Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0079-0023
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-10-18T04:00Z

nonattainment
areas,
including
"
not
classified"
areas,
are
required
to
adopt
NSR
programs
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
173,
as
amended.

(
6)
Monitoring.
Section
172
(
b)
and
(
c)
explicitly
states
that
nonattainment
areas
should
meet
the
"
applicable"
monitoring
requirements
of
section
110(
a)(
2).

(
7)
Contingency
measures.
Contingency
measures
are
not
required
for
"
not
classified"
areas
in
light
of
the
fact
that
moderate
areas
with
a
design
value
less
than
12.7
ppm
are
exempt
from
the
contingency
measures
requirement.

(
b)
Attainment
dates
for
"
not
classified"
areas.
Section
172(
a)(
2)
requires
an
attainment
date
of
no
later
than
5
years
from
an
area's
designation
as
nonattainment.
For
areas
designated
nonattainment
under
section
107(
d)(
1)(
C)(
i)
(
pre­
enactment
nonattainment
areas),
the
attainment
date
is
November
15,
1995.
For
newly
designated
areas,
the
attainment
date
will
be
5
years
from
the
effective
date
of
the
nonattainment
designation.
For
areas
that
fail
to
attain
in
5
years,
EPA
is
considering
one
or
more
of
the
following
actions:
(
1)
If
an
area
fails
to
attain
5
years
from
designation,
the
area
is
bumped
up
to
moderate
if
the
area's
design
value
is
at
least
9.1
ppm.

(
2)
If
an
area
fails
to
attain
5
years
from
designation
the
area
retains
its
"
not
classified"
status,
but
EPA
will
tighten
Subpart
1
requirements.
This
could
include
a
showing
of
enforceable
rules
or
possibly
a
basic
I/
M
program.

(
c)
"
Not
classified"
CO
areas.
Violations
are
determined
by
the
number
of
nonoverlapping
exceedances
greater
than
or
equal
to
9.5
ppm
during
the
2­
year
period
1988­
1989.
If
the
number
of
exceedances
in
either
year
was
greater
than
or
equal
to
2,
the
area
is
violating
the
CO
NAAQS.

Once
it
has
been
established
that
the
area
is
violating
the
standard,
the
highest
second­
highest,
nonoverlapping
8­
hour
measured
value
over
the
2­
year
period
is
the
design
value
for
the
area.
The
design
value
determines
classification.
A
CO
area
cannot
be
classified
submarginal
because
a
design
value
of
<
9.5
ppm
is
not
violating
the
standard
(
i.
e.,
there
are
less
than
two
exceedances
in
each
of
the
2
years),
and
an
area
can
only
be
submarginal
if
it
is
violating
the
standard.

(
1)
Requirements.
The
CO
areas
termed
"
not
classified"
are
analogous
to
ozone
transitional
areas.
The
amended
Act
does
not
provide
guidance
in
subpart
3
for
CO
areas
that
fall
into
the
"
not
classified"
category.
However,
all
nonattainment
areas,
including
"
not
classified"
areas,
are
subject
to
several
of
the
requirements
in
subpart
1
of
the
Act
as
discussed
above.
Specifically,
section
172(
b)
requires
a
SIP
revision
within
3
years
of
designation.
The
SIP
revision
must
meet
several
requirements,
in
particular,
NSR.

If
a
State
submits
a
request
for
redesignation
to
attainment,
then
a
proper
and
adequate
maintenance
plan
as
defined
in
section
175A,
is
required.
The
Administrator
announced
in
the
November
6,
1991
Federal
Register
those
CO
nonattainment
areas
that
did
not
violate
the
NAAQS
during
the
24­
month
period
between
January
1,
1988
and
December
31,1989.
For
such
areas,
the
requirements
under
subpart
3
do
not
apply.

In
order
to
be
redesignated
to
attainment,
a
"
not
classified"
area
must
provide
documentation
to
support
the
conclusion
that
the
five
redesignation
requirements
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
have
been
met.
For
a
discussion
of
the
specific
State
actions
required
for
satisfying
these
five
redesignation
requirements,
see
"
Redesignations"
under
section
III.
H5
of
this
notice.

(
2)
NSR.
By
November
15,
1993,
all
such
"
not
classified"
areas
must
submit
rules
to
implement
the
new
part
D
NSR
permit
requirements
of
sections
172(
c)(
5)
and
173
of
the
1990
CAAA.
In
the
meantime,
all
existing
NSR
rules
will
remain
in
effect.
If
the
area
does
not
have
an
approved
part
D
NSR
permitting
program
and
a
State
wishes
to
issue
a
permit
for
a
major
stationary
source
or
major
modification
in
such
area
during
the
interim
period,
the
State
permitting
program
should
comply
with
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
part
51,
appendix
S,
until
the
new
part
D
NSR
requirements
become
effective./
14/

NOTE
/
14/
If
a
"
not
classified"
area
has
not
recorded
any
violations
by
December
31,
1991,
and
is
in
the
process
of
developing
a
maintenance
plan
per
section
175A,
then
EPA
may
not
require
nonattainment
NSR
rules.
However,
these
areas
must
continue
to
apply
their
existing
NSR
program
or
comply
with
the
NSR
permitting
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
51,
appendix
S.
Prior
to
redesignation,
these
areas
also
must
adopt
and
be
prepared
to
implement
a
permitting
program
that
satisfies
the
requirements
of
part
C
and
EPA's
regulations
implementing
the
PSD
program.
Areas
should
consider
the
need
for
offsets
under
the
part
C
program
to
ensure
that
new
sources
do
not
"
cause
or
contribute"
to
an
increase
in
pollutant
levels
that
would
take
the
area
out
of
compliance.
If
the
area
is
found
to
be
out
of
compliance
and
the
statutory
deadlines
for
adopting
amended
part
D
permitting
rules
for
the
pollutant
in
question
have
passed,
EPA
may
impose
a
contruction
ban
pursuant
to
section
113(
a)(
5)
until
such
time
as
the
area
adopts
a
part
D
program
satisfying
the
NSR
requirements
of
the
CAAA.

(
3)
Failure
to
attain.
If
a
"
not
classified"
area
violates
the
NAAQS
at
some
time
in
the
future,
then
it
will
be
classified
in
accordance
with
Table
3,
section
186(
2).
Upon
classification,
the
area
will
continue
to
be
subject
to
the
requirements
under
subpart
1
and
those
specific
provisions
under
subpart
3
appropriate
to
the
classification
that
would
have
applied
to
the
area
had
it
been
so
classified
at
the
time
of
the
notice
under
section
186(
a)(
2).
Under
section
187(
f),
the
Administrator
may
adjust
any
applicable
deadlines
(
other
than
attainment
dates)
if
the
deadlines
are
shown
to
be
infeasible.

5.
Multi­
State
CO
Nonattainment
Areas
Section
187(
e)
defines
a
"
multi­
State
CO
nonattainment
area"
as
a
single
CO
nonattainment
area
that
covers
more
than
one
State.
Section
187(
e)
also
establishes
certain
requirements
for
such
areas.
First,
each
State
in
a
multi­
State
CO
nonattainment
area
must
take
all
reasonable
steps
to
coordinate
both
the
SIP
revisions
required
and
the
implementation
of
SIP's
that
apply
in
the
given
nonattainment
area.
Section
187(
e)
also
prevents
EPA
from
approving
any
SIP
revision
submitted
under
this
section
if
a
State
has
failed
to
meet
the
above
requirements.

Finally,
section
187(
e)(
2)
allows
a
State
that
fails
to
provide
a
demonstration
of
attainment
for
that
State's
portion
of
a
multi­
State
CO
nonattainment
area
to
petition
EPA
to
make
a
finding
that
such
State
could
have
demonstrated
attainment,
but
for
the
failure
of
one
or
more
other
States
in
the
area
to
adequately
implement
measures
required
under
section
187
for
the
given
area.
If
EPA
makes
such
a
finding,
then
the
sanctions
provisions
under
section
179
for
failure
to
make
an
adequate
attainment
demonstration
shall
not
apply
to
the
State
awarded
the
finding.

Pursuant
to
section
187(
e)(
1),
EPA
is
calling
on
each
multi­
State
CO
nonattainment
area
to
develop
a
joint
work
plan
as
evidence
of
early
cooperation
and
integration.
The
work
plan
must
include
a
schedule
for
developing
the
emissions
inventories,
the
VMT
forecasts,
and
the
attainment
demonstration
for
the
entire
multi­
State
area.
Each
State
within
a
multi­
State
CO
nonattainment
area
is
responsible
for
meeting
all
the
requirements
relevant
to
the
given
area.

In
order
to
be
sufficient
to
avoid
a
section
187(
e)(
2)
finding
of
failure
to
demonstrate
attainment,
an
attainment
demonstration
must
meet
the
requirements
in
section
187(
a)(
7).
Refer
to
section
III.
B.
3.(
e)
for
guidance
on
developing
attainment
demonstrations.
Note
that
moderate
multi­
State
CO
nonattainment
areas
with
a
design
value
of
12.7
ppm
or
lower
at
the
time
of
classification
are
not
required
to
meet
the
requirement
of
developing
an
attainment
demonstration
since
section
187(
a)
excludes
all
such
areas
from
any
requirement
for
attainment
demonstrations.

6.
Areas
With
Significant
Stationary
Source
Emissions
Section
187(
c)(
3)
calls
for
the
Administrator
to
issue
guidelines
and
rules
for
determining
whether
stationary
sources
contribute
significantly
to
CO
levels
in
an
area.
In
the
case
of
a
serious
area
in
which
stationary
sources
contribute
significantly
to
CO
levels,
section
187(
c)(
1)
requires
the
State
to
revise
the
definition
of
major
stationary
source
in
that
area
to
include
any
stationary
source
that
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
50
tons
per
year
or
more
of
CO.

Guidance
on
the
definition
of
a
significant
CO
stationary
source
area
is
available
in
an
EPA
memorandum
dated
May
13,
1991,
from
William
G.
Laxton,
Director,
Technical
Support
Division,
regarding
"
Guidance
for
Determining
Significant
Stationary
Sources
of
Carbon
Monoxide."
The
guidance
defines
a
significant
CO
stationary
source
area
through
the
use
of
the
results
of
dispersion
modeling
of
one
or
more
stationary
sources
of
CO
in
the
area.
The
reader
should
refer
to
that
guidance
for
further
information.

7.
Guidance
on
Waivers
for
Mobile
Source
Measures
The
waiver
provisions
of
section
187(
c)(
2)
provide
the
Administrator
with
discretionary
authority
to
waive
certain
mobile
source
requirements
in
both
moderate
and
serious
CO
nonattainment
areas
where
mobile
sources
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
CO
levels
in
the
area.
Specifically,
the
Administrator
may
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
waive
any
requirements
that
pertain
to
transportation
controls,
I/
M,
or
oxygenated
fuels
where
the
Administrator
determines
by
rule
that
mobile
source
contribution
is
convincingly
demonstrated
to
be
insignificant
in
relation
to
the
cause
of
the
area's
overall
CO
problem.
The
EPA
will
only
consider
granting
a
waiver
from
controls
on
mobile
CO
sources
under
section
187(
c)(
2)
if
it
is
clear
that
mobile
sources
in
the
aggregate
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
the
CO
nonattainment
problem,
and
there
is
a
SIP
submittal
demonstrating
attainment
of
the
CO
NAAQS
by
the
required
date
without
such
mobile
source
controls.
This
would
be
in
addition
to
a
showing
under
section
187(
c)(
3)
pertaining
to
stationary
sources
that
"
contribute
significantly
to
carbon
monoxide
levels
in
the
area."
The
attainment
demonstration
should
use
EPA­
approved
modeling
techniques;
i.
e.,
a
complete
modeling
analysis
is
needed,
considering
point,
area,
and
mobile
source
emissions.
The
waiver
would
be
granted
upon
approval
of
the
CO
SIP.
The
waiver
of
mobile
source
measures
would
no
longer
apply
if
a
subsequent
maintenance
plan
demonstration
relied
on
such
mobile
source
measures.

C.
Particulate
Matter
1.
Statutory
Background
(
a)
Designations.
On
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
PM­
10
areas
meeting
the
qualifications
of
section
107(
d)(
4)(
B)
of
the
amended
Act
were
designated
nonattainment
by
operation
of
law.
These
areas
included
all
former
Group
I
areas
identified
in
52
FR
29383
(
August
7,
1987)
and
clarified
in
55
FR
45799
(
October
31,
1990),
and
any
other
areas
violating
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
prior
to
January
1,
1989
(
many
of
these
areas
were
also
identified
in
the
October
31,
1990
Federal
Register
notice).
All
other
areas
were
designated
unclassifiable.
A
Federal
Register
notice
announcing
all
of
the
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
PM­
10
at
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
and
classified
as
moderate
was
published
in
56
FR
11101
(
March
15,
1991).
A
subsequent
notice
correcting
certain
information
in
the
March
15,
1991
notice
was
published
in
56
FR
37654
(
August
8,
1991).
Subsequent
to
the
1990
CAAA
enactment
date,
EPA
may
redesignate
any
of
these
unclassifiable
areas
to
nonattainment
in
accordance
with
section
107(
d)(
3).
On
April
22,
1991
EPA
announced
in
56
FR
16274
that
it
had
initiated
the
redesignation
process
for
16
areas.

(
b)
Classifications
and
attainment
dates.
Once
an
area
is
designated
nonattainment,
section
188
of
the
amended
Act
outlines
the
process
for
classification
of
the
area
and
establishes
the
area's
attainment
date.
In
accordance
with
section
188(
a),
at
the
time
of
designation,
all
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
are
initially
classified
as
moderate
by
operation
of
law.
A
moderate
area
can
subsequently
be
reclassified
as
serious
either
before
the
applicable
moderate
area
attainment
date,
if
at
any
time
EPA
determines
the
area
cannot
"
practicably"
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
by
this
attainment
date;
or
following
the
passage
of
the
applicable
moderate
area
attainment
date,
if
EPA
determines
the
area
has
failed
to
attain
(
see
section
188(
b)).

For
those
areas
which
were
designated
nonattainment
upon
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
by
operation
of
law,
where
EPA
determines
that
the
area
cannot
"
practicably"
attain
the
NAAQS
by
December
31,
1994,
the
amended
Act
specifies
certain
dates
by
which
EPA
must
propose
to
reclassify
appropriate
moderate
areas
as
serious
(
see
56
FR
58656,
November
21,
1991)
and
take
final
action.
The
EPA
also
has
discretionary
authority
under
section
188(
b)(
1)
to
reclassify
any
of
these
areas
as
serious
at
any
time,
if
EPA
determines
they
cannot
practicably
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
by
December
31,
1994./
15/
The
EPA
may
exercise
this
discretion
where,
for
example,
EPA
originally
believed
an
area
could
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
by
December
31,
1994
but
later
determines
that
it
cannot
attain.
For
example,
EPA
may
find
an
area
cannot
practicably
attain
by
December
31,
1994
after
reviewing
the
November
15,
1991
SIP
submittal
for
an
area.
Or,
if
a
State
fails
to
submit
a
PM­
10
SIP
for
an
area,
EPA
could
conclude
that
the
area
could
not
practicably
attain
the
standards
by
the
applicable
attainment
date
based,
for
example,
on
the
severity
of
the
nonattainment
problem,
the
feasibility
of
controls,
and
other
pertinent
factors.
Any
decision
by
EPA
to
reclassify
an
area
as
serious
will
be
based
on
facts
specific
to
the
nonattainment
area
at
issue
and
will
only
be
made
after
providing
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
and
an
opportunity
for
public
comment
on
the
basis
for
EPA's
proposed
decision.
NOTE
/
15/
One
commenter
questioned
whether
EPA
has
discretionary
authority
to
reclassify
an
area
"
at
any
time"
EPA
determines
the
area
cannot
practicably
attain
the
PM­
10
standards
by
the
applicable
moderate
area
attainment
date.
Under
the
plain
meaning
of
the
terms
of
section
188(
b)(
1)
EPA
has
general
discretion
to
reclassify
at
any
time
before
the
applicable
attainment
date
any
area
EPA
determines
cannot
practicably
attain
the
standards
by
such
date.
Accordingly,
section
188(
b)(
1)
is
a
general
expression
of
delegated
rulemaking
authority.
In
addition,
subparagraphs
(
A)
and
(
B)
of
section
188(
b)(
1)
mandate
that
EPA
reclassify
at
specified
timeframes
any
areas
it
determines
appropriate
for
reclassification
at
those
dates.
These
subparagraphs
do
not
restrict
the
general
authority
but
simply
specify
that,
at
a
minimum,
it
must
be
exercised
at
certain
times.
This
interpretation
furthers
the
overarching
purpose
of
the
statute
in
that
reclassification
would
expedite
the
application
of
additional
control
measures
in
the
situation
where
EPA
finds,
after
the
mandated
reclassification
rulemaking
and
before
the
applicable
attainment
date,
that
an
area
cannot
practicably
attain
the
standards.
This,
in
turn,
would
expedite
ultimate
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
standards.
In
summary,
EPA
believes
it
is
a
reasonable
interpretation
and
consistent
with
the
plain
language
of
the
statute
to
construe
section
188(
b)(
1)
such
that
it
authorizes
EPA
to
reclassify
an
area,
as
appropriate,
at
any
time
before
the
applicable
attainment
date
and
mandates
that,
at
a
minimum,
EPA
make
this
inquiry
at
specified
times.

The
EPA
does
not
believe
that
reclassifying
moderate
areas
as
serious
at
any
time
EPA
determines
that
an
area
cannot
practicably
attain
the
standards
by
the
applicable
attainment
date,
rewards
areas
who
delay
development
and
implementation
of
PM­
10
control
measures.
Rather,
EPA
believes
its
policy
creates
an
incentive
for
the
timely
submittal
and
effective
implementation
of
moderate
area
SIP
requirements
and
facilitates
the
PM­
10
attainment
objective.
For
example,
if
an
area
that
fails
to
submit
a
timely
moderate
area
SIP
is
reclassified,
this
does
not
obviate
the
requirement
that
the
area
submit
and
implement
RACM
consistent
with
the
moderate
area
schedule.
Accordingly,
the
area
could
be
subject
to
sanctions
for
its
delay
in
submitting
the
RACM
SIP
requirement
(
see
sections
110(
m)
and
179).
Further,
reclassification
before
the
applicable
attainment
date
will
ensure
that
additional
control
measures
(
i.
e.
in
addition
to
RACM,
serious
areas
must
implement
best
available
control
measures
(
BACM),
are
implemented
sooner
and
will
expedite
the
application
of
more
stringent
new
source
review
requirements
to
the
area
(
see
sections
188(
b)(
1)
and
189(
b)(
3)).
Similarly,
where
an
area
submits
a
timely
moderate
area
SIP,
EPA
may
not
discover
that
the
area
cannot
practicably
attain
until
some
time
after
it
begins
implementing
its
moderate
area
control
measures.
The
EPA
then
may
want
to
reclassify
the
area
in
order
to
facilitate
the
development
and
implementation
of
BACM.
Finally,
a
reclassified
area
must
demonstrate
attainment
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable"
and
no
later
than
specified
dates
(
see
section
188(
c)(
2)).
Accordingly,
EPA
may
reclassify
an
area
and
conclude
that
the
most
expeditious
attainment
date
practicable
for
the
area
is
a
time
prior
to
the
latest
possible
attainment
deadline.

For
areas
designated
nonattainment
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
EPA
must
reclassify
appropriate
areas
as
serious
within
18
months
of
the
required
submittal
date
for
the
moderate
area
SIP.
Taken
together
with
the
statutory
requirement
that
these
SIP's
be
submitted
18
months
after
being
designated
nonattainment,
the
statute
thus
requires
that
EPA
reclassify
the
appropriate
moderate
area
as
serious
within
3
years
of
the
nonattainment
designation.

Finally,
in
those
cases
where
EPA
determines
that
an
area
has
failed
to
attain
the
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
attainment
date,
the
area
is
reclassified
as
serious
by
operation
of
law.
The
EPA
must
publish
a
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
of
such
determinations
and
consequent
reclassifications
within
6
months
following
the
applicable
attainment
date.

Since
this
General
Preamble
addresses
only
the
control
measures
recommended
for
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas,
the
following
discussion
has
been
limited
to
the
attainment
dates
for
moderate
nonattainment
areas.
Section
188(
c)(
1)
of
the
amended
Act
specifies
that
the
initial
moderate
nonattainment
areas
(
those
designated
nonattainment
upon
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA)
are
to
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
no
later
than
December
31,
1994,
unless
they
are
reclassified
as
serious
(
as
described
above).
Areas
designated
nonattainment
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
and
classified
as
moderate
must
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
no
later
than
the
end
of
the
sixth
calendar
year
after
the
area's
designation
as
nonattainment.

(
c)
General
SIP
requirements.
As
discussed
above,
States
must
develop
and
submit
a
SIP
providing
for
the
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
for
every
area
designated
nonattainment
and
classified
as
moderate
for
PM­
10
under
the
amended
Act.
Under
section
189(
a)(
2),
States
must
submit
a
SIP
revision
(
e.
g.
RACM/
RACT
and
attainment
demonstration)
for
the
moderate
PM­
10
areas
designated
nonattainment
upon
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
by
November
15,
1992.
The
NSR
program
provisions
for
these
areas
are
due
June
30,
1992.
States
must
submit
SIP's
for
those
PM­
10
areas
designated
nonattainment
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAA
within
18
months
of
these
areas'
being
designated
nonattainment
for
PM­
10.

The
specific
PM­
10
SIP
requirements
applicable
to
moderate
nonattainment
areas
are
set
forth
in
the
PM­
10
subpart
(
subpart
4
of
part
D,
title
I).
These
requirements
include
section
189(
a)
(
NSR
permit
program,
attainment
demonstration,
and
RACM/
RACT);
section
189(
c)
(
quantitative
milestones);
and
section
189(
e)
(
PM­
10
precursors).
The
SIP's
for
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
must
also
meet
the
general
provisions
applicable
to
nonattainment
areas
set
forth
in
subpart
1
of
part
D,
title
I
of
the
amended
Act
to
the
extent
that
these
provisions
are
not
otherwise
subsumed
by,
or
integrally
related
to,
the
more
specific
PM­
10
requirements.
Whenever
possible
during
this
discussion
of
PM­
10,
EPA
has
clarified
the
relationship
between
subparts
1
and
4.
All
SIP's
must
also
meet
the
applicable
regulatory
requirements
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
51
except
to
the
extent
those
requirements
are
inconsistent
with
the
amended
Act./
16/
The
EPA
will
provide
guidance
at
a
later
date
for
those
SIP
requirements
not
addressed
in
this
General
Preamble.
The
discussion
below
is
intended
to
provide
additional
background
on
some
of
the
statutory
requirements
for
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
SIP's
and,
in
some
cases,
to
provide
guidance
on
these
statutory
requirements.

NOTE
/
16/
The
1990
CAAA
includes
a
General
Savings
Clause
(
see
section
193)
which
provides
that
regulations
(
or
guidance,
etc.)
in
effect
before
the
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
shall
remain
in
effect
after
enactment.
However,
the
Savings
Clause
also
provides
that
such
regulations
(
or
guidance,
etc.)
shall
remain
in
effect
"
except
to
the
extent
otherwise
provided
under
this
Act,
inconsistent
with
any
provision
of
this
Act,
or
revised
by
the
Administrator,"
Id.

(
d)
NSR
permit
program.
Section
189(
a)(
1)
of
the
amended
Act
provides
that
for
the
purpose
of
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
5),
each
State
with
a
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
classified
as
moderate
must
submit
an
implementation
plan
which
contains
a
permit
program
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
173
for
the
construction
of
new
and
modified
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
(
and
in
some
cases
PM­
10
precursors).
For
the
initial
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
designated
according
to
section
107(
d)(
4),
States
must
submit
the
NSR
permit
program
SIP
revision
to
EPA
by
June
30,
1992.
For
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
designated
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
States
must
submit
a
SIP
containing
the
NSR
permit
program
within
18
months
after
designation
of
each
affected
area.
The
EPA
intends
to
issue
proposed
regulations
for
the
NSR
program
SIP's.
However,
in
today's
General
Preamble,
EPA
has
provided
guidance
on
the
NSR
permit
program
requirements
which
is
intended
to
assist
States
in
developing
and
timely
submitting
their
June
30,
1992
NSR
SIP
revision
for
the
initial
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas,
and
any
NSR
SIP
revision
submittal
due
for
any
additional
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
PM­
10
before
the
NSR
regulations
are
finalized.

(
1)
Moderate
areas.
To
meet
the
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
5),
States
must
implement
a
permit
program
that
meets
all
the
permit
requirements
of
section
173
for
the
construction
and
operation
of
new
and
modified
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10.
As
defined
in
section
302(
j),
the
term
major
stationary
source
means
any
stationary
source
which
directly
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
PM­
10.
The
emissions
offset
ratio
for
such
sources
is
equal
to
or
grater
than
1:
1
as
specified
in
section
173(
c).

Section
189(
e)
makes
the
control
requirements
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
also
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors.
For
the
purposes
of
implementing
the
requirements
of
section
189(
e),
precursors
of
secondarily­
formed
PM­
10
may
include
VOC's
which
form
secondary
organic
compounds,
SO2
which
form
sulfate
compounds,
and
NOx
which
form
nitrate
compounds.
Therefore,
the
control
requirements
applicable
under
PM­
10
SIP's
for
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
shall
also
apply
to
major
stationary
sources
of
these
potential
precursors,
except
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
such
sources
do
not
significantly
contribute
to
PM­
10
levels
that
exceed
the
PM­
10
ambient
standards
in
the
area.
The
Act
leaves
unaddressed
the
question
of
whether
each
specific
PM­
10
precursor
should
be
considered
together
or
independently
in
determining
major
source
size
and
the
applicability
of
section
173
(
e.
g.,
permit
requirements).
However,
with
respect
to
ozone,
EPA's
practice
has
been
to
consider
each
specific
ozone
precursor
independently
when
making
similar
determinations.
Accordingly,
EPA
proposes
to
treat
PM­
10
precursors
analogous
to
ozone
precursors
and
also
consider
each
specific
precursor
independently
when
determining
source
size
and
whether
section
173
provisions
apply.
Nothing
in
this
guidance,
however,
would
preclude
a
State
from
adopting
a
stricter
standard
and,
thus,
proposing
to
consider
all
specific
PM­
10
precursors
together.

(
2)
Serious
areas.
Section
189(
b)(
3)
defines
the
terms
"
major
source"
and
"
major
stationary
source"
to
include
any
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
located
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
at
least
70
tons
per
year
of
PM­
10.
Such
new
and
modified
major
stationary
sources
that
emit
PM­
10
are
subject
to
the
permit
requirements
of
section
173
and
the
PM­
10
precursor
provisions
of
section
189(
e).

(
e)
Attainment
demonstration.
Section
189(
a)(
1)(
B)
provides
that
States
with
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
must
submit
a
demonstration
(
including
air
quality
modeling)
showing
attainment
by
the
applicable
attainment
date.
Alternatively,
the
State
must
show
that
attainment
by
the
applicable
date
is
impracticable.
This
SIP
submittal
is
due
on
November
15,
1992
for
the
moderate
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
PM­
10
at
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
and
within
18
months
for
those
moderate
areas
designated
nonattainment
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.
As
a
necessary
adjunct
to
the
demonstration
of
attainment,
the
SIP
submittal
must
contain
a
comprehensive,
accurate,
current
inventory
of
actual
emissions
from
all
sources
of
PM­
10
in
the
area,
as
prescribed
in
section
172(
c)(
3).

In
general,
attainment
demonstrations
for
the
initial
moderate
nonattainment
areas
should
follow
the
existing
modeling
guidelines
addressing
PM­
10
(
e.
g.,
"
PM­
10
SIP
Development
Guideline"
(
June
1987);
"
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models"
(
Revised);
memorandum
from
Joseph
Tikvart
and
Robert
Bauman
dated
July
5,
1990)
and
any
applicable
regulatory
requirements.
The
EPA
also
has
developed
a
supplemental
attainment
demonstration
policy
that
may
be
followed
for
initial
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
facing
special
circumstances.
That
policy
statement
is
provided
in
appendix
C5.
Attainment
demonstrations
for
moderate
areas
designated
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
will
be
reviewed
in
accordance
with
the
general
guidance
addressing
PM­
10,
cited
above,
and
any
other
applicable
EPA
guidance
or
regulations.
The
supplemental
policy
also
noted
above
will
not
apply
to
these
areas.

(
f)
RFP/
quantitative
milestones.
The
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
SIP's
must
include
quantitative
emissions
reductions
milestones
which
are
to
be
achieved
every
3
years
and
which
demonstrate
RFP,
as
defined
in
section
171(
1),
until
the
area
is
redesignated
attainment
(
section
189(
c)).
Under
the
milestone
requirement,
the
States
must
demonstrate
to
EPA
that
the
SIP
measures
are
being
implemented
and
the
milestones
have
been
met,
within
90
days
after
the
milestone
due
date.
The
EPA
must
then
determine
whether
or
not
the
State's
demonstration
is
adequate,
within
90
days
of
receiving
the
demonstration.

Under
section
189(
c),
the
State
is
required
to
submit
a
SIP
revision
if
it
fails
to
submit
the
quantitative
milestone
demonstration,
or
EPA
determines
that
a
milestone
was
not
met.
The
SIP
revision
is
due
within
9
months
of
either
the
missed
reporting
date
or
EPA's
determination
that
a
milestone
was
missed.
The
SIP
revision
must
assure
that
the
State
will
achieve
the
next
milestone
by
the
applicable
date
and/
or
meet
the
PM­
10
attainment
date
if
there
is
no
next
milestone.

There
is
a
gap
in
the
law
that
the
text
of
section
189(
c)
does
not
articulate
the
starting
point
for
counting
the
3­
year
period.
The
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
begin
counting
the
3­
year
milestone
deadline
from
the
due
date
for
applicable
implementation
plan
revisions
containing
the
control
measures
for
the
area.
The
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
key
the
milestone
clock
to
the
SIP
revision
containing
control
measures
which
will
give
rise
to
emission
reductions.
Further,
control
measures
must
be
implemented
in
less
than
3
years
after
the
SIP
revision
containing
them
is
required
to
be
submitted.
Therefore,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
some
reduction
in
emissions
will
have
occurred
3
years
after
the
SIP
revision
due
date.
The
EPA
believes
that
measuring
the
3­
year
period
from
the
SIP
revision
due
date
is
also
reasonable.
Essentially,
EPA
believes
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
begin
counting
the
3­
year
period
whenever
the
SIP
revision
is
submitted,
in
disregard
of
its
due
date.
The
statute
contains
specific
SIP
submittal
and
attainment
deadlines.
These
deadlines
and
the
framework
they
set
up
inform
EPA's
interpretation
of
this
requirement.
Here,
EPA
believes
that
the
law
contemplates
that
some
improvement
in
air
quality
be
made
between
the
SIP
submittal
due
date
and
ensuring
3­
year
increments.
Further,
to
begin
counting
from
the
date
of
actual
SIP
submittal
and
not
its
due
date
would
allow
those
States
that
submit
SIP's
late
to
defer
meeting
their
quantitative
milestones
and,
consequently,
to
defer
making
RFP
toward
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
standard.
Thus,
the
first
quantitative
milestone
deadline
for
the
initial
PM­
10
moderate
nonattainment
areas
is
November
15,
1994;
3
years
after
November
15,
1991
when
SIP
revisions
containing
RACM
(
including
reasonably
available
control
technology)
are
due
for
these
areas.

For
the
initial
PM­
10
moderate
nonattainment
areas,
the
emissions
reductions
progress
made
between
the
SIP
submittal
(
due
date
of
November
15,
1991)
and
the
attainment
date
of
December
31,
1994
(
only
46
days
beyond
the
November
15,
1994
milestone
date)
will
satisfy
the
first
quantitative
milestone.
The
de
minimis
timing
differential
makes
it
administratively
impracticable
to
require
separate
milestone
and
attainment
demonstrations.
Thus,
EPA's
policy
is
to
deem
that
the
emissions
reductions
progress
made
between
the
SIP
submittal
due
date
and
the
attainment
date
will
satisfy
the
quantitative
milestone
requirement
for
these
areas.
This
is
consistent
with
the
purpose
of
the
milestone
requirement
which
is
to
"
provide
for
emission
reductions
adequate
to
achieve
the
standards
by
the
applicable
attainment
date"
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490,
101st
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
267
(
1990)).
However,
the
Administrator
is
required
to
determine
within
6
months
after
the
applicable
attainment
date
whether
a
nonattainment
area
has
attained
the
standards
(
sections
179(
c)
and
188(
b)(
2)).
Therefore,
consistent
with
the
milestone
requirement,
within
90
days
after
the
attainment
date,
States
must
demonstrate
that
the
SIP
has
been
implemented
and
the
area
has
attained
the
standards
or
alternatively,
qualifies
for
a
1­
year
extension
of
the
attainment
date
(
section
188(
d)).
The
EPA
will
issue
future
guidance
on
the
RFP/
quantitative
milestone
requirements
for
those
areas
designated
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
and
for
the
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas.

(
g)
PM­
10
precursors.
Section
189(
e)
provides
that
the
applicable
control
requirements
under
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
SIP's
in
effect
for
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
are
also
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors,
except
where
EPA
determines
that
the
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
which
exceed
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
in
the
area.
This
determination
will
be
based
upon
air
quality
analysis
in
which
States
assess
the
contribution
of
precursors.
The
contribution
of
precursors
may
be
nonexistent.
Alternatively,
if
precursors
do
contribute
to
nonattainment,
States
will
need
to
consider
both
the
source­
receptor
relationship
and
the
significance
of
precursor
contributions
to
overall
nonattainment.
Factors
which
may
be
considered
in
determining
the
source­
receptor
relationship
include
source
mix
and
density,
nonattainment
area
size,
meteorology,
and
topography.
In
making
a
determination
regarding
significance
and
the
need
to
control
precursors
in
a
specific
area,
EPA
will
rely
in
part
on
the
technical
information
contained
in
the
State's
submittal,
including
filter
analysis,
the
relative
contribution
of
precursors
to
overall
nonattainment,
and
the
State's
RACT/
RACM
strategy,
among
other
factors.
States,
however,
are
encouraged
to
submit
additional
material
for
consideration,
with
all
findings
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
due
to
the
high
degree
of
variability
among
nonattainment
areas.
There
will
be
variability,
for
example,
in
the
characteristics
of
the
area­
wide
nonattainment
problem
in
Spokane,
Washington,
which
may
warrant
a
finding
of
significance
that
differs
from
that
made
for
a
point
source
in
Clairton,
Pennsylvania.
The
EPA
is
required
to
issue
guidance
on
this
requirement.
This
General
Preamble
contains
a
lengthy
discussion
on
control
requirements
for
PM­
10
precursors
in
moderate
nonattainment
areas
and
is
intended
to
satisfy
the
requirement
for
guidance
to
the
extent
such
guidance
is
required
for
moderate
area
SIP's
having
control
requirements
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10.
The
EPA
intends
to
provide
additional
guidance,
if
necessary,
on
control
requirements
for
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors
when
it
issues
proposed
regulations
for
the
NSR
permit
program
applicable
to
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas,
and
when
it
issues
guidance
on
the
control
technology
requirements
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
in
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas.

