Federal Register Proposal for Post 1987 Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Policy Discussion Policy Statement Appendices


V
     Federal Register Proposal
                for
             Post 1987
      Ozone and  Carbon Monoxide
              Policy
            Discussion
          Policy Statement
            Appendices
         November 17,  1987

-------
L

-------
6560-50
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(AD-FRL )
STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS: APPROVAL OF POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN REVISIONS FOR AREAS
NOT ATTAINING THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION Proposo-J Pol icy
SUMMARY: The EPA is developing a program to address the likalinood
that many areas in the country will not attain the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO) by
December 31, 1987, the latest date for attainment expressly identified
in the Clean Air Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq. This
notice describes EPA's proposed views about how EPA should interpret
the Act so as to bring those areas into attainment, the reasons for
that interpretation, and the concrete steps EPA intends to take to
implement that interpretation soon and in the long tern. The EPA
solicits comment on all aspects of this notice, and intends to
issue its final policy on these issues after responding to public
comment. That final policy will be an advance notice of how EPA
intends, in subsequent ru1 emakin
-------
ADDRESSES: A docket [Docket (A-37-18)] containing material relevant

to this action is located at:

Central Docket Section
South Conference Center, Room 4
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460.

Interested persons may inspect the docket between 3:00 a.m. and

4:00 p.m. on weekdays. The EPA may charge a reasonable fee for

copying. The EPA will maintain a duplicate copy of the docket in

each EPA Regional Office.

All written comments should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to:

Central Docket Section (A-37-13)
Docket No. A-87-18
U.S, EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brock Nicholson
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-15)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(919) 541-5517 or (FTS) 629-5517

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED POLICY

Summary of Background

Summary of Policy—General Approach and Key Features

DETAILED STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
-------
DISCUSSION OF LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES
Discussion of Legal Issues Related
to Post-1987 SIP Correction'
I. Planning
II. Plan Implementation
Discussion of Policy Issues
I. Affected Areas
II. Planning Schedules
III. Modeled Demonstration of Attainment
IV. Requirement for Development of Control Strategy
A. Federally Implemented Measures, Federally Prescribed
Measures, and Technical Support
B. Requirements for Expeditious Dates and
Reasonable Progress
C. Measures Selected by the State
D. Role of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
E. Control of Transported Ozone and Precursors
F. Accounting for Growth
.G. Adoption of Enforceable .Regulations
V. Measuring and Assuring Progress and Maintenance
VI. Maximizing Effectiveness of Existing Program
POLICY STATEMENT
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
APPENDICES
A. Potential 1988 SIP Call Areas
B. Procedures for Determining Self-Generating Versus
Nonself-Generating Rural Area
C. Information on Control Measures That May Assist States to
Achieve Emissions Reductions
-------
D. Discrepancies and Inconsistencies Found in Current SIP's •
£. Guidance Document on Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance
F. Glossary of Terms
G. Contacts in EPA's Regional Offices
H. Selected EPA Guidance for SIP Development
I. Modeling Procedures and Data Base Requirements to Support
Post-1987 Ozone Policy
J. Otner Measures for Improving Existing Programs
K. Determining Attainment Dates
L. Procedures for Determining NOX Rates of Progress
M. Timing of Key Policy Requirements
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED POLICY
For the convenience of the reader, this notice first sets
forth a summary of the background and the key features of the
policy proposed today. More detailed discussions of the statutory
and regulatory background, EPA's proposed interpretation of the
Act's requirements for post-1987 correction of air quality plans,
and issues raised by the proposed policy appear later in this notice.
Following those discussions, EPA sets forth a "Policy Statement"
that is intended as a complete statement of the policy requirements.
The reader will notice that this organization creates some redundancy.
On balance, however, EPA believes that the publication of a proposed
Policy Statement will give the reader the best indication of the
actual policy that will apply upon final publication.
Summary of Background
Over the past year, EPA has been considering how it should
deal under the Act with the likely persistence in many urban areas
-------
of violations of the NAAQS for ozone and CO beyond December 31,
1987, the latest date for attainment explicitly mentioned in the
Act. Since 1970, these areas 'nave gone through several rounds of
planning for attainment of these standards, first under the 1970
Clean Air Act and then under the 1977 Amendments to the Act. Each
round has spawned new State implementation plans (SIP's) thjt in
turn have produced significant progress toward controlling the .
emissions of pollutants that cause violations of the standards.
Despite this progress, however, it is apparent that the existing
SIP's for many areas need to be tightened further, in some cases
substantially, to produce attainment.
The EPA historically has interpreted the Act to set rsquirements
for States to produce plans persuasively projecting attainment of
the standards by the statutory dates—not a requirement that
areas actually attain the standards by those dates. See, e.g.,
40 CFR 52.24 (1934) and 48 FR 50686 (November 2, 1933} explaining
and codifying this interpretation in the context of the failure of
several areas to attain the standards by December 31, 1932, the
applicable planning date for certain areas under section 172 of the
Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7502. The EPA intends to retain this interpretation
of the Act for all areas that are still violating the ozone or CO
standard after December 31, 1987. This means that EPA does not
intend to impose any of the construction bans or funding restrictions
provided by the Act in reaction to an area's failure to attain the
standards by that or any other date. Rather, EPA intends to require
a new round of planning extending beyond 1987 for areas whose
-------
existing plans will not bring about attainment in the near term
and, as in the past, to reserve sanctions for cases in which States
fail to submit adequate plans or to implement their existing plans
in accordance with required schedules. See 52 FR 26404 (July 14,
1987) (''General Preamble" explaining EPA's recent proposals to
impose the Act's construction bans in areas that did not submit
adequate plans in response to past planning requirements).
The Act does not provide explicit direction as to what these
post-1987 plans must contain. In particular, the Act contains some
ambiguity as to the attainment dates that apply once the 1987 .late
passes, which sanctions are available in different types of areas,
and how much interim progress toward attainment the new plans must
produce. The EPA believes, however, that the Act provides guidance
on how EPA should resdlve these ambiguities. For that reason, EPA
intends to issue a detailed policy to guide State and local planners
in a new round of planning and, shortly thereafter, to trigger that
planning process.
The EPA has structured this proposed policy so that it is
consistent with EPA's best view of what the current law requires in
these circumstances. Some of the elements of the policy that
appear required by the law, however, do not reflect what EPA would
prefer as a matter of policy.
While EPA believes that it can effectively implement the
proposed policy under the current statute, EPA believes that
certain changes to the Act might be helpful. The EPA beiieves
that a narrow revision of the current statute, when combined
6
-------
with the remainder of today's proposal, would provide a satisfactory
blueprint for addressing persistent nonattainment of the ozone and
CO standards after 1987. For example, EPA would prefer that the
statute create new attainment dates that vary by area according to
the difficulty of attaining, and that the construction moratorium
provided in section 110(a) (2) {I) of the Act not be 'nandatory, as
described below, in areas that cannot submit SIP's that demonstrate
attainment of the standards in the near term after 1987.
In addition, it appears that the history of the air quality
planning in an area may determine the availability of certain
sanctions [such as the highway funding sanction in section 176(a)]
in the area. The disparate applicability of sanctions from area to
area could create the perception that EPA is applying the sanctions
inequitably. Congress may want to .examine whether to adjust the
sanctions provisions to avoid any apparent (or substantive) inequity.
Some of the other changes that would be desirable [e.g., changes to
sections 110{c) and 176(b)] will become evident as the reader
proceeds through today's policy proposal.
Summary of Policy -- General Approach and Key Features
The EPA will trigger the new round of planning by issuing
notices that the SIP's for the affected areas are "substantially
inadequate" within the meaning of section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act,
42 U.S.C. §7410(a)(2)(H). The EPA expects to issue such SIP calls
-------
in the spring of 19881. SIP calls will be based on the most recently
available air quality date 'i.e., through 1987). To provide an
indication of which areas might be included in the SIP calls, lists
of areas that would be sjbject to SIP calls based on existing air
quality data (througn 1986) appear in Appendix A at the end of
today's notice.
The SIP calls will apply to areas falling into various categories.
The SIP's for some of the areas may once have received EPA's full
approval under Part D of Che Act. For certain other areas, the
most recent SIP's never received EPA approval and do not contain a
persuasive demonstration of attainment of the standards in the near
term. In such cases, EPA's disapproval of such SIP's will reaffirm
the SIP calls for those areas and, as discussed later in this
notice, .have other potential consequences.
The SIP's for some areas received EPA's approval on the
condition that the State remedy certain plan deficiencies. Where
the State has not corrected these problems, EPA may rescind its
approval of the plan and substitute a disapproval. Such disapprovals
would reaffirm the SIP call and, as discussed later in this notice,
have other potential consequences.
^Those nonattaining areas whose pending SIP disapprovals are not
yet final by the time EPA issues SIP calls will still receive a SIP
call that triggers new plan requirements.
-------
Some areas have already received SIP calls from EPA and have
submitted SIP revisions in response to the calls. Final disapproval
of the pending submittal for such an area will trigger the new
planning requirements.
In all cases a SIP call based on NAAQS violations issued prior
to a final disapproval as discussed above will trigger the need for
a SIP revision.
Finally, EPA intends to require new planning even in some
areas that were not required to submit plans under the 1977 Amendments
These are areas that have recently detected violations of the
standards or appear to be contributing to nonattainment problems in
nearby areas.
The EPA proposes to require that the affected areas develop and
submit new plans that include a persuasive demonstration that they
will attain the standards by a fixed date. For the reasons described
in the "General Preamble" that EPA published on July 14, 1987 (52
FR 26404), EPA believes that a plan that commits to periodic SIP"
tightenings as measures become reasonably available, but that does
not actually demonstrate attainment by any particular date, will
not meet the Act's planning requirements. Stated simply, EPA
believes that the Act requires States to develop in advance their
plans for attainment. This does not allow States to wait and see
what types of pollution control become reasonably available or
until better air quality tools become available.
-------
The EPA believes it must apply the relevant construction

