conseauences for Redesianations, Sanctions, and Conformity

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 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 of the 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 of the applicable requirements under section 110 and part D, and a fully-approvedmaintenance plan.

If an area for which the determination of attainment ismade has submitted or subsequently submits a redesignation request, the SIP submissionsdiscussed in 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 redesignationrequest,however, not only would the requirementsagain become applicable, but the redesignationrequest could not be approved because the area would no longermeet the criterion of having 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 consequenceof 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 of the clock would no longer exist.

The issuance of a determinationpursuant to this policy will have no immediate impact on theway 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 theconformityrule), and the 15 percent SIP if one has been submitted (and attainment/RF~ SIP, if onewith a.budget has been submitted).

Sinceareas that are the subject of determinationspursuant to this policy will not be required to submitRFP or attainment demonstration SIPfs,those areaswill not generally be in the control strategyperiod for conformity purposes'(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 areaswill not generally have approved budgets until a maintenanceplan is approved as part of the approval of a redesignationrequest, so'thebuild/no-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 conformity purposes until the maintenance 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 amaintenance plan instead).)

If an area receiving a determinationpursuant to this policy had previously submitted a 15 percent or attainment SIP, it may 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)(l) for so long as the area continues to attain the standard. If the submitted SIP is not withdrawn, the budget in that submissionwill continue to apply for conformitypurposes. If 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 submittedmaintenance plan pursuant to section 51.448(i) may continue to do so, or may elect to withdraw the applicability of the submittedmaintenance 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. If the applicability of the submitted maintenance plan budget is withdrawn for conformitypurposes, the build/no-build and less-than-1990tests 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 ifconformityhas lapsed for any other reason (eig., failure to redetermine conformity by a certain date).

If you have any questions,please feel free to callme or Sally Shaver. The contactpersons for thispolicy 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 Wegrnan Dick Wilson