(
h)
RACM/
RACT.
Section
189(
a)(
1)(
C)
of
the
amended
Act
requires
that
moderate
area
SIP's
contain
"
reasonably
available
control
measures"
for
the
control
of
PM­
10
emissions.
Section
172(
c)(
1)
of
the
amended
Act,
in
turn,
provides
that
RACM
for
nonattainment
areas
shall
include
"
such
reductions
in
emissions
from
existing
sources
in
the
area
as
may
be
obtained
through
the
adoption,
at
a
minimum,
of
reasonably
available
control
technology
*
*
*."
Thus,
read
together,
these
provisions
require
that
moderate
area
PM­
10
SIP's
include
RACM
and
RACT
for
existing
sources
of
PM­
10
emissions.

Under
section
189(
a)
(
1),
(
2)
of
the
amended
Act,
initial
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
(
i.
e.,
those
areas
designated
nonattainment
upon
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA)
must
submit
SIP's
containing
RACM/
RACT
control
measures
by
November
15,
1991,
and
these
SIP's
must
provide
for
the
implementation
of
RACM/
RACT
no
later
than
December
10,
1993.
Those
areas
designated
nonattainment
and
classified
as
moderate
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
must
submit
SIP's
containing
RACM/
RACT
control
measures
18
months
after
the
nonattainment
designation
(
see
section
189(
a)(
2)(
B)).
These
SIP's
must
provide
for
the
implementation
of
RACM/
RACT
no
later
than
4
years
after
the
affected
areas
are
designated
nonattainment,
which
is
30
months
after
the
applicable
SIP
submittal
deadline
(
see
section
189(
a)(
1)(
C)).

Note
that
serious
area
control
requirements
are
briefly
described
here
as
background
for
subsequent
discussion
regarding
the
relationship
between
moderate
and
serious
area
control
measures.
As
discussed
above,
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
may
be
reclassified
as
serious.
Pursuant
to
section
189(
b),
States
having
areas
that
are
reclassified
as
serious
must
submit
SIP's
for
the
areas
containing
BACM
which
includes
"
the
application
of
best
available
control
technology
to
existing
stationary
sources"
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490,
101st
Cong.
2d
Sess.
267
(
1990))./
17/
The
SIP's
containing
BACM/
BACT
provisions
must
be
submitted
within
18
months
after
the
affected
area
is
reclassified
as
serious
(
see
section
189(
b)(
2)).
These
SIP's
must
provide
for
the
implementation
of
BACM/
BACT
no
later
than
4
years
after
being
reclassified,
which
is
30
months
after
the
BACM/
BACT
submittal
is
due
(
see
section
189(
b)(
1)(
B)).

NOTE
/
17/
The
Act
does
not
expressly
define
"
best
available
control
measures"
(
including
"
best
available
control
technology")
for
PM­
10
nonattainment
purposes.
Guidance
on
"
best
available
control
measures"
(
including
"
best
available
control
technology")
requirements
to
facilitate
SIP
development
for
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
will
be
issued
by
EPA
at
a
later
date.

Under
section
190,
EPA
must
issue
technical
guidance
for
RACM
and
BACM
by
May
15,
1992
for
three
area
source
categories:
Urban
fugitive
dust,
residential
wood
combustion,
and
prescribed
silvicultural
and
agricultural
burning.
This
General
Preamble
satisfies
EPA's
obligation
to
issue
guidance
on
RACM
for
these
source
categories.
This
guidance
also
updates
previously­
issued
guidance
regarding
RACT
for
large
stationary
sources.
The
BACM
guidance
to
facilitate
SIP
development
in
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
will
be
issued
at
a
later
date.

In
addition
to
requiring
RACM
guidance
for
urban
fugitive
dust,
residential
wood
combustion,
and
prescribed
silvicultural
and
agricultural
burning,
section
190
requires
that
EPA
examine
other
source
categories
contributing
to
nonattainment
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS,
determine
if
additional
guidance
for
RACM
and
BACM
is
needed,
and
issue
any
such
guidance
by
November
15,
1993.
This
document
provides
RACM
guidance
for
sources
of
fugitive
dust
(
including
urban),
residential
wood
combustion,
and
prescribed
burning
(
including
silvicultural
and
agricultural).
The
EPA
believes,
at
this
time,
that
these
categories
of
sources
are
contributing
to
nonattainment
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS.
To
the
extent
that
these
categories
of
sources
are
broader
than,
or
in
addition
to,
those
expressly
identified
in
section
190,
the
Administrator
is
by
today's
notice,
determining
that
RACM
guidance
should
be
issued
for
these
sources
and
is
issuing
such
guidance.
Section
190
also
requires
that
EPA
take
into
account
the
emission
reductions
achieved
or
expected
to
be
achieved
under
title
IV
and
other
provisions
in
"
issuing
guidelines
and
making
determinations
under
this
section."
In
deciding
whether
to
issue
guidance
for
the
categories
of
sources
addressed
in
this
document
and
in
issuing
this
guidance,
EPA
has
considered
such
emission
reductions.
The
EPA
does
not
believe,
at
this
time,
that
actual
or
expected
reductions
from
Title
IV
or
other
provisions
will
significantly
reduce
emissions
from
these
sources.
Preliminary
guidance
on
many
of
the
issues
addressed
herein
was
issued
by
EPA
staff
on
April
2,
1991
to
facilitate
PM­
10
SIP
development
for
moderate
nonattainment
areas.

2.
Determination
of
RACM/
RACT
(
a)
RACM.
The
suggested
starting
point
for
specifying
RACM
in
each
SIP
is
the
listing
of
available
control
measures
for
fugitive
dust,
residential
wood
combustion,
and
prescribed
burning
contained
in
appendices
C1,
C2,
and
C3.
If
a
State
receives
substantive
public
comment
demonstrating
through
appropriate
documentation
that
additional
control
measures
may
well
be
reasonably
available
in
a
particular
circumstance,
those
measures
should
be
added
to
the
list
of
available
measures
for
that
area.
The
RACM
is
then
determined
for
the
affected
area's
SIP.
While
EPA
does
not
presume
that
these
control
measures
are
reasonably
available
in
any
or
all
areas,
EPA
expects
States
to
prepare
a
reasoned
justification
for
rejection
of
any
available
control
measures.
If
it
can
be
shown
that
one
or
more
measures
are
unreasonable
because
emissions
from
the
sources
affected
are
insignificant
(
i.
e.,
de
minimis),
those
measures
may
be
excluded
from
further
consideration
as
they
would
not
represent
RACM
for
that
area./
18/
The
resulting
available
control
measures
should
then
be
evaluated
for
reasonableness,
considering
their
technological
feasibility
and
the
cost
of
control
in
the
area
to
which
the
SIP
applies.
In
the
case
of
public
sector
sources
and
control
measures,
this
evaluation
should
consider
the
impact
of
the
reasonableness
of
the
measures
on
the
municipal
or
other
governmental
entity
that
must
bear
the
responsibility
for
their
implementation
(
e.
g.,
paving
of
unpaved
public
roads).
It
is
important
to
note
that
a
State
should
consider
the
feasibility
of
implementing
measures
in
part
when
full
implementation
would
be
infeasible.
The
SIP
submittal
to
EPA
should
contain
a
reasoned
justification
for
partial
or
full
rejection
of
any
available
control
measures,
including
those
considered
or
presented
during
the
State's
public
hearing
process,
that
explains,
with
appropriate
documentation,
why
each
rejected
control
measure
is
infeasible
or
otherwise
unreasonable.
When
the
process
of
determining
RACM
for
an
area
is
completed,
the
individual
measures
should
then
be
converted
into
a
legally
enforceable
vehicle
(
e.
g.,
a
regulation
or
permit
program)
(
see
sections
172(
c)(
6)
and
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).
The
regulations
or
other
measures
should
meet
EPA's
criteria
regarding
the
enforceability
of
SIP's
and
SIP
revisions.
These
criteria
were
stated
in
a
September
23,
1987
memorandum
(
with
attachments)
from
J.
Craig
Potter,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Air
and
Radiation;
Thomas
L.
Adams,
Jr.,
Assistant
Administrator
for
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Monitoring;
and
Francis
S.
Blake,
General
Counsel,
Office
of
the
General
Counsel,
entitled
"
Review
of
State
Implementation
Plans
and
Revisions
for
Enforceability
and
Legal
Sufficiency."
As
stated
in
that
memorandum,
SIP's
and
SIP
revisions
which
fail
to
satisfy
the
enforceability
criteria
should
not
be
forwarded
for
approval.
If
they
are
submitted,
they
will
be
disapproved
if,
in
EPA's
judgment,
they
fail
to
satisfy
applicable
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements.

NOTE
/
18/
Where
the
sources
affected
by
a
particular
measure
contribute
only
negligibly
to
ambient
concentrations
that
exceed
the
NAAQS,
EPA's
policy
is
that
it
would
be
unreasonable
and
therefore
would
not
constitute
RACM
to
require
controls
on
the
source.
In
this
regard,
it
is
worth
noting
that
the
inherent
authority
of
administrative
agencies
to
exempt
de
minimis
situations
from
regulation
has
been
recognized
in
contexts
such
as
this
where
an
agency
is
invoking
a
de
minimis
exemption
as
"
a
tool
to
be
used
in
implementing
the
legislative
design"
(
see
Alabama
Power
Co.
v.
Costle,
636
F.
2d
323,
360
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979)).

The
technical
guidance
that
discusses
in
detail
the
suggested
initial
measures
in
appendices
C1,
C2,
and
C3
and
that
a
State
should
consider
in
determining
which
of
the
measures
in
appendices
C1,
C2,
and
C3
are
technically
feasible
and
economically
reasonable
in
a
particular
area
is
contained
in
four
documents:
"
Control
of
Open
Fugitive
Dust
Sources,"
(
EPA­
450/
3­
88­
008)
September
1988;
"
Guidance
Document
for
Residential
Wood
Combustion
Emission
Control
Measures,"
(
EPA­
450/
2­
89­
015)
September
1989;
"
Prescribed
Fire
Smoke
Management
Guide"
(
NFES
No.
1279),
February
1985;
and
"
Prescribed
Fire
Plan
Guide"
(
NFES
No.
1939),
August
1986.
These
documents
have
been
in
use
for
several
years
and
are
based
on
substantial
input
from
State
and
local
agencies,
trade
groups
and
associations,
and
control
experts.
"
Control
of
Open
Fugitive
Dust
Sources"
may
serve
as
an
example
in
analyzing
control
costs
for
a
given
area.
Copies
of
these
documents
may
be
obtained
by
contacting
National
Technical
Information
Service,
5285
Port
Royal
Road,
Springfield,
Virginia
22161.

(
b)
RACT.
This
guidance
follows
EPA's
historic
definition
of
RACT
as
the
lowest
emission
limitation
that
a
particular
source
is
capable
of
meeting
by
the
application
of
control
technology
that
is
reasonably
available
considering
technological
and
economic
feasibility./
19/
The
RACT
applies
to
the
"
existing
sources"
of
PM­
10
stack,
process
fugitive,
and
fugitive
dust
emissions
(
e.
g.,
haul
roads,
unpaved
staging
areas)
(
see
section
172(
c)(
1)).
The
EPA
recommends
that
major
stationary
sources
be
the
minimum
starting
point
for
RACT
analysis.
Generally,
EPA
recommends
that
available
control
technology
be
applied
to
those
existing
sources
in
the
nonattainment
area
that
are
reasonable
to
control
in
light
of
the
attainment
needs
of
the
area
and
the
feasibility
of
such
controls.
Thus,
EPA
recommends
that
a
State's
control
technology
analyses
for
existing
stationary
sources
go
beyond
major
stationary
sources
in
the
area
and
that
States
require
control
technology
for
other
sources
in
the
area
that
are
reasonable
to
control
in
light
of
the
area's
attainment
needs
and
the
feasibility
of
such
control./
20/
Specific
guidance
on
the
evaluation
of
the
technological
and
economic
feasibility
of
control
technology
for
existing
stationary
sources
is
contained
in
appendix
C4.

NOTE
/
19/
See,
for
example,
44
FR
53726
(
September
17,
1979)
and
footnote
3
of
that
notice.
Note
that
EPA's
emissions
trading
policy
statement
has
clarified
that
the
RACT
requirement
may
be
satisfied
by
achieving
"
RACT
equivalent"
emissions
reductions
from
existing
sources.

NOTE
/
20/
Note
that
Congress
has
not
used
the
word
"
all"
in
conjunction
with
RACT
in
either
the
earlier
law
or
as
now
amended.
Thus,
it
is
possible
that
a
State
could
demonstrate
that
an
existing
source
in
an
area
should
not
be
subject
to
a
control
technology
especially
where
such
control
is
unreasonable
in
light
of
the
area's
attainment
needs
or
infeasible.
Even
if
EPA
was
required
to
impose
control
technology
on
every
existing
stationary
source,
where
a
State
demonstrates
that
available
control
technology
for
a
source
is
infeasible
or
otherwise
unreasonable,
EPA
would
conclude
that
"
reasonably"
available
control
technology
for
that
source
constitutes
no
control
or,
stated
differently,
that
no
control
technology
for
the
source
is
"
reasonably"
available.
As
referenced
above,
section
172(
c)
of
the
amended
Act
provides
that
RACT
should
apply
to
"
existing
sources
in
the
area.
This
is
the
same
language
that
appeared
in
the
RACT
requirement
under
the
CAA
prior
to
the
1990
Amendments
(
see
section
172(
b)(
3)
of
the
pre­
1990
CAAA
law).
Under
the
pre­
amended
law,
EPA
in
effect
interpreted
the
phrase
"
existing
sources
in
the
area"
as
it
is
interpreted
here.
EPA
believes
that
Congress
has
placed
its
imprimatur
on,
if
not
adopted,
EPA's
prior
interpretation
of
RACT
(
see,
e.
g.
section
182(
a)(
2)(
A)
of
the
amended
Act;
see
also
section
193
of
the
amended
Act
(
savings
clause
preserving
prior
EPA
guidance
except
where
inconsistent
with
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments)).

(
c)
PM­
10
precursors.
Section
189(
e)
of
the
amended
Act
provides
that
for
all
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas,
the
control
requirements
applicable
under
PM­
10
SIP's
in
effect
for
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
are
also
applicable
to
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors,
except
where
EPA
determines
that
such
sources
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
which
exceed
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
in
the
area.
Thus,
for
example,
because
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
SIP's
should
contain
RACT
for
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10,
they
should
also
contain
RACT
for
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors,
unless
EPA
determines
otherwise.
Section
189(
e)
also
requires
that
EPA
issue
guidance
for
the
control
of
PM­
10
precursors.
This
discussion
represents
EPA's
guidance
for
controlling
PM­
10
precursors
for
major
stationary
sources
in
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas.
As
explained
earlier
(
see
section
III.
C.
1.(
g)),
pursuant
to
the
requirement
of
section
189(
e),
EPA
intends
to
make
a
formal
determination
as
to
whether
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
in
a
particular
area
when
it
takes
rulemaking
action
on
the
individual
moderate
area
SIP's.
However,
a
determination
will
be
based
on
air
quality
analyses,
on
any
additional
technical
information
discovered
by
individual
States
during
SIP
development,
and
on
any
other
studies
conducted
by
the
State
or
EPA
which
may
help
to
indicate
whether
major
stationary
sources
of
specific
precursors
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
concentrations
in
a
particular
area.
Therefore,
while
the
subsequent
discussion
provides
guidance
as
to
EPA's
implementation
of
section
189(
e),
and
gives
an
indication
of
some
of
the
factors
that
will
guide
EPA's
findings
under
this
section,
none
of
the
general
views
expressed
herein
are
intended
to
preclude
specific
findings
based
on
reviews
of
individual
SIP's
for
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas.

The
following
discussion
is
intended
to
provide
initial
guidance
with
respect
to
each
of
the
above
named
potential
PM­
10
precursors.
Since
the
potential
of
SO2
and
NO2
emissions
to
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
exceedances
is
more
regionally
dependent
than
VOC
emissions,
the
following
discussion
focuses
on
general
regional
characteristics
attributable
to
SO2
and
NOx
emissions.
In
the
western
United
States,
(
considered
west
of
the
100th
meridian
for
the
purpose
of
this
discussion),
EPA
believes
that
sources
of
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
may
contribute
to
exceedances
of
PM­
10
levels
in
several
major
metropolitan
areas
(
e.
g.,
Los
Angeles,
Salt
Lake
County,
Utah
County,
Denver
and
the
San
Joaquin
Valley).
The
EPA's
conclusion
with
respect
to
these
areas
is
based
on
the
presence
of
factors
which
enhance
the
likelihood
of
secondary
formation
from
these
precursors,
such
as
source
mix
and
density,
nonattainment
area
size,
particular
meteorology,
and
topography.
Where
nonattainment
areas
are
relatively
small
in
size,
precursors
are
usually
transported
out
of
the
area
before
secondary
particles
can
form
in
significant
quantity.
However,
due
to
the
greater
size
of
the
areas
mentioned
above,
pollutant
transport
between
airsheds
is
considerably
diminished;
consequently,
locally
emitted
PM­
10
precursors
remain
in
the
area
long
enough
to
form
secondary
particles
and
make
a
significant
contribution
to
the
PM­
10
problem
in
that
area./
21/
The
particular
combination
of
source
mix,
meterology,
and
topography
in
these
major
metropolitan
areas
rarely
occurs
in
other
areas
in
the
West.
For
this
reason,
EPA
believes
that
sources
of
SO2
and
NOx
emissions
are
not
as
likely
to
be
significant
contributors
to
the
nonattainment
problem
in
those
other
areas.
Therefore,
if
EPA
determines,
based
on
information
contained
in
SIP
submittals
and
any
other
available
information,
that
major
stationary
sources
of
SO2
and
NOx
in
the
Western
United
States
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
exceedances
of
the
PM­
10
standard,
such
sources
would
not
be
expected
to
meet
the
requirements
that
apply
to
major
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10,
(
e.
g.,
RACT).
Further
discussion
on
the
need
to
apply
RACT
in
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
is
found
in
the
sections
below
addressing
control
requirements
for
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
that
do/
do
not
demonstrate
attainment.

NOTE
/
21/
The
focus
here
and
elsewhere
on
transport
between
airsheds
and
on
the
characteristics
of
the
nonattainment
area
flow
from
the
statutory
language
of
section
189(
e)
which
states
that
in
determining
not
to
require
RACT
for
major
stationary
sources
of
precursors,
EPA
must
find
that
the
sources
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
which
exceed
the
NAAQS
"
in
the
area."
Thus,
this
provision
EPA
may
determine
that
major
stationary
sources
of
precursors
in
a
nonattainment
area
should
not
be
subject
to
RACT
because
the
sources
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
in
the
same
area.

Unlike
the
case
in
the
Western
United
States,
as
a
general
matter,
pollutant
transport
between
airsheds
in
the
Eastern
United
States
can
be
responsible
for
a
relatively
large
portion
of
secondary
particle
concentrations
in
nonattainment
areas.
Thus,
the
determination
as
to
whether
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors
in
the
nonattainment
area
would
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
concentrations
in
the
same
area
is
correspondingly
more
difficult.
Moreover,
the
characteristic
contributions
of
the
subject
precursors
vary.
Sulfate
compounds,
for
example,
are
generally
known
to
be
present
in
significant
quantities
in
many
eastern
areas,
while
historically,
nitrate
compounds
have
been
measured
in
relatively
low
concentrations
throughout
the
East.
As
explained
earlier,
and
as
with
VOC's,
EPA
will
determine
the
applicability
of
section
189(
e)
based
on
technical
and
any
other
available
information
provided
by
States
in
their
individual
SIP
submittals.
However,
when
considering
whether
sources
in
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
should
be
required
to
adopt
PM­
10
precursor
control,
EPA
will
assess
the
reasonableness
of
the
SIP
submittal
in
light
of
the
fact
that
substantial
region­
wide
reductions
of
SO2,
NOx,
and
VOC
emissions
are
expected
to
result
from
the
implementation
of
the
Act.
These
emissions
reductions
may
mitigate
precursor
contributions
due
to
PM­
10
concentrations.
The
EPA
will
also
take
into
account
the
historically
low
nitrate
concentrations
in
the
Eastern
United
States.

The
EPA
will
also
consider
the
information
submitted
by
States
containing
major
stationary
sources
of
VOC's
in
areas
which
are
in
nonattainment
for
PM­
10
to
determine
whether
VOC
emissions
from
such
sources
do/
do
not
contribute
significantly
to
exceedances
of
the
ambient
standard
in
their
particular
area.
In
considering
the
reductions
to
be
achieved
by
controlling
PM­
10
precursors
under
section
189(
e),
Congress
has
indicated
that
EPA
should
take
into
account
reductions
achievable
from
control
requirements
imposed
by
other
sections
or
titles
of
the
1990
Act./
22/
Thus,
along
with
their
information
addressing
whether
VOC's
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
nonattainment
in
their
area,
States
may
wish
to
include
in
their
SIP
submittals
a
showing
that
control
of
VOC
emissions
under
other
Act
requirments
may
suffice
to
relieve
them
of
the
need
to
adopt
PM­
10
precursor
controls
under
section
189(
e).
Any
such
finding
will
be
made
by
EPA
based
on
information
provided
in
the
individual
SIP
submittal.
Other
Act
control
requirements
which
could
be
considered
as
contributing
to
VOC
reductions
are
where,
for
example,
areas
which
are
nonattainment
for
PM­
10
are
also
nonattainment
for
ozone
and,
thus,
are
already
required
to
apply
RACT
on
sources
of
VOC
under
section
182(
b)(
2).
The
VOC
reductions
may
also
be
realized
from
new
or
modified
major
stationary
sources
due
to
the
implementation
of
NSR
programs
in
ozone
nonattainment
or
attainment
areas.
When
reviewing
a
SIP
submittal
containing
a
request
for
an
exemption
from
PM­
10
precursor
controls
under
section
189(
e)
in
pat
because
of
actual
or
expected
VOC
reductions
from
other
control
requirements
of
the
1990
Act,
EPA's
determination
will
include
an
assessment
of
the
reasonableness
of
the
submission.
This
assessment
by
EPA
will
take
into
account
the
possible
significance
of
differences
between
control
strategies
for
PM­
10
and
other
pollutants
(
e.
g.,
requirements
imposing
BACT
as
opposed
to
RACT,
and
differences
in
attainment
deadlines).

NOTE
/
22/
Congress
recognized
that
sources
of
PM­
10
precursors
may
be
otherwise
controlled.
For
example,
the
House
Report
states
that
"(
t)
he
Committee
notes
that
some
of
these
precursors
may
well
be
controlled
under
other
provisions
of
the
Act"
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490,
101st
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
268
(
1990)).
Moreover,
Congress
expressly
recommended
that
EPA
consider
other
provisions
of
the
CAA
in
addressing
precursors.
The
House
Report
states
as
follows:
"
The
Committee
expects
the
Administration
to
harmonize
the
PM­
10
reduction
objective
of
this
section
with
other
applicable
regulations
of
this
Act
regarding
PM­
10
precursors,
such
as
NOx"
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490
at
268).
Throughout
the
discussion
of
PM­
10
precursors
EPA
has
relied
on
the
actual
and
expected
reductions
from
other
CAA
requirements
and
has
attempted
to
reconcile
these
with
the
CAA's
PM­
10
attainment
objective.

(
d)
Condensible
PM­
10.
Condensible
particulate
matter
(
CPM)
refers
to
particles
which
form
in
the
atmosphere
as
the
exhaust
gases
from
a
source
cool.
The
CPM
emissions
form
particles
in
the
PM­
10
size
range
and
are
considered
PM­
10
emissions
(
see,
e.
g.,
"
PM­
10
SIP
Development
Guideline,"
(
June
1987)
at
p.
5­
32
and
55
FR
41547
(
October
12,
1990)).
The
EPA
issued
guidance
on
CPM
in
a
December
24,
1990
memordandum
from
John
Calcagni
and
William
Laxton
entitled
"
Interim
Guidance
on
Emission
Limits
and
Stack
Test
Methods
for
Inclusion
in
PM­
10
SIP's."
Generally,
RACT
for
sources
of
CPM
will
be
reviewed
consistent
with
this
guidance.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
and
therefore
constitutes
RACT
to
control
CPM
only
where
CPM
is
a
significant
portion
of
the
emissions
from
an
existing
stationary
source./
23/
Further
guidance
on
the
identification
of
sources
where
a
State's
RACT
analysis
should
consider
CPM
is
found
in
"
Assessment
of
the
Controllability
of
Condensible
Particulate
Matter,"
published
in
October
1990.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
this
document
is
interim
guidance
and
is
still
subject
to
review.
Also,
note
that
EPA
has
recently
proposed
to
add
a
method
for
measuring
CPM
emissions
from
stationary
sources
to
appendix
M
of
40
CFR
part
51
(
55
FR
41546,
October
12,
1990).

NOTE
/
23/
Where
CPM
emissions
are
a
negligible
portion
of
the
emissions
from
an
existing
stationary
source,
EPA's
policy
is
that
such
control
may
be
excluded
as
being
unreasonable
for
that
source
(
See
also
Alabama
Power
Co.
v.
Costle,
636
F.
2d
323,
360
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979),
discussed
above).
RACT
for
the
source
would
therefore
be
no
control
or,
stated
alternatively,
EPA
would
conclude
that
control
technology
for
the
source
is
not
"
reasonably"
available.

(
e)
Total
suspended
particulate
(
TSP)
RACT.
Since
1979,
EPA
has
taken
action
to
approve
a
number
of
TSP
nonattainment
area
SIP's
that
require
RACT
for
existing
stationary
sources
of
TSP.
As
a
technical
matter,
RACT
level
measures
to
control
TSP
emissions
generally
utilize
technology
that
also
effectively
controls
PM­
10
emissions.
Thus,
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
to
generally
presume
that
control
technology
which
represents
RACT
for
TSP
emissions
from
a
source
satisfies
the
requirement
of
RACT
for
PM­
10
emissions
under
the
amended
Act.
However,
the
reasonableness
of
this
control
technology
may
be
refuted
for
a
particular
source
in
a
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
by
information
which
indicates
that
a
level
of
PM­
10
control
greater
than
that
achieved
by
the
TSP
RACT
would
constitute
RACT
for
PM­
10.
Further,
with
respect
to
controls
on
stack
and
process
fugitive
emission
points
that
represent
RACT
in
currently­
approved
TSP
SIP's,
EPA
specifically
recommends
that
the
emission
limits
be
reviewed
in
light
of
improvements
in
control
technology
and
reductions
in
control
costs
that
may
now
make
lower
emission
limits
reasonable.
In
addition,
regulations
submitted
as
part
of
the
PM­
10
SIP
should
be
reviewed
to
determine
whether
they
meet
EPA
criteria
regarding
enforceability,
as
noted
above
(
see
sections
172(
c)(
6)
and
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).
Consistent
with
the
previous
discussion
on
RACM,
EPA
will
not
approve
any
PM­
10
SIP
containing
RACT
measures
that
fail
to
meet
applicable
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
for
SIP
enforceability.

In
those
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
that
do
not
have
previously­
approved
part
D
TSP
nonattainment
area
plans,
the
particulate
matter
regulations
for
existing
sources
should
be
reviewed
to
determine
if:
(
1)
Additional
controls
are
necessary
to
meet
RACT
requirements.

(
2)
The
regulations
meet
EPA's
enforceability
criteria.
Similarly,
existing
regulations
controlling
emissions
of
specific
PM­
10
precursors
should
be
reviewed
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
for
major
stationary
sources
in
those
areas
and
RACT
analysis
conducted
unless
the
Administrator
determines
the
source
does
not
contribute
significantly
to
PM­
10
levels
which
exceed
the
NAAQS
in
the
area.

Section
110(
n)(
1)
of
the
amended
Act
provides
that
all
TSP
SIP's,
including
any
revisions,
that
were
approved
or
promulgated
by
EPA
before
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
shall
remain
in
effect
until
EPA
approves
or
promulgates
a
revision
to
the
SIP
under
the
new
law.
Further,
the
General
Savings
Clause,
section
193
of
the
amended
Act,
states
that
any
control
requirement
in
effect
or
required
to
be
adopted
by
a
SIP
in
effect
before
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
for
any
area
that
is
a
nonattainment
area
for
any
air
pollutant
may
not
be
modified
unless
the
modification
ensures
equivalent
or
greater
emissions
reductions
of
such
air
pollutant.
Thus,
under
section
110(
n)(
1),
existing
provisions
of
TSP
SIP's
remain
in
effect
until
such
provisions
are
revised
under
the
new
law.
Also,
under
section
193,
modifications
to
TSP
control
requirements,
such
as
TSP
RACT,
cannot
be
approved
unless
at
a
minimum
they
ensure
equivalent
emission
reductions
of
PM­
10./
24/

NOTE
/
24/
A
moderate
PM­
10
area
is
a
nonattainment
area
for
any
air
pollutant
within
the
meaning
of
section
193.
Thus,
for
these
areas,
any
modifications
to
any
control
requirements,
including
TSP,
would
have
to
ensure
equivalent
emission
reductions
of
PM­
10.

3.
SIP's
That
Demonstrate
Attainment
The
SIP's
for
moderate
nonattainment
areas
should
provide
for
the
implementation
of
control
measures
for
area
sources
and
control
technology
for
stationary
sources
of
PM­
10
emissions
which
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
and
no
later
than
the
applicable
statutory
attainment
dates.
Therefore,
if
a
State
adopts
less
than
all
available
measures
but
demonstrates,
adequately
and
appropriately,
that
(
a)
RFP
and
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
is
assured,
and
application
of
all
such
available
measures
would
not
result
in
attainment
any
faster,
then
a
plan
which
requires
implementation
of
less
than
all
technologically
and
economically
available
measures
may
be
approved./
25/
The
EPA
believes
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
require
that
a
plan
which
demonstrates
attainment
include
all
technologically
and
economically
available
control
measures
even
though
such
measures
would
not
expedite
attainment.
Thus,
for
some
sources
in
areas
which
demonstrate
attainment,
it
is
possible
that
some
available
control
measures
may
not
be
"
reasonably"
available
because
their
implementation
would
not
expedite
attainment.

NOTE
/
25/
See,
e.
g.,
44
FR
20375
(
April
4,
1979).
See
also
56
FR
5460
(
Feburary
11,
1991).
As
provided
in
section
172(
c)(
9)
of
the
amended
Act,
all
moderate
nonattainment
area
SIP's
that
demonstrate
attainment
must
include
contingency
measures.
These
measures
must
be
submitted
by
the
initial
moderate
nonattainment
areas
no
later
than
Nov
ember
15,
1993
(
See
section
172(
b))./
26/
These
measures
become
effective
without
further
action
by
the
State
or
EPA,
upon
determination
by
EPA
that
the
area
has
failed
to
make
RFP
or
to
attain
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
statutory
deadline.
These
contingency
measures
should
consist
of
other
available
control
measures
that
are
not
included
in
the
control
strategy.

NOTE
/
26/
This
deadline
constitutes
the
formal
establishment
of
the
schedule
according
to
which
the
initial
PM­
10
moderate
nonattainment
areas
must
submit
the
contingency
measure
requirement.
The
initial
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
were
designated
nonattainment
upon
enactment
by
operation
of
law.
See
section
107(
d)(
4)(
B).
Under
the
schedule
established
today,
contingency
measures
must
be
submitted
no
later
than
3
years
from
the
nonattainment
designations
for
these
areas
which,
in
this
instance,
is
no
later
than
November
15,
1993.

One
basis
EPA
recommends
for
determining
the
magnitude
of
contingency
measures
is
the
amount
of
actual
PM­
10
emissions
reductions
required
by
the
SIP
control
strategy
to
attain
the
standards.
When
developing
a
control
strategy
and
demonstrating
attainment
with
dispersion
modeling,
the
State
may
determine
that
some
actual
emissions
must
be
reduced
and
also
some
allowable
emission
limits
must
be
reduced
to
the
levels
that
the
sources
are
actually
emitting.

The
contingency
measures
to
be
implemented
if
an
area
does
not
attain
the
standards
on
schedule
should
be
a
portion
of
the
actual
emissions
reductions
required
by
the
SIP
control
strategy
to
bring
about
attainment.
Therefore,
the
contingency
emissions
reductions
should
be
approximately
equal
to
the
emissions
reductions
necessary
to
demonstrate
RFP
for
one
year.
For
instance,
reductions
equal
to
25
percent
of
the
total
strategy
would
be
appropriate
for
a
moderate
nonattainment
area
since
the
control
strategy
must
generally
be
implemented
within
a
3­
to
4­
year
period
between
SIP
development
and
the
attainment
date,
and
since
RFP
generally
requires
annual
incremental
reductions
in
emissions
to
attain
the
standards.

The
contingency
measures
should
consist
of
other
available
control
measures
beyond
those
required
to
attain
the
standards
and
may
go
beyond
RACM.
It
is
important
not
to
allow
contingency
measures
to
obviate
an
adequate
and
appropriate
control
strategy
demonstration.

Contingency
measures
must
be
implemented
immediately
after
EPA
determines
the
area
has
failed
to
make
RFP
or
to
attain
the
standards,
i.
e.,
if
the
shortfall
constitutes
a
fraction
of
the
area's
annual
reduction
target,
the
measures
to
be
implemented
should
address
the
specific
deficiency
indentity.
The
purpose
of
the
contingency
measure
provisions
is
to
ensure
that
corrective
measures
will
automatically
become
effective
at
the
time
that
EPA
makes
such
a
determination.
The
EPA
is
required
to
determine
within
90
days
after
receiving
a
milestone
demonstration
and
within
6
months
after
the
attainment
date
(
or
1
or
2
years
later
if
extensions
of
the
attainment
date
are
granted),
whether
these
requirements
have
been
met
(
sections
179(
c),
188(
b)(
2)
and
189(
c)(
2)).
Contingency
measures
must
be
fully
adopted
and
take
effect
within
1
year
without
further
legislative
action
once
EPA
makes
such
determinations.

Moderate
areas
that
EPA
finds
have
failed
to
attain
the
standards
by
the
applicable
date
are
reclassified
as
serious
areas
by
operation
of
law
(
section
188(
b)(
2)).
Guidance
for
serious
areas
addressing
the
contingency
measure
requirement
will
be
issued
at
a
later
date.

4.
SIP's
That
Do
Not
Demonstrate
Attainment
In
those
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
where
the
State's
control
strategy
cannot
demonstrate
attainment
by
the
applicable
date
mandated
in
the
Act,
the
State
should
document
that
its
control
strategy
represents
the
application
of
RACM,
consistent
with
the
"
determination
of
RACM"
discussion
above,
to
existing
sources.
The
EPA
believes
it
is
reasonable
for
all
available
control
measures
that
are
technologically
and
economically
feasible
to
be
adopted
for
areas
that
do
not
demonstrate
attainment.

Areas
that
cannot
practically
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
standards
by
the
applicable
attainment
date
will
be
reclassified
as
serious
areas
under
section
188(
b)
and
will
be
required
to
implement
BACM,
which
includes
the
application
of
BACT
to
existing
stationary
sources
(
see
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490,
101st
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
276
(
1990)).
As
discussed
below,
for
those
areas
that
will
be
reclassified
as
serious,
EPA
believes
it
may
be
reasonable,
in
some
limited
circumstances,
for
States
to
consider
the
compatibility
of
RACM
and
RACT
with
the
BACM
and
BACT
that
will
ultimately
be
implemented
under
the
serious
area
plans
for
those
areas.