moratorium (or leave in place the currently applicable moratorium)

In areas whose new plans (post-1987) do not contain a persuasive

demonstration that their new pollution control strategies will

produce attainment jf the standards in the near term after 1937

(within 3 years and, for some areas, 5 years of EPA's approval of

the area's post.-1987 plan revision). The EPA will not, however,

supplement the construction moratorium with the available funding

restrictions in any area whose plan, though not showing attainment

in the near tern, does reflect reasonable efforts to submit an

acceptable plan. To reflect such efforts, the plan would havr? to

show, at a minimum, that the new control strategy would produce

attainment by a date that, although perhaps later than the near-

term period just described,-is expeditious in light of the difficulty

in meeting the area's pollution control requirements under the air

quality standards. Moreover, all except the most marginal nonattain-

ment areas wi11 also have to show that their new plans will produce

expeditious progress in the interim before attainment. This "reasonable

rate of progress would be an average annual emissions reduction of

at least 3 percent (beyond certain baseline measures) in the base

year inventory for the area.

Beyond applying sanctions to address planning failures, EPA

intends to review the extent to which States are carrying out their

existing SIP's. Where a State is not carrying out its existing

SIP, EPA may initiate rulemaking to impose sanctions such as a

construction moratorium to achieve implementation.

10
-------
The EPA intends to promulgate some national regulations
that will assist the Statas in the new planning effort, and to
prescribe some minimum pollution control requirements that the
new SIP's must contain. However, EPA will allow State and local
planners sufficient flexibility to choose among control options.
This is especially appropriate for planning to attain tne ozone and
CO standards, because State and local planners and officials are
generally best suited to select and implement controls of emissions
from in-use vehicles. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 95-294, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess., 288 (1977).
Beyond sotting the framswork for the creation of new control
strategies, EPA intends to require that the new plans include
provisions to maximize the effectiveness of the control programs
established under previous EPA policies. In addition, EPA will
establish rigorous new requirements for assuring actual achievement
of the progress that these plans project for the future, and for
making mid-course corrections to the new SIP's if they prove lass
effective than projected.
It is important to note that this proposed policy (and any
policy that ensures ultimate attainment of the CO and ozone NAAQS
as required by the Act) would entail substantial cost. As a
rought estimate, based on potential variations in average control
costs and extrapolation of growth in both stationary and mobile
sources of emissions, EPA projects annual costs in 1992 would be
2.6-4.3 billion dollars. These would increase up to 5 to 10 billion
dollars annually after 2002.

11
-------
This is an estimate of direct control costs only; it does not
include potentially substantial social costs associated with
extensive carpooling, inconvenience associated with reformulated
consumer products, job disruption associated with relocation of
major volatile organic compounds sources such as rafineries, etc.
While those direct control costs are high, the policy proposed
in this notice tends to minimize aggregate control costs for two
reasons: (1) it reserves to States decision-making on specific
controls so that such decisions can reflect what is most efficient
in a given locality; and (2} it recognizes that areas with differing
air quality problems require different amounts of time to comply,
thus giving areas with long-term problems an opportunity to develop
over-all strategies that minimize social disruption and cost.
Policies that lack these features rfould tend to- increase costs
beyond that noted above.
DETAILED STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Detailed descriptions of the Act and EPA's implementation of
the Act appear in a series of Federal Register notices that EPA has
published over the years—most recently, at 52 FR 26404 (July 14,
1987). See also, 44 FR 20372 (April 4, 1979); 46 FR 7182 (January 22,
1981); and 43 FR 50686 (November 2, 1933). Those notices provide
important background for today's policy proposal. A synthesis of
those descriptions is set forth below.
12
-------
The Clean Air Act
In 1970, Congress amended the Act to establish a joint Stats
and Federal program to control air pollution. As required by the
new sections 109 and 110, EPA established NAAQS for such pollutants
as photochemical oxidants (currently measured as ozone and therefore
referred to hereinafter as ozone) and CO, and called for States to
submit SIP's providing for attainment of those standards witnin
certain prescribed periods. Section 110(a)(2) specifies the require-
ments for these SIP's. It directs EPA to approve a SIP within
4 months after its submission if, among other things, it "provides
for the attainment" of the standard ". . . as expeditiously as
practicable but [subject to subsection (e)] in no c
-------
change only if the SIP will continue to conform to the attainment
and maintenance requirements of the Act.
In many areas of the coantry, the original SIP's that EPA
approved or promulgated in the early 1970's failed to bring about
attainment of the ozone and CO standards wit.iin the statutory
periods. When Congress amended the Act in 1977, it created a new
Part D, a planning process to revise the SIP's for areas that were
exceeding the standards. Section 107(d) required EPA, by roughly
March 1978, to identify those areas that in August 1977 were
still experiencing NAAQS violations. The States were required by
January 1, 1979, to adopt and submit such revisions to the SIP's
for those areas that would meet the requirements of Part D and the
new section H0(a) (2)(I).
Under Part D, each revision was to provide for attainment
of the relevant primary NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable,
but in general no later than December 31, 1932. A revision
could provide for' attainment of the primary standards for ozone
and CO as late as December 31, 1987, if the State demonstrated
that attainment by the 1982 deadline was not possible despite
the implementation of all reasonably available control measures
(RACM).
In any event, each revision due in 1979 was to provide for
the implementation of RACM and for "reasonable further progress"
(RFP)--defined as annual incremental reductions in emissions
14
-------
sufficient in EPA's judgment to provide for attainment by the
applicable deadline, incljding such reductions as may be obtained
through the adoption of "reasonably available control technology."
Each revision also was to have, among other things, a permit
program for the preconstruction review of major new sources of
the relevant pollutants. As outlined by section 173 of the Act,
this program would allow construction, even before attainment
occurs, upon determinations that (1) the source would have state-
of-the-art controls, (2) its emissions would be offset by greater
than one-for-one reductions elsewhere or would be accounted for
in an approved demonstration of attainment by the applicable
date for the area in which the source was locating, (3) the
applicant's other sources in the State are in compliance with
the SIP, and (4) the State is carrying out the SIP. In the-case
of the areas with 1937 deadlines (i.e., "extension" areas), each
revision due in 1979 had to identify any measures beyond RACM
that would be necessary to assure timely attainment and had to
contain commitments to adopt a motor vehicle inspection and
maintenance program. In addition, each State with an extension
area was to submit a supplemental revision before July 1, 1982,
containing those additional measures necessary to assure
attainment by the end of 1987.
As part of the 1977 Amendments, section 110(a)(2)(I) required
each SIP to contain a construction ban that would operate against
major new sources and major modifications of existing sources of
15
-------
the relevant pollutants in each nonattainment area after June 30,
1979, ". . . unless, as of the time of application for a permit for
such construction . . ., such plan meets the requirements of Part D
. . . ." As further incentive for timely submission of Part D SIP
revisions, Congress added sections 176(a) and 31<5(b). Section
175(a) bars the Department of Transportation from funding many
highway projects, and EPA from making air program grants in an
ozone or CO nonattainment area upon a determination by EPA that the
State has failed to make reasonable efforts to submit approvable
SIP revisions for- the area in accordance with Part D. Section
3I6(b) authorizes EPA to withhold certain grants for sewage treatment
construction where an. area has failed, among other things, to
submit an adequate Part D 'SIP for the area.
Congress also added two funding sanctions for failures to
implement a SIP. First, it extended the discretionary withholding
of sewage treatment grants under section 316 to such failures.
Second, it provided in section 176(b') for a withholding of air
grants for any area in which the State is not implementing t!i2
applicable SIP. Beyond those funding sanctions, the requirement in
section 173(4) operates, in effect, as a ban on the construction of
major new sources and major modifications of existing sources in
the event that a State is not "carrying out" its SIP. This means
that, even when the SIP for a designated nonattainment area has
been approved and is adequate, the area may become subject to a
construction ban if it fails to carry out the SIP. (See discussion
16
-------
on Plan Implementation under section 6.c. Promulgation of Federal
Plans.}
History of Regulatory Development Under Part 0
The EPA began its administration of Part D with the promulgation
in 1973 of attainment status designations under section 107(d).
See, e.g., 43 FR 3962 (Marcn 3, 1973); 43 PR 40502 (September }?,
1978). Then, on April 4, 1979, EPA published a notica describing
in detail the prerequisites to EPA approval of the SIP revisions
that Part D required the States to submit in 1979 for areas that
were designated nonattainment (44 FR 20372).
On July 2,'1979, EPA issued an interpretative rule establishing
that the construction ban in section 110(a)(2)(I) would begin to
operate immediately in any designated nonattainment area that was
not yet covered by an approved Part D SIP (44 FR 38471 [now
codified at 40 CFR 52.24(a) (1986)]). At the time, EPA had yet to
approve a Part 0 SIP for any ozone or CO nonattainment area, so the
ban came into effect in all of them. Gradually, the States submitted
for most of these areas the first round of Part 0 SIP revisions
that were due at the beginning of 1979, and EPA approved or conditionally
approved these revisions. Thus, by the end of 1982, most ozone
and CO nonattainment areas were free of the ban.
After December 31, 1982, however, EPA faced the dilemma of
whether to reimpose the ban in those numerous nonextension areas
where it appeared that violations of the ozone and CO NAAQS would
persist despite the States' implementation of their approved 1979
17
-------
plans. The EPA initially proposed to disapprove the SIP's for

those areas and impose the ban, on the theory that a SIP that had

failed to produce attainment by the end of 1982 could not be said

to "provide for" attainment by then, as required by Part 0. See 48

FR 4972 (February 3, '933). In response to almost .jniversal opposi-

tion from commenters, EPA reconsidered its position and, in late

1933, reversed itself. Seo 43 FR 506^6 (November 2, 1983). The

EPA took the position that Part D presents only obligations to

plan and implement the plan, not to attain. The EPA concluded that

Congress expected Part D SIP's to pro-vide for attainment by the end

of 1982 only "in a prospective or planning sense." Id. at 50690-91.

The EPA put this conclusion into regulatory form by adding the

following sentence to the 1979 interpretative rule embodying the

ban [i.e., 40 CFR 52.24(a)]: "This section shall not apply to any

nonattainment area once EPA has fully approved the State implementation

plan for the area as meeting the requirements of Part D."

With respect to remedying the nonattainment problem, EPA

stated:

Where a fully approved Part 0 plan failed to bring
about attainment by the end of 1982, EPA will treat
the plan as "substantially inadequate" to assure
attainment under Section 110(a)(2)(H) and call for
a SIP revision. EPA will provide one year for the
submittal of the new revision under Section llO(c)
(1)(C). The revisions will have to provide for
attainment as expeditiously as practicable ....
[Id. at 50693 col. 1.]

The EPA warned that, if a State failed to respond adequately to a

call for a SIP revision, it would impose a ban on construction
18
-------
for failure to implement the SIP. Id. at 50693 col. 2. This

failure would be premised on the SIP provision created under

section 110(a)(2)(H) requiring the State to revise its SIP upon a

call from EPA. The new source review provisions of Part D,

specifically section 173(4), bar Lne issuance of permits to 'najor

new sources of the relevant pollutant locating in the nonatt.a: n nent.

area, if the State is failing to carry out the SIP. See 40 CFR

52.24(3) (1986). By requiring the new plans to show attainment "as

expeditiously as practicable" rather than by a fixed date analogous

to the Part D dates, and by restricting itself to using the section

173(4) sanctions rather than the full array of Part D sanctions to

address State failures to respond to the SIP calls, EPA implicitly

acknowledged that it viewed the Part 0 planning requirements as

only one-time obligations, i.e., not renewable by.the SIP calls.

The EPA further advised that any nonextension area still

lacking a fully approved plan would continue to be potentially

subject to the ban in section 110(a)(2)(I). For example, EPA

stated that areas with conditionally approved Part D SIP's that had

failed to meet important conditions were potentially subject to a

rescission of the conditional approval and imposition of the section

110(a)(2)(I) construction ban. But EPA advised that, in view of

the passage of the 1982 deadline, a corrective SIP meeting those

conditions could still obtain full approval and avoid the ban after

1982 if the SIP provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable.
19
-------
The EPA subsequently issued calls for revisions of the ozone and
CO SIP's for many nonextension areas with previously approved
plans. As a result, EPA has received revisions from many States
over the past few years. The EPA recently proposed to disapprove
two of those revisions. See 52 FR 26421 (July 14, 1937)(Dallas, TX)
and 52 FR 26435 (July 14, 1987)(Atlanta, GA). It has yet, however,
to take final action approving or disapproving any of them.
In the meantime, on January 22, 1981, E?A issued a new policy
describing the criteria it would use to judge the supplemental SIP
revisions for extension areas that were due in mid-1982.' The EPA
received revisions from all extension areas and approved 'nany of
them. See, e.g., 48 FR 51472 (November 9, 1933) (New Jersey.,
ozone); 50 FR 25073 (June 17, 1985) (New York City, ozone and CO)".
The EPA has disapproved the SIP's for several extension areas and
imposed the construction ban under section 1I0(a)(2)(I). See,
e.g., 51 FR 33748-49 (September 23, 1986) (Phoenix and Tucson, CO);
50 FR 8616 (March 4, 1985) (Albuquerque, CO).
Beginning approximately in 1984, EPA began to explore how it
might address the likelihood that many extension areas, as well as
some non-extension areas that had already received SIP calls, would
not attain the ozone and CO standards in tne near term with their
existing SIP's and pending SIP revisions. In particular, EPA began
to consider withholding both disapprovals of the pending plan
revisions and the imposition of sanctions where, though the States
had failed to demonstrate attainment of the standards by the end of
20
-------
1987 (or even shortly thereafter}, they had submitted commitments

to adopt all control measures as they become reasonably available.

The EPA solicited comment on whether such an approach would be

consistent with the Act. See 51 FR 34423 (September 26, 1986}

[soliciting comment on the "Reasonable Extra Efforts Program"

(VEEP"} for four areas in California].