In
the
case
of
RACM
for
area
sources,
EPA
anticipates
that
any
future
implementation
of
BACM
for
these
sources
will
be
additive
to,
and
hence
compatible
with,
RACM.
This
is
because
BACM
will
generally
consist
of
a
more
extensive
implementation
of
the
RACM
measures
(
e.
g.,
paving
more
unpaved
roads,
strengthening
the
components
of
a
smoke
management
program,
imposing
additional
requirements
to
improve
the
performance
of
wood
burning
devices).
Since
EPA
anticipates
that
RACM
and
BACM
for
these
sources
will
be
compatible,
the
SIP's
for
these
areas
should
reflect
the
application
of
available
control
measures
to
existing
sources
in
moderate
nonattainment
areas
as
determined
by
the
analysis
described
above
for
RACM.

As
discussed
previously,
the
determination
of
RACT
for
specific
stack
and
process
sources
includes
consideration
of
the
technological
and
economic
feasibility
of
control
measures.
In
the
case
of
those
moderate
PM­
10
areas
that
were
designated
nonattainment
upon
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
EPA
plans
to
reclassify
those
areas
which
EPA
believes
cannot
practicably
attain
by
December
31,
1994.
Implementation
of
BACT
will
be
required
for
sources
in
the
initial
moderate
areas
that
EPA
so
reclassifies
approximately
2
years
after
the
deadline
for
implementation
of
RACT./
27/
In
many
instances,
the
installation
of
pollution
controls
representing
RACT
may
involve
substantial
capital
expenditures.
In
the
event
that
BACT
is
later
required
for
those
sources,
this
may
require
controls
significantly
incompatible
with
those
recently
installed
as
RACT,
largely
wasting
those
recent
expenditures.
Under
such
circumstances,
the
installation
of
controls
in
the
first
round
of
SIP
planning
would
be
unreasonable.
Accordingly,
SIP's
for
the
initial
moderate
areas
reclassified
as
serious
in
the
mandatory
reclassification
rulemaking
for
these
areas
need
not
require
major
changes
to
the
control
systems
for
specific
stack
and
process
sources
where
a
State
reasonably
demonstrates
that
such
changes
will
be
significantly
incompatible
with
the
application
of
BACT­
level
control
systems.
A
State's
demonstration
should
include,
for
example,
showing
what
the
State
believes
RACT
and
BACT
are
for
the
source
and
why
they
are
significantly
incompatible.

NOTE
/
27/
Under
section
189(
a),
moderate
areas
designated
nonattainment
at
enactment
must
implement
RACM
(
including
RACT)
by
December
10,
1993.
Under
section
189(
b)
areas
reclassified
as
serious
must
implement
BACM
(
including
BACT)
within
4
years
after
reclassification.
Thus,
if
EPA
takes
final
action
to
reclassify
areas
in
1992,
they
will
be
required
to
implement
BACT
approximately
2
years
after
the
December
10,
1993
implementation
deadline
for
RACT.

In
the
case
of
fugitive
dust
associated
with
stationary
sources,
EPA
anticipates
that
the
implementation
of
BACT
will
be
compatible
with
the
implementation
of
RACT.
This
is
based
on
the
fact
that
control
of
such
emissions
under
BACT
will
generally
be
additive
to
RACT
controls
(
i.
e.,
consist
of
a
more
extensive
application
of
fugitive
dust
control
measures
imposed
as
RACT).
Therefore,
EPA
expects
that
to
the
extent
that
control
of
these
sources
is
technologically
and
economically
feasible,
the
SIP's
for
these
areas
must
reflect
the
application
of
available
control
technology
to
address
fugitive
dust
emissions
associated
with
stationary
sources.

(
a)
Attainment
date
waiver
nonanthropogenic
sources).
Under
section
188(
f)
of
the
amended
Act,
EPA
may
waive
attainment
dates
for
a
moderate
area
where
EPA
determines
that
nonanthropogenic
sources
of
PM­
10
contribute
significantly
to
a
violation
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
in
the
area.
Thus,
those
States
having
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
where
significant
contributions
to
PM­
10
emissions
come
from
sources
not
caused
by
humans
directly
or
indirectly
may
request
an
attainment
date
waiver.
However,
EPA
may
only
waive
the
attainment
date
for
those
moderate
areas
that
fully
implement
their
moderate
area
SIP
requirements
(
see
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490,
101st
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
265
(
1990)).
Thus,
any
State
having
a
moderate
nonattainment
area
that
the
State
believes
may
qualify
for
an
attainment
date
waiver
should
be
nevertheless
proceeed
with
SIP
development
and
implementation.

In
addition,
the
legislative
history
suggests
that
Congress
contemplated
a
narrow
definition
of
what
may
qualify
as
"
nonanthropogenic"
and
would
limit
it
to
activities
where
the
human
role
in
the
causation
of
the
pollution
is
highly
attenuated
(
see
generally
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490).
"
The
term
'
anthropogenic
sources'
is
intended
to
include
activities
that
are
anthropogenic
in
origin.
An
example
of
such
sources
is
the
dry
lake
beds
at
Owens
and
Mono
Lakes
in
California,
which
give
rise
to
dust
storms
that
are
a
result
of
the
diversion
of
water
that
would
otherwise
flow
to
such
lakes
and
should
be
considered
anthropogenic
sources"
(
H.
R.
Rep.
No.
490
at
265).
The
EPA
intends
to
issue
additional
guidance
on
the
scope
of
the
waiver
provision
as
it
applies
to
both
moderate
and
serious
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
in
the
near
future.

(
b)
International
border
areas.
Under
section
179B
of
the
amended
Act,
a
SIP
for
a
moderate
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
affected
by
emissions
originating
from
sources
outside
the
United
States
shall
be
approved
by
the
Administrator
provided
such
plan
meets
all
the
applicable
requirements
under
the
Act
(
including,
for
example,
RACM/
RACT),
other
than
a
requirement
that
such
a
plan
or
revision
demonstrates
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
moderate
area
attainment
date;
and
the
SIP
demonstrates
that
the
area
would
attain
by
that
date,
but
for
the
emissions
emanating
from
outside
of
the
United
States.
Generally,
EPA
expects
that
such
areas
will
be
adjacent
to
international
borders
(
e.
g.,
El
Paso,
Texas;
Nogales,
Arizona;
Imperial
Valley,
California).

D.
Sulfur
Dioxide
1.
Designations
The
Act,
following
the
1977
CAAA,
gave
the
primary
authority
for
initiating
designations
to
State
Governors.
Although
State
Governors
continue
to
have
authority
to
initiate
the
designation
process
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
D)),
the
1990
CAAA
also
give
the
EPA
the
authority
to
initiate
and
to
promulgate
designations
(
sections
107(
d)(
1),
(
3)).

(
a)
Classification
categories.
In
general,
areas
may
be
designated
as
nonattainment,
attainment,
or
unclassifiable
for
the
NAAQS
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
C)),
and
they
provide
authority
and
schedules
for
designations
of
areas
following
promulgation
of
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
A),
(
B)).

(
b)
Basis
of
designation.
The
SO2
designations
can
be
made
on
the
basis
of
modeling
or
monitoring
information
which
indicates
attainment
or
nonattainment
of
the
NAAQS.
For
example,
an
area
might
be
designated
nonattainment
for
violation
of
the
primary
SO2
NAAQS,
the
secondary
SO2
NAAQS,
or
both./
28/
More
detailed
information
about
the
basis
for
designations
under
the
new
law
is
provided
in
the
following
discussions.

NOTE
/
28/
The
primary
SO2
NAAQS,
is
that
level
which
is
"
requisite
to
protect
the
public
health"
(
section
109(
b)(
1)).
The
secondary
SO2
NAAQS,
is
that
level
which
is
"
requisite
to
protect
the
public
welfare"
(
section
109(
b)(
2)).

(
c)
Methods
of
designations.
Some
areas
were
designated
"
by
operation
of
law"
upon
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
based
upon
their
status
immediately
before
enactment.
Areas
which
were
designated
nonattainment
by
operation
of
law
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
C))
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
81.

The
EPA
now
has
the
authority
to
redesignate
additional
areas
as
nonattainment
for
SO2.
The
first
step
in
this
process
is
for
EPA
to
notify
the
affected
State's
Governor
that
available
information
indicates
that
the
designation
of
an
area
in
the
State
should
be
revised
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
A)).
Section
107(
d)(
3)(
A)
provides
that
EPA
may
act
(
i.
e.,
notify
the
Governor
that
an
area
should
be
redesignated)
"
on
the
basis
of
air
quality
data,
planning
and
control
considerations,
or
any
other
air
quality
related
considerations
the
Administrator
deems
appropriate."
No
later
than
120
days
after
receiving
this
notification,
the
Governor
should
submit
appropriate
redesignations
to
EPA
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
B)).
If
the
Governor
fails
to
act
within
120
days
of
this
notification,
EPA
shall
promulgate
the
appropriate
designation
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
C)).
If
the
Governor
does
respond,
within
120
days
after
EPA
receives
the
Governor's
response,
EPA
must
promulgate
a
redesignation
making
any
modifications
EPA
deems
necessary
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
C)).
If
EPA
intends
to
modify
the
Governor's
redesignation
submittal,
then
EPA
must
notify
the
Governor
of
the
modifications
no
later
than
60
days
prior
to
the
date
EPA
promulgates
the
redesignation
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
C)).

(
d)
Criteria
for
redesignation.
The
revised
law
sets
forth
specific
requirements
which
govern
the
redesignation
of
an
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)).
The
particular
criteria
for
redesignating
nonattainment
areas
to
attainment
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E))
include
the
following:
The
area
has
attained
the
NAAQS,
the
area
has
a
fully
approved
(
section
110(
k))
implementation
plan,
the
improvement
in
air
quality
is
due
to
permanent
and
enforceable
emissions
reductions,
the
area
has
a
maintenance
plan
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
175A,
and
the
area
meets
all
applicable
requirements
under
section
110
and
part
D.
The
Agency
will
issue
detailed
guidance
for
States
seeking
redesignation
of
nonattainment
areas
to
attainment
at
a
later
date.

2.
Classifications
The
classification
provisions
(
section
172(
a)(
1))
give
EPA
the
authority
to
classify
nonattainment
areas
for
the
purposes
of
applying
attainment
dates
(
section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)).
In
exercising
this
authority,
EPA
may
consider
such
factors
as
the
severity
of
the
nonattainment
problem
or
the
availability
and
feasibility
of
the
pollution
control
measures.
Based
upon
the
classification,
EPA
may
set
later
attainment
dates
for
areas
with
more
severe
air
quality
problems
(
section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)).
At
the
present
time,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
establish
a
specific
classification
scheme
for
areas
which
violate
the
primary
or
the
secondary
SO2
NAAQS.

3.
Plan
submission
Deadlines
Submission
deadlines
for
States
to
submit
implementation
plans
(
part
D
Plans)
for
SO2
NAAQS
are
given
in
section
191.
Explicit
plan
submission
deadlines
are
given
for
nonattainment
areas
which
violate
the
primary
SO2
NAAQS
(
section
191).
Explicit
plan
submission
deadlines
are
not
given
for
nonattainment
areas
that
violate
only
the
secondary
or
both
the
primary
and
secondary
SO2
NAAQS,
however.

(
a)
Initial
nonattainment
areas.
States
with
existing
nonattainment
areas
for
the
primary
SO2
NAAQS
where
those
areas
lack
fully
approved
SIP's,
including
part
D
plans,
must
submit
implementation
plans
(
section
191(
b)).
These
implementation
plans
must
meet
the
requirements
of
subpart
1
of
part
D,
and
they
must
be
submitted
within
18
months
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
(
i.
e.,
by
May
15,
1992).

(
b)
Subsequent
nonattainment
areas.
States
with
areas
that
are
designated
or
redesignated,
after
1990
CAAA
enactment,
as
nonattainment
areas
for
the
primary
SO2
NAAQS
must
submit
implementation
plans
(
section
191(
a)).
These
implementation
plans
must
meet
the
requirements
of
part
D
and
the
plans
must
be
submitted
within
18
months
of
the
designation
or
redesignation.

(
c)
Secondary
NAAQS.
In
the
past,
Congress
and
the
Agency
has
required
more
expeditious
resolution
of
nonattainment
for
primary
NAAQS
than
for
secondary
NAAQS.
Examples
of
this
are
the
availability
of
18­
month
extensions
for
implementation
plan
submittals
for
secondary
NAAQS
(
section
110(
b)),
and
the
discretion
allowed
in
dates
for
attainment
of
secondary
NAAQS
(
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).

For
areas
which
violate
both
primary
and
secondary
NAAQS,
allowing
separate
schedules
for
secondary
and
primary
plans
unnecessarily
complicates
the
plan
implementation
and
processing.
Therefore,
EPA
expects
secondary
NAAQS
attainment
plans
to
be
submitted
on
the
same
schedule
as
plans
for
the
primary
NAAQS
for
these
areas.

As
a
result
of
the
1990
CAAA,
EPA
has
the
authority
to
establish
a
schedule
for
submittal
of
a
secondary
NAAQS
plan
or
plan
revision
(
section
172(
b)).
The
EPA
must
establish
this
schedule
at
the
time
of
the
nonattainment
designation.
The
SIP
must
be
submitted
no
later
than
3
years
from
the
date
of
the
nonattainment
designation.
Although
the
law
allows
up
to
3
years
for
SIP
submittal,
because
the
level
of
control
is
no
more
difficult
to
establish
than
for
the
primary
NAAQS,
and
absent
compelling
justification
by
a
State,
EPA
will
require
SIP's
for
these
areas
within
18
months
of
nonattainment
designation.

4.
Attainment
Dates.

In
the
1990
CAAA,
Congress
set
specific
attainment
dates
for
nonattainment
areas
which
were
found
to
violate
the
primary
SO2
NAAQS./
29/
Attainment
dates
for
nonattainment
areas
violating
either
just
the
secondary
or
both
the
primary
and
secondary
SO2
NAAQS
were
not
specified
although
Congress
deleted
the
requirement
that
the
secondary
NAAQS
be
attained
by
a
"
reasonable"
time
for
attainment
of
secondary
NAAQS
(
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).

NOTE
/
29/
The
1977
CAAA
continued
the
requirement
from
the
1970
CAA
that
States
submit
implementation
plans
which
provided
for
attainment
of
primary
NAAQS
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
*
*
*
in
no
case
later
than
three
years"
from
the
date
of
approval
of
the
plan
(
1977
CAAA
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).
For
secondary
NAAQS,
attainment
was
required
within
"
a
reasonable
time"
(
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)
after
the
1977
CAAA).

For
part
D
nonattainment
areas,
the
1977
CAAA
required
attainment
for
both
primary
and
secondary
NAAQS
nonattainment
areas
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable"
but
for
primary
standards,
a
deadline
of
December
31,
1982
was
also
given
(
part
D,
section
172(
a)(
1)
after
the
1977
CAAA).

The
1990
CAAA
require
attainment
of
both
the
primary
and
secondary
NAAQS
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable"
(
section
172(
a)(
2)
(
A)
and
(
B)).
Although
the
1990
CAAA
give
EPA
authority
to
establish
flexible
attainment
dates
(
section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)­(
C)),
this
flexibility
does
not
apply
to
areas
which
have
specific
attainment
dates
(
section
172(
a)(
2)(
D)).
Specifically,
the
flexibility
does
not
apply
to
attainment
of
the
primary
SO2
NAAQS
because
the
attainment
date
is
specified
for
primary
SO2
nonattainment
areas
(
section
192),
but
it
does
apply
to
secondary
SO2
NAAQS
because
the
1990
CAAA
do
not
specify
an
attainment
date
for
secondary
SO2
nonattainment
areas.

(
a)
Initial
nonattainment
areas.
Areas
which
were
designated
nonattainment
at
the
time
of
enactment
(
i.
e.,
areas
which
are
nonattainment
by
operation
of
law),
must
attain
the
primary
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
no
later
than
5
years
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
(
i.
e.,
by
November
15,
1995)
(
section
192(
b)).

(
b)
Subsequent
nonattainment
areas.
Areas
which
are
redesignated
as
nonattainment,
subsequent
to
the
November
15,
1990
date
of
enactment,
must
attain
the
primary
NAAQS
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,"
but
not
later
than
5
years
after
the
nonattainment
designation
(
section
192(
a)).

(
c)
Inadequate
plan
areas
(
SIP
call
areas).
Some
nonattainment
areas
have
plans
which
were
approved
by
EPA
before
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.
If,
subsequent
to
the
plan's
approval,
EPA
finds
that
such
a
plan
is
substantially
inadequate,
the
plan
must
be
revised
to
provide
for
attainment.
The
revised
plan
must
provide
attainment
of
the
primary
NAAQS
within
5
years
from
the
finding
of
inadequacy
(
section
192(
c)).

(
d)
Attainment
of
secondary
NAAQS.
The
1977
CAAA
set
the
attainment
date
for
secondary
NAAQS
as
"
a
reasonable
time"
(
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).
This
was
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
1970
Act.
At
the
same
time,
for
the
new
part
D
nonattainment
areas,
section
172(
a)(
1)
established
the
attainment
date
for
secondary
NAAQS
as
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable."
The
EPA
reiterated
in
regulations
that
"
a
reasonable
time"
after
plan
approval
was
allowed
for
attainment
of
the
secondary
NAAQS
(
40
CFR
51.110(
c)(
1)).

In
the
1990
CAAA,
Congress
provided
for
attainment
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable"
in
both
primary
and
secondary
nonattainment
areas
(
section
172(
a)(
2)).
Congress
set
a
specific
attainment
date
of
5
years
for
primary
NAAQS
(
see
above)
but
did
not
set
a
specific
deadline
for
attainment
of
secondary
NAAQS
(
section
192).
At
the
same
time,
Congress
deleted
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A),
which
had
stated
that
attainment
dates
should
generally
not
exceed
3
years
from
plan
submittal
(
section
110(
a)(
2)(
A)).
This
implies
that
the
only
test
for
the
approvability
of
a
secondary
NAAQS
attainment
date
is
whether
or
not
the
date
is
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable"
(
section
172(
a)(
2)(
B)).
To
maintain
continuity
with
past
program
guidance,
EPA
plans
to
allow
attainment
with
the
secondary
NAAQS
to
be
scheduled
on
the
basis
of
what
is
expeditious
for
the
area
(
section
193).
Areas
which
are
nonattainment
for
the
secondary
SO2
NAAQS
may
be
allowed
additional
time
for
attainment
beyond
the
deadlines
mandated
for
the
primary
NAAQS.
In
general,
EPA
will
rely
on
the
substantive
provisions
of
40
CFR
51.340
(
subpart
R)
to
determine
expeditiousness.

Areas
which
are
nonattainment
for
both
the
primary
and
secondary
NAAQS
may
split
their
attainment
dates,
i.
e.,
attain
the
primary
NAAQS
within
5
years
and
attain
the
secondary
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
This
will
be
acceptable
provided
that
the
State
can
demonstrate
that
the
secondary
NAAQS
cannot
be
attained
within
the
same
timeframe
as
the
primary
NAAQS.

5.
Nonattainment
Plan
Provision
(
a)
Overview.
The
1970
Act
required
States
to
submit
implementation
plans
which
would
indicate
how
the
State
would
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS.
The
requirements
for
these
general
SIP's
were
listed
in
part
A,
section
110.
In
the
1977
CAAA,
requirements
for
implementation
plans
in
nonattainment
areas
were
given
in
part
D
(
section
171­
178).
These
requriements
addressed
a
number
of
issues
including,
but
not
limited
to,
attainment
dates,
permit
requirements,
and
planning
procedures.

The
1990
CAAA
have
not
made
significant
changes
in
the
plan
requirements
for
SO2
nonattainment
areas
(
section
172).
For
this
reason,
States
may
generally
continue
to
rely
on
past
guidance
for
SO2
programs.
This
position
is
further
supported
by
the
General
Savings
Clause
contained
in
section
193.
A
summary
of
existing
policy
and
guidance
may
be
found
in
the
"
SO2
Guideline,"
the
"
Guideline
On
Air
Quality
Models
(
revised),"
and
other
documents
listed
in
Appendix
B.
Despite
the
continued
validity
of
past
guidance
in
the
implementation
of
the
amended
Act
for
SO2
NAAQS,
there
are
some
areas
of
policy
that
need
to
be
clarified.
One
area
that
will
need
policy
clarification
is
the
issue
of
plan
approval.
The
EPA
intends
to
consider
only
the
final
rulemaking
status
of
the
SIP
at
the
time
of
enactment
in
relationship
to
the
requirements
of
the
1990
CAAA.
This
is
consistent
with
the
Savings
Clause
for
existing
plan
provisions
(
section
110(
n)(
1)).
If
the
nonattainment
area
had
a
part
D
plan
that
was
approved
prior
to
enactment,
the
EPA
will
not
require
a
new
part
D
SIP.
For
these
areas,
a
new
part
D
SIP
will
not
be
required
regardless
of
whether
the
attainment
date
for
the
area
had
passed
at
the
time
of
encactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.
However,
if
the
approved
plan
was
not
a
part
D
plan,
the
State
will
have
to
submit
a
complete
part
D
plan
to
EPA
for
approval
because
part
D
plans
are
requried
for
nonattainment
areas
(
section
191(
b)).

Policy
clarification
is
also
needed
concerning
the
status
of
areas
that
lack
approved
part
D
plans
and
that
contain
a
SO2
emission
source
that
has
permanently
shut
down.
A
minimum
of
two
actions
are
required
for
States
wishing
to
establish
that
these
areas
are
inoperative
for
SIP
purposes.

The
first
action
is
that
the
State
must
provide
EPA
with
sufficient
evidence
to
establish
that
the
source
has
in
fact
been
permanently
shut
down.
Three
criteria
exist
for
establishing
permanent
source
shutdown.
These
criteria
require
proof
that
the
source
has
been
inoperative
for
at
least
the
2
preceding
years,
that
the
source
is
precluded
from
resuming
operations,
and
that
the
source
has
been
withdrawn
from
the
State's
emissions
inventory.

The
second
action
is
that
the
State
must
establish
that
fully­
approved
NSR
and
PSD
programs
are
in
place
so
that
the
source
would
be
required
to
undergo
NSR
prior
to
start­
up
if
it
were
reactivated.

After
the
State
has
completed
these
actions,
EPA
will
consider
additional
plan
requirements
of
such
areas
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Alternatively,
the
State
may
choose
to
submit
complete
part
D
plans
to
EPA
for
these
areas.
As
discussed
in
a
previous
section
on
redesignation,
section
107(
d)(
3)
provides
that
a
nonattainment
area
must
meet
all
the
requirements
set
forth
in
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E),
including
a
maintenance
plan
consistent
with
section
175A,
before
it
may
be
redesignated
to
attainment.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
this
issue
is
of
immediate
concern
to
some
States
and
Regions.
The
EPA
will
issue
guidance
concerning
plan
requirements
and
redesignation
requirements
in
the
future.

(
b)
Issues­­(
1)
RACT.
For
most
criteria
pollutants,
RACT
is
control
technology
that
is
reasonably
available
considering
technological
and
economic
feasibility
(
see
memorandum
from
R.
Strelow,
December
9,
1976).
The
definition
of
RACT
for
SO2
is
that
control
technology
which
is
necessary
to
achieve
the
NAAQS
(
40
CFR
51.100
(
o)).
Since
SO2
RACT
is
already
defined
as
the
technology
necessary
to
achieve
NAAQS,
control
technology
which
failed
to
achieve
the
SO2
NAAQS
would,
by
definition,
fail
to
be
SO2
RACT.

The
EPA
intends
to
continue
defining
RACT
for
SO2
as
that
control
technology
which
will
achieve
the
NAAQS
within
statutory
timeframes.

(
2)
RFP.
Section
171(
1)
of
the
amended
Act
defines
RFP
as
"
such
annual
incremental
reductions
in
emissions
of
the
relevant
air
pollutant
as
are
required
by
this
part
(
part
D)
or
may
reasonably
be
required
by
EPA
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
attainment
of
the
applicable
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
by
the
applicable
date."
This
definition
is
most
appropriate
for
pollutants
which
are
emitted
by
numerous
and
diverse
sources,
where
the
relationship
between
any
individual
source
and
the
overall
air
quality
is
not
explicitly
quantified,
and
where
the
emission
reductions
necessary
to
attain
the
NAAQS
are
inventory­
wide.
The
definition
is
generally
less
pertinent
to
pollutants
such
as
SO2
which
usually
have
a
limited
number
of
sources,
relationships
between
individual
sources
and
air
quality
which
are
relatively
well
defined,
and
emissions
control
measures
which
result
in
swift
and
dramatic
improvement
in
air
quality.
That
is,
for
SO2,
there
is
usually
a
single
"
step"
between
pre­
control
nonattainment
and
post­
control
between
pre­
control
nonattainment
and
post­
control
attainment.

Therefore,
for
SO2,
with
its
discernible
relationship
between
emissions
and
air
quality
and
significant
and
immediate
air
quality
improvements,
RFP
will
continue
to
be
construed
as
"
adherence
to
an
ambitious
compliance
schedule."
/
30/

NOTE
/
30/
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
snd
Standards,
"
Guidance
Document
for
Correction
of
part
D
SIP's
for
Nonattainment
Areas,"
(
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina:
January
27,
1984),
page
25.

(
3)
Contingency
measures.
Section
172(
c)(
9)
of
the
amended
Act
defines
contingency
measures
as
measures
in
a
SIP
which
are
to
be
implemented
if
an
area
fails
to
make
RFP
or
fails
to
attain
the
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
attainment
date.
Contingency
measures
become
effective
without
further
action
by
the
State
or
EPA,
upon
determination
by
EPA
that
the
area
has
failed
to
(
1)
make
reasonable
further
progress
or
(
2)
attain
the
SO2
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
statutory
deadline.
These
contingency
measures
shall
consist
of
other
available
control
measures
that
are
not
included
in
the
control
strategy.

The
EPA
interprets
the
contingency
measure
provisions
as
primarily
directed
at
general
programs
which
can
be
undertaken
on
an
areawide
basis.
Again,
SO2
presents
special
considerations.
First,
for
some
of
the
other
criteria
pollutants,
the
analytical
tools
for
quantifying
the
relationship
between
reductions
in
precursor
emissions
and
resulting
air
quality
improvements
remain
subject
to
significant
uncertainities,
in
contrast
with
procedures
for
pollutants
such
as
SO2.
Second,
emission
estimates
and
attainment
analyses
can
be
strongly
influenced
by
overly­
optimistic
assumptions
about
control
efficiency
and
rates
of
compliance
for
many
small
sources.
In
contrast,
controls
for
SO2
are
well
understood
and
are
far
less
prone
to
uncertainty.
Since
SO2
control
measures
are
by
definition
based
upon
what
is
directly
and
quantifiably
necessary
to
attain
the
SO2
NAAQS,
it
would
be
unlikely
for
an
area
to
implement
the
necessary
emissions
control
yet
fail
to
attain
the
NAAQS.
Therefore,
for
SO2
programs,
EPA
interprets
"
contingency
measures"
to
mean
that
the
State
agency
has
a
comprehensive
program
to
identify
sources
of
violations
of
the
SO2
NAAQS
and
to
undertake
an
aggressive
follow­
up
for
compliance
and
enforcement,
including
expedited
procedures
for
establishing
enforceable
consent
agreements
pending
the
adoption
of
revised
SIP's.
This
definition
of
minimum
contingency
measures
for
SO2
does
not
preclude
a
State
from
requiring
additional
contingency
measures
that
are
enforceable
and
appropriate
for
a
particular
source
or
source
category.

(
4)
Stack
height
issues
and
remand.
Three
provisions
of
the
stack
height
rules
have
been
remanded
to
EPA
as
a
result
of
the
court
decision
in
NRDC
v.
Thomas,
838
F.
2d
1224
(
D.
C.
Cir.),
cert.
denied,
109
S.
Ct.
219
(
1988).
The
EPA
has
allowed
States
to
move
ahead
on
affected
SIP
revisions
without
regard
to
the
remanded
section
of
these
rules,
but
with
the
caveat
that
the
States
must
remain
aware
of
the
status
of
these
rules,
and
may
be
required
to
take
action
at
a
later
date
to
respond
to
any
rule
revisions
resulting
from
the
remand
(
see,
"
Interim
Policy
on
Stack
Height
Regulatory
Actions,"
J.
Craig
Potter,
April
22,
1988.)
(
5)
Existing
modeling
protocols.
The
amended
Act
requires
submittal
of
a
complete
SIP
18
months
from
enactment
or
nonattainment
designation
(
section
191).
This
18­
month
submittal,
supported
by
a
guideline
model,
must
be
completed
even
in
cases
where
the
modeling
protocol
is
currently
under
review.
Equivalent
models
to
those
approved
for
regulatory
use
in
EPA's
"
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models
(
Revised)"
might
not
be
approved
in
sufficient
time
to
complete
SIP
development
and
submittal
within
the
statutory
deadline.
Therefore,
States
should
proceed
with
existing
guideline
models,
without
deviation
from
the
model
guideline,
to
fulfill
the
requirements
of
the
18­
month
SIP
submittal.

If
States
and/
or
source
owners
wish
to
complete
work
on
alternative
models,
they
may
do
so.
If
EPA
accepts
the
alternative
models,
then
the
SIP
may
be
revised
accordingly.
However,
if
the
alternative
model
is
not
completed
in
a
timely
fashion,
or
if
the
alternative
is
unacceptable,
an
acceptable
regulation
must
be
in
place
to
assure
expeditious
attainment
and
to
avoid
sanctions
for
failure
to
submit
a
SIP
(
section
172(
c)(
8)).

The
Act
as
amended
in
1990
gives
EPA
authority
to
prescribe
modeling
procedures
to
determine
the
effect
of
emissions
on
ambient
air
quality
(
Part
D
and
section
110(
a)(
2)(
K)(
i)).
The
EPA
plans
to
rely
on
its
"
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models
(
Revised)"
as
the
basis
for
all
prescribed
procedures
and
is
in
the
process
of
revising
40
CFR
part
51
to
effect
this
requirement.

(
6)
Test
methods
and
averaging
times.
The
NAAQS
are
expressed
as
maximum
ambient
concentrations
that
are
to
be
met
on
a
continuous
basis.
Consequently,
States
must
demonstrate
that
source
emission
limitations,
averaging
times,
and
compliance
monitoring
methods
are
sufficient
to
assure
compliance
with
the
air
quality
standards.
The
choice
of
a
monitoring
technique
should
consider
regulatory
needs,
monitoring
technology
costs,
and
the
relative
benefits
of
one
technique
versus
another.

Continuous
emission
monitoring
systems
(
CEMS)
are
a
reliable
technique
for
continuously
monitoring
emissions
of
SO2
for
many
source
categories.
Detailed
guidance
documents
for
determining
CEMS
feasibility
in
indiviudal
cases
are
listed
in
section
III.
D.
6.
of
this
preamble
(
see
letters
from
W.
Reilly
to
J.
Dingell,
April
10,
1991).
Further
guidance
is
being
developed.
In
general,
the
criteria
for
determining
when
CEMS
are
appropriate
are
as
follows:
i.
Any
source
where
there
is
an
established
new
source
performance
standard
(
NSPS)
which
requires
CEMS
for
determining
compliance
should
rely
on
this
method
in
the
SIP.
For
example,
any
utility
boiler
that
physically
meets
the
applicability
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Da,
whether
it
is
an
"
existing
boiler"
under
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
Da
or
not,
must
have
CEMS
for
NSPS
compliance
and
should
therefore
rely
on
CEMS
for
SIP
compliance
as
well.

ii.
Any
source
that
has
other
regulatory
requirements
with
CEMS
as
the
compliance
method
should
rely
on
CEMS
as
the
SIP
compliance
method
as
well.

The
feasibility
of
using
CEMS
as
the
compliance
method
has
already
been
established
for
sources
that
fall
into
these
two
categories.
For
example,
in
developing
NSPS,
the
Agency
has
already
considered
cost,
environmental,
and
energy
impacts
for
these
standards.
Where
CEMS
are
not
technically
or
economically
feasible
in
other
cases,
other
appropriate
continuous
monitoring
techniques,
such
as
continuous
compliance
of
relevant
process
parameters
or
alternatives
approved
by
EPA
under
title
IV,
would
be
appropriate.

(
7)
Enforceability.
The
SIP
measures
should
be
converted
into
a
legally­
enforceable
vehicle
(
e.
g.,
a
regulation
or
permit).
The
regulations
or
other
measures
should
meet
EPA's
criteria
regarding
the
enforceability
of
SIP's
and
SIP
revisions.

Guidance
on
enforceability
requirements
has
been
provided
to
Regional
Offices
in
various
memoranda
(
see
Bauman/
Biondi
and
Potter/
Adams/
Blake
memoranda
listed
in
section
III.
D.
6.
of
this
preamble.
Those
SIP's
and
SIP
revisions
which
fail
to
satisfy
the
enforceability
criteria
should
not
be
forwarded
for
approval.
If
they
are
submitted,
they
will
be
disapproved
if,
in
EPA's
judgement,
they
fail
to
satisfy
applicable
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements.

(
8)
Maintenance
plans.
As
discussed
previously,
section
107(
d)(
3)
of
the
amended
Act
(
see
subparagraphs
A
and
E
of
section
107(
d)(
3)
as
well
as
section
175A)
requires
that
nonattainment
areas
must
have
a
fully­
approved
maintenance
plan
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
175A
before
they
can
be
redesignated
to
attainment.
Section
175A(
a)
mandates,
among
other
things,
that
a
State
must
submit
a
SIP
revision
which
provides
for
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
for
at
least
10
years
after
the
redesignation
to
attainment
(
section
175A(
a)).
A
subsequent
SIP
revision
providing
for
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
for
an
additional
10
years
is
due
8
years
into
the
first
10­
year
maintenance
period.
The
law
does
not
provide
any
exceptions
to
the
maintenance
plan
requirement.
Therefore,
in
addition
to
meeting
all
pre­
existing
requirements,
areas
which
are
designated
nonattainment
by
operation
of
law
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
C)(
i)),
as
well
as
areas
which
are
designated
nonattainment
in
the
future
(
section
107(
d)(
3)),
must
all
submit
maintenance
plans
before
they
can
be
redesignated
to
attainment.

The
EPA
will
issue
guidance
on
the
contents
of
section
175A
maintenance
plans
at
a
later
date.

(
9)
NSR.
As
specified
in
section
302(
j),
for
SO2
nonattainment
areas
the
term
major
stationary
source
means
any
stationary
source
which
directly
emits,
or
has
the
potential
to
emit,
100
tons
per
year
or
more
of
SO2.
To
meet
the
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
5),
States
must
submit
a
permit
program
that
meets
all
the
permit
requirements
of
section
173
for
the
construction
and
operation
of
new
and
modified
stationary
sources
of
SO2.

6.
Sources
of
SO2
Policy
and
Guidance
Unless
otherwise
noted,
the
guidance
documents
and
sources
listed
below
were
developed
by
the
EPA's
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
OAQPS)
located
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina.
The
EPA
plans
to
address
additional
policy
questions
by
periodically
issuing
memorandums
which
offer
guidance
in
a
question­
and­
answer
format.
See
also:
(
a)
SO2
Guidance.

(
1)
SO2
Guideline,
October
1989.

(
2)
SO2
Guideline
Appendices,
October
1989.

(
3)
Letter
from
William
Reilly
to
Representative
John
Dingell,
in
response
to
questions
and
GAO
report,
April
10,
1991.

(
4)
Memorandum
from
Craig
Potter,
Thomas
Adams,
and
Francis
Blake
to
Air
Division
Director,
Regions
I­
X,
"
Review
of
State
Implementation
Plans
and
Revisions
for
Enforceability
and
Legal
Sufficiency,"
September
23,
1987.

(
5)
Memorandum
from
Gerald
A.
Emison,
Director,
OAQPS,
to
Air
Division
Director,
Regions
I­
X,
"
Transmittal
of
Reissued
OAQPS
CEMS
Policy,"
March
31,
1988.

(
6)
"
Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Implementation
Plans;
Dearborn,
Lake,
and
Porter
Counties,
Indiana,
"
54
FR
612,
January
9,
1989.

(
7)
Memorandum
from
Robert
Bauman
and
Rich
Biondi
to
Air
Branch
Chiefs,
"
SO2
SIP
Deficiency
Checklist,"
November
28,
1990.
(
8)
Memorandum
from
Gerald
Emison,
Director,
OAQPS,
to
David
Kee,
Director,
Air
Management
Division,
Region
V,
"
Need
for
a
Short­
Term
BACT
Analysis
for
the
Proposed
William
A.
Zimmer
Power
Plant,"
November
24,
1986.

(
b)
SIP
Guidance.
(
1)
Guidance
Document
for
Correction
of
Part
D
SIP's
for
Nonattainment
Areas,
January
27,
1984.

(
2)
Memorandum
from
R.
Strelow
to
Regional
Administrator,
Regions
I­
X,
"
Guidance
for
Determining
Acceptability
of
SIP
Regulations
in
Non­
Attainment
Areas,"
December
9,
1976.

(
c)
Modeling
Guidance.
(
1)
"
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Models"
(
Revised),
July
1986.

(
2)
"
Interim
Procedures
for
Evaluating
Air
Quality
Models:
Experience
with
Implementation,"
July
1985.

(
3)
Model
Clearinghouse.

(
d)
New
Source
Review
Guidance.
(
1)
Memorandum
from
Richard
Rhoads,
Director
CPDD,
to
Division
Director,
Regions
I­
X,
"
Growth
Restrictions
in
Secondary
NAAQS
Nonattainment
Areas,"
October
28,
1980.

(
2)
New
Source
Review
Prevention
of
Significant
Deterioration
and
Nonattainment
Area
Guidance
Notebook,
January
1988.

(
3)
Guidance
on
State
Operating
Permit
Programs,
Federal
Register
notice,
June
1989.

(
4)
NSR
Electronic
Bulletin
Board,
Computerized
Compilation
of
Previous
and
Latest
NSR
Policy
Memoranda
and
Technical
Information
Items,
Federal
Register
notice,
January
1990.

(
5)
"
Draft
Workshop
Manual
for
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
Programs,"
December
1990.

(
6)
Memorandum
from
J.
Seitz,
OAQPS,
to
Air
Division
Director,
Regions
I­
X,
"
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
Program
Transitional
Guidance,"
March
11,
1991.

E.
Lead
1.
Statutory
Background
(
a)
Designations.
In
1978,
when
EPA
promulgated
the
lead
NAAQS,
EPA
believed
that
implementation
and
maintenance
of
the
lead
NAAQS
should
be
in
accordance
with
the
SIP
requirements
set
forth
in
section
110
and
not
part
D.
The
EPA
believed
that
section
107­­
and
and
part
D
requirements­­
were
intended
by
Congress
to
apply
only
to
NAAQS
which
were
set
prior
to
1977.
In
these
cases,
SIP's
had
already
been
adopted,
the
attainment
dates
had
already
passed,
and
the
SIP's
had
proven
to
be
inadequate.
The
designation
process
was
intended
as
a
mechanism
to
initiate
new
SIP
revisions
for
those
existing
NAAQS.
Since
the
attainment
date
for
the
lead
NAAQS
at
that
time
had
not
yet
arrived,
no
lead
SIP's
had
yet
been
proven
inadequate.
Consequently,
lead
did
not
meet
the
circumstances
which
initially
resulted
in
a
need
for
nonattainment
designations
and
plan
revisions
under
part
D.

The
Act,
as
amended,
clearly
defines
EPA's
authority
to
designate
areas
for
lead.
Section
107(
d)(
5)
authorizes
EPA
to
require
States
to
designate
areas
(
or
portions
thereof)
as
nonattainment,
attainment
or
unclassifiable
with
respect
to
the
lead
NAAQS
in
effect
as
of
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA./
31/
As
provided
in
section
107(
d)(
5),
these
lead
areas
are
to
be
designated
pursuant
to
the
procedures
outlined
in
section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)
and
(
B)
except
that
certain
timeframes
of
subparagraph
(
B)
have
been
modified
by
section
107(
d)(
5).
Section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)
permits
EPA
to
require
the
Governors
of
affected
States
to
submit
recommended
designations
for
the
areas
EPA
seeks
designated
in
a
timeframe
that
EPA
deems
reasonable.
This
timeframe,
however,
can
be
no
sooner
than
120
days
nor
later
than
1
year
after
the
date
EPA
notifies
the
State
of
the
requirement
to
submit
such
designations.
Section
107(
d)(
1)(
B)
requires
that
EPA
must
then
promulgate
these
designations
no
later
than
1
year
after
notifying
the
State
of
the
requirement
to
designate
areas
for
lead.
The
EPA
may
make
any
modifications
deemed
necessary
to
the
designations
submitted
by
the
State
(
see
generally
section
107(
d)(
1)(
B)
of
the
Act).
However,
no
later
than
120
days
before
promulgating
a
modified
area,
EPA
must
notify
the
affected
State
and
provide
an
opportunity
for
the
State
to
demonstrate
why
any
proposed
modification
is
inapporpriate.

NOTE
/
31/
Section
107(
d)(
5)
of
the
amended
Act
does
not
indicate
that
all
areas
of
the
State
must
be
designated.
At
this
time,
EPA
has
only
requested
that
specified
areas
within
affected
States
be
designated.
Therefore,
most
States
and
the
vast
majority
of
the
areas
within
affected
States
will
still
have
no
designations,
i.
e.,
will
not
be
designated
as
attainment,
nonattainment,
or
unclassifiable
for
lead.

If
the
Governor
of
an
affected
State
fails
to
submit
the
required
lead
designations,
in
whole
or
in
part,
EPA
is
required
to
promulgate
the
designation
that
it
deems
appropriate
for
any
area
(
or
portion
thereof)
not
designated
by
the
State.
(
b)
Area
boundaries.
States
should
identify
the
boundaries
of
the
nonattainment
areas
when
submitting
nonattainment
designations
for
lead.
A
lead
nonattainment
area
consists
of
that
area
which
does
not
meet
(
or
that
contributes
to
ambient
air
quality
in
a
nearby
area
that
does
not
meet)
the
lead
NAAQS
(
see
section
107(
d)(
1)
of
the
amended
Act).
Generally,
EPA
recommends
that
the
lead
nonattainment
boundary
be
defined
by
the
perimeter
of
the
county
in
which
the
ambient
lead
monitor(
s)
recording
the
violation
is
located.
In
addition,
if
the
ambient
monitor
measuring
violations
is
located
near
another
county,
then
EPA
recommends
that
the
other
county
also
be
designated
as
nonattainment
for
lead.
In
some
situations,
however,
a
boundary
other
than
the
county
perimeter
may
be
appropriate.
States
may
choose
alternatively
to
define
the
lead
nonattainment
boundary
by
using
any
one,
or
a
combination,
of
the
following
techniques:
Qualitative
analysis,
spatial
interpolation
of
air
monitoring
data,
or
air
quality
simulation
by
dispersion
modeling.
These
techniques
are
more
fully
described
in
"
Procedures
for
Estimating
Probability
of
Nonattainment
of
a
PM­
10
NAAQS
Using
Total
Suspended
Particulate
or
PM­
10
Data,"
December
1986.
The
EPA
recommends
that
the
State
submit
a
defensible
rationale
for
the
boundary
chosen
with
the
Governor's
designation
for
an
area.

(
c)
Classification./
32/
Section
172(
a)(
1)(
A)
of
the
amended
Act
authorizes
EPA
to
classify
areas
designated
as
nonattainment
for
the
purposes
of
applying
an
attainment
date
pursuant
to
section
172(
a)(
2)
or
for
other
reasons.
In
determining
the
appropriate
classification,
EPA
may
consider
such
factors
as
the
severity
of
the
nonattainment
problem
and
the
availability
and
feasibility
of
the
pollution
control
measures
(
see
section
172(
a)(
1)(
A)
of
the
amended
Act).
The
EPA
may,
but
is
not
required
to,
classify
lead
nonattainment
areas.
At
this
time,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
classify
lead
nonattainment
areas
with
respect
to
the
lead
NAAQS
in
effect
on
date
of
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.
That
is,
while
section
172(
a)(
1)(
A)
provides
a
mechanism
to
classify
nonattainment
areas,
section
172(
a)(
2)(
D)
provides
that
the
attainment
date
extensions
described
in
section
172(
a)(
2)(
A)
do
not
apply
to
nonattainment
areas
having
specified
attainment
dates
under
other
provisions
of
part
D.
Section
192(
a)
specifically
provides
an
attainment
date
for
areas
designated
as
nonattainment
for
the
lead
NAAQS
in
effect
at
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.
Therefore,
EPA
has
legal
authority
to
classify
lead
nonattainment
areas,
but
the
5­
year
attainment
date
under
section
192(
a)
cannot
be
extended
pursuant
to
section
172(
a)(
2)(
D),
and
EPA
deems
it
inappropriate
to
establish
a
classification
scheme
within
the
5­
year
interval.

NOTE
/
32/
It
is
important
to
note
that
classifications
and
designations
are
separate
concepts.
Designations
refer
to
an
area's
attainment
status
(
i.
e.,
the
area
is
designated
attainment,
nonattainment,
or
unclassifiable).
Classifications
are
applied
to
areas
designated
nonattainment
and
are
a
mechanism
for
addressing
differences
among
nonattainment
areas.
For
example,
classifications
usually
result
in
applying
additional
control
measures
and
providing
longer
attainment
deadlines
for
those
areas
having
more
serious
nonattainment
problems.

(
d)
Plan
submission.
Generally,
the
date
by
which
a
plan
must
be
submitted
for
an
area
is
trigggered
by
the
area's
nonattainment
designation.
For
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
the
primary
lead
NAAQS
in
effect
at
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
States
must
submit
SIP's
which
meet
the
applicable
requirements
of
part
D
of
the
Act
within
18
months
of
an
area's
nonattainment
designation
(
see
section
191(
a)
of
the
amended
Act).

(
e)
Attainment
dates.
Generally,
the
date
by
which
an
area
must
attain
the
lead
NAAQS
also
is
triggered
by
the
area's
nonattainment
designation.
For
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
the
primary
lead
NAAQS
in
effect
at
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
SIP's
must
provide
for
attainment
of
the
lead
NAAQS
as
expeditiously
as
practicable
but
no
later
than
5
years
from
the
date
of
an
area's
nonattainment
designation
(
see
section
192(
a)
of
the
amended
Act).

2.
Pre­
SIP
Submittal
Activities
As
discussed
above,
any
States
containing
an
area
designated
as
nonattainment
with
respect
to
the
lead
NAAQS
in
effect
at
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
must
develop
and
submit
a
part
D
SIP
providing
for
attainment.
Most
of
the
general
part
D
nonattainment
plan
provisions
are
set
forth
in
section
172(
c).
The
SIP's
submitted
to
meet
the
part
D
requirements
must,
among
other
things,
include
RACM,
RACT,
provide
for
RFP,
contain
contingency
measures
and
require
permits
for
the
construction
and
operation
of
major
new
and
modified
stationary
sources.
This
portion
of
the
General
Preamble
does
not
address
more
specifically
RACM,
RFP,
contingency
measures,
or
some
of
the
other
part
D
SIP
requirements
for
lead
nonattainment
areas.
States
should
nonetheless
proceed,
consistent
with
more
general
guidance
on
part
D
requirements
to
collect
information
and
data
necessary
to
complete
SIP
analyses.
A
listing
of
some
of
the
specific
SIP
activities
States
should
be
completing
is
described
below.
The
EPA
will
continue
to
evaluate
the
need
for
more
detailed
guidance
on
the
part
D
lead
SIP
requirements
as
it
proceeds
with
nonattainment
designations
for
lead.

(
a)
Nonattainment
NSR.
Previously,
areas
that
were
not
attaining
the
lead
NAAQS
were
not
designated
as
nonattainment
and
therefore
were
not
required
to
have
a
nonattainment
NSR
program
consistent
with
section
173
of
the
Act.
However,
now
that
there
will
be
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
lead,
a
nonattainment
NSR
program
is
required
for
such
areas.
Specifically,
section
172(
c)(
5)
requires
that
States
having
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
lead
submit
as
part
of
the
applicable
SIP,
provisions
requiring
permits
for
the
construction
and
operation
of
new
or
modified
major
stationary
sources
anywhere
in
the
nonattainment
area,
in
accordance
with
section
173.
Further
guidance
is
provided
in
the
March
11,
1991
memorandum
from
John
Seitz,
entitled
"
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
Program
Transitional
Guidance
to
Implement
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendment
Changes
that
Affect
NSR"
which
is
found
in
Appendix
D.
Among
other
things,
the
March
11,
1991
memorandum
addresses
the
interim
NSR
requirements
applicable
to
an
area
upon
its
designation
as
nonattainment
for
lead
but
before
the
amended
law
provides
for
submittal
of
its
NSR
program.
The
EPA
generally
recommends
that
States
evaluate
their
existing
rules
to
determine
whether
there
are
any
impediments
to
implementing
a
nonattainment
NSR
program
in
the
areas
designated
as
nonattainment
for
lead.

(
b)
Emission
inventories.
An
emissions
inventory
is
required
to
determine
the
nature
and
extent
of
the
specific
control
strategies
that
are
needed.
Emissions
inventories
should
be
based
on
measured
emissions
or
documented
emission
factors.
The
more
comprehensive
and
accurate
the
inventory,
the
more
effective
the
control
evaluation
(
see
section
172(
c)(
3)
of
the
amended
Act
which
specifies
that
nonattainment
area
SIP's
include
"
a
comprehensive,
accurate,
current
inventory
of
actual
emissions
from
all
sources
of
the
relevant
pollutant
or
pollutants
in
such
area
*
*
*").
The
States
should
begin
to
evaluate
the
type
of
emissions
inventory
that
needs
to
be
developed
and
the
type
of
information
that
needs
to
be
collected
to
support
a
SIP
submittal.
Postponing
completion
of
the
emissions
inventory
could
jeopardize
the
submittal
of
the
lead
SIP
within
the
statutorily­
mandated
deadlines.

The
following
documents
provide
further
information
for
lead
emissions
inventory
development:
Draft
Manual
"
Updated
Information
on
Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Lead
Implementation
Plans,"
EPA,
July
1983;
"
Guideline
Series,
Development
of
an
Example
Control
Strategy
for
Lead,"
April
1979;
and
"
Guideline
Series,
Supplementary
Guideline
for
Lead
Implementation
Plans,"
August
1978.

(
c)
Modeling
and
meteorological
monitoring.
The
lead
SIP
regulations
at
40
CFR
51.117
require
that
atmospheric
dispersion
modeling
be
employed
for
the
demonstration
of
attainment
for
areas
in
the
vicinity
of
point
sources
listed
in
40
CFR
51.117(
a)(
1)./
33/
To
complete
the
necessary
dispersion
modeling,
meteorological
and
other
data
will
be
necessary.
At
this
time
States
should
be
evaluating
whether
the
necessary
meteorological
data
are
available
and,
if
not,
determine
what
needs
to
be
done
to
obtain
these
data.
Dispersion
modeling
should
follow
the
procedures
outlined
in
the
"
Guideline
On
Air
Quality
Models
(
Revised)."
The
"
Guideline"
indicates
that
if
on­
site
meteorological
stations
are
used,
12
months
of
data
are
required.
Postponing
the
decision
to
determine
whether
on­
site
stations
need
to
be
established
could
jeopardize
the
submittal
of
the
lead
SIP
within
the
statutorily­
mandated
deadlines.
NOTE
/
33/
Generally,
in
addition
to
meeting
applicable
requirements
under
part
D
of
title
I
of
the
amended
Act,
SIP's
for
those
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
lead
must
also
meet
the
applicable
regulatory
requirements
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
51
except
to
the
extent
those
requirements
are
inconsistent
with
the
amended
Act.
The
1990
CAAA
include
a
General
Savings
Clause
which
provides
that
regulations
(
or
guidance,
etc.)
in
effect
before
the
enactment
of
the
Amendments
shall
remain
in
effect
after
enactment
(
see
section
193).
However,
the
Savings
Clause
also
provides
that
such
regulations
(
or
guidance,
etc.)
shall
remain
in
effect
"
except
to
the
extent
otherwise
provided
under
this
Act,
inconsistent
with
any
provisions
of
this
Act,
or
revised
by
the
Administrator."
Id.

(
d)
Control
measures.
As
indicated
above,
EPA
is
not
at
this
time
providing
guidance
on
the
RACM
measures
specific
to
lead
SIP's.
States
should,
however,
continue
to
rely
on
guidance
issued
for
the
control
of
particulate
emissions.
In
light
of
the
fact
that
some
SIP's
are
due
July
6,
1993,
EPA
recommends
that
States
focus
their
efforts
more
specifically
now
on
evaluations
of
the
affected
lead
sources.
The
EPA
believes
that
the
efforts
States
should
undertake
include
an
assessment
of
operation
and
maintenance
(
O
&
M)
and
work
practice
measures.
In
addition,
State
efforts
should
identify
and
analyze
control
measures
which
reduce
process
fugitive
and
lead­
bearing
open
dust
emission
sources.
These
evaluations
should
consider
the
technological
feasibility
of
additional
control
measures,
as
well
as
the
cost
of
the
identified
options.

3.
Transition
Issues
(
a)
Transition
from
pre­
amended
law.
As
mentioned,
under
the
pre­
amended
law
there
were
no
designations
for
lead,
and
States
were
required
to
submit
SIP's
in
accordance
with
section
110.
The
amended
law,
as
discussed,
now
authorizes
EPA
to
designate
areas
for
lead.
There
are
transitional
issues
raised
by
the
changes
in
the
new
law
including,
for
example,
the
status
of
the
obligation
to
submit
adequate
section
110
SIP's
under
the
pre­
amended
law
and
the
status
of
any
approved
section
110
SIP's.

(
b)
Unapproved
or
inadequate
section
110
SIP's.
Before
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
a
State
may
have
failed
to
submit
a
section
110
SIP
to
EPA,
it
may
have
submitted
a
section
110
SIP
which
was
not
approved
by
EPA,
or
it
may
have
submitted
and
had
approved
a
section
110
SIP
which
EPA
subsequently
found
substantially
inadequate.
The
last
situation
is
true
of
at
least
three
States.
Specifically,
prior
to
the
enactment
of
the
CAAA,
EPA
issued
SIP
calls
for
three
States
having
substantially
inadequate
section
110
SIP's.
Except
for
those
areas
designated
nonattainment
for
lead,
section
110(
n)(
2)
requires
these
States
to
continue
their
section
110
planning
in
accordance
with
the
SIP
calls
(
or,
as
the
case
may
be,
in
response
to
EPA's
1978
promulgation
of
the
quarterly
1.5
micro­
g/
m/
3/
lead
standard)
and
to
attain
the
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
date
specified
in
section
110(
m)(
2).
Any
area
in
these
States
that
is
designated
nonattainment
under
the
new
law
for
the
existing
lead
NAAQS
must
instead
submit
a
part
D
SIP
that
comports
with
the
applicable
requirements
in
subpart
1
and
subpart
5,
including
the
SIP
submittal
material
deadlines
and
attainment
dates
in
sections
191
and
192
of
subpart
5.

The
EPA
intends
to
ensure
that
a
State
whose
SIP
needed
correction
prior
to
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
and
that
expects
to
have
an
area
designated
as
nonattainment
under
the
new
law,
continues
to
progress
with
its
plan
development
and
implementation
for
that
area
as
provided
in
section
110(
n)(
2).
Once
areas
are
designated
nonattainment
for
the
existing
lead
NAAQS,
the
State
must
complete
a
SIP
providing
for
attainment
by
the
date
that
is
as
expeditious
as
"
practicable"
for
any
such
newly­
designated
nonattainment
area.
In
reviewing
any
future
SIP's
under
sections
191
and
192,
EPA
will
consider
what
progress
could
reasonably
have
been
accomplished
both
prior
to
enactment
of
the
new
law
and
after
enactment
but
before
the
area
was
designated
nonattainment.

(
c)
Approved
section
110
SIP's.
In
the
situation
where
a
State
submitted
and
EPA
approved
or
promulgated
a
section
110
lead
SIP
before
the
1990
CAAA
enactment,
then
all
provisions
of
such
SIP
shall
remain
in
effect
unless
and
until
EPA
approves
a
revision
under
the
new
law
(
see
section
110(
n)(
1)).

F.
Nitrogen
Dioxide
This
section
applies
primarily
to
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
of
California,
which
is
the
only
designated
NO2
nonattainment
area
in
the
Nation.
The
basin
was
designated
nonattainment
by
operation
of
law
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
C).
The
requirements
described
in
this
section
would
also
generally
apply
to
any
subsequently
designated
NO2
nonattainment
areas.
Nothing
in
this
guidance
prevents
a
SIP
for
a
nonattainment
area
from
containing
measures
more
stringent
than
the
guidance
recommends.

In
general,
the
Act,
as
amended
in
1990,
does
not
require
significant
revisions
in
the
NO2
NAAQS
program.
The
General
Savings
Clause
(
section
193)
provides
for
general
program
continuity
by
explicitly
preserving
existing
rules,
policies,
and
guidance
that
are
not
affected
by
Act
changes.

1.
Designations
The
1977
Act
gave
the
primary
authority
for
initiating
designations
to
State
Governors.
Although
State
Governors
continue
to
have
authority
to
initiate
the
designation
process
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
D)),
the
1990
CAAA
also
give
the
Administrator
the
authority
to
initiate
and
to
promulgate
designations
(
section
107(
d)
(
1)
and
(
3)).

In
general,
areas
may
be
designated
as
nonattainment,
attainment,
or
unclassifiable
for
the
NAAQS
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
A)
(
i),
(
ii),
and
(
iii)).
The
1990
CAAA
provide
for
designations
of
areas
based
upon
the
attainment
status
for
the
current
NAAQS
(
section
107(
d)(
1)(
C));
they
also
provide
authority
and
schedules
for
designations
of
areas
following
promulgation
of
a
new
or
revised
NAAQS
(
section
107(
d)(
1)
(
A)
and
(
B)).

The
revised
law
sets
forth
specific
requirements
that
govern
the
redesignation
of
an
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)).
The
particular
criteria
for
redesignating
nonattainment
areas
to
attainment
(
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E))
include
the
following
determinations:
The
area
has
attained
the
NAAQS,
the
area
has
a
fully
approved
(
section
110(
k))
implementation
plan,
the
improvement
in
air
quality
is
due
to
permanent
and
enforceable
emissions
reductions,
the
area
has
a
maintenance
plan
meeting
the
requirements
of
section
175A,
and
the
area
meets
all
applicable
requirements
under
section
110
and
part
D.
See
"
Redesignations
and
Maintenance"
under
III.
H.
6
of
this
document.

2.
Plan
Deadlines
Submission
deadlines
for
States
to
submit
implementation
plans
(
part
D
Plans)
for
NO2
are
given
in
section
191.
Plan
submission
deadlines
are
explicitly
given
for
nonattainment
areas
which
violate
the
primary
NO2
NAAQS
(
section
191).
The
NO2
primary
and
secondary
NAAQS
are
identical.
Thus,
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin
must
submit
an
implementation
plan
that
meets
the
requirements
of
subpart
1
of
part
D,
and
the
plan
must
be
submitted
within
18
months
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
(
i.
e.,
by
May
15,
1992).

States
with
areas
that
are
designated
or
redesignated,
after
enactment,
as
nonattainment
areas
for
the
NO2
NAAQS
must
submit
implementation
plans
(
section
191(
a)).
These
implementation
plans
must
meet
the
requirements
of
part
D
and
the
plans
must
be
submitted
within
18
months
of
the
designation
or
redesignation.

3.
Attainment
Dates
In
the
1990
CAAA,
Congress
set
specific
attainment
dates
for
nonattainment
areas
that
were
found
to
violate
the
NO2
NAAQS.
The
1990
CAAA
require
attainment
of
the
NAAQS
"
as
expeditiously
as
practicable"
(
section
172(
a)(
2)
(
A)
and
(
B)).
Although
the
1990
CAAA
give
EPA
authority
to
establish
flexible
attainment
dates
(
section
172(
a)(
2)
(
A)­(
C)),
this
flexibility
does
not
apply
to
areas
that
have
specific
attainment
dates
(
section
172(
a)(
2)(
D)).
Specifically,
the
flexibility
does
not
apply
to
attainment
of
the
NO2
NAAQS
because
the
attainment
date
is
specified
in
section
192.

Areas
that
were
designated
nonattainment
at
the
time
of
enactment
(
i.
e.,
areas
that
are
nonattainment
by
operation
of
law)
must
attain
the
primary
standard
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
not
later
than
5
years
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
(
i.
e.,
by
November
15,
1995)
(
section
192(
b)).
This
requirement
applies
to
the
South
Coast
Air
Basin.

Areas
that
are
redesignated
as
nonattainment,
subsequent
to
the
November
15,
1990
date
of
enactment,
must
attain
the
primary
standard
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
not
later
than
5
years
after
the
nonattainment
designation
(
section
192(
a)).

4.
Nonattainment
Plan
Provisions
The
1970
Act
required
States
to
submit
implementation
plans
that
would
indicate
how
the
State
would
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS.
The
requirements
for
these
general
SIP's
were
listed
in
part
A,
section
110.
In
the
1977
CAAA,
requirements
for
implementation
plans
in
nonattainment
areas
were
given
in
part
D
(
sections
171­
178).
These
requirements
addressed
a
number
of
issues
including,
but
not
limited
to,
attainment
dates,
permit
requirements,
and
planning
procedures.

The
1990
CAAA
have
not
made
significant
changes
in
the
plan
requirements
for
NO2
nonattainment
areas
(
section
172(
c)).
For
this
reason,
States
may
generally
continue
to
rely
on
past
guidance
for
NO2
programs
in
meeting
those
requirements.
This
position
is
further
supported
by
the
General
Savings
Clause
contained
in
section
193.

G.
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
Nonattainment
Permit
Requirements
This
section
of
the
General
Preamble
describes
the
new
or
revised
NSR
nonattainment
permit
program
requirements
under
part
D
of
the
amended
Act
and
generally
explains
EPA's
interpretation
of
these
requirements.
For
these
new
or
revised
provisions,
the
provisions
discussed
below
are
the
minimum
statutory
requirements
States
must
use
to
revise
their
existing
NSR
nonattainment
permit
plan
provisions
(
or
to
adopt
such
provisions
if
none
exist)
which
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
for
approval
by
the
deadlines
set
forth
in
the
CAAA
of
1990.
In
keeping
with
past
practice,
EPA
intends
to
issue
regulations
setting
forth
in
more
detail
the
requirements
for
an
approvable
NSR
program.

1.
Construction
Bans
Under
the
1977
Amendments
to
the
Act,
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I)
of
the
statute
required
EPA
to
place
certain
nonattainment
areas
under
a
federally­
imposed
construction
moratorium
(
ban)
that
prohibited
the
construction
of
all
new
or
modified
major
stationary
sources
in
nonattainment
areas
where
the
State
failed
to
have
an
implementation
plan
meeting
all
of
the
requirements
of
part
D
of
the
Act.
The
amended
Act
repeals
the
provisions
previously
found
in
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I).
The
amended
Act
also
contains
a
Savings
Clause
in
section
110(
n)(
3)
that
preserves
certain
existing
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I)
construction
bans
in
place
before
November
15,
1990,
if
the
ban
was
imposed
by
virtue
of
a
finding
that
the
plan
for
the
area
did
not
contain
an
adequate
NSR
permitting
program
as
required
by
section
172(
b)(
6)
of
the
1977
Act,
or
the
plan
failed
to
provide
for
timely
attainment
of
the
SO2
NAAQS
by
December
31,
1982.
All
other
construction
bans
imposed
pursuant
to
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I)
are
lifted
as
a
result
of
the
new
statutory
provision.
In
accordance
with
new
section
110(
n)(
3),
the
construction
bans
that
are
retained
remain
in
effect
until
the
EPA
determines
that
the
SIP
meets
either
the
new
part
D
permit
requirements
or
the
new
requirements
for
attainment
of
the
NAAQS
for
SO2
under
subpart
5
of
part
D,
as
applicable.

Section
173
and
the
various
subparts
of
title
I
of
the
amended
Act
contain
the
requirements
for
issuance
of
a
NSR
contruction
permit
to
a
new
or
modified
major
source
in
a
nonattainment
area
or
ozone
transport
region.
To
issue
such
permits,
the
permit
authority
must
first
find
per
section
173(
a)(
4)
that
"
the
Administrator
has
not
determined
that
the
applicable
implementation
plan
is
not
being
adequately
implemented
for
the
nonattainment
area"
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
part
D.
If
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
SIP
for
the
part
D
requirements
is
not
being
adequately
implemented
for
the
nonattainment
area
where
the
new
source
or
modification
wants
to
locate,
permits
that
would
otherwise
meet
the
requirements
of
section
173
cannot
be
issued.

While
EPA
policy
generally
is
to
impose
a
FIP
where
States
fail
to
adopt
Clean
Air
Act
NSR
provisions,
section
113(
a)(
5)
of
the
amended
Act
provides
that
EPA
may
prohibit
the
construction
or
modification
of
any
major
stationary
source
in
any
area,
including
an
attainment
area,
where
there
is
a
violation
of
the
statute's
NSR
requirements.
Specifically,
EPA
may
apply
section
113(
a)(
5)
whenever
the
Administrator
finds,
on
the
basis
of
available
information,
that
a
State
is
not
acting
in
compliance
with
any
requirement
or
prohibition
of
the
Act
relating
to
construction
of
new
sources
or
the
modification
of
existing
sources.
Upon
such
a
finding,
the
Administrator
may
issue
an
order
prohibiting
the
construction
or
modification
of
any
major
stationary
source
in
any
area
to
which
such
requirement
applies,
issue
an
administrative
penalty
order
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
section
113(
d),
or
bring
a
civil
action
under
section
113(
b).
Nothing
in
section
113(
a)(
5)
precludes
the
EPA
from
taking
other
enforcement
action
or
commencing
a
criminal
action
under
section
113(
c)
at
any
time
for
any
such
violation.
Section
113(
a)(
5)
is
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
section
IV.
B.
2.
2.
Emissions
Offsets
The
1990
CAAA
clarify
and
expand
the
basic
requirements
for
emissions
offsets
already
contained
in
section
173
of
part
D.
Moreover,
in
limiting
the
States'
opportunities
to
set
up
a
growth
allowance
(
described
in
section
III.
G.
3),
the
1990
CAAA
establish
emissions
offsets
as
the
primary
regulatory
mechanism
for
accommodating
major
new
source
growth
without
jeopardizing
the
Act's
mandate
for
reasonable
progress
toward
NAAQS
attainment.
In
light
of
such
statutory
changes,
each
State
should
review
the
emissions
offset
requirements
in
its
current
NSR
rules
and
determine
what
revisions
are
necessary
to
conform
those
rules
with
the
criteria
described
below.

(
a)
RFP.
The
basic
requirement
in
section
173(
a)(
1)
remains
the
same
in
that
to
issue
a
permit
the
State
must
demonstrate
that
the
new
source
growth
does
not
interfere
with
the
approved
demonstration
of
reasonable
progress
for
the
area.
Such
growth
results
from
new
or
increased
emissions
potential
from
major
stationary
sources,
as
well
as
from
emissions
from
minor
source
growth
unaccounted
for
by
the
control
strategy
in
the
EPA­
approved
SIP.

The
EPA
interprets
section
173(
a)(
1)(
A)
to
ratify
current
EPA
regulations
requiring
that
the
emissions
baseline
for
offset
purposes
be
calculated
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
emissions
baseline
used
to
demonstrate
RFP.
Regarding
the
amount
of
offsets
that
is
necessary
to
show
noninterference
with
RFP,
EPA
will
presume
that
so
long
as
a
new
source
obtains
offsets
in
an
amount
equal
to
or
greater
than
the
amount
specified
in
the
applicable
offset
ratio
(
or,
where
the
statute
does
not
specify
an
offset
ratio,
in
an
amount
greater
than
1:
1),
the
new
source
will
represent
RFP.
In
general,
this
presumption
may
be
overcome
only
if
the
applicable
SIP
expressly
relies
on
new
sources
to
generate
a
greater
amount
of
reductions
than
set
forth
in
the
statutory
offset
ratios.
The
offsets
still
must
satisfy
the
section
173(
c)
requirements
as
discussed
below.

The
EPA
regulations
at
40
CFR
51.165(
a)(
3)(
i)
presently
require
that
offset
be
based
on
allowable
or
actual
emissions,
depending
on
which
currency
is
used
for
RFP
and
attainment
demonstration
purposes.
Historically,
RFP
often
has
been
tracked
primarily
by
a
yearly
assessment
of
the
net
actual
emissions
reductions
that
have
occurred,
because
actual
emissions
best
correlate
with
ambient
air
quality
concentrations.
In
such
cases,
EPA
regulations
disallow
the
use
of
"
paper"
offsets
based
on
SIP
allowable
emissions
in
excess
of
actual
emissions,
and
the
statutory
changes
do
not
call
for
any
change
in
this
approach.

(
b)
Geographic
location
of
offsets.
New
section
173(
c)(
1)
stipulates
that
emissions
offsets
generally
must
be
obtained
by
the
same
source
or
other
existing
sources
in
the
same
nonattainment
area.
However,
the
statutory
provision
does
allow
offsets
to
be
obtained
in
another
nonattainment
area
under
two
specific
conditions.
First,
the
other
nonattainment
area
must
have
an
equal
or
higher
nonattainment
classification
than
the
nonattainment
area
in
which
the
source
would
construct.
In
applying
this
provision,
the
other
nonattainment
area
must
have
an
equal
or
higher
nonattainment
classification
for
the
same
pollutant.
For
example,
a
proposed
major
new
source
of
VOC
seeking
to
locate
in
a
nonattainment
area
classified
as
serious
for
ozone
could
possibly
obtain
emission
offsets
in
another
ozone
nonattainment
area
if
such
area
were
designated
serious,
severe
or
extreme
for
ozone.