After reviewing the language and legislative history of trie

relevant provisions of the Act,2 EPA concluded that the REE? approach,

as well as a similar approach called the "Sustained Progress Program"

("SPP"}, would be inconsistent with the Act — for both extension

areas that had not yet received approval of their Part'D SIP's and

areas that, though receiving such approvals, needed to revise their

SIP's in response to notices of SIP deficiency under section

.110(a)(2)(H). With regard to applying REEP and SPP to areas without

approved Part D SIP's, EPA stated:

On its face, Part 0 ... contemplates an
entirely different planning process [from REEP],
under which such an areas [sic] must develop
within a set period a full plan to produce
attainment by a fixed near-term deadline.
s analysis appears in a memorandum of EPA's General Counsel,
dated November 25, 1986. Th? evaluation in this memorandum is
reflected in the General Preamble discussed in the text below.
21
-------
The only argument supporting REEP in the
face of this statutory language is the one sketched
by EPA in its REEP proposal and by industry in
its comments, namely, that some extension areas
could produce attainment by the end of 1987 only
by the application of measures that would tear
the economic and social fabric of the areas and
that the 95th Congress could not really have
intended the areas to put such Draconian measures
into enforceable form and actually begin to
implement them.
The argument, however, misses the point . .
. . In fact, the legislative history shows that
the Congress set up the Part 0 system in order to
force communities and industry to do their utmost
to bring about attainment as rapidly as possible
and expected that a future Congress would change
the course it had set, if necessary, to avoid any
unacceptable consequences.
In sum,.R'EEP and SPP would frustrate the
purposes of Part 0 by abandoning upfront,
complete planning for attainment by a near-term
fixed deadline in favor of iterative planning
for progress alone."

[52 FR 26404, 26408 col. 3 (July 14, 1987)]. Based on this conclusion,

EPA proposed to disapprove several pending ozone and CO SIP's for

extension areas that did not contain persuasive demonstrations of

attainment within such a short-term period, and to impose the

construction moratorium in those areas. See, e.g., 52 FR 25431

(July 14, 1987) (California ozone and CO SIP's for the South Coast

and Fresno; California ozone SIP's for Ventura and Sacramento).

With regard to areas that needed to revise their approved

Part 0 SIP's in response to SIP calls, EPA tentatively concluded

that, aKhough the requirements for plan revisions in response
22
-------
to SIP calls are somewhat ambiguous, those provisions, like Part D,

require the revised SIP's to demonstrate attainment by a fixed,

near-term date after the SIP calls. The EPA stated:

Section 110(a)(3)(A) provides that "[t]he
Administrator shall approve any revision of an
implementation plan applicable to an air quality
control region if he determines that it meets
the requirements of [section 110(a)(2}] . . . ."
The natural reading of [section 110(a)(2)(A)]
is that EPA must disapprove a SI? revision
submitted by a State in response to d call by
EPA under section 110(a)(2)(H) if the revision
does not provide for attainment within 3 (in
some cases 5) years from the time EPA
completes rulemaking on the revision. Under
this reading, EPA would have to disapprove any
iterative planning approach ....

This natural reading is clouded, however,
by the fact that section 110(a)(2) seems to
focus entirely on original SIP's, as opposed to
revisions to pre-existing SIP's. Hence, one.
might argue, Congress did not necessarily intend
submissions in response to a section 110(a)(2)(H)
determination to be measured against the
yardstick of whether they provide for attainment
within such a short period. For cases where
only draconian measures could produce attainment
that quickly, arguably Congress would have
given a stronger signal had it really intended
such measures to becomo operational through
State adoption and EPA approval,

The EPA, however, is reluctant to attempt to
transform the gap in precise interconnection
between section 110(a){3) and section 110(a)(2)
into an expression of authority to embrace SPP.
There is no such authority on the face of the
statute, and the legislative history evidences
Congress's consistent intent to require a SIP
planning process that focuses on near-term
attainment. [Footnote omitted.] Furthermore,
the iterative planning under that program would
require EPA ultimately to make choices between
health and economic values that are essentially
legislative in character and magnitude. It is
23
-------
not properly EPA's role as an administrative
agency to take on the tas'< of making such
choices without a considerably stronger
indication of Congressional delegation than
now exists. Therefore, although as a matter of
policy it 'nay make little sense to inpose
sanctions in areas where near-term attainment
is a practical impossibility, EPA has concluded
tentatively that it lacks legal authority to
implement SPP-as originally envisioned in areas
witn fully approved Part D SP's.

[52 FR 26404, 26409 (July 14, 1987)]. Based on this conclusion,

EPA proposed to disapprove the pending SIP revisions for two areas,

each of which had failed to respond to post-Part 0 SIP calls with

demonstrations that they would attain the ozone standard by a

fixed, near-term date [52 FR. 26421 (July 14, 1987) (Dallas);

52 FR 26435 (July 14, 1987) (Atlanta)].

DISCUSSION OF LEGAL AND POLICY ISSUES

In the July 14 General Preamble, EPA listed several issues

that the Agency must resolve before it can instruct States on how

to correct their remaining ozone and CO nonattainment problems

after December 31, 1987. Specifically, EPA mentioned:

What is the period after 1987 within which a SIP revision
must assure attainment in order to warrant full approval
under Part D or section 110(a)(3) [3'years? 5 years?
7 years?];

When sanctions, such as the construction ban in section
110(a)(2).(I) and highway funding restrictions, would
lift once EPA has imposed them;

What "reasonable efforts" means for purposes of section
176(a) (e.g., whether adherence to REEP constitutes
"reasonable efforts");

When section 316 sanctions would be appropriate;

How much time EPA should give States to respond to a
SIP call;

24
-------
When a State is not carrying out or implementing its
SIP for purposes of imposing the sanctions in sections
173(4) and 176(b);

Whether and in what circumstances EPA may impose the
ban in 173(4) without simultaneously triggering the
funding restrictions under section 176(b);

Uhen EPA must act under section 110(c) to create a
Federal implementation plan; what the content of such a
pi an must be;

How States should deal with interstate transport,

What degree of control of sources of nitrogen oxide-; is
appropriate for purposes of attaining the ozone
standard;

What constitutes RACM in the post-1937 era;

How States should treat rural nonattainment areas;

How much credit States may take in their attainment
demonstrations for proposed and promulgated national
control measures,

--.' What dispersion models are appropriate for which
nonattainment situations;

What the appropriate geographic scope of the planning
area is for addressing ozone and precursor transport;

What that scope is for addressing CO violations;

What programs a SIP must contain for tracking
implementation and RFP.

This section of today's notice discusses these issues for the

purpose of generating public comment on how EPA should structure

its final policy on correcting post-1987 nonattainment problems.

Discussion of Legal Issues Related to
Post-1987 SIP Correction

I. PLANNING

A. The Applicable Set of Planning Requirements
25
-------
The requirements of the Act that govern post-1937 air quality

planning activities depend largely on the status of the planning

efforts of the geographic areas in question. The various categories

of areas are described below.

For the reasons described in EPA's November 1933 notice, EPA's

full approval of a Part 0 SI? for a nonattainnent area—whether it

is an extension area or a nonext^nsion area—amounts to a finding

that the State has fulfilled and discharged for all time its Part D

planning obligations. As indicated in that policy and the General

Preamble published on July 14, 1987, any corrective SIP submitted

for such an area in response to a SIP call under section llO(a)(2)(H)

must meet the requirement of section 110(a)(3)(A), which governs

SIP revisions other than Part D plans. That subsection in turn

p-rovides that "... [t]he Administrator shall approve any revision

of an implementation plan applicable to an air quality control

region if he determines that it meets the requirements of [section

110(a)(2)] . . . ." Thus, the list of prerequisites to EPA SIP

approval appearing in section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) will apply to the

post-1937 SIP revisions for areas with fully approved Part 0 SIP's.3
3As the General Preamble noted, however, 52 FR 26409 col. 2, the
fact that section 110(a)(2) seems to focus entirely on original
SIP's, as opposed to revisions to preexisting SIP's, does cloud the
interconnection between sections llO(a)(3) and 110(a)(2). The EPA
solicited comment on that point in the General Preamble. While
today's notice reiterates EPA's inclination to interpret the section
110(a)(2) requirements to apply to such "post-Part D" SIP revisions,
EPA continues to solicit comment on the issue.