The
second
condition
is
that
the
emissions
from
such
other
nonattainment
area
must
contribute
to
a
violation
of
the
NAAQS
in
the
nonattainment
area
in
which
the
source
would
construct.
The
showing
that
such
contribution
from
sources
in
another
nonattainment
area
exists
should
be
acknowledged
and
verified
by
the
permitting
authority.
Generally,
dispersion
modeling
is
used
to
identify
the
existence
of
such
impacts.

(
c)
Timing
of
offsets.
New
section
173(
c)(
1)
also
adds
the
condition
that
any
emissions
offsets
obtained
in
conjunction
with
the
issuance
of
a
permit
to
a
new
or
modified
source
must
be,
"
by
the
time
a
new
or
modified
source
commences
operation,
in
effect
and
enforceable
*
*
*
*."
This
new
statutory
condition
for
offsets
augments
an
existing
requirement
under
section
173
that
provides
that
offsets
must
be
"
legally
binding"
before
a
permit
may
be
issued.
The
1990
CAAA
clarified
the
existing
requirement
by
requiring
that
the
offsets
be
federally
enforceable
before
permit
issuance
(
see
revised
section
173(
a)).
Accordingly,
while
it
is
possible
for
a
State
to
issue
a
permit
to
construct
once
sufficient
emissions
offsets
have
been
identified
and
made
federally
enforceable
(
generally
through
a
permit
condition
made
to
the
permit
of
the
existing
source),
the
State
must
also
ensure
that
the
required
emissions
reductions
actually
occur
no
later
than
the
date
on
which
the
new
source
or
modified
source
would
commence
operation.

(
d)
Actual
emissions
reductions.
New
section
173(
c)(
1)
includes
the
provision
that
the:

*
*
*
Total
tonnage
of
increased
emissions
from
the
new
or
modified
source
shall
be
offset
by
an
equal
or
greater
amount,
as
applicable,
in
the
actual
emissions
of
such
air
pollutant
from
the
same
or
other
sources
in
the
area.

The
Act
was
previously
silent
on
this
issue;
however,
EPA's
current
policy
concerning
the
baseline
for
emissions
offsets,
as
contained
in
the
part
51
NSR
nonattainment
regulations,
provides
that
the
offset
baseline
is
the
emissions
limit
under
the
applicable
SIP
in
effect
at
the
time
the
permit
application
is
filed,
unless
the
State's
demonstration
of
RFP
and
NAAQS
attainment
is
based
on
actual
emissions,
or
the
applicable
SIP
does
not
contain
an
emissions
limitation
for
that
particular
source
or
source
category
(
see
existing
Sec.
51.165(
a)(
3)(
i)).
The
new
statutory
requirement
provides
that
emissions
increases
from
the
new
or
modified
source
must
be
offset
by
real
reductions
in
actual
emissions.
As
noted
above,
RFP
and
attainment
demonstrations
generally
are
based
on
actual
emissions.
However,
to
the
extent
that
these
plans
are
based
on
allowable
emissions,
offset
credit
for
reductions
in
allowable
emissions
(
as
necessary
to
conform
with
the
requirements
of
section
173(
a)(
1))
is
appropriate,
but
will
be
deemed
inadequate
if
there
is
not
a
real
reduction
in
actual
emissions
that
equals
or
exceeds,
as
applicable,
the
increase
in
emissions
resulting
from
the
operation
of
the
major
new
or
modified
source.

(
e)
Creditable
reductions.
The
final
condition,
added
under
new
section
173(
c)(
2),
prevents
emissions
reductions
otherwise
required
by
the
Act
from
being
credited
for
purposes
of
satisfying
the
part
D
offset
requirement.
For
example,
reductions
required
to
meet
RACT
and
acid
rain
reductions
pursuant
to
statutory
requirements
are
not
creditable
for
emissions
offsets.
However,
the
statutory
language
does
allow
reductions
that
are
achieved
indirectly
pursuant
to
a
requirement
of
the
CAAA
(
incidental
emission
reductions)
to
be
credited
if
they
meet
the
other
criteria
for
offsets
contained
in
section
173(
c)(
1)
as
described
above.
Section
112
of
the
CAAA
contains
source
requirements
for
hazardous
air
pollutants.
The
listed
hazardous
air
pollutants
in
section
112(
b)(
1)
are
not
exempt
from
regulation
under
the
nonattainment
provisions
of
part
D.
New
and
existing
sources
must
meet,
where
applicable,
the
MACT
emissions
limitations
as
promulgated
under
section
112(
d).
As
part
of
the
schedule
to
comply
with
an
applicable
MACT
standard,
an
existing
source
may
elect
to
comply
with
the
early
reductions
requirements
of
section
112(
i)(
5).
By
electing
to
achieve
early
reductions,
an
existing
source
may,
under
certain
conditions
outlined
below,
meet
an
alternative
emission
limit
in
lieu
of
meeting
an
applicable
MACT
standard
for
a
period
of
6
years
from
the
compliance
date
of
an
otherwise
applicable
MACT
standard.
Except
as
follows,
to
obtain
the
MACT
compliance
extension,
the
reduction
must
be
achieved
before
the
otherwise
applicable
standard
is
first
proposed.
A
source
may
also
obtain
an
extension
if
it
achieves
the
early
reductions
after
the
proposal
of
an
applicable
MACT
limitation
but
before
January
1,
1994,
and
it
makes
an
enforceable
commitment
to
achieve
such
reductions
before
the
proposal
of
the
MACT
standard.

Emissions
reductions
of
the
hazardous
air
pollutants
listed
in
section
112(
b)(
1)
to
meet
a
standard
under
section
112(
d),
including
emissions
reductions
to
meet
the
early
reductions
requirements
of
section
112(
i)(
5),
are
not
creditable
emissions
reductions.
These
reductions
are
required
by
the
Act
and
therefore
are
not
creditable
for
offsetting
emission
increases
under
part
D
(
section
173(
c)(
2)).
However,
any
emissions
reductions
in
excess
of
the
required
MACT
standards
or,
in
the
case
of
early
reductions
under
section
112(
i)(
5),
any
emissions
reductions
in
excess
of
90
percent
(
or
in
excess
of
95
percent
for
particulates)
should
be
considered
surplus
and
therefore
should
be
creditable
for
offsetting
purposes
if
all
other
applicable
requirements
are
met.
Also,
if
emissions
of
a
pollutant
other
than
one
of
the
specific
pollutants
required
to
be
controlled
are
reduced
as
a
result
of
complying
with
a
MACT
standard
(
e.
g.,
reductions
in
nontoxic
VOC's
that
are
incidental
to
reductions
of
a
toxic
VOC
that
is
subject
to
the
MACT
standard),
or
if
reductions
are
achieved
pursuant
to
a
State
requirement
that
goes
beyond
the
requirements
of
the
Act,
such
emissions
reductions
are
considered
incidental
and,
therefore,
should
be
considered
as
creditable
reductions
if
all
other
conditions
for
a
creditable
offset
are
met.

For
purposes
of
equity,
EPA
encourages
States
to
allow
sources
to
use
pre­
enactment
banked
emissions
reductions
credits
for
offsetting
purposes.
States
may
do
so
as
long
as
the
restored
credits
meet
all
other
offset
creditability
criteria
and
such
credits
are
considered
by
States
as
part
of
the
attainment
emissions
inventory
when
developing
their
post­
enactment
attainment
demonstration.
For
VOC
offsets,
it
is
important
to
note
that
such
reductions
must
be
used
in
accordance
with
the
offset
ratios
established
by
the
1990
CAAA
for
the
different
ozone
nonattainment
area
classifications.
Existing
EPA
regulations
(
40
CFR
51.165(
a)(
3)(
ii)(
C)(
1))
prohibits
certain
pre­
enactment
banked
emissions
reduction
credits,
i.
e.,
reductions
achieved
by
shutting
down
existing
sources
or
curtailing
production
or
operating
hours,
from
being
used
in
the
absence
of
an
EPA­
approved
attainment
plan.

3.
Creditable
Emissions
Reductions
for
Netting
Except
for
the
provisions
of
subpart
2
of
title
I,
the
1990
CAAA
generally
do
not
affect
EPA's
current
procedures
for
netting
emissions
decreases
and
increases
(
see
section
III.
A.
3­
5).
Netting
emissions
increases
and
decreases
should
be
determined
consistent
with
EPA's
current
NSR
rules
and
EPA's
"
Emissions
Trading
Policy
Statement
(
ETPS)"
(
51
FR
43823,
December
4,
1986).
Use
of
pre­
enactment
reductions
for
netting
with
post­
enactment
emissions
increases
continues
to
be
available
to
the
extent
allowed
under
State
rules.
However,
because
these
reductions
represent
emissions
that
are
not
included
in
the
1990
base
year
inventory,
States
should
consider
the
post­
enactment
increases
(
less
post­
enactment
decreases)
as
growth
even
though,
for
applicability
purposes,
the
source's
net
emissions
change
is
de
minimis.

Early
reductions
of
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions
under
section
112(
i)(
5)
may
also
be
creditable
emissions
reductions
for
netting.
The
EPA
considers
early
reductions
under
section
112(
i)(
5)
to
be
"
surplus"
under
the
ETPS
and
creditable
for
netting.
As
stated
above,
early
reductions
cannot
be
used
as
creditable
reductions
for
offset
purposes
due
to
the
statutory
limitations
of
section
173(
c)(
2).

4.
Growth
Allowances
Before
the
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
the
Act
provided
in
general
that
States
could
establish
a
pollutant­
specific
allowance
for
additional
growth
in
any
designated
nonattainment
area
by
controlling
existing
source
emissions
beyond
the
amount
of
reduction
required
to
demonstrate
RFP.
Based
on
the
amount
of
excess
control
of
existing
emissions,
section
172(
b)(
5)
of
the
1977
Act
provided
that
States
could
"
expressly
identify
and
quantify
the
emissions,
if
any,
of
any
such
pollutant
which
will
be
allowed
to
result
from
the
construction
and
operation
of
major
new
or
modified
stationary
sources"
in
a
particular
nonattainment
area.
Before
the
1990
CAAA,
section
173(
1)(
A)
implied
that
the
emissions
reductions
used
to
"
allow"
the
new
emissions
from
the
proposed
source
could
be
furnished
by
controlling
existing
major
sources
to
a
greater
degree
than
that
required
by
RACT
or
by
controlling
minor
sources.

Commensurate
with
the
above
provision,
section
173(
1)(
B)
of
the
1977
Act
required
that,
before
a
part
D
permit
to
construct
could
be
issued
to
any
major
new
or
modified
stationary
source,
the
permitting
agency
had
to
have
determined
that
"
emissions
of
such
pollutant
from
the
proposed
source
would
not
cause
or
contribute
to
emissions
levels
which
exceed
the
allowance
permitted
*
*
*."
Alternatively,
when
a
major
new
or
modified
stationary
source
applied
for
a
part
D
permit
(
in
the
absence
of
an
approved
growth
allowance),
corresponding
emissions
reductions
(
offsets)
were
to
be
obtained
from
existing
sources
as
a
prerequisite
for
approving
the
new
construction.
These
provisions
formed
the
basis
for
States
to
develop
"
growth
allowances"
in
their
SIP's.

The
revised
Act
restricts
where
new
allowances
may
be
established
and
voids
certain
existing
growth
allowances.
Revised
sections
172(
c)(
4)
and
173(
a)(
1)(
B)
limit
new
growth
allowances
to
only
those
portions
of
a
nonattainment
area
which
have
been
formally
targeted
for
economic
growth
by
the
Administrator,
in
consultation
with
the
Secretary
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development.
New
section
173(
b)
of
the
Act
invalidates
by
operation
of
law
any
existing
growth
allowance
in
any
nonattainment
area
that
either
received
a
notice
that
the
SIP
was
substantially
inadequate
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
H)(
ii)
of
the
1977
Act,
or
receives
a
notice
of
inadequacy
under
new
section
110(
k)(
1)
of
the
amended
Act.
Again,
section
173(
a)(
1)(
B)
lifts
this
restriction
from
targeted
economic
growth
areas.
Where
a
growth
allowance
is
no
longer
valid
or
cannot
be
established,
a
proposed
major
new
or
modified
stationary
source
in
a
nonattainment
area
is
required
to
obtain
emissions
offsets
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
in
order
to
obtain
construction
approval.
5.
Analysis
of
Alternatives
Before
the
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
section
172
of
part
D
contained
a
provision
requiring
that,
in
the
case
of
implementation
plans
that
could
not
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
NAAQS
for
ozone
or
carbon
monoxide
by
December
31,
1982,
such
plans
must
include
*
*
*
A
program
which
requires,
prior
to
the
issuance
of
any
permit
*
*
*
an
analysis
of
alternative
sites,
sizes,
production
processes,
and
environmental
control
techniques
for
such
proposed
source
which
demonstrates
that
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
source
significantly
outweight
the
environmental
and
social
costs
imposed
as
a
result
of
its
location,
construction,
or
modification.

The
1990
CAAA
removed
this
provision
from
section
172
and
added
it
as
new
section
173(
a)(
5).
Consequently,
such
analysis
and
demonstration
are
now
prerequisites
to
the
issuance
of
any
part
D
permit.

6.
Control
Technology
Information
Per
section
173(
d),
the
States
must
provide
that
the
control
technology
information
from
permits
issued
under
section
173
be
promptly
submitted
to
EPA's
RACT/
BACT/
LAER
clearinghouse,
to
other
States,
and
to
the
general
public.

7.
Innovative
Controls
for
Rocket
Engines
and
Motors
Under
section
173(
e)
States
are
authorized
to
allow
offsetting,
by
alternative
or
innovative
means,
of
emission
increases
from
rocket
engine
and
motor
firing,
and
cleaning
related
to
such
firing.
This
authorization
applies
to
any
existing
or
modified
major
source
that
tests
rocket
engines
or
motors
under
the
conditions
found
at
section
173(
e)
(
1)
through
(
4).
The
conditions
require
that
a
proposed
modification
be
solely
for
the
purpose
of
expanding
the
testing
of
rocket
engines
or
motors
at
a
facility
already
permitted
for
such
purposes,
and
that
the
testing
is
required
for
a
program
essential
to
the
national
security
as
certified
in
writing
by
the
appropriate
departments
and
agencies
of
the
Federal
government.
Also,
the
source
must
have
used
all
reasonable
means
to
obtain
offsets,
all
available
offsets
must
already
have
been
used,
and
sufficient
offsets
must
not
be
available
to
the
source.
Once
these
criteria
are
met,
the
source
will
comply
with
an
alternative
measure,
imposed
by
the
permitting
authority,
designed
to
offset
any
emissions
increases
not
directly
offset
by
the
source.
In
lieu
of
requiring
alternative
offset
measures,
the
permitting
authority
may
impose
an
emissions
fee
to
be
paid
to,
and
used
by,
the
State
to
maximize
emissions
reductions
in
the
area
of
the
test
facility.
Section
173(
e)(
4)
caps
such
fees
at
1.5
times
the
cost
of
stationary
control
costs
adopted
in
the
area
during
the
previous
3
years.

8.
Exemptions
for
Stripper
Wells
Section
819
of
the
CAAA
provides
a
limited
exclusion
for
activities
related
to
stripper
wells,
where
such
activities
occur
in
certain
designated
nonattainment
areas.
The
statutory
provision
as
written
applies
to
the
production
of
oil
or
natural
gas
from
a
stripper
well,
and
the
equipment
used
in
the
exploration,
production,
development,
storage,
and
processing
of
such
stripper
well
oil
and
natural
gas.
Stripper
wells
are
low­
production
wells.
Oil
stripper
wells
produce
less
than
10
barrels
of
oil
per
day
and
natural
gas
stripper
wells
(
as
defined
in
the
National
Gas
Policy
Act;
15
U.
S.
C.
section
3318(
b))
cannot
exceed
an
average
of
60,000
cubic
feet
per
production
day
during
a
90­
day
production
period.

While
still
subject
to
the
general
requirements
under
sections
172
and
173
of
the
Act
for
NSR
nonattainment
area
permits,
including
requirements
applicable
under
those
sections
pursuant
to
subpart
1
of
part
D
of
the
amended
Act,
these
activities
are
not
required
to
satisfy
the
additional
nonattainment
area
requirements
enacted
under
new
subparts
2,
3,
4
and
5
of
part
D
of
the
amended
Act.
Section
819
of
the
1990
CAAA
limits
this
exclusion
to
PM­
10,
ozone,
or
CO
nonattainment
areas
classified
as
marginal,
moderate,
or
serious
(
and
having
a
population
of
less
than
350,000).
(
subpart
5
of
part
D
provides
no
additional
NSR
requirements
for
sulfur
oxides,
nitrogen
dioxide,
or
lead
nonattainment
areas.)
No
exclusion
from
the
additional
requirements
of
subparts
2
through
5
is
provided
for
serious
PM­
10,
ozone
or
CO
nonattainment
areas
having
a
population
of
350,000
or
more,
or
in
severe
and
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas.

9.
OCS
source
Applicability
Section
801
of
the
1990
CAAA
adds
a
new
section
328
to
the
Act
entitled
"
Air
Pollution
from
Outer
Continental
Shelf
Activities".
This
section
contains
provisions
pertaining
to
the
control
of
air
pollution
from
OCS
sources.
These
provisions
necessitate
a
revision
of
the
Federal
NSR
regulations
under
both
the
PSD
and
NSR
nonattainment
permit
programs
to
facilitate
implementation
of
OCS
regulations.
The
OCS
regulations
will
be
proposed
in
a
separate
EPA
action
and
codified
at
40
CFR
part
55.
The
reader
is
referred
to
the
separate
OCS
proposal
package
for
more
specific
information
on
the
OCS
rules.
10.
Tribal
Lands
Applicability
As
discussed
more
fully
in
section
V.
B.
of
this
preamble,
the
1990
CAAA
grant
EPA
the
authority
to
treat
Indian
tribes
in
certain
respects
as
States,
and
specifically
allows
Tribes
to
develop
tribal
implementation
plans
for
implementating
the
NAAQS
on
tribal
lands.
Like
SIP's,
these
plans
must
include
all
implementation
requirements
set
out
in
the
Act,
including
complete
NSR
programs
for
constructing
or
modifying
existing
sources
located
on
tribal
lands.
Further
guidance
on
the
treatment
of
Indian
tribes
will
be
provided
as
part
of
a
separate
rulemaking
required
by
section
301(
d)(
2)
of
the
Act.

11.
Stationary
Source
Definition
The
1990
CAAA
added
a
new
definition
of
"
stationary
source"
in
section
302(
z)
of
title
III
of
the
Act,
and
amended
the
existing
definition
already
contained
in
section
111(
a)(
3).
The
addition
of
the
new
definition
appears
to
strengthen
congressional
intent
that
certain
internal
combustion
engines
must
be
subject
to
control
under
State
permit
programs,
while
requiring
the
exclusion
of
those
internal
combustion
engines
which
fall
under
the
newly
defined
category
of
"
nonroad
engines."
Congress
authorized
EPA
to
establish
emissions
standards
for
categories
of
nonroad
engines
that
are
deemed
to
contribute
significantly
to
pollution
problems.
Such
authorization
preempts
States
from
further
regulating
such
sources
of
pollution
under
the
stationary
source
permit
process.
The
EPA
presently
believes
that
most
internal
combustion
engines
used
in
stationary
applications
should
be
subject
to
the
State
permit
process
for
stationary
sources.

12.
Temporary
Clean
Coal
Technology
Demonstration
Projects
Section
415(
b)(
2)
of
the
amended
Act
provides
under
certain
conditions
an
exemption
from
the
part
D
requirements
of
title
I
for
the
installation,
operation,
cessation,
or
removal
of
a
temporary
clean
coal
technology
demonstration
project.
Section
415(
b)(
1)
specifies
that
clean
coal
technology
projects
are
those
funded
under
the
Department
of
Energy­
Clean
Coal
technology
appropriations
or
similar
projects
funded
by
EPA
and
limits
the
applicability
of
section
415
to
existing
facilities.

Under
section
415(
b)(
2),
to
qualify
for
this
exemption,
a
temporary
clean
coal
demonstration
project
must
operate
for
no
more
than
5
years.
The
project
must
also
comply
with
any
applicable
SIP
for
the
area
in
which
the
project
is
located
and
all
other
requirements
for
the
attainment
and
maintenance
of
ambient
air
quality
standards,
both
during
and
after
the
project.
Section
415(
b)(
4)
requires
EPA
to
issue
rules
or
interpretive
rulings
to
implement
this
exemption.
As
required,
EPA
has
proposed
such
changes
to
the
rules
for
steam
electric
utility
units.
These
proposed
changes
were
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
June
14,
1991
(
56
FR
27630).
Readers
are
referred
to
this
notice
for
more
details
on
the
applicability
of
this
exemption.
Under
section
415(
b)(
4),
these
rules
are
limited
to
those
areas
where
EPA
is
the
permitting
authority.
Where
the
State
is
the
part
D
permitting
authority,
the
State
may,
but
is
not
required
to,
adopt
and
submit
to
EPA
for
approval
rule
changes
incorporating
the
section
415(
b)(
2)
exemption
in
its
SIP.

13.
Failure
to
Submit
NSR
Rules
By
Statutory
Deadlines
The
1990
CAAA
require
States
to
adopt
SIP
revisions
subject
to
EPA
approval
that
incorporate
the
new
preconstruction
permitting
requirements
for
new
or
modified
sources
that
were
discussed
in
the
preceding
sections.
For
instance,
new
permit
rules
for
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
by
June
30,
1992;
new
rules
for
ozone
nonattainment
areas
must
be
submitted
by
November
15,
1992;
new
rules
for
most
CO
nonattainment
areas
are
due
3
years
from
the
date
of
the
nonattainment
designation.
The
EPA
has
previously
announced
its
interpretation
that
the
new
NSR
requirements
did
not
go
into
effect
with
passage
of
the
1990
CAAA
but
rather
become
effective
in
accordance
with
the
schedule
for
State
adoption
of
SIP
revisions
(
see
J.
Seitz,
"
New
Source
Review
(
NSR)
Program
Transitional
Guidance,"
p.
6
(
March
11,
1991)
(
appendix
D)).

If
these
deadlines
pass
without
States
submitting
NSR
revisions,
EPA
may
impose
sanctions
on
delinquent
States.
Specifically,
the
Act
(
in
two
separate
provisions)
grants
EPA
the
authority
to
impose
sanctions
based
on
several
different
types
of
State
failures
including
a
State's
failure
to
submit
a
SIP
or
SIP
element,
or
a
State's
submitting
an
inadequate
SIP
or
SIP
element
(
see
section
IV.
B.
2).
The
sanctions
include
reducing
a
State's
highway
funds
(
section
179(
b)(
1))
or
increasing
emissions
offsets
(
to
at
least
2
to
1)
for
new
and
modified
sources
(
section
179(
b)(
2)).
In
addition
to
these
general
sanctions,
section
113(
a)(
5)
provides
that
when
the
Administrator
finds
that
a
State
is
not
acting
in
compliance
with
any
requirement
or
prohibition
relating
to
NSR,
the
Administrator
may
issue
an
order
prohibiting
the
construction
or
modification
of
any
major
stationary
source
in
any
area
where
such
requirements
apply.
In
States
that
delay
in
revising
their
SIP's
to
include
the
new
preconstruction
permitting
requirements
by
the
statutory
deadline,
EPA
may
exercise
this
authority
by
proceeding
under
section
113(
a)(
5)
whenever
a
particular
new
source
attempts
to
construct
without
meeting
the
NSR
requirements
added
by
the
1990
CAAA,
or
by
issuing
a
general
construction
ban.
As
an
alternative,
the
Administrator
could
issue
a
contingent
order
prohibiting
construction
of
any
major
new
or
modified
source
that
failed
to
obtain
a
permit
that
met
the
amended
statutory
NSR
requirements.
The
EPA
will
provide
additional
information
on
this
issue
in
its
NSR
regulatory
package.

In
addition
to
imposing
statutorily
required
sanctions,
EPA
is
also
required
by
the
statute
to
promulgate
a
FIP
when
it
finds
that
a
State
has
failed
to
make
a
required
SIP
submittal
or
has
made
an
incomplete
submission
(
see
section
IV.
C).
Pursuant
to
this
authority,
EPA
is
developing
revised
NSR
regulations
that
would
include,
at
40
CFR
part
52,
a
Federal
NSR
nonattainment
permitting
program
that
EPA
(
or
the
State
pursuant
to
a
delegation
agreement)
could
implement
as
a
FIP
in
those
States
that
fail
to
submit
NSR
regulations
by
the
statutory
deadlines.
Because
of
the
importance
of
the
increased
offset
ratios,
reduced
source
thresholds,
and
other
NSR
changes
to
States'
overall
attainment
effort,
EPA
presently
intends
to
impose
this
NSR
FIP
on
any
State
that
fails
to
adopt
its
own
NSR
regulations
within
the
deadlines
established
by
the
Act.
In
addition,
or
until
such
time
as
the
FIP
is
in
place,
EPA
may
impose
any
of
the
sanctions
identified
above.
Of
course,
once
it
receives
and
approves
the
State's
NSR
regulations,
EPA
would,
under
ordinary
circumstances,
withdraw
the
FIP
and
any
sanctions
that
may
have
been
imposed.

H.
General
1.
Part
D,
Subpart
1/
Section
110
(
to
the
Extent
Not
Covered
Under
Pollutant­
Specific)

Subsections
(
A)
through
(
M)
of
section
110(
a)(
2)
set
forth
the
elements
that
a
SIP
must
contain
in
order
to
be
fully
approved.
Although
Congress
substantially
amended
section
110(
a)(
2)
upon
enactment
of
the
amended
Act,
many
of
the
basic
requirements
remain
the
same.

Amended
subsection
(
A)
includes
the
pre­
amended
subsection
(
B)
requirement
that
all
measures
and
other
elements
in
the
SIP
be
enforceable.
The
amended
provision
specifically
authorizes
SIP's
to
contain
certain
nontraditional
techniques
for
reducing
pollution­­
economic
incentives,
marketable
permits,
and
auctions
of
emissions
rights.
The
EPA
reads
this
language
to
require
even
these
other
means
of
achieving
reductions
to
be
enforceable.
Section
172(
c)(
6),
one
of
the
general
SIP
requirements
for
nonattainment
areas,
also
includes
this
requirement
in
essentially
the
same
language.

Subsection
(
B)
carries
forth
the
pre­
amended
subsection
(
C)
requirement
to
monitor
and
compile
data
on
ambient
air
quality.
The
EPA
historically
has
promulgated
regulations
in
part
58
of
the
CFR,
indicating
the
necessary
data
States
need
to
collect
and
submit
as
part
of
their
SIP.
The
existing
regulations
remain
in
effect,
pursuant
to
section
193,
to
the
extent
they
are
not
inconsistent
with
the
new
law,
until
EPA
elects
to
amend
them.
The
enforcement
provisions
of
pre­
amended
subsection
(
D)
are
now
under
subsection
(
C).
While
this
provision
retains
the
preexisting
requirement
that
the
SIP
include
a
pre­
construction
review
for
all
new
and
modified
stationary
sources,
it
deletes
the
previous
provision's
specific
reference
to
pre­
construction
review
of
sources
subject
to
NSPS.

Amended
subsection
(
D)
also
contains
provisions
that
essentially
remain
unchanged.
It
incorporates
language
from
pre­
amended
subsection
(
E)
requiring
States
to
include
SIP
provisions
prohibiting
sources
from
emitting
pollutants
that
would
contribute
significantly
to
nonattainment,
interfere
with
maintenance
of
the
standard,
or
interfere
with
PSD
or
visibility./
34/

NOTE
/
34/
The
pre­
amended
section
110(
a)(
2)(
E)
required
SIP's
to
contain
a
provision
prohibiting
stationary
sources
from
emitting
an
air
pollutant
in
amounts
which
will
"
prevent
attainment"
in
another
State.
The
amended
version
of
this
language
requires
a
SIP
provision
that
prohibits
emissions
that
will
"
contribute
significantly
to
nonattainment"
in
another
State.
However,
EPA
interpreted
the
pre­
amended
language
in
the
manner
that
Congress
expressed
in
the
amended
Act.
See
Air
Pollution
Control
Dist.
v.
U.
S.
EPA.,
739
F.
2d
1071,
1090­
93
(
6th
Cir.
1984).
In
the
Senate
Report,
Congress
noted
that
the
pre­
amended
language
presented
an
impossible
standard
and
noted
that
it
was
adopting
"
significantly
contribute"
to
clarify
when
a
violation
of
that
requirement
would
occur.
S.
Rep.
No.
228,
101st
Cong.,
1st
sess.
21
(
1989).

Subsection
(
E)
of
the
amended
Act
incorporates
one
provision
from
pre­
amended
subsection
(
F)­­
clause
(
E)(
ii)
reinforces
the
section
128
requirement
that
the
SIP
contain
certain
requirements
as
to
State
boards.
In
addition,
clause
(
E)(
i)
of
the
amended
Act
includes
the
pre­
amendment
subsection
(
F)
requirement
that
States
ensure
that
the
State
and/
or
local
governments
have
adequate
resources
to
implement
the
plan.
This
includes
a
new
requirement
that
the
State
ensure
that
nothing
in
the
SIP
is
otherwise
prohibited
by
any
other
State
or
Federal
law.
Finally,
clause
(
E)(
iii)
adds
a
new
requirement­­
that
the
State
retain
responsibility
for
ensuring
adequate
implementation
in
cases
in
which
it
relies
on
local
implementation
of
plan
provisions.

Subsection
(
F)
carries
forth
the
requirements
of
pre­
amended
subsection
(
F)
that
concern
emission
monitoring.
The
EPA
promulgated
monitoring
regulations
at
Sec.
51.210
of
the
CFR
and
in
appendix
P
to
part
51.
Under
section
193,
the
existing
regulations
remain
effective
to
the
extent
they
are
not
inconsistent
with
the
new
law,
until
EPA
elects
to
amend
them.

Amended
subsection
(
G)
also
carries
forth
a
provision
of
pre­
amended
subsection
(
F).
States
must
provide
authority
to
bring
emergency
actions
(
comparable
to
that
granted
to
EPA
in
section
303)
in
cases
where
a
source
or
a
group
of
sources
present
an
imminent
and
substantial
endangerment
to
the
public
health.
The
EPA
has
also
adopted
regulations
regarding
such
authority
in
40
CFR
51.150,
and
these
regulations
will
remain
effective
under
section
193,
to
the
extent
they
are
not
inconsistent
with
the
new
law,
until
EPA
amends
them.

Subsection
(
H)
was
not
revised
by
the
amendments.
It
still
requires
States
to
provide
for
the
revision
of
their
SIP's
(
commonly
referred
to
as
"
SIP
calls")
in
two
circumstances:
if
the
NAAQS
were
revised,
or
if
EPA
made
a
finding
that
the
plan
was
substantially
inadequate
to
attain
the
standard.
New
section
110(
K)(
5)
gives
EPA
the
authority
to
issue
a
SIP
call.

Amended
subsection
(
I)
adds
a
new
requirement
to
section
110(
a)(
2).
It
now
states
explicitly
that
any
plan
or
plan
revision
must
meet
the
applicable
requirements
of
part
D
(
provisions
relating
to
nonattainment
areas).
Although
this
is
a
new
section
110(
a)(
2)
provision,
it
does
not
add
a
new
requirement
to
the
Act
as
a
whole.
The
SIP's
for
nonattainment
areas
have
always
been
required
to
meet
the
part
D
requirements.

Subsection
(
J)
has
also
been
retained
in
its
preexisting
form.
It
continues
the
requirement
that
SIP's
meet
the
applicable
PSD
and
visibility
requirements
and
the
associated
consultation
and
public
notification
provisions
of
sections
121
and
137,
respectively.

Amended
subsection
(
K)
reinforces
EPA's
authority
to
require
States
to
do
air
quality
modeling.
Although
this
is
a
section
110(
a)(
2)
provision,
EPA
has
always
had
the
authority
to
require
appropriate
modeling.
This
requirement
will
be
met
if
the
State
submits
its
actual
modeling
in
its
SIP
submittal,
and
EPA
determines
that
the
submitted
SIP
measures
are
approvable.
The
EPA
currently
does
not
have
regulations
concerning
modeling
for
the
SIP
demonstration
purposes,/
35/
but
has
issued
guidance
(
e.
g.,
"
EPA's
Guideline
on
Air
Quality
Modeling"
(
1987)).

NOTE
/
35/
Under
the
PSD
provisions
of
section
320,
EPA
has
historically
had
such
modeling
rules.
In
addition,
EPA
has
used
these
rules
as
guidance
for
other
purposes,
using
the
guidance
as
a
basis
for
what
is
adequate
modeling.
This
new
subsection
(
K)
requirement
ratifies
EPA's
past
application
of
the
rules,
as
rules
for
PSD
purposes
and
as
guidance
for
other
purposes.

The
pre­
amended
provisions
concerning
permitting
fees
has
been
carried
over
in
subsection
(
L).
Although
the
language
of
this
provision
has
not
changed,
in
light
of
the
new
permit
provisions
of
the
amended
Act
(
title
V),
these
requirements
could
have
a
different
impact
from
under
the
pre­
amended
Act.
Amended
subsection
(
M)
is
a
new
provision
requiring
States
to
provide
for
consultation
and
participation
by
local
political
subdivisions
affected
by
the
SIP.
This
section
builds
on
several
other
section
110(
a)(
2)
requirements
that
require
consultation
and
participation
in
regard
to
specific
SIP
elements.

2.
Conformity
(
a)
General
requirements.
Section
176(
c)
provides
the
framework
for
ensuring
that
Federal
actions
conform
to
air
quality
plans
under
section
110.
Under
section
176(
c),
before
any
agency,
department,
or
instrumentality
of
the
Federal
Government
engages
in,
supports
in
any
way,
provides
financial
assistance
for,
licenses,
permits,
or
approves
any
activity,
that
agency
has
an
affirmative
responsibility
to
ensure
that
such
action
conforms
to
the
SIP
or
FIP.

"
Conformity
to
an
implementation
plan"
is
defined
in
section
176(
c)(
1)
(
A
and
B)
of
the
Act
as
meaning
"
conformity
to
an
implementation
plan's
purpose
of
eliminating
or
reducing
the
serverity
and
number
of
violations
of
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
and
achieving
expeditous
attainment
of
such
standards;
and
that
such
activities
will
not
cause
or
contribute
to
any
new
violation
of
any
standard
in
any
area;
increase
the
frequency
or
severity
of
any
existing
violation
of
any
standard
in
any
area;
or
delay
timely
attainment
of
any
standard
or
any
required
interim
emission
reductions
or
other
milestones
in
any
area."
The
intent
of
these
provisions
is
explained
in
the
Committee
Report:

Through
the
evaluation
of
the
air
quality
impacts
of
proposed
projects
before
they
are
undertaken,
the
conformity
provision
is
intended
to
foster
long
range
planning
for
the
attainment
and
maintenance
of
air
quality
standards,
and
to
assure
that
Federal
agencies
do
not
take
or
support
actions
which
are
in
any
way
inconsistent
with
the
effort
to
achieve
NAAQS
or
which
fail
to
take
advantage
of
opportunities
to
help
in
the
effort
to
achieve
the
NAAQS.
(
Committee
expects
that
the
new
conformity
provisions
will
be
especially
helpful
in
assuring
that
air
quality
considerations
play
a
greater
role
in
Federally
supported
transportation
planning
efforts,
which
can
have
a
major
impact
on
air
quality
and,
in
some
severely
polluted
areas,
are
essential
as
part
of
the
program
for
achieving
the
NAAQS
("
Committee
Report,"
page
222.)