Assuming that section 110(a)(2) does apply to such revisions,
it is Clear that section llQ(a)(2)(I)'s requirement that the SIP
contain a construction ban to apply in an area lacking a Part D SIP
would already have been satisfied in an area whose Part D SIP has
received full EPA approval.

26
-------
The new SIP revisions for areas whose Part D SIP's have never

received EPA's approval remain subject to the Part D requirements.

This group potentially includes areas whose Part D SIP's received

approval on the condition that the areas cure certain deficiencies

in the plans. Some of those conditions still have not been met

and, in such cases, EPA may substitute a disapproval for its prsviou;

conditional approval and thereby keep the area subject to the Part D

planning process.

Finally, some areas were never designated nonattainment under

section 107 and therefore were never subject to Part !). If EPA

believes that the existing SIP for such an area has not protected

.the area from air quality violations either in the area or

nearby, it will issue a SIP call for'the area. Under the reasoning

of Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA, 723 F.2d 1304 (7th Cir. 1933), however,

EPA believes that it may not have the authority to redesignate an

area to nonattainment (and thereby subject the area to Part 0)

without first receiving a request to do so from the affected State.4

Thus, absent such a request, these areas can never become subject

to Part D, and their corrective SIP revisions would instead be

subject to the requirements of section 110(a){2).
EPA solicits comment on whether it should follow the reasoning
of the Bethlehem court in making redesignation decisions in States
not under the jurisdiction of the Seventh Circuit. Today's policy
proposal assumes a uniform application of the Seventh Circuit's
conclusions throughout the country.
27
-------
To summarize, there are several categories of areas, each
having achieved a different status under the Act's planning require-
ments. The corrective SIP's for areas tnat have fully satisfied
Part 0 or were never subject to Part D will be subject to the
section 110(a)(2) planning requirements; the revisions for otner
areas will remain subject to or potentially subject to Part D.
Although on its face Part 0 diffars substantially from section
110, the most important distinctions relate to issues involving
sanctions and attainment dates. Some of the Part D provisions that
are not also contained in section 110(a)(2) merely reflect Congress'
view in 1977 of tne specific requirements that States should add to
previously deficient SIP's to ensure timely attainment. Many of
these requirements (e.g., tne requirement in section 172{b)(2) for
all 'reasonably available control measures) arguably reflect Congress'
view that SIP's cannot truly "insure attainment and maintenance,"
as that phrase is used in section 110(a)(2)(B), without meeting
these additional requirements. For this reason, in certain respects,
the policy proposed today draws upon Part D provisions as presumptive
reflections of what Congress intended to require even of areas
whose new planning is subject literally only to section 110. By
minimizing differences in the planning requirements in different
areas, this limited use of Part D provisions will serve EPA's
general goal of making today's policy administrate with a minimum
of confusion.
28
-------
8. Sanctions and the Requirement to Demonsj:rate Attainment

For the reasons described in the July 14, 1987, General Preamble,

EPA believes that the Act permits EPA to grant full approval to

a plan—whether it is subject to Part D or section 110--only

if it includes a persuasive demonstration that the affected araa

will attain the relevant standard by a fixed date in the near

term. The EPA also noted that tne consequence of a State's failure

to submit such a plan for a nonattainment area would be the

application of the relevant construction moratorium in the ar^a

--under section 110(a){2)(!) for areas subject to Part D, and

under section 173(4) for areas subject to section UQ(a)(2).(>

The EPA reiterates today its intention to apply this interpretation

of the Act.6
of these bans by their terms apply only to designated
nonattainment areas. This means that EPA will not be able to apply
the ban to address inadequate responses to SIP calls in other
areas—e.g., areas that, although not designated nonattainment,
received SIP calls because they contribute significantly to their
own or a nearby nonattainment problem. The EPA does intend, however,
to apply the ban in a designated nonattainment area if the State's
corrective plan does not adequately -account for the contributing
emissions from a nearby area within the same State, regardless of
whether the contributing area is designated nonattainment. The
requirements for accounting for such contributing emissions are
discussed latar in this notice.
noted above, EPA has already proposed to disapprove the pending
SIP submittals for several areas because those submittals did not
persuasively demonstrate short-term attainment and, consequently,
to impose the relevant construction ban. Should EPA receive a new
submittal for any of these areas before it would otherwise take
final action on these proposals, it will review the submittal and
weigh whether (and, if so, how) the submittal should affect EPA's
final action on the pending proposal.
29
-------
The EPA made clear, however, that it did not intend to begin

proceedings to impose the funding restrictions under section 175(a)

in any area ". . . for so long as the State is making reasonable efforts

to adopt and submit a plan that meets the requirements of Part D."

(See 5Z FR 25409 col. 3.; The EPA is still inclined to reserve tnis

sanction for cases in whicn the Stats is not making reasonaola

efforts to submit an adequate plan.

The General Preamble left open the questions of how to define

the short-term attainment period needed to avoid a disapproval and

imposition of the construction ban, as well as how, absent a demon-

stration of short-ten attainment, an area could demonstrate that

it is making reasonable efforts to submit an adequate plan and

thereby avoid the section 176(a) funding restrictions. These

issues and other issues'related to sanctions are discussed below.

1. Demonstration of Short-Term Attainment
Necessary to Avoid the^Construction Ban

a. Areas Subject tO'Section 110

As explained above, the language of section 110(a)(3) appears

to require that revisions in response to SIP calls meet the require-

ments of section H0(a)(2), though EPA has admitted that this

natural reading is clouded by the latter paragraph's focus on

original SIP's due in response to new or revised NAAQS. Section

110(a)(2)(A) sets forth the requirement for demonstrating attainment

of the standards:
30
-------
The Administrator shall approve or disapprove such
plan or portion thereof, if he determines .
that —

(A) except as may be provided in subparagraph
(I), (i) in the case of a plan implementing a national
ambient air quality standard, it provides for the
attainment of such primary standard as expeditiously
as practicable but (subject to subsection (a) of
this section) in no i
the dato of approval
.as-? later then
of such plan .
three years from
Thus, the Act sets an attainment date, for the pjrpose of developing

corrective plans, that is at most 3 years beyond the total time

needed for the States to submit the corrections and for EPA actually

to grant them final approval. The only exception is contained in

section 110(e), which allows the Administrator to:

extend the 3-year period referred to in subsection
(a)(2)(A)(i) for not more than 2 years ... if ...
th.e •Administrator determines that --

(A) one or more emission sources (or classes of
moving sources) are unable to comply with the
requirements of such plan which implement such
primary standard because the necessary technology
or other alternatives are not available or will
not be available soon enough to permit compliance
within such 3-year period, and

(B) the State has considered and applied as a
part of its plan reasonably available alternative
means of attaining such primary standard and has
justifiably concluded that attainment of such
primary standard within the three years cannot
be achieved.

The provision goes on to state:

(2) The Administrator may grant an extension under
paragraph (1) only if he determines that the State
plan provides for --
31
-------
(A) application of the requirements of the plan
which implement such primary standard to all
emission'sources in such region other than the
sources (or classes) described in paragraph (1){A)
within the three-year period, and

(B) such interim measures of control of the
sources (or classes) described in paragraph (1KA)
as the Administrator determines to be reasonable
jnder the circumstances.

The EPA intends to interpret this provision to allow a 2-year

extension of the attainment date--bayond the period for SIP

submittal, EPA approval of the SIP, and the 3-year period in

section 110(a)(2)(A)--for any area that can show that attainment

before the end of that period would require on stationary or

mobile sources the use of technology or alternative means that are

not reasonably available within that period. Beyond that, EPA

intends to require such areas to show that they have included, in

their corrective plans, provisions that will achieve the emission

reductions achievable by applying "reasonably available alternative

means" (RAAM) to such sources. (These interpretations and the reasoning

supporting them are discussed in section IV.8., "Requirements of

Expeditious Attainment Dates and Reasonable Progress.") The result

will be that some areas that cannot show attainment within the

3-year period with RAAM, but can show attainment within the extended

period with RAAM and other measures, would receive approval of

their SIP's and avoid the construction moratorium.

The EPA believes that using the 3- and 5-year periods in

section 110 would fulfill Congress' intent even if the language

of section 110{a)(2) did not govern revisions submitted in
32
-------
response to SIP calls. If that language does not apply, then the
Act contains a gap that EPA may fill in a manner consistent with
Congress' likely intent. See generally, Chevron U.S._A_. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1934). Using
the 3- and "5-year periods would be consistent not only with tne
periods chosen for the initial SIP's but also with the period
Congress provided for submittal of the Part D SIP's required of
nonextension areas. Section 172(a)(l) required those SIP's to
provide for attainment by the end of 1982, 4 years from the datv.1
those submittals were due (January 1, 1979) [see section 129(c)].
To be sure, Congress provided'a much longer attainment period
for extension areas (from January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1987,
approximately 9 years from the date the initial Part 0 SIP's were
due). But it set up two planning periods for these areas—one to
apply all "reasonably available" measures and a second to supplement
those measures. Since most reasonably available measures should
already have been applied in designated nonattainment areas by now,
EPA regards post-1987 planning for these areas as comparable to the
planning during the second Part D period. That period spanned from
the July 1982 SIP submittal date [see section 129(c)] to the end of
1987, and is therefore roughly consistent with the 3- and 5-year
periods EPA is contemplating for post-1987 SIP's.
33
-------
b. Areas Still Subject to Part D
The EPA believes that the corrective pl'ans for areas that have
never fulfilled Part D must demonstrate attainment within periods
similar to the section 110 periods to avoid the section 110(a)(2)(I)
construction inordtorium.
On its face, Part D calls for plans tnat provide for dtt.jinmen'
by December 31, 1987. Since plans developed after 1937 cannot
conceivably provide for attainment ay the end of T)o7, under tne
strictest reading of Part 0 these areas could never develop plans
tnat meet Part D's requirements. If EPA were to adopt that reading,
these areas would have to suffer under the section 110(a)(?){!}
construction ban for as long as they remain subject to Part D, that
is, until they are redesignated to attainment.
The EPA does not believe that such an approach would be consistent
with Congress' intent in adopting Part D and its sanctions. Construing
the 1987 date as applying even after 1937 and, hence, imposing the
ban to address the inability of Part 0 areas to plan after 1987 for
attainment by that date, would amount to punishing these areas for
failing to attain. For the reasons explained in EPA's November
1933 Part D policy, however, EPA regards Part D as a set of planning
requirements, not requirements actually to come into attainment.
Moreover, EPA believes that Congress created the Part D sanctions
as means to produce better planning, not as a punishment for failure
actually to attain. Since it will be physically impossible after
1987 for areas to plan to attain by the end of 1987, EPA intends
34
-------
to interpret the requirement to plan for attainment by that date as

a legal impossibility. The EPA intends to select, in its place, a

subsequent date consistent with what Congress would have intended

had it known that EPA would be disapproving Part 0 submittals and

tnereby triggering new Part 0 planning for some areas so close to

the end of 1987.

Although it is not clear what subsequent date Congress would

have intended in these circumstances, the history of the Act'i

planning requirements suggests that Congress would have provided

these areas an additional period analogous to the 3- and 5-year periods

in section 110. When Congress in 1977 directed EPA to initiate a

new round of planning for areas that had failed earlier to attain

under the section 110 requirements, it created new planning periods .

comparable to the section 110 periods rather than shortening those

periods and thereby demanding plans for immediate attainment. (See

discussion in previous subsection.) This indicates that Congress

viewed periods comparable to the section 110 periods as the appropriate

lengths of time for States to apply the types of controls that

would produce attainment. For this reason, ant! because it would be

administratively simpler to apply to Part 0 areas the same attainment

periods as those applicable to section 110 areas, EPA intends to

apply the 3- and 5-year periods in section 110 to areas still subject

to the Part D planning requirements.
35
-------
2. PIann1ng Necessaryto Avoid Sanct1ons Other
Than the Construction Ban

As described earlier, the Act contains sanctions beyond the

construction bans contained in sections 110(a)(2)(I) and 173(4).

For the reasons discussed below, EPA regards each of t'nese additional

sanctions as available, for at least soine areas, when EPA, at its

discretion, makes certain determinations relating to planning and

plan implementation. The remainder of this subsection describes

these sanctions provisions and how EPA intends to exercise its

discretion under then in reviewing planning performed after 1937..

The EPA solicits comments on the application of theso sanctions as

discussed below.

a. Funding Restrictions Under Section 176(a)

Section 175(a) states that EPA shall not approve or award grants

for State air pollution control programs and the Department of

Transportation (DOT) shall not approve any highway projects or award

any highway construction grants under Title 23 of the U.S. Code

(with certain exceptions) in any area where the prvnar/ standard

has not been attained, where "transportation control measures" are

necessary to attain the standard, and:

(3) where the Administrator finds after July 1, 1979, that
the Governor has not submitted an implementation plan
which considers each of the elements required by
section 172 or that reasonable efforts toward submitting
such an implementation plan are not being made (or,
after July 1, 1982, in the case of an implementation
plan revision required under section 172 to be submitted
before July 1, 1982).

The EPA and the OOT published their joint policy on how to

implement section 176(a) on April 10, 1980 (45 FR 24692). These

36
-------
sanctions have applied typically, if not exclusively, in areas

that are violating the standards for ozone or carbon monoxide,

because transportation control measures are needed to attain each

of those standards in most areas that are nonattainment for those

pollutants. Under tne 19^0 policy, EPA and DOT nave imposed Vie

sanctions only upon EPA's finding that the State nas failed both to

submit an adequate Part 0 plan for either of those pollutants and

to make reasonable efforts to subnit such a plan.'Id.7

The reach of section 176(a) is much more limited now than when

States were first submitting their Part D SIP's for ozone and CO.

The EPA indicated in the November 2, 1983, policy that it viewed Part D

as a one-time set of planning obligations that arc: completely

discharged upon EPA's full approval of a plan meeting those require-

ments. Under that reasoning, any area whose Part D SIP has received

EPA's full approval has met for all time "each of the elements

required by section 172" and hence can never subsequently be found

subject to the section 176(a) restrictions.3
70ne U.S. District Court recently upheld this interpretation of
section 176(a). McCarthy v. Thomas, D. Ariz., No. CIV 35-344-
TUC-1WDB (August 11, 1987).

8Where EPA has approved an area's Part D SIP in reliance on the
State's commitments to adopt additional measures, and the State has
not met the commitments, EPA will look to see whether the failure
is one of implementation or, instead, a basic flaw in the plan.
In the latter case, EPA may rescind its approval of the area's SIP
and, thereby, make the highway funding sanctions available once
again.
37
-------
The EPA is considering whether to retain this interpretation
of section 176(a) beyond 1937. Retention would mean that only
areas whose Part D plans 'nave never received EPA's full approval
would be potentially subject to the funding restrictions in that
provision. This would include, as discussed above, both areas
whose Part 0 SIP's arc disapproved and areas that EPA finds 'i.v/e
failed to meet important conditions placed on the Agency's earlier
Part D SIP approvals. The EPA seeks comments on the legal and
policy issues associated witn this subject including the extent to
which EPA is constrained from revising its interpretation.
Under the 1930 policy, EPA reaches its judgments case by casj
as to whether, areas are making "reasonable efforts" to submit an
app.rovable Part D plan. The EPA.'s interpretation of that phrase is
necessarily guided by Congress1 intent when it enacted the "reasonable
efforts" test. The legislative history of that language reveals
that Congress did not intend EPA to apply the section 176(a) sanctions
to an area that had failed to submit an approvable Part D plan if
the relevant State were diligently seeking a soljtion to the non-
attainment problem, even* if the solution were not available for
years after the required attainment date. The first version of the
provision appeared as section HO(h)(3)(A) of original Senate bill
S. 252 to amend the Clean Air Act in 1977. See S. Rep. Mo.
95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1977). The original language
would have established a duty to impose the funding restrictions
38
-------
upon the sole finding that a State had failed to submit an approvable

plan for the relevant pollutant. The Senate added the "reasonable

efforts" test to S. 252 in an amendment introduced by Senator

Gravel. See 123 Cong. Rec. 13,475-77 (1977). The Senate adopted

the amendment with little discussion, but tne following colloquy

indicates that failure to demonstrate attainment within the prescribed

Part D periods would not alone amount to a failure to make reasonable

efforts to meet Part D:

Mr. STEVENS. I am sura the Senator knows that Fairbanks
has a problem and it is a naturally caused problem. I do not
know of any solution to it yet.