Section
176(
c)(
4)
required
EPA
to
promulgate
general
criteria
and
procedures
for
determining
conformity
by
November
1991.
In
the
case
of
transportation
plans,
programs,
and
projects,
the
EPA
Administrator,
with
the
concurrence
of
the
Secretary
of
Transportation,
was
required
to
promulgate
criteria
and
procedures
for
"
demonstrating
and
assuring"
conformity
by
November
1991.
Section
176(
c)(
4)(
C)
requires
EPA
to
include
in
such
procedures
a
requirement
that
each
State
submit
to
EPA
and
the
DOT
by
November
1992
a
revision
to
the
implementation
plan
that
includes
criteria
and
procedures
for
assessing
the
conformity
of
any
plan,
program,
or
project
subject
to
the
conformity
requirements.
Until
this
revision
is
approved
by
EPA,
existing
conformity
provisions
in
the
SIP
remain
in
effect.
The
criteria
for
determining
transportation
conformity
ultimately
require
the
existence
of
SIP's
which
contain
estimates
of
emissions
from
motor
vehicles.
Until
such
times
as
EPA
approves
these
SIP's
however,
there
exists
an
interim
period
with
criteria
for
determining
transportation
conformity
which
are
different
from
those
that
will
apply
after
the
SIP
is
approved.
These
interim
criteria
are
contained
in
section
176(
c)(
3).
The
EPA
and
DOT
jointly
issued
guidance
on
transportation
conformity
for
this
interim
period
based
on
these
criteria
in
June
1991.

The
EPA's
transportation
conformity
regulations
are
still
under
development,
in
coordination
with
DOT.
On
October
24,
1991,
EPA
and
DOT
jointly
issued
further
guidance
indicating
that
the
interim
transportation
guidance
issued
on
June
7,
1991
would
continue
in
effect
until
the
agencies
promulgated
final
conformity
regulations.
It
is
unlikely
that
final
regulations
will
be
available
significantly
before
November
1992
to
allow
States
to
submit
SIP
revisions
addressing
conformity
by
November
15,
1992,
the
date
the
statute
requires
EPA
to
call
for
such
submittals
in
its
regulations.
The
EPA
consequently
anticipates
that
in
its
conformity
regulations,
it
will
establish
a
later
date
for
such
SIP
submittals
in
recognition
of
the
impossibility
of
imposing
the
1992
date.
The
EPA
intends
to
provide
States
with
a
reasonable
period
to
develop
conformity
regulations,
such
as
the
year
that
Congress
had
in
mind
in
section
176(
c)(
4)(
C).
The
EPA
notes
for
clarification
that
States
are
under
no
duty
to
submit
conformity
regulations
until
EPA
promulgates
its
regulations
and
establishes
a
date
for
such
submittals.
Detailed
guidance
on
the
overall
conformity
program
will
be
provided
in
later
rulemaking
actions.
The
guidance
below
concerns
section
176(
c)(
1)(
B)(
iii)
as
applied
to
nonattainment
areas.

(
b)
Establishment
of
emission
budgets
for
transportation­
related
actions
in
ozone
or
CO
nonattainment
areas.
In
general,
Federal
actions
may
not
delay
timely
attainment
of
any
standard
or
any
required
interim
emission
reductions
or
other
milestones
in
any
area.
More
specifically,
after
the
interim
period,
conformity
cannot
be
determined
for
a
transportation
plan
or
program
unless
a
determination
has
been
made
by
the
metropolitan
planning
organization
that
emissions
expected
from
implementation
of
such
plans
and
programs
are
consistent
with
estimates
of
emissions
contained
in
the
applicable
SIP.
The
EPA
interprets
these
provisions
to
mean
that
the
combination
of
highway
capacity
expansion,
highway
extensions,
support
for
transit,
and
TCM's
in
the
transportation
plan
and
program
must
result
in
vehicle
emissions
that
are
not
in
excess
of
those
contained
in
the
SIP's
demonstration
of
RFP
and
attainment,
despite
any
difference
that
may
exist
between
the
area's
current
and
forecasted
population,
employment,
and
travel
demand
and
those
that
were
assumed
at
the
time
of
SIP
preparation
and
adoption.
In
other
words,
the
conformity
provisions
envision
that
the
SIP
will
create
an
emissions
budget
(
for
the
criteria
pollutant
and
its
precursors)
for
highway
vehicles,
and
that
the
transportation
planning
process
will
be
required
to
produce
plans
and
programs
that
will
result
in
emissions
within
that
budget.
For
regional
pollutants
(
ozone,
NO2,
CO
in
some
areas,
and
PM­
10
in
some
areas)
the
transportation
planning
process
is
not
required
to
demonstrate
again
that
the
budgeted
emission
level
will
result
in
attainment.
(
For
pollutants
capable
of
forming
hot
spots
of
nonattainment,
an
air
quality
determination
is
required.)
(
1)
Areas
required
to
demonstrate
RFP
and
attainment.
For
nonattainment
areas
that
are
required
to
demonstrate
RFP
and
attainment
by
a
future
year,
the
SIP
revision
that
contains
those
demonstrations
will
necessarily
contain
statements
of
the
motor
vehicle
emissions
for
future
years
on
which
those
demonstrations
are
based.
These
statements
will
become
the
emissions
budgets
that
will
be
used
for
later
conformity
determinations.
Budgets
will
thereby
be
defined
for
a
number
of
future
dates,
depending
on
the
RFP
and
attainment
showings
required
for
the
area
based
on
its
nonattainment
status.
States
should
make
sure
that
these
budgets
are
stated
clearly
and
unambiguously
in
the
SIP.
For
example,
assumed
temperature
inputs
and
the
geographic
area
of
the
inventory
must
be
stated
so
that
comparisons
can
be
made
later
on
an
accurate
basis.
The
RFP
milestones
will
usually
be
defined
in
terms
of
typical
seasonal
weekday
emissions,
like
the
base
and
periodic
inventory.
Attainment
demonstrations
may
be
based
on
individual
episode
days,
however.
If
so,
the
SIP
must
contain
an
attainment
year
inventory
expressed
on
the
same
basis
as
the
other
milestone
inventories.

The
1990
CAAA
allow
a
single
budget
for
a
nonattainment
area
for
a
given
criteria
pollutant
or
percussor.
However,
States
have
the
option
of
specifying
the
budgets
in
more
detail
or
disaggregation.
For
example,
an
ozone
attainment
demonstration
using
a
grid
model
will
contain
estimates
of
vehicle
emissions
for
many
small
grid
squares.
The
SIP
may
provide
that
only
the
sum
of
vehicle
emissions
from
all
grids
within
the
nonattainment
area
will
apply
for
purposes
of
conformity
determination,
or
it
may
divide
the
area
into
subareas
and
establish
a
budget
for
each.
This
approach
would
provide
additional
assurance
that
transportation
plans
and
programs
will
result
in
emission
patterns
that
will
produce
attainment.
Such
an
approach
will
of
course
constrain
the
transportation
planning
process,
and
it
may
later
be
found
useful
for
the
State
to
submit
a
SIP
revision
showing
that
some
other
distribution
of
emissions,
or
even
a
different
emission
total,
is
also
consistent
with
attainment.
A
SIP
may
also
provide
for
alternative
emission
budgets
each
of
which
is
shown
to
produce
milestone
compliance
and/
or
attainment,
for
example,
different
combinations
of
VOC
and
NOx
emissions.
Finally,
a
SIP
that
demonstrates
a
margin
of
safety
with
respect
to
milestones
may
identify
a
budget
for
conformity
purposes
which
is
higher
than
expected
to
result
from
the
measures
in
the
SIP,
but
is
consistent
with
the
milestone
and
attainment
date
requirements,
for
purposes
of
providing
the
transportation
planning
process
with
a
cushion
for
unexpected
growth
or
less
than
expected
effectiveness
from
TCM's.
This
sort
of
cushion
for
unexpected
growth
is
only
a
suggestion
and
EPA
wants
to
affirm
its
confidence
in
the
SIP
planning
process.
This
does
not
change
the
substantive
requirements
for
SIP
approval,
however.

(
2)
Other
nonattainment
areas.
Transitional,
submarginal,
and
marginal
ozone
nonattainment
areas,
not­
violating
CO
areas,
and
moderate
CO
areas
with
design
values
of
12.7
ppm
or
less
are
not
required
to
include
specific
attainment
demonstrations
or
to
show
compliance
with
interim
milestones.
Consequently,
they
are
not
required
to
contain
statements
of
future
emissions
which
could
be
used
as
emissions
budget
for
later
conformity
determinations.
Nevertheless,
EPA
believes
that
the
intent
of
section
176(
c)
is
to
make
conformity
a
meaningful
process
for
these
areas,
rather
than
to
release
the
transportation
planning
process
of
all
rsponsibility
for
area­
wide
motor
vehicle
emissions.
On
the
other
hand,
the
need
to
provide
emissions
criteria
for
future
conformity
determinations
should
not
defeat
the
evident
congressional
intent
to
temporarily
excuse
these
areas
from
having
to
develop
and
implement
control
strategies
beyond
vehicle
fleet
turnover,
Federal
measures,
and
required
measures
specified
for
them
in
the
Act.
It
also
seems
clear
that
Congress
did
not
intend
these
areas
to
be
subject
to
any
serious
constraint
on
VMT
and
industrial
activity
growth
prior
to
the
date
on
which
they
are
vulnerable
to
being
reclassified
for
failure
to
attain.
To
satisfy
these
intents,
these
States
should
choose
from
two
options
as
described
below,
and
clearly
indicate
their
selection
in
the
SIP.

First
option:
The
State
may
elect
to
extend
the
interim
conformity
criteria
of
section
176(
c)(
3)(
A)
for
the
entire
period
prior
to
EPA
approval
of
either
a
section
175(
A)
maintenance
SIP
or­­
following
bump
up­­
a
SIP
that
meets
RFP
and
attainment
requirements.
These
interim
criteria
would
otherwise
expire
when
EPA
approves
the
conformity
SIP
revision
described
in
section
III.
H.
1.
a.
The
most
important
of
these
criteria
is
that
the
transportation
plan
and
program
must
contribute
to
emissions
reductions,
i.
e.,
that
implementation
of
the
plan
and
program
will
cause
lower
emissions
than
if
new
projects
were
not
implemented.
This
option
requires
the
least
analysis
by
the
State,
but
precludes
transportation
plan­
caused
increases
in
emissions
that
might
in
fact
not
interfere
with
attainment
by
the
deadline
due
to
the
large
reductions
resulting
from
other
measures.
In
the
joint
EPA/
DOT
interim
conformity
guidance,
these
areas
were
implicitly
placed
under
this
option
and
will
remain
there
unless
a
SIP
revision
exercising
the
second
option
is
approved.

Second
option:
The
State
may
voluntarily
submit,
as
a
SIP
revision,
an
attainment
demonstration
and
corresponding
motor
vehicle
emissions
budget,
like
higher
classified
areas.
This
may
show
that
transportation
plans
that
cause
emissions
increases
are
in
fact
compatible
with
attainment,
thereby
providing
the
transportation
planning
process
flexibility
to
adopt
such
plans
later.

(
3)
Maintenance
plan.
More
specific
guidance
on
the
content
of
maintenance
plans
may
be
provided
at
a
date
closer
to
when
States
will
be
preparing
these
plans.
For
now,
States
should
be
aware
that
transportation
planning
in
areas
redesignated
to
attainment
and
operating
under
a
maintenance
plan
will
also
be
subject
to
the
emissions
budget
concept.
A
budget
for
motor
vehicle
emissions
must
be
establishment
in
the
maintenance
plan
and
shown
to
be
consistent
with
the
maintenance
demonstration
in
light
of
expected
emissions
from
other
sources.

(
4)
Emission
budgets
during
the
replanning
period
immediately
following
failure
to
meet
a
milestone
or
failure
to
attain.
Failure
to
meet
a
milestone
or
to
attain
by
the
expected
date
may
be
due
to
inaccurate
inventorying
of
1990
emissions,
inaccurate
air
quality
modeling,
excess
growth
in
nonvehicle
emissions,
or
excess
growth
in
vehicle
emissions
despite
the
operation
of
the
conformity
process.
In
such
cases,
the
adequacy
of
the
emissions
budgets
for
motor
vehicles
is
called
into
question
and
new
budgets
must
be
developed
as
part
of
the
replanning
that
is
required
by
the
1990
CAAA.
Until
a
new
SIP
is
approved
or
a
Federal
plan
is
promulgated,
the
previous
budgets
will
continue
to
be
applied
for
demonstrating
conformity.

(
c)
Identification
and
scheduling
of
transportation
control
measures.
Section
176(
c)(
2)(
B)
requires
that
transportation
improvement
programs
provide
for
timely
implementation
of
TCM's
consistent
with
schedules
included
in
the
applicable
SIP.
In
general,
EPA
will
allow
emission
reduction
credit
only
for
TCM's
that
are
fully
adopted
and
for
which
a
sponsoring
agency
has
made
an
enforceable
commitment
of
its
own;
nevertheless,
the
provision
regarding
transportation
improvement
programs
will
be
an
important
aid
to
implementation.
Effective
implementation
of
this
provision
will
require
that
SIP's
adequately
describe
TCM's
with
respect
to
their
design,
location,
scope,
scale,
and
implementation
schedule
including
milestones
prior
to
full
adoption.

3.
Planning
Requirements
Including
Section
174
Section
174,
Planning
Procedures,
was
broadened
to
ensure
that
State
and
local
authorities
share
in
the
development,
implementation,
and
enforcement
of
the
SIP.
This
section
requires
the
State
to
certify
the
planning
organization
and
to
identify
the
specific
State,
local,
or
regional
agencies
that
will
develop,
adopt,
and
implement
the
elements
of
the
SIP.
In
addition,
a
new
subsection
was
added
to
clarify
that
when
a
nonattainment
area
includes
more
than
one
State,
the
affected
States
may
jointly
undertake
planning
procedures.
States
are
required
to
review
and
update,
as
necessary,
their
SIP
planning
procedures
by
November
1992.
Two
options
are
generally
available
to
States
through
section
174:
To
continue
using
the
planning
organization
previously
certified,
or
to
certify
a
new
planning
organization.
If
a
new
planning
organization
is
certified,
section
174
requires
that
organization
to
include
elected
officials
or
local
governments
in
the
affected
area
and
representatives
of
the
State
air
quality
planning
agency,
the
State
transportation
planning
agency,
the
metropolitan
planning
organization
designated
to
conduct
the
continuing
cooperative
and
comprehensive
transportation
planning
process
for
the
area
under
section
134
of
title
23,
U.
S.
C.,
the
organization
responsible
for
the
air
quality
maintenance
planning
process,
and
any
other
organization
with
responsibilities
for
developing,
submitting,
or
implementing
any
aspects
of
the
SIP.

The
EPA
encourages
the
States
to
certify
either
the
previous
organization
or
a
new
organization
well
before
the
November
1992
deadline.
Early
certification
will
be
helpful
to
the
various
agencies
that
must
meet
deadlines
by
this
date.

Additional
guidance
on
the
new
section
174
provisions
is
contained
in
the
update
of
the
1978
Transportation­
Air
Quality
Planning
Guidelines
by
EPA
and
DOT,
due
in
November
1991.
Previous
guidance
issued
by
EPA
and
DOT
in
1977
specific
to
section
174
was
superseded
by
this
1991
update.
The
EPA
will
soon
update
Subpart
M,
Intergovernmental
Consultation,
of
the
"
Code
of
Federal
Regulations"
to
reflect
the
new
section
174
requirements.

4.
Economic
Incentives
Since
1980
EPA
has
developed
several
programs
to
allow
industry
and
States
more
flexibility
in
meeting
statutory
requirements
of
the
1977
Act.
One
of
these
initiatives
is
the
Emissions
Trading
Policy
Statement
(
ETPS)
(
51
FR
43814,
December
4,
1986).
The
ETPS
allows
source­
specific
SIP
revisions
for
sources
to
trade
emissions
reductions
credits
(
ERC's)
with
other
sources
to
meet
some
emission
limitations.
All
ERC's
must
be
permanent,
real,
quantifiable,
(
federally)
enforceable,
and
surplus
(
i.
e.,
not
otherwise
needed
for
an
attainment
strategy
or
other
already
existing
control
requirements).
The
ETPS
also
allows
States
to
develop
and
adopt
generic
emission
trading
programs
into
their
SIP.
To
receive
EPA
approval,
a
generic
emission
trading
program
must
contain
replicable
procedures
to
ensure
that
all
ERC's
meet
the
criteria
above.

As
discussed
below,
the
CAAA
include
several
new
economic
incentive
programs
as
well
as
changing
statutory
language
that
may
lead
to
modification
to
existing
policies,
including
updating
of
the
ETPS.
The
EPA
has
started
work
to
inventory
potential
discrepancies
between
the
ETPS
and
the
CAAA.
If
warranted,
EPA
would
issue
a
policy
interpretation
of
the
ETPS
that
EPA
will
use
when
applying
the
ETPS
for
the
SIP
approval
process.
The
1990
CAAA
encourage
innovation
through
the
use
of
market­
based
approaches,
not
only
in
the
title
IV
acid
rain
program,
but
also
in
title
I
SIP
provisions.
The
use
of
economic
incentives
are
explicitly
allowed
for
in
the
general
SIP
requirements
(
section
110(
a)(
2)),
the
general
provisions
for
nonattainment
SIP's
(
section
172(
c)(
6)),
and
in
the
system
of
regulations
for
controlling
of
emissions
from
consumer
or
commercial
products
(
section
183(
e)(
4)).

Beyond
these
general
allowances
for
economic
incentives,
use
or
considering
the
use
of
an
option
to
implement
economic
incentives
is
mandated
in
certain
cases.
These
cases
include
State
failure
to
submit
a
compliance
demonstration
or
to
meet
applicable
milestones
for
RFP
for
serious,
severe,
and
extreme
ozone
nonattainment
areas
(
sections
182(
g)(
3)
and
182(
h))
and
State
failure
to
submit
a
milestone
demonstration,
to
meet
a
required
specific
emissions
reductions
milestone,
or
for
serious
CO
nonattainment
areas
to
attain
the
standard
(
sections
187(
d)(
3),
187(
g)).

Section
182(
g)(
4)(
A)
defines
such
a
State
economic
incentive
program
as
one
that
is
consistent
with
EPA
rules,
the
publication
of
which
is
mandated
by
November
15,
1992
(
section
182(
g)(
4)(
B)).
According
to
section
182(
g)(
4)(
A),
the
State
program
may
include
but
is
not
limited
to,
systems
of
emissions
fees,
marketable
permits,
or
State
fees
on
the
sale
or
manufacture
of
products,
as
well
as
incentives
and
requirements
to
reduce
vehicle
emissions
and
VMT's,
including
any
of
the
TCM's
in
section
108(
f).

One
such
TCM
is
the
accelerated
retirement
of
vehicles.
It
is
estimated
that
in
some
areas
of
the
country,
as
few
as
20
percent
of
the
vehicles
produce
up
to
60
percent
of
the
total
vehicle
emissions.
Because
of
less
stringent
emission
standards,
deterioration,
tampering,
malmaintenance,
old
vehicles
can
emit
at
very
high
levels.
An
accelerated
retirement
program
encourages
the
removal
and
destruction/
recycling
of
these
older
vehicles
by
offering
individuals
money
of
their
"
old"
cars.
An
incentive
is
created
for
owners
to
voluntarily
trade
in
these
vehicles
for
new,
lower
emitting
vehicles.

The
EPA
believes
that
an
accelerated
retirement
program
can
be
an
important
part
of
an
attainment
strategy
by
providing
greater
flexibility
to
industry
in
complying
with
emission
standards.
By
this
notice,
EPA
is
announcing
the
availability
of
an
information
document
of
the
accelerated
retirement
of
vehicles
programs,
as
required
under
section
108(
f).
The
document
outlines
the
theory
behind
accelerated
vehicle
retirement,
considers
desirable
elements
of
program
design,
and
discusses
the
experience
of
a
pilot
program
sponsored
by
UNOCAL
Corporation
in
Southern
California.

States
may
include
scrappage
programs
in
SIP
submissions.
Scrappage
emissions
reductions
will
get
full
credit
toward
SIP
attainment
demonstrations.
To
the
extent
permissible
by
law,
credits
generated
through
scrappage
programs
may
be
used
to
meet
air
quality
limitations.

The
EPA
interprets
182(
g)(
4)(
A)
as
allowing
a
broad
range
of
market­
based
strategies.
The
State
program
is
to
be
"
nondiscriminatory"
and
consistent
with
inter­
State
commerce
laws
(
section
182(
g)(
4)(
A)).

The
EPA's
economic
incentive
rules
are
to
include
model
plan
provisions
for
permitted
stationary
sources,
area
sources,
and
mobile
sources,
as
well
as
guidelines
that
specify
how
revenues
generated
by
the
plan
provisions
shall
be
used
(
section
182(
g)(
4)(
B)).
These
rules
will
address
issues
such
as
setting
baselines,
banking
provisions,
administrative
requirements
and
consistency
with
the
title
V
Permitting
Program,
title
VII
Enhanced
Monitoring
and
Compliance
Certification
Program,
and
other
provisions
discussed
elsewhere
in
this
notice.
The
EPA
currently
views
these
rules
as
guidance
that
is
intended
to
encourage
early
implementation
of
appropriate
economic
incentive
programs
to
potentially
avoid
such
failures
in
the
future.
The
EPA
hopes
that
the
rules
will
stimulate
innovative,
market­
based
approaches,
where
appropriate,
in
meeting
long­
term
milestones
and
goals.
The
EPA
also
will
give
consideration
to
using
these
rules
as
guidance
in
developing
Federal
rules
and
FIP
strategies
when
necessitated
by
State
failures
in
meeting
RFP
milestones.
The
EPA
will
solicit
comments
on
its
economic
incentive
program
rules
at
the
time
of
proposal
of
that
rulemaking.

The
EPA
encourages
the
development
of
economic
incentive
programs
that
increase
flexibility
and
stimulate
the
use
of
more
cost­
effective
strategies,
as
well
as
provide
incentives
for
continuing
to
develop
and
implement
innovative
emissions
reductions
technology
and
strategies
beyond
those
specifically
mandated
through
standards
and
regulations.
However,
EPA
believes
that
the
implementation
of
economic
incentive
programs
must
also
meet
the
standards
of
enforceability
currently
found
in
traditional
regulatory
programs.

The
Agency
wishes
to
clarify
its
position
regarding
mobile/
stationary
source
trading.
The
agency
is
very
supportive
of
efforts
to
trade
emission
reductions
among
mobile
and
stationary
sources
to
the
extent
such
trades
would
result
in
a
less
costly
mix
of
measures
to
attain
the
standards
and
would
meet
the
relevent
Clean
Air
Act
requirements.
EPA
will
work
with
states
and
individual
sources
to
highlight
and
develop
such
trading
opportunities
and
will
be
taking
various
steps
to
encourage
such
trades.

In
particular,
EPA
will
clarify
which
Clean
Air
Act
requirements
can
be
met
by
trading
emission
reductions
among
mobile
and
stationary
sources
and
how
such
trading
can
be
implemented,
through
guidance
it
will
issue
as
part
of
the
economic
incentive
rules
and
elsewhere
as
necessary.
This
guidance
will
encourage
states
to
consider
such
trades
as
they
develop
their
state
implementation
plans.
Mobile
source
programs
which
could
generate
tradeable
credits
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
**
An
accelerated
vehicle
retirement
program,
**
A
program
to
convert
cars
or
fleets
to
cleaner
fuels,
and
**
A
program
to
expand
the
geographic
coverage
of
inspection
and
maintenance
programs.

States
can
allow
stationary
sources
to
use
these
reductions
on
an
individual
basis
to
meet
certain
emission
reduction
requirements
or
to
generate
tradeable
offsets
to
help
meet
new
source
review
requirements
where
not
prohibited
by
the
statute.

5.
Section
172(
c)(
1)
Requirement
for
All
Reasonably
Available
Control
Measures
(
RACM)

Section
172(
c)(
1)
requires
the
plans
for
all
nonattainment
areas
to
provide
for
the
implementation
of
all
RACM
as
expeditiously
as
practicable.
The
EPA
interprets
this
requirement
to
impose
a
duty
on
all
nonattainment
areas
to
consider
all
available
control
measures
and
to
adopt
and
implement
such
measures
as
are
reasonably
available
for
implementation
in
the
area
as
components
of
the
area's
attainment
demonstration.

The
EPA
has
previously
interpreted
the
RACM
provisions
of
the
pre­
amended
Act.
The
EPA
is
today
changing
its
prior
interpretation
and
adding
specific
interpretations
with
respect
to
PM­
10.
The
following
discussion
explains
the
origins
of
EPA's
past
interpretation
and
the
rationale
for
the
current
changes
to
that
interpretation.

The
EPA
previously
interpreted
this
provision
under
the
pre­
amended
Act
in
its
guidance
at
44
FR
20372,
20375
(
April
4,
1979).
The
EPA
there
indicated
that
where
measures
that
might
in
fact
be
available
for
implementaton
in
the
nonattainment
area
could
not
be
implemented
on
a
schedule
that
would
advance
the
date
for
attainment
in
the
area,
EPA
would
not
consider
it
reasonable
to
require
implementation
of
such
measures.
The
EPA
continues
to
take
this
interpretation
of
the
RACM
requirement.

Also
in
the
1979
guidance,
EPA
created
a
presumption
that
all
of
the
TCM's
listed
in
section
108(
f)
were
RACM
for
all
areas,
and
required
areas
to
specifically
justify
a
determination
that
any
measure
was
not
reasonably
available
based
on
local
circumstances.
The
EPA
reiterated
that
guidance
at
46
FR
7182,
7187
(
January
22,
1981).

However,
based
on
experience
with
implementing
TCM's
over
the
years,
EPA
now
believes
that
local
circumstances
vary
to
such
a
degree
from
city­
to­
city
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
presume
that
all
section
108(
f)
measures
are
reasonably
available
in
all
areas.
It
is
more
appropriate
for
States
to
consider
TCM's
on
an
area­
specific,
not
national,
basis
and
to
consider
groups
of
interacting
measures,
rather
than
individual
measures.

The
section
108(
f)
measures
should
be
considered
by
States
as
potential
air
quality
control
options.
Further,
the
list
should
not
be
viewed
as
exhaustive,
but
rather
indicative
of
the
types
of
TCM's
States
should
consider
in
developing
the
TCM
portion
of
their
control
strategy.
A
recent
study
for
EPA
identified
more
than
70
individual
measures
within
broad
TCM
categories
that
could
be
considered
as
potential
controls
(
SAI,
IT,
PES
9­
90).
In
addition,
any
measure
that
a
commenter
indicates
during
the
public
comment
period
is
reasonably
available
for
a
given
area
should
be
closely
reviewed
by
the
planning
agency
to
determine
if
it
is
in
fact
reasonably
available
for
implementation
in
the
area
in
light
of
local
circumstances.

Local
circumstances
relevant
to
the
reasonableness
of
any
potential
control
measure
involve
practical
considerations
that
cannot
be
made
through
a
national
presumption.
Various
TCM's
must
be
locally
coordinated
to
minimize
contradictory
results
and
maximize
mutually
supportive
outcomes.
Feasibility
of
TCM
implementation
can
thus
be
particularly
complicated,
and
EPA
recognizes
the
importance
of
assessing
candidate
TCM's
in
the
context
of
each
particular
area's
situation.

Finally,
with
respect
to
TCM's
or
any
other
control
measures,
EPA
does
not
believe
that
Congress
intended
the
RACM
requirement
to
compel
the
adoption
of
measures
that
are
absurd,
unenforceable,
or
impracticable
(
see
55
FR
38326,
September
18,
1990).

The
EPA,
therefore,
concludes
that
it
is
inappropriate
to
create
a
presumption
that
all
of
the
measures
listed
in
section
108(
f)
are
per
se
reasonably
available
for
all
nonattainment
areas.
All
States
must,
at
a
minimum,
address
the
section
108(
f)
measures.
The
EPA
believes
that
at
least
some
of
the
measures
will
be
reasonably
available
for
implementation
in
many
nonattainment
areas.
Where
a
section
108(
f)
measure
is
reasonably
available,
section
172(
c)(
1)
requires
its
implementation.

The
Senate
managers'
explanation
of
the
new
transportation
control
provisions
includes
a
statement
endorsing
EPA's
1979
guidance
on
RACM
as
recently
construed
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
Ninth
Circuit
in
Delaney
v.
EPA,
898
F.
2d
687
(
1990).
136
Cong.
Rec.
S16971
(
daily
ed.
Oct.
27,
1990).
In
that
case,
the
court
held
that
EPA
was
bound
to
apply
its
then­
applicable
1979
RACM
guidance
by
its
own
terms,
which
created
the
presumption
that
all
section
108(
f)
measures
were
reasonably
available.
However,
the
court
did
not
hold
that
the
statute
required
such
an
interpretation
of
the
RACM
requirement,
nor
that
EPA
could
not
in
the
future
revise
its
RACM
guidance.
The
EPA
remains
free
to
alter
its
past
guidance
consistent
with
a
reasonable
interpretation
of
statutory
requirements
in
light
of
historical
experience
implementing
TCM's.

The
legislators
who
cited
the
Delaney
v.
EPA
decision
had
lobbied
in
the
Senate
Committee
bill
for
a
requirement
that
all
section
108(
f)
measures
be
implemented
in
severe
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
This
position
was
however
abandoned
in
the
final
Senate
bill.
Any
statements
in
the
subsequent
Senate
debates
concerning
implementation
of
all
section
108(
f)
measures
therefore
do
not
necessarily
reflect
the
views
of
the
Senate
as
a
whole,
let
alone
the
entire
Congress.

Finally,
EPA
also
notes
that
it
believes
the
court
in
Delaney
v.
EPA
mischaracterized
EPA's
guidance
in
one
respect.
The
court
stated
that
in
light
of
the
previous
presumption
that
section
108(
f)
measures
were
reasonably
available,
"
a
state
can
reject
one
of
these
measures
only
by
showing
that
the
measure
either
would
not
advance
attainment,
would
cause
substantial
widespread
and
long­
term
adverse
impact,
or
would
take
too
long
to
implement."
Delaney,
at
692.
In
the
case
before
the
court,
EPA
had
argued
that
certain
measures
would
have
substantial
widespread
and
long­
term
adverse
impact.
However,
EPA
believes
that
its
revised
RACM
interpretation
would
provide
for
the
rejection
of
control
measures
as
not
reasonably
available
for
various
reasons
related
to
local
conditions
even
where
such
costs
fell
short
of
substantial
widespread
impact.
This
is
especially
true
in
the
absence
of
a
presumption
that
any
given
measure
is
per
se
reasonably
available.

Section
177
permits
a
State
to
adopt
and
enforce
new
motor
vehicle
emission
standards
that
are
identical
to
those
adopted
by
California
and
for
which
a
waiver
under
section
209(
a)
has
been
granted.
The
EPA
is
not
able
at
this
time
to
specify
the
emissions
reduction
credits
that
may
be
available
to
a
State
that
adopts
emissions
standards
identical
to
California's
so­
called
"
Low
Emission
Vehicle
(
LEV)
program."
The
EPA
is
presently
developing
the
updated
version
of
its
mobile
emissions
model­­
MOBILE5­­
which
will
include
EPA's
estimates
of
the
SIP
credits
available
to
States
adopting
the
LEV
standards.
The
EPA
plans
to
complete
work
on
the
model
in
June
1992,
at
which
time
it
will
be
made
available
to
States
and
the
public.

The
EPA
has
recently
been
asked
whether
a
State,
which
requires
under
section
177,
that
new
vehicles
sold
in
the
State
comply
with
the
California
standards,
must
also
require
that
those
vehicles
use
the
fuel
or
fuels
upon
which
they
were
certified
as
meeting
the
California
standards.
The
EPA
is
undertaking
a
legal
and
policy
review
of
this
question.

PM­
10
is
different
from
O3
and
CO
in
that
here
may
be
many
PM­
10
areas
where
mobile
sources
do
not
significantly
contribute
to
the
nonattainment
problem
in
the
area.
Section
190
of
the
Act,
which
applies
specifically
to
PM­
10,
recognizes
this
distinction.
Section
190
specifies
those
source
categories
for
which
EPA
is
required
to
issue
guidance
on
RACM.
Section
190
also
provides
that
EPA
shall
examine
other
categories
of
sources
contributing
to
nonattainment
of
the
PM­
10
standard
and
determine
whether
additional
guidance
on
RACM
is
needed.
Section
190
represents
a
statutory
expression
of
those
sources
generally
deemed
to
contribute
to
the
PM­
10
nonattainment
problem
and
requires
that
EPA
determine
whether
other
sources
contribute
to
the
PM­
10
nonattainment
problem
and,
as
necessary,
issue
RACM
guidance
for
such
sources.
Thus,
in
the
discussion
addressing
PM­
10
RACM,
EPA
takes
the
position
that
the
available
control
measures
EPA
has
identified
in
its
guidance
issued
under
section
190
are
the
suggested
starting
point
for
determining
RACM.
Accordingly,
the
affected
State
should
evaluate
these
measures
and
other
measures
that
a
commenter
demonstrates
may
well
be
reasonably
available
in
an
area
considering
their
technological
and
economic
feasibility
in
the
area
to
which
the
SIP
applies.

The
EPA
received
comments
requesting
that
additional
control
measures,
including
the
TCM's
identified
in
section
108(
f)
of
the
amended
Act,
be
added
to
EPA's
guidance
on
control
measures
issued
under
section
190.
At
this
time,
EPA
has
insufficient
information
to
conclude
that
the
sources
addressed
by
these
measures
contribute
to
the
PM­
10
problem
in
a
sufficient
number
of
areas
in
the
nation
such
that
section
190
guidance
is
necessary.
Thus,
EPA
does
not
presently
believe
that
each
of
these
measures
should
be
added
to
the
list
of
measures
which
is
the
suggested
starting
point
for
the
RACM
analysis
for
each
of
the
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
in
the
nation.
This
is
not
to
suggest
that
States
should
ignore
such
measures.
In
those
PM­
10
nonattainment
areas
where
mobile
sources
do
significantly
contribute
to
the
PM­
10
air
quality
problem,
consistent
with
the
statement
above
regarding
section
108(
f)
measures,
the
State
must,
at
a
minimum,
address
the
section
108(
f)
measures.
Similarly,
it
follows
that
where
a
section
108(
f)
measure
is
reasonably
available,
sections
189(
a)(
1)(
c)
and
172(
c)(
1)
require
its
implementation.

6.
Redesignations
Section
107(
d)(
3)
of
the
Act
specifies
the
procedures
and
reqirements
for
changing
an
area's
designation.
Subparagraphs
(
A),
(
B),
and
(
C)
describe
the
requirements
and
schedules
for
such
changes
when
initiated
by
the
Administrator.
An
additional
discussion
of
the
reqirements
and
schedules
is
provided
in
56
FR
16274
(
April
22,
1991)
describing
the
notification
of
States
that
certain
PM­
10,
SO2,
and
lead
areas
should
be
redesignated.

Section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
specifies
the
conditions
under
which
the
Administrator
may
approve
a
Governor's
request
(
submitted
in
accordance
with
section
107(
d)(
3)(
D))
for
redesignating
an
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment.
These
conditions
are
as
follows:
(
1)
The
Administrator
has
determined
that
the
NAAQS
has
been
attained.

(
2)
The
Administrator
has
fully
approved
the
applicable
implementation
plan
under
section
110(
k).

(
3)
The
Administrator
has
determined
that
the
improvement
in
air
quality
is
due
to
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions
in
emissions
resulting
from
implementing
the
applicable
implementation
plan
and
applicable
Federal
air
pollutant
control
regulations
and
other
permanent
and
enforceable
reductions.

(
4)
The
Administrator
has
fully
approved
the
maintenance
plan
for
the
area
as
specified
in
section
175A.

(
5)
The
State
has
met
all
applicable
requirements
for
the
area
under
section
110
and
part
D.

The
remainder
of
this
discussion
describes
how
EPA
will
review
a
State
request
to
redesignate
an
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment,
and
what
criteria
EPA
will
use
in
determining
whether
the
above
conditions
have
been
met.

(
a)
Requests
submitted
before
enactment.
Some
States
had
submitted
requests
for
redesignation
prior
to
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
that
EPA
was
unable
to
process
before
enactment.
The
EPA
plans
to
review
these
requests
carefully
to
determine
whether
the
above
conditions
(
as
described
further
under
"
Requests
Submitted
After
Enactment"),
including
the
maintenance
plan
requirement,
have
been
essentially
satisfied
by
the
State's
actions
under
the
provisions
of
the
Act
prior
to
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.
The
EPA
will
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
what
additional
information
is
needed
in
order
for
the
requests
to
be
approvable.
At
a
minimum,
an
appropriate
maintenance
plan
showing
maintenance
of
the
standard
at
least
10
years
from
the
time
of
EPA
approval
will
still
be
needed
before
the
request
for
redesignation
is
considered
complete.

The
maintenance
plan
requirement
is
not
applicable
in
the
very
narrow
circumstance
where
the
amended
Act
does
not
apply
to
the
redesignation.
At
the
time
of
enactment,
November
15,
1990,
two
redesignation
actions
were
substantially
completed­­
the
Atlanta
CO
redesignation
and
the
Green
Bay
SO2
redesignation.
Because
the
States
had
completed
all
necessary
action,
the
Agency
had
done
everything
but
prepare
a
final
approval
notice,
and
no
adverse
comments
were
received,
EPA
determined
that
the
new
redesignation
requirements
were
not
applicable
(
see
56
FR
37285
(
August
6,
1991);
57
FR
3013
(
January
27,
1992)).

States
should
consult
with
their
EPA
Regional
Offices
to
determine
what
additional
information
is
needed
to
supplement
their
requests
for
redesignation,
including
information
to
satisfy
any
new
requirements
under
section
110
or
subpart
1
of
part
D
of
the
1990
CAAA.
For
example,
EPA
plans
to
assume
that
the
operating
permits
program
requirements
of
title
V
(
including
the
requirement
for
permit
fees)
that
will
be
implemented
in
States
over
the
next
few
years
will
effectively
satisfy
the
section
110(
a)(
2)(
L)
requirement
for
permit
fees
in
the
subject
areas
(
i.
e.,
in
areas
for
which
requests
for
redesignation
were
submitted
prior
to
enactment
of
the
Act).
States
should
consult
with
the
Regional
Offices
about
other
new
requirements
under
section
110
or
subpart
1
of
part
D
in
the
Act,
and
whether
any
additional
State
actions
will
be
needed
to
satisfy
those
requirements.

The
EPA
believes
that
the
language
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)(
iii)
clearly
requires
that
the
emission
reductions
that
were
achieved
and
enabled
the
area
to
attain
the
standard
must
be
linked
to
enforceable
regulations.
Many
of
these
regulations
are
rules
representing
RACT
as
required
for
an
area
before
and/
or
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
(
depending
on
the
particular
area).
Even
though
EPA
has
found
a
range
of
deficiencies
in
State
RACT
rules
and
has
notified
many
States
that
corrective
action
is
needed,/
36/
EPA
believes
that
the
current
emphasis
for
areas
that
had
submitted
a
request
for
redesignation
prior
to
enactment
should
be
on
the
enforceability
of
the
rules
in
place
at
the
time
of
enactment.
Therefore,
for
these
types
of
areas,
the
States
must
make
whatever
corrections
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
rules
are
and
continue
to
be
fully
enforceable./
37/

NOTE
/
36/
The
EPA
issued
SIP
calls
to
a
number
of
States
in
1988
and
1989
requiring
that
they
correct
their
RACT
rules
as
necessary
to
be
consistent
with
EPA
guidance
and
policies.
In
addition,
new
section
182(
a)(
2)
specifically
requires
all
ozone
nonattainment
areas
with
a
marginal
or
above
classification
to
correct
or
add
RACT
requirements
for
complying
with
the
provision
of
pre­
enactment
section
172(
b).

NOTE
/
37/
See
"
Issues
Relating
to
VOC
Regulations,
Cutpoints,
Deficiencies,
and
Deviations,"
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Air
Quality
Management
Division,
May
25,
1988.

As
a
matter
of
course,
EPA
will
not
require
the
full
set
of
RACT
corrections
(
e.
g.,
lower
source
size
applicability
thresholds)
in
areas
that
had
submitted
a
redesignation
request
prior
to
enactment
and
that
were
not
violating
the
standard
at
the
time
of
enactment.
Imposing
more
stringent
rules
(
unless
needed
for
maintenance)
appears
to
be
unnecessary
since
applying
the
current
State
rules
has
resulted
in
attainment
of
the
standard.
In
other
words,
the
uncertainty
of
mathematical
models
or
other
techniques
for
projecting
attainment
when
planning
first
occurred
for
these
areas
strongly
supported
the
need
for
any
possible
"
margin
of
safety"
that
might
be
provided
by
RACT
measures
or
any
other
measures.
But
now
that
attainment
has
occurred,
the
justification
or
need
for
the
margin
of
safety
that
might
have
been
produced
by
the
RACT
measures
(
adopted
and
implemented
in
a
manner
consistent
with
EPA
guidance
and
policies)
is
lessened.
However,
to
satisfy
the
goals
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)(
iii)
and
to
ensure
the
soundness
of
the
maintenance
plan
(
discussed
below),
these
areas
still
must
ensure
that
their
RACT
rules
are
consistent
with
any
guidance
or
policies
concerning
the
enforceability
of
rules
(
e.
g.,
adopting
the
most
recent
EPA
test
methods
and
procedures
available
at
the
time
of
the
redesignation
request).
In
addition
to
ensuring
that
appropriate
RACT
corrections
have
been
made
to
ensure
that
the
rules
are
enforceable,
the
State
must
show
that
the
emission
inventory
that
occurred
during
the
time
of
no
violations
of
the
standard
is
based
on
the
implementation
of
permanent
and
enforceable
regulations
rather
than
a
"
temporary"
reduction
in
emissions,
which
may
have
resulted
from
a
suspension
of
industrial
production
or
other
temporary
change
in
the
industrial
or
economic
activity
in
the
area.
Reductions
in
emissions
from
shutdowns
are
considered
permanent
and
enforceable
to
the
extent
those
shutdowns
have
been
reflected
in
the
SIP,
and
all
applicable
permits
have
been
modified
accordingly.
During
the
pendency
of
these
redesignation
requests,
EPA
will
not
require
these
areas
to
adopt
amended
NSR
program
elements.
However,
these
areas
must
continue
to
apply
their
existing
NSR
program
or
comply
with
the
NSR
permitting
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
51,
appendix
S.
Prior
to
redesignation,
these
areas
also
must
adopt
and
be
prepared
to
implement
a
permitting
program
that
satisfies
the
requirements
of
part
C
and
EPA's
regulations
implementing
the
PSD
program.
Areas
should
consider
the
need
for
offsets
under
the
part
C
program
to
ensure
that
new
sources
do
not
"
cause
or
contribute"
to
an
increase
in
pollutant
levels
that
would
take
the
area
out
of
compliance.
If
the
area's
redesignation
request
is
rejected
and
the
statutory
deadlines
for
adopting
amended
part
D
permitting
rules
for
the
pollutant
in
question
have
passed,
EPA
may
impose
a
construction
ban
pursuant
to
section
113(
a)(
5)
until
such
time
as
the
area
adopts
a
part
D
program
satisfying
the
NSR
requirements
of
the
CAAA.

The
requirements
of
the
applicable
SIP
will
continue
in
force
and
effect
even
after
the
request
has
been
approved
and
the
area
has
been
redesignated
to
attainment
except
to
the
extent
the
maintenance
plan
shows
that
such
measures
are
not
necessary
to
maintain
the
standard.
The
requirement
for
new
or
modified
control
measures
or
regulations
for
these
areas
is
discussed
below
under
"
Improvement
in
Air
Quality
Results
From
Implementation
of
the
SIP."
(
b)
Requests
submitted
after
enactment.
Any
requests
for
redesignation
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
that
are
submitted
to
EPA
after
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA
must
satisfy
the
conditions
in
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)
that
were
listed
at
the
beginning
of
this
section
(
III.
H.
6).
Certain
of
these
conditions
(
listed
above)
are
further
described
below.

(
1)
Determining
whether
the
area
has
attained
the
ambient
standard.
The
NAAQS
for
ozone
and
CO
are
specified
in
40
CFR
50.9
and
50.8,
respectively.
Appendix
H
of
40
CFR
50.9
(
Interpretation
of
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
for
Ozone)
explains
the
procedures
for
determining
whether
violations
of
the
ozone
standard
have
occurred.
A
recent
EPA
memorandum
/
38/
provides
additional
guidance
on
calculating
"
design
values"
and
attainment
for
ozone
and
CO.

NOTE
/
38/
"
Ozone
and
Carbon
Monoxide
Design
Value
Calculations,"
William
G.
Laxton,
Director,
Technical
Support
Division,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
June
18,
1990.

Any
request
for
redesignation
should
be
based
on
the
most
recently
available
and
quality­
assured
air
quality
monitoring
data,
collected
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
part
58.

(
2)
Full
approval
of
the
applicable
implemention
plan.
Section
110(
k)(
3)
allows
the
Administrator
to
approve
or
disapprove
a
plan
revision
in
full
or
in
part.
Although
section
110(
k)(
4)
provides
for
conditional
approval
of
a
SIP
revision
in
certain
circumstances,
a
conditionally­
approved
plan
revision
is
not
to
be
treated
as
satisfying
the
requirements
of
the
Act
until
the
entire
revision
has
been
approved
as
satisfying
the
Act
requirements.
Therefore,
in
order
for
the
request
for
redesignation
of
an
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment
to
be
approved,
the
State
must
have
satisfied
all
requirements
of
the
Act
that
apply
to
the
area.
The
requirements
have
not
been
met
if
a
revision
has
been
only
partially
approved
(
or
has
been
partially
disapproved).

(
3)
Improvement
in
air
quality
results
from
implementing
the
SIP.
Section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)(
iii)
requires
that
prior
to
approving
a
request
for
redesignation
of
an
area
from
nonattainment
to
attainment,
the
Administrator
must
determine
that
the
improvement
in
air
quality
has
resulted
from
permanent
and
enforceable
emission
reductions
resulting
from
implementing
the
SIP
and
applicable
Federal
measures
and/
or
from
other
permanent
and
enforceable
measures.
Before
it
makes
such
a
determination,
EPA
will
require
that
these
measures
satisfy
EPA
guidance
or
requirements
regarding
enforceability,
and
that
the
emission
inventory
for
the
area
during
the
time
in
which
attainment
has
been
demonstrated
is
based
on
permanent
and
enforceable
regulations
or
measures.

The
EPA
believes
that
the
language
of
section
107(
d)(
3)(
E)(
iii)
clearly
requires
that
the
emission
reductions
that
were
achieved
and
enabled
the
area
to
attain
the
standard
must
be
linked
to
enforceable
regulations
in
the
SIP.
The
EPA
will
assume
that
all
control
measures
and
regulations
in
the
SIP
for
an
area
contribute
to
attainment
of
the
standard.
Therefore,
any
request
for
redesignation
to
attainment
must
show
that
permanent
and
enforceable
rules
are
in
place
to
implement
these
requirements.
This
showing
will
also
support
the
State's
demonstration
that
it
has
met
all
requirements
that
apply
to
the
areas
under
section
110
and
part
D
(
discussed
below
under
"
Meeting
section
110
and
part
D
Requirements").

In
addition
to
showing
that
it
has
developed
enforceable
rules
and
measures
implementing
the
requirements
that
apply
to
the
area,
the
State
must
show
that
the
emission
inventory
that
occured
during
the
time
of
no
violations
of
the
standard
is
based
on
the
implementation
of
permanent
and
enforceable
regulations
rather
than
a
temporary
reduction
in
emissions,
which
may
have
resulted
from
a
suspension
of
industrial
production
or
other
temporary
change
in
the
industrial
or
economic
activity
in
the
area.
Reductions
in
emissions
from
shutdowns
are
considered
permanent
and
enforceable
to
the
extent
those
shutdowns
have
been
reflected
in
the
SIP
and
all
applicable
permits
have
been
modified
accordingly.

(
4)
A
fully
approved
maintenance
plan.
The
State
must
submit
a
maintenance
plan
in
accordance
with
section
175A
for
any
area
the
State
requests
be
redesignated
from
nonattainment
to
attainment.
This
plan
must
provide
for
maintenance
of
the
standard
for
at
least
10
years
from
the
anticipated
date
of
redesignation.
Eight
years
after
the
redesignation
date,
the
State
will
be
required
to
revise
its
SIP
to
provide
for
maintenance
in
the
area
for
an
additional
10
years
(
beyond
the
first
10­
year
period).

The
maintenance
plan
consists
of
three
basic
components:
An
emission
inventory,
a
maintenance
demonstration,
and
contingency
measures.
The
inventory
must
include
the
emissions
that
occurred
during
the
same
period
associated
with
attaining
the
national
standard.
The
EPA
plans
to
issue
additional
guidance
on
preparing
these
inventories
and
other
components
(
discussed
below)
of
the
maintenance
plan.

For
the
maintenance
demonstration,
the
State
must
either
demonstrate
that
the
future
emission
inventory
will
not
exceed
the
inventory
that
existed
at
the
time
of
the
request
for
redesignation,
or
conduct
an
appropriate
modeling
analysis
consistent
with
EPA's
"
Guidelines
on
Air
Quality
Models"
that
shows
that
the
future
mix
of
sources
and
emission
rates
when
combined
with
control
strategy
for
the
area,
will
not
cause
any
violations
of
the
ambient
standard.
Under
either
alternative,
the
State
must
identify
the
mechanism
that
will
be
used
to
track
the
progress
of
the
maintenance
plan.
Where
the
maintenance
demonstration
is
based
on
the
inventory,
the
State
may
choose
to
periodically
update
the
emission
inventory
or
periodically
review
the
factors
used
to
develop
the
inventory
to
determine
whether
any
significant
changes
have
occurred.
Where
the
demonstration
is
based
on
modeling,
the
State
may
periodically
review
the
assumptions
and
input
data
for
the
modeling
analysis.
Such
reviews
and/
or
updates
may
typically
be
done
every
3
years.
The
maintenance
plan
must
contain
any
additional
measures
as
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
standard
will
not
be
violated.
Any
future
measures
must
be
implemented
before
any
violations
might
be
anticipated,
based
on
tracking
of
the
emission
inventory
(
under
the
first
alternative,
above)
or
the
modeling
assumptions
and
input
data
(
under
the
second
alternative).
The
maintenance
plan
must
also
include
contingency
measures
to
ensure
that
any
violations
can
be
quickly
addressed
should
such
violations
occur
after
the
area
is
designated
to
attainment.
The
EPA
will
review
each
request
for
redesignation
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
determine
what
contingency
measures
are
needed
for
possible
violations.
Section
175(
d)
requires
the
maintenance
plan
to
contain,
at
a
minimum,
a
commitment
for
the
implementation
of
all
measures
that
were
part
of
the
control
strategy
(
i.
e.,
the
SIP)
for
the
area
prior
to
redesignation
should
violations
occur
in
the
future./
39/
The
plan
should
provide
for
prompt
implementation
of
these
measures
with
minimal
administrative
action
on
the
part
of
the
State
or
other
government
agency
responsible
for
its
implementation.

NOTE
/
39/
This
provision
implies
that
the
State
would
have
removed
or
reduced
the
stringency
of
certain
measures
in
the
SIP
after
the
area
was
redesignated
to
attainment.
The
EPA
is
soliciting
comment
on
the
circumstances
in
which
the
State
may
remove
or
modify
measures
that
are
specifically
required
(
e.
g.,
enhanced
I/
M)
or
are
required
as
part
of
the
demonstration
of
attainment.
Any
approach
would
have
to
ensure
that
the
maintenance
plan
would
prevent
future
violations
either
through
a
limit
on
overall
emissions
or
a
rigorous
modeling
analysis,
or
some
combination.
EPA
also
solicits
comment
on
the
emission
limit
and
modeling
analysis
should
be
applied.
For
example,
should
a
limit
on
overall
emissions
be
required
at
least
for
some
period
beyond
the
time
the
area
is
designated
to
attainment?

(
5)
Meeting
section
110
and
subpart
1
(
of
part
D)
requirements.
In
order
to
be
redesignated
from
nonattainment
to
attainment,
an
area
must
have
met
all
of
the
applicable
requirements
in
section
110
(
regarding
general
provisions
needed
in
a
SIP)
and
in
part
D
(
regarding
the
requirements
for
nonattainment
plans).
Part
D
contains
general
provisions
that
apply
to
all
nonattainment
plans
and
certain
sections
that
apply
to
specific
pollutants
(
e.
g.,
section
182
applies
for
ozone
nonattainment
areas).

Subpart
1
of
part
D
contains
the
general
requirements
for
nonattainment
plans.
Section
172(
c)
describes
the
provisions
required
in
nonattainment
plans.
The
requirements
of
subparagraphs
(
1)
through
(
9)
of
section
172(
c)
must
be
satisfied
before
a
request
for
redesignation
can
be
approved.
In
addition,
the
conformity
requirements
of
section
176
must
be
met.
The
discussion
below
describes
further
how
EPA
will
assess
compliance
with
these
provisions.

(
i)
RFP.
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.

(
ii)
Emission
inventory.
The
emission
inventory
requirements
of
section
172(
a)(
3)
will
be
satisfied
by
the
inventory
requirements
of
the
maintenance
plan,
as
discussed
above.

(
iii)
Identification
of
certain
emission
increases.
Section
172(
c)(
4)
requires
an
area,
in
developing
its
plan
for
attainment,
to
identify
expected
emissions
increases
that
will
result
from
new
or
modified
major
sources
in
a
"
zone
to
which
economic
development
should
be
targeted"
according
to
section
173(
a)(
1)(
B).
These
provisions
effectively
allow
the
State
to
provide
a
"
growth
allowance"
for
sources
in
such
an
area
in
lieu
of
the
offset
requirements
under
section
173(
a)(
1)(
A).
Since
this
is
an
optional
alternative
to
requiring
the
acquisition
of
offsets
under
section
173(
a)(
1)(
A),
it
is
not
a
prerequisite
to
redesignation.
Moreover,
once
the
area
is
redesignated
attainment,
these
provisions
will
not
apply
since
the
PSD
requirements
of
part
C
will
become
effective
(
see
discussion
in
next
section).

(
iv)
NSR
Permit
program.
Generally,
the
requirements
of
the
part
D
NSR
permitting
nonattainment
program
will
be
replaced
by
the
PSD
program
once
an
area
is
redesignated
to
attainment./
40/
(
The
exception
is
in
ozone
transport
regions
where
the
part
D
NSR
requirements
applicable
to
moderate
areas
would
continue
to
apply
along
with
PSD
(
part
C)
requirements.)
However,
to
ensure
that
the
PSD
program
can
become
fully
effective
immediately
upon
redesignation,
EPA
will
require
an
area
to
make
any
needed
NSR
corrections
to
their
part
C
NSR
programs
prior
to
redesignation.

NOTE
/
40/
See
footnotes
8
and
16.

(
v)
Other
measures
to
provide
attainment.
Since
attainment
will
have
been
reached,
no
additional
measures
are
needed
to
provide
for
attainment.
The
need
for
additional
measures
to
ensure
that
maintenance
continues
is
addressed
under
the
requirements
for
maintenance
plans.
Areas
should
consider
the
need
for
offsets
under
the
part
C
program
to
ensure
that
new
sources
do
not
"
cause
or
contribute"
to
an
increase
in
pollutant
levels
that
would
take
the
area
out
of
compliance.

(
vi)
Compliance
with
section
110(
a)(
2).
In
the
requests
for
SIP
redesignation,
States
must
show
that
their
plans
satisfy
the
requirements
under
section
110.
These
requirements
specify
that
the
plans
must
contain
enforceable
emission
limits,
monitoring
requirements,
procedures
to
prevent
interstate
pollution
problems,
adequate
resources
to
carry
out
the
control
programs,
and
other
provisions
related
to
the
development
and
administration
of
effective
air
pollution
control
programs;
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
these
provisions
is
located
in
section
H.
States
should
consult
with
their
EPA
Regional
Offices
if
additional
guidance
is
needed
with
respect
to
section
110
requirements.

(
vii)
Equivalent
techniques.
The
provisions
of
section
172(
c)(
8)
allow
the
State
to
use
equivalent
techniques
for
modeling,
inventorying,
or
other
planning
activities
unless
EPA
determines
that
the
techniques
are
less
effective.
This
allowance
will
continue
to
apply
with
respect
to
the
requirements
of
the
maintenance
plan.

(
viii)
Contingency
measures.
The
section
172(
c)(
9)
requirements
for
contingency
measures
are
directed
at
ensuring
RFP
and
attainment
by
the
applicable
date.
These
requirements
no
longer
apply
when
an
area
has
attained
the
standard
and
is
eligible
for
redesignation.
Furthermore,
section
175(
A)
for
maintenance
plans
(
discussed
above)
provides
specific
requirements
for
contingency
measures
that
effectively
supersede
the
requirements
of
section
172(
c)(
9)
for
these
areas.

(
ix)
Conformity.
The
State
must
show
that
the
section
176
requirements
of
conformity
have
been
met.
The
SIP
conformity
provisions
must
be
consistent
with
EPA
guidance
issued
pursuant
to
section
176(
c)(
4).

(
6)
Meeting
other
part
D
requirements.
For
classified
ozone
areas,
the
applicable
requirements
of
sections
182,
184,
and
185
must
be
met.
For
CO
areas,
the
applicable
requirements
of
section
187
must
be
satisfied.
Satisfying
these
requirements
for
redesignation
purposes
is
particularly
important
since
the
contingency
measures
of
the
maintenance
plan
will
require,
at
a
minimum,
that
the
measures
in
place
just
before
redesignation
be
implemented
if
future
violations
occur.

7.
Transition
Issues
(
a)
Phase
II
of
SIP
calls.
Prior
to
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA,
the
EPA
issued
SIP
calls
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
H)
of
the
Act
to
many
areas
based
on
a
finding
that
their
SIP's
were
substantially
inadequate
to
provide
for
timely
attainment
of
the
ozone
and/
or
CO
NAAQS.
In
these
SIP
calls,
EPA
stated
that
States
should
respond
in
two
phases
to
produce
SIP's
that
would
be
adequate
to
attain
and
maintain
the
standards.
The
EPA
first
required
States,
in
Phase
I
of
their
responses,
to
update
their
emissions
inventories
and
make
corrections
in
previously
required
regulations
imposing
RACT
on
existing
stationary
sources.
Phase
I
responses
were
due
generally
by
September
30,
1989.

The
EPA
advised
States
that
they
could
delay
submitting
Phase
II
responses
which
included
a
full
attainment
demonstration
and
all
additional
regulations
necessary
to
support
such
demonstrations,
until
EPA
completed
its
policy
on
post­
1987
nonattainment
planning.
Since
EPA
did
not
complete
its
post­
1987
ozone/
CO
policy
in
anticipation
of
passage
of
the
1990
CAAA,
EPA
has
never
set
a
generally
applicable
date
for
Phase
II
SIP
call
responses.
However,
the
basis
underlying
the
SIP
call
remains
valid
even
under
the
amended
Act.
The
SIP's
for
the
affected
areas
are
still
substantially
inadequate
to
attain
the
relevant
NAAQS.
Since
the
date
for
submitting
Phase
I
SIP
call
responses
has
already
passed,
and
the
amended
Act
requires
all
marginal
and
above
ozone
nonattainment
areas
subject
to
the
RACT­
correction
aspects
of
the
SIP
calls
to
submit
those
corrections
within
6
months
of
enactment,
the
requirement
for
Phase
I
responses
to
the
SIP
calls
remains
in
effect
for
these
areas.
Thus,
these
areas
should
have
submitted
RACT
corrections
by
May
15,
1991,
pursuant
to
section
182(
a)(
2)(
A)
(
see
Section
III.
A.
2.(
b)).

However,
as
to
Phase
II
SIP
call
responses,
the
amended
Act
alters
both
the
substantive
requirements
and
submission
deadlines
for
full
attainment
demonstrations
and
their
component
control
measures.
Thus,
although
the
obligation
to
submit
a
SIP
adequate
to
attain
and
maintain
the
NAAQS
remains
in
all
SIP
call
areas,
both
the
necessary
elements
of
such
plans
and
the
timing
of
the
plan
submissions
is
now
governed
by
the
requirements
of
sections
182
and
187
of
the
amended
Act.
The
EPA
therefore
will
not
require
Phase
II
SIP
call
response
submissions
on
schedule
different
from
the
schedules
established
by
those
sections.
States
should
respond
to
Phase
II
of
the
SIP
calls
by
making
the
submissions
otherwise
required
by
sections
182,
184,
and
187.
This
new
Phase
II
schedule
supersedes
any
schedule
EPA
may
have
established
for
any
area
prior
to
enactment
of
the
1990
CAAA.

It
should
be
noted
that
section
173(
b)
of
the
Act
restricts
the
use
of
growth
allowances
by
all
areas
that
received
SIP
calls
under
the
1977
Act.
Since
EPA
is
keeping
the
pre­
1990
CAAA
SIP
calls
in
effect,
use
of
a
growth
allowance
is
restricted
in
any
area
that
received
a
SIP
call
under
the
1977
Act.

(
b)
Construction
ban.
The
amended
Act
repeals
the
provisions
found
in
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I)
of
the
1977
Act
requiring
EPA
to
impose
a
construction
ban
in
nonattainment
areas
that
failed
to
submit
plans
meeting
all
of
the
requirements
of
part
D
of
the
Act.
The
amended
Act
also
contains
a
savings
clause
in
section
110(
n)(
3)
that
preserves
certain
existing
construction
bans.
Construction
bans
remain
in
place
only
where
imposed
by
virtue
of
a
finding
that
the
plan
for
the
area
did
not
contain
an
adequate
NSR
permitting
program
as
required
by
section
172(
b)(
6)
of
the
1977
Act,
or
the
plan
failed
to
provide
for
timely
attainment
of
the
SO2
NAAQS.

Thus,
EPA
cannot
impose
or
maintain
any
previously
imposed
construction
ban
that
was
based
on
a
finding
that
the
plan
for
the
area
did
not
demonstrate
timely
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
ozone
or
CO
NAAQS.
The
EPA
is
developing
a
rule
amending
its
regulations
at
40
CFR
52.24
to
clarify
the
limited
applicability
of
the
construction
ban
and
appealing
the
individual
sections
of
40
CFR
part
52
that
imposed
the
construction
ban
in
each
ozone
or
CO
nonattainment
area
where
the
ban
was
imposed
solely
for
failure
to
provide
for
timely
attainment.
Since
the
amended
Act
no
longer
authorizes
EPA
to
impose
bans
on
the
above
basis,
EPA
interprets
the
enactment
of
the
Act's
amendments
as
repealing
these
bans
by
operation
of
law
as
of
the
date
of
enactment
and
treat
those
amendments
to
part
52
as
mere
administrative
housekeeping
responsibilities.
The
EPA
will
treat
those
areas
previously
subject
to
the
construction
ban
under
these
circumstances
as
no
longer
being
subject
to
the
ban
after
the
date
of
enactment.

It
should
be
noted
that
where
construction
bans
were
imposed
for
failure
to
demonstrate
timely
attainment
of
a
standard
(
other
than
for
SO2)
and
also
for
failure
to
contain
an
adequate
NSR
program,
the
ban
will
remain
in
effect
under
the
savings
clause
unless
and
until
the
State
has
submitted
and
EPA
has
approved
such
a
permitting
program.
However,
where
the
ban
was
originally
imposed
based
only
upon
a
finding
that
the
plan
did
not
provide
for
timely
attainment
and
maintenance,
event
if
the
area
in
fact
did
not
have
an
approved
new
source
permitting
program,
the
savings
clause
by
its
own
terms
will
not
preserve
the
construction
ban.
Such
areas
should
of
course
promptly
submit
adequate
permitting
programs,
but
they
will
not
be
subject
to
the
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I)
ban
in
the
interim.

(
c)
NSR.
The
1990
CAAA
make
numerous
changes
to
the
part
D
NSR
permitting
requirements
for
nonattainment
areas.
The
EPA
intends
to
propose
rules
by
April
1992
to
implement
the
NSR
related
changes
mandated
by
the
1990
CAAA.
In
the
interim
period
between
passage
of
the
1990
CAAA
and
adoption
of
the
Agency's
regulations,
EPA
expects
that
numerous
issues
regarding
the
1990
CAAA
will
arise.
A
March
11,
1991
EPA
memorandum
signed
by
John
S.
Seitz,
Director
of
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
sets
forth
EPA's
position
on
the
most
important
of
these
transitional
issues
involving
the
part
D
NSR
program.
Additional
transitional
guidance
will
be
provided
as
needed.

8.
General
Savings
Clause.

New
Act
section
193
sets
forth
a
"
General
Savings
Clause"
governing
retention
of
certain
types
of
previously
enacted
or
mandated
requirements.
Under
section
193,
any
regulation,
standard,
rule,
notice,
order
and
guidance
issued
prior
to
November
15,
1990,
shall
remain
in
effect
unless
it
is
inconsistent
with
any
provision
of
the
1990
CAAA
or
is
revised
by
the
Administrator.
No
control
requirement
in
effect,
or
required
to
be
adopted
by
an
order,
settlement
agreement,
or
plan
in
effect
prior
to
November
15,
1990,
in
any
nonattainment
area
for
any
air
pollutant,
may
be
modified
after
enactment
in
any
way
unless
the
modification
will
result
in
equivalent
or
greater
emissions
reductions
of
that
pollutant.

IV.
EPA
Requirements
A.
SIP
Processing
Requirements
1.
Completeness
Section
110(
k)(
1)
required
EPA
to
promulgate
by
August
15,
1991
(
within
9
months
of
enactment),
minimum
criteria
that
any
SIP
submittal
must
meet.
The
EPA
proposed
an
initial
set
of
completeness
criteria
at
56
FR
23826
(
May
24,
1991)
and
finalized
them
at
56
FR
42216
(
August
26,
1991).
Those
notices
describe
the
procedures
for
assessing
whether
a
SIP
submittal
is
complete
and,
therefore,
adequate
to
trigger
the
Act
requirement
that
EPA
review
and
take
action
on
the
submittal.
The
completeness
criteria
provide
a
procedure
and
criteria
that
enable
States
to
prepare
adequate
SIP
submittals
and
enable
EPA
reviewers
to
promptly
screen
SIP
submittals,
identify
those
that
are
incomplete,
and
return
them
to
the
State
for
corrective
action
without
having
to
go
through
rulemaking.

The
criteria
for
determining
whether
a
submittal
by
the
State
is
complete
have
been
separated
into
two
categories:
administrative
information
and
technical
support
information.
Administrative
information
includes
the
documentation
necessary
to
demonstrate
that
the
State
has
adhered
to
basic
administrative
procedures
during
the
rule
adoption
process.
Technical
support
information
includes
the
documentation
that
adequately
identifies
all
of
the
required
technical
components
of
the
plan
submissions.

When
a
submittal
is
determined
to
be
complete,
EPA
will
inform
the
State
by
letter
of
its
determination.
The
EPA
will
then
begin
the
formal
review
for
approvability.
If
a
submittal
is
determined
to
be
incomplete,
it
will
be
returned
to
the
State
with
a
letter
listing
the
deficiencies.
Consistent
with
section
110(
k)(
1)(
B),
EPA
will
attempt
to
make
completeness
determinations
within
60
days
of
receiving
a
submittal.
However,
a
submittal
will
be
deemed
complete
if
a
completeness
determination
is
not
made
by
EPA
within
6
months
of
EPA's
receipt
of
the
submittal.

2.
Partial
Approvals
(
a)
Full,
partial,
and
limited
approval
and
disapproval.
The
EPA
has
authority
to
fully
approve
or
disapprove
a
State
SIP
submittal
under
section
110(
k)(
3).
However,
in
some
instances
a
State's
submission
of
a
SIP
or
SIP
revision
will
include
a
provision
that
does
not
comply
with
one
or
more
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act.
The
Agency
must
disapprove
those
portions
of
a
SIP
submittal
that
do
not
meet
the
applicable
requirements
of
the
Act
(
section
110(
k)(
3)).
Where
the
disapproved
portions
of
a
SIP
submittal
are
separable
(
i.
e.,
disapproval
of
a
provision
will
not
affect
the
stringency
of
other
portions
of
the
SIP),
EPA
will
partially
approve
the
SIP
and
disapprove
those
separate
parts.
However,
there
may
be
instances
where
inseparable
portions
of
the
SIP
submittal
are
disapproved.
The
EPA
has
interpreted
the
Act
to
provide
flexibility
in
the
instance
where
a
submittal
as
a
whole
serves
to
improve
air
quality
by
providing
progress
toward
attainment,
RFP,
and/
or
RACT,
yet
fails
to
comply
with
all
of
the
Act's
requirements.
Such
an
action,
called
a
limited
approval,
is
not
considered
a
complete
action
on
the
SIP
submittal.
To
complete
the
action,
EPA
must
also
issue
a
limited
disapproval
whereby
the
Agency
disapproves
the
SIP
revision
request
as
a
whole
for
failing
to
meet
one
or
more
requirements
of
the
Act.

(
b)
Conditional
approval.
Under
section
110(
k)(
4),
the
Administrator
may
approve
a
plan
revision
based
on
a
commitment
of
the
State
to
adopt
specific
enforceable
measures
by
a
specified
date
but
not
later
than
1
year
after
the
date
of
EPA
approval
of
the
plan
revision
that
incorporated
that
commitment.
If
EPA
finds
that
the
State
fails
to
meet
the
commitment
within
that
year,
the
conditional
approval
would
automatically
convert
into
a
disapproval.
The
time
periods
culminating
in
imposition
of
sanctions
and/
or
FIP's
do
not
begin
to
run
until
the
conditional
approval
is
converted
to
a
disapproval.