Mr. GRAVEL. The fact that we ar^ thinking of a solution
and working on one will give it u.nbragn, under this jinendment.

Mr. STEVENS. But if we cannot find a way by 1979 to solve
it — •

Mr. GRAVEL. If we cannot find a way by the year 2000, we
still will not get hurt.

Mr. STEVENS. This means that the State of Alaska will not
lose those funds if we cannot solve the icefog problem?

Mr. GRAVEL. If t.nat happens, I will come to the floor jf
the Senate and slash my wrists.
• • •
Mr. MUSKIE. . . . Mr. President, as I understand the
amendment, it is a reasonable modification of the committee
amendment. It still retains some sanctions for those jurisdictions
which make no effort, undertake no effort, to put together
impleroentation plans, and so I am ready to accept it.

123 Cong. Rec. 13, 476 (June 10, 1977). Congress then enacted section

176{a} with the Gravel amendment as part of the 1977 Clean Air Act

Amendments.
39
-------
The EPA intends to apply th-2 reasoning underlying the above

colloquy in deciding when to apply the section 176(a) restrictions

to Part D areas after 1987. Specifically, EPA will not apply the

restrictions just because an area does not demonstrate attainment

of the standards within the short-term periods described abov-2.

Rather, EPA will reserve the sanctions to address a State's failure

to submit a plan that persuasively demonstrates (1) attainment

by a date that, even if substantially Idter than the section 110

dates, is suitable for the area in light of its control needs, and

(2) expeditious progress in the interim. A detailed discission of

what EPA would regard as "reasonable efforts" attainment iates and

progress appears later in this notice.

b. Sewa.ge Treatment Grant Restrictions
Under Section 316(by~~~

Section 316{b) states that EPA "may" restrict Federal grants

for certain sewage treatment construction if it determines that:

(2) the State does not have in effect, or is not
carrying out, a State implementation plan approved by the
Administrator which expressly quantifies and provides for
the increase in emissions of each air pollutant (from
stationary and mobile sources in any area to which either
part C or part D of title I applies for such pollutant)
which increase may reasonably be anticipated to result
directly or indirectly from the new sewage treatment
capacity which would be created by such construction.

The use of the word "may" in this provision makes this sanction

available at EPA's discretion. Moreover, the provision's inclusion

of areas "to which either part C or part 0" applies indicates that
*
EPA may apply the restriction even in areas that are not designatid

nonattainment for the pollutant involved.
40
-------
Although technically EPA could apply this sanction in every area

without a fully approved SIP^ containing the required quantification,

EPA believes that it would be more productive to use it only where

the Stats is not making reasonable efforts, as in the case of the

soction I76(a) sanctions. Thus, although EPA may choose to apply

the sections 175(a) and 316(b) sequentially rather than .\t tha same

time, depending on tni> appropriate strategy for inducing jet ten

State planning, EPA's decisions under both provisions will be based

on the "reasonable efforts" factors described latar in this notica.

c. Aijr^Jjrant Restrictions Under Section 176(b)

As described in the November 2, 1983, policy above and the

General Preamble of July 14, 1987, EPA intends to continue to find

that areas that do not respond adequately to SIP calls ar? failing

to implement their SIP's and, therefore, become subject to the

construction ban for nonimplementation under section 173(4).

On its face, section 176(b) requires EPA also to restrict Federal

grants to a State's air pollution control program if the State is

not implementing its plan. As indicated in the General Preamble,

however, EPA intends to supplement the construction ban with the

air grant cutoff only where doing so will not be counterproductive

to good planning in the area. It makes little sense to withdraw

financial support from the State workers on whom EPA depends for
s section discusses when EPA intends to apply the section 316(b)
sanction to address planning failures. The question of when to use
the provision to address nonimplementation of plans is discussed later
in this 'notice.
41
-------
adequate planning to produce an approvable plan In response to a
SIP call. The EPA believes that Congress would not have intended
the cutoff to apply automatically where tne State planners are
making necessary progress in producing an adequate response to a
SIP call.
3. Prerequisites f_qr_ Lrftjng the Constructijsn__8an
Once It Has Been Imposed
Several areas are currently subject to the construction
ban or will soon become subject to the ban because of their failure
to demonstrate near-term attainment in the initial rounds of Pi^t 0
planning [section 110{a) (2) (I) ban] or in response to SIP calU
issued after passage of the'1982 attainment Jd1:-.1 [section 173(4)
ban]. Other areas may become subject to the ban within the next
few years if they.do not respond adequately to the SIP calls EPA
intends to issue after 1987.
For the reasons described above and in the November 2, 1903,
Part D policy, EPA does not believe that the attainment date provisions
in Part D require the imposition of the ban for the purpose of
addressing an area's inability to attain by the applicable date.
The EPA regards Part D as a set of planning requirements and the
sanctions as inducements for the State to do better planning, not
as punishments for failure actually to attain. For similar reasons,
EPA would not impose the section 173(4} b'an just because an area
subject to section 110 planning requirements had failed to attain.
42
-------
Consistent with this reasoning, EPA believes that a construction

ban imposed for past planning failures should be lifted upon EPA's

approval of a plan that meets the Act's post-1987 requirements.

This means that an aroa that becomes subject to the ban because it

cannot demonstrate attainment of the st^ndarls in the short term

after 1937 could be relieved of the ban 3 (or 5) years befor? the

attainment date in the area's long-term "reasonable efforts" demon-

stration. At that time, the long-term demonstration will effectively

become the short-term demonstration that the Act requires for plan

approval.

C. Promulgations of Federal Plans

1. Comprehensive Plans

-Section 110(c)(l) of the Act states, in pertinent part:

The Administrator shall, after consideration of any
State hearing record, promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations setting forth an implementation plan, or
portion thereof, for a State if --

(A) the State fails to submit an implementation
plan which meets the requirements of this section,

(8) the plan, or any portion thereof, submitted
for such State is determined by the Administrator
not to be in accordance with the requirements of
this section, or

(C) the State fails, within 60 days after notification
by the Administrator or such longer period as he may
prescribe, to revise an implementation plan as required
pursuant to a provision of its plan referred to in subsection
43
-------
The Administrator snail, wit'nin six months after the date
required for submission of such plan (or revision thereof),
promulgate any such regulations unless, prior to such
promulgation, such State has adopted and submitted a plan
(or revision) which the Administrator determines to be in
accordance with the requirements of this section.

On its face, this provision appears to reqjir? EPA to promulgate

comprehensive Federa" plans as soon as a State's initial planning

attempt is found to *'al1 snort. Section 307(d){10) of :ne Act

provides for one potential extension of this period. That provision

states:

Each statutory deadline for promulgation of rules to which this
'subsection applies which requires promulgation less than 5 months
after date of proposal may be extended to not more chan 6 roontiis
after date of proposal by the Administrator upon a determination
that such extension is necessary to afford" the public, and the
Agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.

The promulgation of Federal plans is.listed as one of the actions

subject to subsection (d) of section 307 [see section 307(d)(1)(B)].