B.
Sanctions
and
Other
Safeguards
1.
Background
Under
1977
CAAA
The
1977
CAAA
provided
for
two
types
of
sanctions:
Construction
bans
(
i.
e.,
a
ban
on
construction
or
modification
of
major
sources
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I),
of
a
ban
on
permitting
such
sources
under
section
173(
4))
and
various
forms
of
funding
restrictions.
The
construction
bans
automatically
applied
when
EPA
disapproved
a
SIP
for
failure
to
meet
Act
requirements
as
specified
under
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I);
the
permitting
ban
applies
when
EPA
found
that
a
State
failed
to
implement
a
SIP
provision
as
specified
under
section
173(
4).
In
addition,
EPA
had
discretionary
authority
under
section
113(
a)(
5)
to
impose
a
construction
ban
upon
finding
that
a
State
was
not
acting
in
compliance
with
NSR
permitting
requirements
in
nonattainment
areas.
The
EPA
also
had
authority
to
apply
the
restrictions
on
air
grants
or
highway
funding
under
section
176
(
a)
and
(
b),
or
sewage
treatment
works
funding
under
section
316(
b).
2.
Available
Measures
Under
1990
CAAA
The
1990
CAAA
revised
the
law
concerning
sanctions
and
related
measures.
It
sets
forth
specific
criteria
in
section
179(
a)
to
determine
when
EPA
may
apply
two
types
of
sanctions
specified
under
section
179(
b):
Highway
funding
restrictions,
and
increased
emissions
offset
ratios
for
new
and
modified
sources.
A
third
type
of
sanction,
restrictions
on
air
grant
funding,
is
provided
for
under
section
179(
a).
The
construction
ban
provisions
of
section
110(
a)(
2)(
I)
were
largely
repealed
(
see
section
III.
G.
1.).
However,
several
other
provisions
of
the
Act
provide
for
construction
bans
and
other
sanctions
to
safeguard
against
increases
in
air
pollution
due
to
SIP
planning
or
implementation
failures.

Section
179(
a)
sets
forth
the
four
types
of
findings,
disapprovals,
or
determinations
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
"
findings")
which
may
lead
to
the
imposition
of
a
sanction:
That
a
State
has
failed
to
submit
a
SIP
or
an
element
of
a
SIP,
or
that
the
SIP
or
SIP
element
submitted
fails
to
meet
the
completeness
criteria
for
section
110(
k);
that
EPA
disapproves
a
SIP
submission
for
a
nonattainment
area
based
on
its
failure
to
meet
one
or
more
plan
elements
required
by
the
Act;
that
the
State
has
not
made
any
other
submission
required
by
the
Act
that
meets
the
completeness
criteria
or
had
made
a
required
submission
that
is
disapproved
by
EPA
for
not
meeting
the
Act's
requirements;
or
that
a
requirement
of
an
approved
plan
is
not
being
implemented.

(
a)
Highway
funding
sanction.
Consistent
with
the
procedures
and
findings
described
below,
the
EPA
may
(
and
in
some
cases
must)
prohibit
approval
by
the
Secretary
of
Transportation
of
projects
or
grants
(
pursuant
to
title
23
of
the
U.
S.
C.)
in
the
affected
nonattainment
area
except
where
the
Secretary
has
determined
that
the
purpose
of
the
project
or
grant
is
to
improve
a
demonstrated
safety
problem.
In
addition,
the
Act
provides
exemptions
for
certain
projects
and
grants
that
are
intended
to
minimize
air
pollution
problems
(
section
179(
b)(
1)).

(
b)
Emission
offset
sanction.
The
emission
offset
sanction
provision
(
section
179(
b)(
2))
refers
to
the
application
of
the
emission
offset
requirements
of
section
173.
This
sanction
applies
to
new
or
modified
sources
or
emission
units
for
which
a
permit
is
required
under
part
D
of
the
amended
Act.
Under
this
sanction,
the
ratio
of
emissions
reductions
that
must
be
obtained
to
offset
increased
emissions
(
caused
by
the
new
or
modified
source)
in
the
sanctioned
area
must
be
at
least
2
to
1.
The
ozone
pre­
sanction
ratio
ranges
between
1
to
1.5,
depending
upon
the
classification
of
the
area.
The
EPA
plans
to
promulgate
Federal
nonattainment
rules
at
40
CFR
52.10,
which
could
be
used
to
apply
this
sanction.

(
c)
Grant
funding
sanction.
According
to
section
179(
a),
the
Administrator
may
withhold
all
or
part
of
the
grants
that
support
air
pollution
planning
and
control
programs
that
the
Administrator
may
award
under
section
105.

(
d)
Section
173(
a)(
4)
permitting
ban.
Section
173
of
the
amended
Act
contains
the
requirements
that
must
be
met
to
issue
a
NSR
construction
permit
for
a
new
or
modified
major
source
in
a
nonattainment
area.
A
prerequisite
contained
in
section
173(
a)(
4)
for
issuing
such
permits
is
that
the
permit
authority
must
find
that
the
Administrator
has
not
determined
that
the
applicable
implementation
plan
is
not
being
adequately
implemented
as
required
by
part
D.
This
means
that
issuing
construction
permits
for
major
stationary
sources
under
section
173
is
prohibited
if
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
approved
SIP
for
complying
with
the
part
D
nonattainment
requirements
is
not
being
adequately
implemented
for
the
nonattainment
area
in
which
the
new
source
wants
to
locate
or
in
which
the
source
wishing
to
modify
its
facility
is
located.

(
e)
Section
113(
a)(
5)
construction
prohibition.
Section
113(
a)(
5)
authorizes
EPA
to
prohibit
the
construction
or
modification
of
specific
major
stationary
sources
in
all
areas,
including
attainment
areas,
and
to
take
other
enfo
rcement
actions
against
individual
sources
whenever
the
Administrator
finds
that
a
State
is
not
acting
in
compliance
with
any
requirement
or
prohibition
of
the
Act
related
to
constructing
new
sources
or
modifying
existing
sources.
The
authority
in
section
113(
a)(
5)
may
also
be
used
to
issue
general
construction
bans.
After
making
a
finding
under
section
113(
a)(
5),
the
Administrator
may
issue
an
order
prohibiting
the
construction
or
modification
of
any
major
stationary
source
in
any
area
to
which
such
requirement
applies,
issue
an
administrative
penalty
order
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
section
113(
d),
or
bring
a
civil
action
under
section
113(
b).
Nothing
in
section
113(
a)(
5)
shall
preclude
the
United
States
from
commencing,
at
any
time,
a
criminal
action
under
section
113(
c)
for
any
such
violation.

(
f)
Other
sanction
provisions.
Section
110(
m)
includes
provisions
on
sanctions.
The
EPA
will
be
discussing
those
provisions
in
a
subsequent
Federal
Register
notice.

3.
Application
and
Timing
of
the
Section
179
Sanctions
Eighteen
months
after
the
Administrator
makes
a
finding
concerning
a
State
failure
(
as
described
below)
with
respect
to
a
specific
plan
required
by
part
D
or
in
response
to
a
SIP
call,
under
section
179(
a),
the
Administrator
must
apply
either
the
highway
or
offset
sanctions
of
section
179(
b)
unless
the
inadequacy
has
been
corrected
to
EPA's
satisfaction.
The
sanction
applied
will
be
chosen
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
depending
on
the
circumstances
involved.
The
EPA
must
apply
both
sanctions
after
18
months
if
the
Administrator
finds
a
lack
of
good
faith
on
the
part
of
the
State,
or
after
24
months
if
the
deficiency
is
not
corrected
(
within
6
months
after
the
first
sanction
is
imposed).
C.
Federal
Implementation
Plans
(
FIP's)

The
Administrator
is
required
to
promulgate
a
FIP
within
2
years
of
finding
that
a
State
has
failed
to
make
a
required
submittal
or
that
a
received
submittal
does
not
satisfy
the
minimum
completeness
criteria
established
under
section
110(
k)(
1)(
A)
(
see
56
FR
42216,
August
26,
1991),
or
disapproving
a
SIP
submittal
in
whole
or
in
part.
Section
110(
c)(
1)
mandates
EPA
promulgation
of
a
FIP
if
the
Administrator
has
not
yet
approved
a
correction
proposed
by
the
State
before
the
time
a
final
FIP
is
required
to
be
promulgated.
Within
the
Act's
general
provisions,
a
FIP
is
defined
explicitly
to
allow
for
the
inclusion
of
"
economic
incentives,
such
as
marketable
permits
or
auctions
of
emissions
allowances"
(
section
302(
y)).
The
EPA
views
the
use
of
economic
incentives
in
the
context
of
a
FIP
as
potentially
appropriate,
especially
in
cases
of
failure
of
ozone
nonattainment
areas
to
meet
the
RFP
requirements.
Such
incentives
may
focus
particularly
on
permitted
sources.
In
developing
FIP
strategies
that
include
economic
incentives,
EPA
will
look
to
its
economic
incentive
program
rules
(
section
182(
g)(
4))
due
to
be
published
November
15,
1992,
as
guidance
in
developing
those
elements
of
the
FIP.
Economic
incentive
programs
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
section
III.
G.
3.

There
may
be
areas
where
EPA
has
to
promulgate
Federal
NSR
regulations.
The
EPA
intends
to
adopt
at
40
CFR
52.10
Federal
nonattainment
area
permitting
rules
that
EPA
can
impose
in
States
with
deficient
nonattainment
NSR
permit
programs.

V.
Miscellaneous
A.
Relationship
of
Title
I
to
Title
V
1.
Introduction
The
purpose
of
this
section
is
to
discuss
the
issues
originally
described
in
the
title
V
rulemaking
preamble
(
56
FR
21712­­
May
10,
1991).
The
three
main
issues
discussed
here
are
how
a
combination
of
SIP's
and
permits
can
do
the
job
that
SIP's
now
do
by
themselves,
the
extent
to
which
EPA
will
develop
RACT
protocols
or
procedures,
and
how
EPA
will
approach
marketable
permits
and
trading
of
allowances
in
ozone
nonattainment
areas.

The
approach
taken
here
begins
with
the
purposes
of
a
SIP,
which
are
to
make
demonstrations
(
of
how
attainment,
maintenance,
and
progress
will
be
achieved),
and
to
provide
a
control
strategy
that
will
achieve
the
necessary
reductions
and
otherwise
meet
the
requirements
of
the
Act.

The
key
questions
are
what
fundamental
principles
apply
to
SIP's,
and
what
features
must
SIP's
and
permits
have
to
implement
SIP
control
strategies
and
to
satisfy
these
principles?
The
fundamental
SIP
principles
will
be
used
as
guiding
criteria
for
judging
success
in
resolving
the
issues
described
above.

For
a
number
of
reasons
explained
below,
certain
elements
must
be
contained
in
a
SIP
so
that
it
will
satisfy
the
identified
principles
and
meet
the
Act's
requirements.
Other
elements
could
be
contained
in
permits,
and
still
other
elements
may
be
shared
and/
or
implemented
in
part
by
SIP's
and
in
part
by
permits.

Following
the
discussion
of
fundamental
SIP
principles
and
associated
SIP
and
permit
features,
this
section
proposes
ways
to
answer
the
questions
raised
in
the
title
V
proposal.

2.
Purposes
of
a
SIP
One
purpose
of
a
SIP
is
to
perform
demonstrations
of
how
various
goals
will
be
achieved.
These
goals
are
of
three
types:
Attainment
of
the
NAAQS,
maintenance
of
the
NAAQS
once
attainment
occurs,
and
prescribed
rates
of
progress.
To
satisfy
these
purposes,
a
number
of
assumptions
must
be
made
in
the
SIP
regarding
baseline
emissions
and
future
growth
in
various
sectors
of
the
economy.
For
these
assumptions,
SIP
planners
often
rely
on
projections
of
population,
motor
vehicle
travel
or
economic
indicators
made
by
other
government
agencies,
and
projections
made
by
the
air
pollution
control
agency
regarding
the
future
effect
of
planned
pollution
control
measures.

These
assumptions,
control
strategies,
and
measures
are
developed
as
necessary
to
meet
the
attainment
objectives
for
the
area
and
the
Act's
requirements
(
e.
g.,
RACT).
These
assumptions
and
measures
are
key
components
of
the
SIP.
It
is
important
to
note
that
projections
of
the
effect
of
planned
air
pollution
control
measures
contained
in
the
SIP's
are
not
merely
assumed
but
are
enforced
by
regulations
adopted
as
part
of
the
SIP.
Therefore,
if
the
control
measures
are
not
implemented
sufficiently
to
result
in
required
reductions,
the
State
or
local
agency,
or
EPA,
can
take
action
to
enforce
implementation
of
the
regulations.
This
provides
a
means
of
achieving,
at
least
in
part,
the
goals
of
attainment
and
further
progress
required
in
the
Act.

For
purposes
of
illustrating
the
principles
and
elements
of
SIP's
that
apply
to
sources,
the
discussion
below
concentrates
more
on
elements
relevant
to
implementing
the
control
strategies
part
of
a
SIP,
rather
than
on
those
relevant
to
the
demonstration.
This
simplifies
the
discussion
and
reflects
the
fact
that
the
purpose
of
the
permit
is
to
implement
measures,
not
perform
demonstrations,
which
is
unquestionably
a
purpose
of
the
SIP.
3.
Fundamental
Principles
for
SIP's/
Control
Strategy
To
develop
an
effective
SIP
control
strategy
and
to
achieve
the
desired
result,
the
SIP
and
any
implementing
instruments,
including
permits,
should
adhere
to
certain
principles.
These
principles
help
provide
assurance
that
the
planned
emissions
reductions
will
be
achieved.
These
principles
are
discussed
in
EPA's
policy
on
emissions
trading
contained
in
51
FR
43814
(
December
4,
1986).

(
a)
First
principle.
The
first
principle
is
that
the
baseline
emissions
from
the
source
and
the
control
measures
be
quantifiable
(
i.
e.,
a
specific
amount
of
emissions
reductions
can
be
ascribed
to
the
measures).
Baseline
emissions
must
be
represented
accurately
in
the
SIP
in
order
for
the
benefits
of
the
measure
to
be
properly
quantified.
Furthermore,
the
emissions
must
be
representative
of
the
time
period
of
the
inventory.
Likewise,
the
effect
of
the
measure
must
be
identified
in
order
to
assess
the
contribution
to
the
necessary
emissions
reductions.
The
value
for
a
measure's
effect
can
be
used
as
a
limit
in
a
regulation,
or
it
may
be
used
alone
or
in
combination
with
assumptions
regarding
operating
hours
or
production,
or
as
part
of
the
projections
in
the
demonstrations.

(
b)
Second
principle.
The
second
principle
is
that
the
measures
be
enforceable.
Measures
are
enforceable
when
they
are
duly
adopted,
and
specify
clear,
unambiguous,
and
measurable
requirements.
A
legal
means
for
ensuring
that
sources
are
in
compliance
with
the
control
measure
must
also
exist
in
order
for
a
measure
to
be
enforceable.
This
principle
is
well
grounded
in
the
Act.
New
section
110(
a)(
2)
of
the
Act
requires
that
SIP's
include
"
enforceable
emission
limitations
and
other
control
measures"
and
"
a
program
to
provide
for
the
enforcement
of
the
measures"
in
the
plan.
Court
decisions
made
clear
that
regulations
must
be
enforceable
in
practice.
A
regulatory
limit
is
not
enforceable
if,
for
example,
it
is
impractical
to
determine
compliance
with
the
published
limit.

(
c)
Third
principle.
The
third
principle
is
that
the
measures
be
replicable.
This
means
that
where
a
rule
contains
procedures
for
changing
the
rule,
interpreting
the
rule,
or
determining
compliance
with
the
rule,
the
procedures
are
sufficiently
specific
and
nonsubjective
so
that
two
independent
entities
applying
the
procedures
would
obtain
the
same
result.

(
d)
Fourth
principle.
The
fourth
principle
is
that
the
control
strategy
be
accountable.
This
means,
for
example,
that
source­
specific
limits
should
be
permanent
and
must
reflect
the
assumptions
used
in
the
SIP
demonstrations.
It
also
means
that
the
SIP
must
contain
means
(
such
as
operating
permits
issued
under
title
V)
to
track
emission
changes
at
sources
and
provide
for
corrective
action
if
emissions
reductions
are
not
achieved
according
to
the
plan.
The
Act
provides
for
this
tracking
and
remedial
action
in
its
requirements
for
meeting
milestones
and
for
contingency
measures
in
SIP's.
The
EPA
will
use
this
principle
to
explore
options
for
tracking
emissions
resulting
from
issuing
permits
or
permit
amendments.

The
principles
of
quantification,
enforceability,
replicability,
and
accountability
apply
to
all
SIP's
and
control
strategies,
including
those
involving
emissions
trading,
marketable
permits
and
allowances.
The
EPA's
emissions
trading
policy
provides
that
only
trades
producing
reductions
that
are
surplus,
enforceable,
permanent,
and
quantifiable
can
get
credit
and
be
banked
or
used
in
an
emissions
trade.

4.
Approaches
To
Ensure
That
Permits
Properly
Support
SIP's.

The
EPA
has
considered
various
ways
that
permits
and
SIP's
can
be
configured
to
complement
each
other
and
still
meet
the
principles
discussed
above.
The
following
discussion
covers
some
approaches.

The
SIP
remains
the
basis
for
demonstrating
and
ensuring
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
(
NAAQS).
The
permit
program
collects
and
implements
the
requirements
contained
in
the
SIP
as
applicable
to
the
particular
permittee.
Since
permit
must
incorporate
emission
limitations
and
other
requirements
of
the
SIP,
all
SIP
provisions
applicable
to
a
particular
source
will
be
defined
and
collected
into
a
single
document.
The
applicable
requirements
in
the
permit
would
include
any
recent
SIP
changes,
whether
as
a
result
of
a
State
or
local
SIP
revision
or
of
a
FIP
action
by
EPA.
The
EPA
intends
to
assist
in
the
implementation
of
the
permit
program
through
the
use
of
model
permits
for
numerous
source
categories.

As
previously
discussed,
title
V
affords
significant
operational
flexibility.
The
relationship
between
title
V
permits
and
SIP's
is
a
key
factor
in
determining
the
extent
to
which
operational
flexibility
is
available
to
sources,
since
each
permit,
in
part,
must
assure
compliance
with
the
applicable
implementation
plan.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
it
will
take
time
to
complete
the
transition
from
a
regulatory
system
where
SIP's
are
the
primary
tool
for
implementing
and
enforcing
the
Act,
to
one
where
operating
permits
ultimately
assume
primary
responsibility
for
implementation
and
enforcement.

The
EPA
is
considering
what
means
will
aid
in
ensuring
a
smooth
transition
to
increasingly
general,
and
thus
more
flexible,
SIP's,
which
may
allow
permits
rather
than
the
SIP's
to
specify
the
details
of
how
SIP
limits
and
objectives
apply
to
subject
sources.
In
particular,
EPA
will
be
seeking
to
develop
information
in
the
following
areas:
(
1)
The
most
efficient
ways
of
implementing
requirements
of
SIP's
through
permits,
such
as
moving
detail
from
SIP's
to
permits;
(
2)
Flexible
ways
for
sources
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
reasonably
available
control
technology
(
RACT)
limits,
such
as
through
the
use
of
protocols
for
defining
equivalency
or
through
the
development
of
equivalency
determinations
in
the
permitting
process
(
as
discussed
below);
and
(
3)
Expanded
use
of
emissions
trading
and
marketable
permits
to
achieve
SIP
objectives
as
well
as
providing
a
stable
accountable
mechanism
for
tracking
and
enforcing
emissions
reductions
at
a
source.

EPA
will
be
adopting
provisions
to
facilitate
the
movement
toward
more
flexible
SIP's
in
its
final
rules
to
implement
title
V.
EPA
plans
to
include
provisions
which
specify
that
no
permit
revision
is
required
for
emission
trades
through
economic
incentives
or
marketable
permit
programs,
provided
that
the
permit
contains
a
means
or
process
for
implementing
the
program.
Thus,
a
SIP
containing
a
generic
trading
rule
and
a
replicable
procedure
for
implementing
the
rule
through
a
permit
may
allow
trading
to
occur
without
a
permit
revision,
provided
the
permit
contains
the
replicable
procedure.
This
is
similar
to
the
way
in
which
permits
allow
sources
to
shift
among
alternate
scenarios
that
were
initially
provided
for
in
the
permit.
It
States
choose
to
implement
trading
in
this
matter,
the
provisions
of
the
permit
allowing
the
trades
must
incorporate
all
of
the
procedural
protections
contained
in
the
underlying
SIP.

States
may
also
elect
to
develop
SIP's
that
set
forth
trading
and
compliance
provisions
that
sources
could
use
to
comply
with
SIP
limits.
The
SIP
would
have
to
include
compliance
requirements
and
procedures
for
the
trade
which
are
sufficiently
specific
to
demonstrate
compliance.
Such
provisions
can
prove
useful
to
sources
in
cases
where
permits
do
not
already
provide
for
emission
trades.

(
a)
Increasing
flexibility
in
SIP's
through
permits.
In
addition,
a
State
may
choose
to
adopt
a
SIP
provision
that
would
authorize
sources
to
meet
either
the
SIP
limit
or
an
equivalent
limit
to
be
formulated
in
the
permit
system.
The
permit
must
contain
the
equivalency
determination,
as
well
as
provisions
that
assure
that
the
resulting
emission
limit
is
quantifiable,
accountable,
enforceable,
and,
based
upon
replicable
procedures,
is
equivalent
to
the
SIP
limit.
Consistent
with
these
requirements,
States
may
do
so
for
all
appropriate
SIP
requirements
or
only
for
specific
requirements
for
which
the
State
determines
equivalency
determinations
are
appropriate.
The
determination
of
what
constitutes
an
equivalent
limit
could
take
place
either
during
the
permit
issuance,
or
renewal
process,
or
as
a
result
of
the
significant
permit
modification
procedures.
The
State
retains
discretion,
subject
to
EPA
veto,
to
decide
if
an
alternative
emission
limit
is
justified
in
any
particular
case.
(
b)
Developing
more
RACT
protocols.
In
the
title
V
preamble,
the
EPA
said
that
it
would
develop
more
flexible
ways
for
sources
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
RACT
limits.
One
way
is
to
use
protocols
defining
equivalent
means
of
compliance.
For
example,
in
1980
EPA
released
the
"
Can
Coating
Policy,"
which
allows
cross­
line
averaging
for
can
coating
facilities
and
provides
the
calculation
technique
for
doing
so.

The
EPA
is
undertaking
a
study
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
multi­
day
and
cross­
line
averaging
can
be
used
to
provide
specific
industries
more
flexibility
in
meeting
their
VOC
RACT
requirements.
This
project
is
focusing
on
the
graphic
arts
and
aerospace
industries.
For
this
study,
EPA
is
taking
the
following
steps:
(
i)
Survey
the
can
coating
industry
to
determine
how
the
protocol
has
been
functioning
and
to
collect
data
on
daily
and
monthly
emissions,
coating
usage
and
VOC
content.
These
data
will
be
used
to
determine
whether
there
is
a
good
and
stable
correlation
between
daily
and
monthly
emissions
rates
and
between
cross­
line
and
line­
by­
line
emissions.

(
ii)
Survey
aerospace
and
graphic
arts
sources
to
collect
emissions
data,
coating
usage
and
VOC
content
on
a
daily
basis.
These
data
also
will
be
analyzed
to
determine
the
variability
of
emissions
from
day
to
day
and
line
to
line.

(
iii)
Based
on
the
above
information,
EPA
will
determine
the
appropriateness
of
developing
procedures
for
time­
averaging
and
line­
by­
line
compliance
for
the
graphic
arts
and
aerospace
industries
and
issue
these
procedures
as
appropriate.

When
EPA
completes
this
process,
it
will
then
assess
whether
it
is
feasible
and
desirable
to
develop
procedures
for
other
source
categories
for
which
such
procedures
may
be
appropriate.

(
c)
Exploring
marketable
permits/
allowance
trading.
The
EPA
fully
expects
that
the
use
of
emissions
trading
and
economic
incentives
such
as
marketable
permits
or
allowance
trading
will
increase
as
the
Act
is
implemented.
In
addition,
EPA
is
committed
to
exploring
ways
to
reduce
the
cost
or
burden
to
industry
through
the
use
of
innovative
measures
that
use
the
marketplace
to
reduce
costs.
And,
as
mentioned
in
its
title
V
preamble,
the
EPA
wants
to
find
ways
to
achieve
the
goals
of
the
Act
without
requiring
time­
consuming
SIP
revisions
for
every
change
at
a
source.

One
way
to
minimize
SIP
revisions
is
through
the
use
of
replicable
SIP
procedures
that
are
implemented
by
the
permit.
As
long
as
the
terms
of
the
permit
complied
with
the
SIP
rule,
changes
to
the
permit
could
be
made
without
a
SIP
revision.
The
proposed
title
V
regulation,
for
example,
would
not
require
a
permit
change
for
emission
trades
authorized
under
the
Act
if
such
changes
were
implemented
consistently
with
the
replicable
procedure
specified
in
the
SIP.
The
EPA
believes
that
the
same
principles
discussed
previously
also
should
apply
to
measures
such
as
marketable
permits,
emission
trades
and
allowances.
In
addition,
the
principles
of
surplus
and
consistency
with
the
SIP
should
also
apply
to
any
trading
program.
For
example,
replicability
must
always
be
honored
to
assure
that
consistent
and
predictable
benefits
are
derived
from
a
marketable
permits
program.
Also,
the
principle
that
baseline
emissions
and
measures
should
be
quantifiable
is
particularly
important
when
applied
to
the
level
of
emission
trading
that
might
occur
in
a
large
ozone
nonattainment
area.

The
EPA
does
not
believe
that
it
has
enough
information
at
this
time
to
fully
resolve
all
of
the
practical
questions
mentioned
above
or
in
the
title
V
preamble
regarding
marketable
permits,
trading,
and
allowances.
The
EPA
believes
that,
in
resolving
such
questions,
it
should
apply
the
same
principles
mentioned
above,
namely,
that
such
measures
should
be
quantifiable,
accountable,
enforceable
and
implemented
according
to
replicable
procedures.

B.
Tribal
Implementation
Plans
Section
107
of
the
1990
CAAA
adds
several
provisions
to
the
statute
that
create
the
first
express
authority
for
EPA
to
treat
Indian
tribes
as
States
for
certain
Act
purposes.
Section
107
also
allows
a
tribe
that
qualifies
for
treatment
as
a
State
to
develop
and
submit
to
EPA
a
tribal
implementation
plan
(
TIP)
for
implementation
of
the
NAAQS
on
tribal
lands
(
see
Act
sections
110(
o)
and
301(
d)).
Under
section
301(
d)(
2),
EPA
is
required
to
promulgate
regulations
by
May
15,
1992
for
treating
of
tribes
as
States.
Section
301(
d)(
3)
states
that
EPA
may
promulgate
regulations
setting
forth
the
elements
of
TIP's
and
procedures
for
EPA
action
on
them.
In
addition,
section
301(
d)(
4)
states
that
where
EPA
determines
that
treatment
of
Indian
tribes
as
identical
to
States
is
not
appropriate,
the
Agency
may
by
regulation
provide
other
means
by
which
EPA
will
directly
administer
these
provisions.
In
the
preambles
to
the
proposed
and
final
rules,
EPA
will
discuss
other
issues
relating
to
implementation
of
the
Act
on
tribal
lands.

C.
Section
179B
Requirements
A
new
section
179B,
International
Border
Areas,
was
added
to
the
statute.
This
section
applies
to
nonattainment
areas
that
are
affected
by
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
United
States.
This
section
requires
EPA
to
approve
a
SIP
if:
The
SIP
or
SIP
revision
meets
all
of
the
requirements
applicable
to
it
under
the
Act,
other
than
a
requirement
that
it
demonstrate
attainment
and
maintenance
of
the
relevant
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
attainment
date;
and
the
affected
State
establishes
to
EPA's
satisfaction,
that
the
SIP
or
revision
would
be
adequate
to
attain
and
maintain
the
relevant
NAAQS
by
the
applicable
attainment
date
but
for
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
United
States.
Further,
any
State
that
establishes
to
the
satisfaction
of
EPA­­
with
respect
to
an
ozone,
CO,
or
PM­
10
nonattainment
area
in
such
a
State­­
that
the
State
would
have
attained
the
relevant
NAAQS
but
for
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
United
States,
shall
not
be
subject
to
the
following
provisions:
extension
of
the
ozone
attainment
dates
pursuant
to
section
181(
a)(
5),
the
fee
provisions
of
section
185,
and
the
bump­
up
provisions
for
failure
to
attain
for
ozone
(
section
181(
b)(
2),/
41/
CO
(
section
186(
b)(
2),
and/
or
PM­
10
(
section
188(
b)(
2)
NAAQS./
42/

NOTE
/
41/
Note
that
the
statute
contained
an
erroneous
reference
to
section
181(
a)(
2)
instead
of
181(
b)(
2).

NOTE
/
42/
As
noted,
section
179B(
d)
states
that
PM­
10
areas
demonstrating
attainment
of
the
standards
but
for
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
United
States
shall
not
be
subject
to
section
188(
b)(
2)
(
reclassification
for
failure
to
attain).
By
analogy
to
this
provision
and
applying
canons
of
statutory
construction,
EPA
will
not
reclassify
before
the
applicable
attainment
date
areas
which
can
demonstrate
attainment
of
the
PM­
10
standards
but
for
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
United
States.
See
section
188(
b)(
1).
First,
EPA
believes
section
179(
B)(
d)
evinces
a
general
congressional
intent
not
to
penalize
areas
where
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
country
are
the
but
for
cause
of
the
PM­
10
attainment
problems.
Further,
if
EPA
were
to
reclassify
such
areas
before
the
applicable
attainment
date,
EPA,
in
effect,
would
be
reading
section
179(
B)(
d)
out
of
the
statute.
Specifically,
if
EPA
proceeded
to
reclassify
before
the
applicable
attainment
date
those
areas
qualifying
for
treatment
under
section
179(
B),
an
area
would
never
be
subject
to
the
provision
in
section
179(
B)(
d)
which
prohibits
EPA
from
reclassifying
such
areas
after
the
applicable
attainment
date.
Canons
of
statutory
construction
counsel
against
interpreting
the
law
such
that
language
is
rendered
mere
surplusage.
Finally,
note
that
section
179(
B)(
d)
contains
a
clearly
erroneous
reference
to
carbon
monoxide
instead
of
PM­
10
and
that
this
section
contains
other
errors.
See,
e.
g.,
section
179(
B)(
c)
reference
to
section
186(
b)(
9),
which
does
not
exist.

In
demonstrating
that
an
area
could
attain
the
relevant
NAAQS
but
for
emissions
emanating
from
outside
the
United
States,
approved
EPA
modeling
techniques
should
be
used
whenever
possible.
An
emission
inventory
incorporating
vehicle
emissions
occurring
in
the
United
States
generated
from
vehicles
registered
in
the
adjacent
foreign
country
must
be
completed
by
the
State
before
modeling
in
the
United
States'
side
only
and
attempting
to
demonstrate
attainment.
The
EPA
recognizes
that
adequate
data
may
not
be
available
in
areas
outside
the
United
States.
Therefore,
modeling
(
consistent
with
EPA's
"
Guidance
on
Air
Quality
Models,
Revised")
may
not
be
possible
in
all
cases.
Because
very
few
areas
are
likely
to
be
affected
by
this
provision,
EPA
will
determine
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
whether
the
State
has
satisfactorily
made
the
required
demonstration.
The
State
is
encouraged
to
consult
with
the
EPA
Regional
Office
in
developing
any
alternate
demonstration
methods.
Methods
that
the
State
may
want
to
consider
include:
using
ozone
episodes
that
do
not
involve
international
transport
of
emissions
for
modeling
(
see
guidance
document
entitled
"
Criteria
for
Assessing
Role
of
Transported
Ozone/
Precursors
in
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas"),
running
the
model
with
boundary
conditions
that
reflect
general
background
concentrations
on
the
U.
S.
side,
analyzing
monitoring
data
if
a
dense
network
has
been
established,
and
using
receptor
modeling
for
PM­
10.
States
should
confer
with
the
appropriate
EPA
Regional
Office
to
establish
appropriate
technical
requirements
for
these
analyses.

VI.
Other
Requirements
A.
Executive
Order
12291
Under
Executive
Order
12291,
EPA
is
required
to
judge
whether
an
action
is
"
major"
and,
therefore,
subject
to
the
requirement
of
a
regulatory
impact
analysis.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
this
action
is
exempt
from
classification
as
"
major"
because
it
is
a
compilation
of
interpretive
rule
and
general
statements
of
policy
as
defined
in
the
Adminstrative
Procedures
Act
(
APA).
Nevertheless,
this
notice
was
submitted
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
for
review.

A
copy
of
the
draft
notice
as
submitted
to
OMB,
any
documents
accompanying
the
draft,
any
written
comments
received
from
other
agencies
(
including
OMB),
and
any
written
responses
to
these
comments
have
been
included
in
the
Docket.

B.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Whenever
the
Agency
is
required
by
section
553
of
the
APA
or
any
other
law
to
publish
general
notice
and
proposed
rulemaking
for
any
proposed
rule,
the
Agency
shall
propose
and
make
available
for
public
comment
an
intial
regulatory
flexibility
analysis.

The
regulatory
flexibility
requirements
do
not
apply
for
the
General
Preamble
because
it
is
not
a
regulatory
action
in
the
context
of
the
APA
or
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act.

Note:
Appendices
A
through
E
will
be
published
in
a
subsequent
Federal
Register.
Dated:
March
27,
1992.

William
K.
Reilly,
Administrator.

(
FR
Doc.
92­
7954
Filed
4­
15­
92;
8:
45
am)

BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
M
Legal
Publications:
Pub.
Law
95­
95
SEC.
129
119
­­
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1977
Pub.
Law
90­
148
SEC.
2
­­
Air
Quality
Act
of
1967;
National
Emissions
Standards
Act
(
Act
of
11/
21/
67)
Pub.
Law
84­
159
SEC.
182
185
107
181
185
202
110
301
184
183
171
211
112
108
407
246
249
185
113
187
188
193
189
191
192
111
302
415
137
190
121
­­
Air
Pollution
Control
Act
(
Act
of
7/
14/
55)
Pub.
Law
88­
206
SEC.
1
­­
Clean
Air
Act
of
1963
Pub.
Law
89­
272
SEC.
101
­­
Solid
Waste
Disposal
Act
(
Act
of
10/
20/
65);
Motor
Vehicle
Air
Pollution
Control
Act
(
Act
of
10/
20/
65)
Pub.
Law
101­
549
SEC.
819
801
103
104
229
401
106
­­
Clean
Air
Act,
Amendments
(
11/
15/
90)
Pub.
Law
91­
604
SEC.
4
­­
Noise
Pollution
and
Abatement
Act
of
1970;
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1970
Pub.
Law
95­
621
SEC.
108
­­
Natural
Gas
Policy
Act
of
1978
Pub.
Law
85­
767
­­
Highways,
Title
23
U.
S.
C.,
Enactment
(
Act
of
8/
27/
58)
Federal
Register

format
only
2004
Dialog,
a
Thomson
business.
All
rights
reserved.
Dialog
«
File
Number
180
Accession
Number
2249993