If IPA were required to promulgate such a plan within 6 months of

the triggering events set forth in section 110(c)(l) and the

proposed promulgation werj required to occur promptly "after" tne

event triggering a duty to promulgate, the opportunity for the

extension provided by section 307(d)(10) would apply to such promul-

gations. Hore specifically, once EPA proposed a Federal plan

"promptly" after the triggering event, EPA could extend the data

for final promulgation to 6 months from that proposal, even if th.3

resulting promulgation date extended beyond the section 110(c)
»
period of 6 months from that event.
44
-------
Despite this surface reading of sections 110(c)(l) and
307(d)(10), cPA believes that it should interpret the promulgation
time set forth in section 11Q(-:) as not commencing unless and until
the relevant sanctions have had a reasonable opportunity (but have
failed) to induce the State to make reasonable efforts to develop
its own corrective SIP even if that date is substantially later
than the dates described above. The EPA believes that this inter-
pretation best serves the purposes of the Act. As explained below,
this view is grounded in a conflict between the promulgation provision
and the sanctions provisions.
Congress enacted section 110(c) in 1970 as the sole .Tieans tD
ensure that its goal of clean air was not frustrated in the event a
State.defaulted on its planning obligations.. The EPA used its
promulgation authority in the mid-1970's to address the failure of
several States to develop adequate transportation control plans
(TCP's; needed to attain the CO and ozone NAAQS. The EPA promulgated
its own TCP's, wnicn required those States to adopt various trans-
portation control measures (TCM's), and threatened to seek direct
judicial enforcement of the plans. Several of the States challenged
the Administrator's statutory and Constitutional authority to adopt
such measures. Most of the courts agreed with the States and
enjoined EPA's efforts to implement the Federal TCP's. See H.R.
Rep. No. 95294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 236-88 (1977), reprinted in
4 Legislative History at 2753-55, for a discussion of these cases.
45
-------
In reaction to this history of confrontation over EPA's use of
section 110(c), Congress in 1977 adopted amendments to add new sanctions,
including the construction ban, as a means to ensure submittal of
State plans. The report on the House of Representatives bill to
amend the Act (H.R. 6'61; reviewed tne history of EPA's inability
to achieve the statutory objectives through the use of section
110(c) promulgations, and concluded that the wisest course was to
adopt ". . . an approach that is intended to"involve the least possible
intrusion into State affairs consistent with the primary task of
protecting public health." Id. at 4 Leg. Hist. 2755. -In particular,
the report stressed the need to induce States to adopt and implement
their own TCP's voluntarily, noting that, "as a practical matter,
State and local governments are in. a better position than EPA to .
resolve those pollution problem's, which involve millions of motor
vehicles, through inspection and maintenance programs and similar
measures." "H.R. Sep. No. 95-254, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 283 (1977)."
Similarly, the committee report on the Senate bill (S. 252)
stated that the transport.ition control aspects of the bill had been
designed to take into account that ". . . [t]he Federal Government does
not have and will not have the resources to do an effective job of
running the air pollution control programs of the State." S. Rep.
No. 95-127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 10 (1977), reprinted in 3 Legislative
History at 1384-85. The Senate committee noted that "transportation
planning," in particular, "is a local political process" and that
any amendments to the Act should create incentives for local planning
46
-------
and remedy the "lack of local iivolvement in the process." Id. at

3 Leg. Hist. 1412.

Congress thus enacted the Part D sanctions in 1977 specifically

to.create new means of inducing this State and local planning.

Congress f-iiled, however, to amend section llO(c) when it added trie

Part D sanctions. That created an unresolved conflict between the

literal language of section llO(c) and the congressional purpose

sought to be implemented through the new sanction authority. For,

if EPA were required to promulgate a Federal implementation plan

within 6 months of disapproving a plan and imposing the construction

ban, it would rarely be the case that the ban, or any other sanction,

would be in place for sufficient time to achieve the congressional

purpose of inducing the development of adequate State plans.

The EPA believes that it should reconcile the language and purposes

by concluding that it must promulgate a Federal plan only after the

sanctions have had a reasonable opportunity, but have failed, to

induce the State to create or maintain reasonable efforts to create

an adequate corrective SIP. In this way, the sanctions can still

serve as an incentive for State planning rather than merely as a

punishment, and Federal promulgation is reserved for the rare cases

in which, despite the presence or threat of sanctions, the State

still has not responded with adequate planning efforts.^
l°0ne U.S. District Court, however, recently held that the duty to
promulgate arises upon the disapproval of a State plan, regardless
of the usefulness of sanctions in obtaining a better State plan.
McCarthy v. Thomas. D. Ariz., No. CIV-85-344-TUC-1WQB (August 11,
1987).
47
-------
For those new areas for which Federal promulgation is required,

EPA solicits comments on what attainment period would govern EPA's

plans. The short-term period described earlier might apply to such

Federal plans. Alternatively, perhaps EPA cojld promulgat3 a plan wit-

a more suitabls, longer-torm attainment late so long as EPA included

a construction ban of the scope of the section 110(a)(2Kl) ban in

the plan. The EPA would like to receive the public's views on

these and any other options that might be available.

2. Promulgation of Stopgap Measures Pending the Creation of
Adequate~State Plans

The EPA believes tnat it may have ajthority under section

110(c) to promulgate discrete control measures that would apply in

areas that are not making reasonable efforts to submit adequate

plans. These would be "stopgap" measures- that would apply only

during the period before which the State gets its planning back on

an acceptable track. Such measures would produce the incidental

benefit of applying additional pressure, beyond the sanctions, for

the State to adopt adequate plans.

For example, under section 110(a)(5)(B), the Administrator has

the authority to "promulgate, implement, and enforce regulations

under section 110(c} respecting indirect source review programs

which apply only to federally assisted highways, airports, and other

major federally assisted indirect sources and federally owned or

operated indirect sources." Thus, although the highway funding

limitations required by section 176(a) may no longer be available

after an area has received full EPA approval for its Part 0 plan,

48
-------
the indirect source review provided by these authorities offers' an

opportunity for EPA to review projects to ensure that their

construction does not make air quality worse while the State develops

an adequate plan.H Indeed, it is possible that EPA could, under

such a program, declare in effsct a moratorium on fjrt.-ier federal'y

assisted highway and airport construction on the ground that

construction of such facilities could lead to further yruwth in

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) that in turn would exacerbate air

quality problems. Such a ban would be lifted when EPA either

promulgated such a comprehensive plan or determined that the State

was making reasonable efforts toward submitting an adequate plan.

The EPA can imagine other potential stopgap Federal measures

suitable.for such circumstances. For example, EPA might consider

using its authority in section 110(a)(2)(D) to promulgate tightened

'requiraments for new source review during this interim period--e.g.,

subjecting some non-major sources and modifications to a new source

review permitting process similar to that prescribed by section 173

of the Act. The EPA's choice of measures would be guided partly by

the likelihood that the'measure would significantly benefit the

environment without irrationally singling out a particular segment

of the source population.
EPA could not ban the construction of indirect sources of pollution
that are not federally assisted because of the prohibition in
section 110(a)(5)(A) of the Act.
49
-------
The EPA solicits comment on whether it should plan for such
stopgap Federal promulgations.
II. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The EPA has baen reviewing the approved portions of the existing
SIP's for ozona and CO to determine whether the States are carrying
out their plans. The Administrator alerted the relevant State
Governors of this effort oy letter in April 1987. This implementation
review and any consequent decisions to find nonimplementation will
occur on a track parallel to the new round of planning initiated by
this policy.
When EPA believes that a State is not carrying out it; SIP, it
may commence a rulemaking to make a formal finding of nonimplementa-
tion. A final finding that a State is not carrying out its plan
will result automatically in the imposition of the construction
moratorium set forth in section 173(4). That ban will remain in
place until EPA finds through new rulemaking that the State is carrying
out the relevant provisions of its plan.
Although section 175(b) on its face appears to call for an
automatic cutoff of Federal grants for air program grants to a
State that is not implementing its SIP, EPA intends not to use that
sanction where it interferes with the goal of achieving plan
implementation. Since cutting the funds of the State agencies
implementing the State plan can be counterproductive, Congress
probably did not intend such a result in these circumstances.
Finally, in some cases, EPA may choose to use its authority
under section 113 to enforce unfulfilled commitments in a SIP.
50
-------
DISCUSSION OF POLICY ISSUES

Introduction

In determining an area's attainment - status under the ozone standard,

EPA uses air quality data for the most rece.nt 3-year period for which

data are available. This period reflects tne statistical fom of tne

ozone standard itself, which defines a violation ds more than one

expected exceedance of the standard on the average per year. See 40

CFR 50.9 (1986). As of today's proposal, the most recent ozone data

available are from tne 3-year period 1984-1936. By the date of the

final notice, EPA expects to have 1935-1937 data available for use in

deciding which areas are unlikely to attain by the end of 1937.

As a counting basis for the number of areas violating the ozone

standard, EPA intends to group data from air quality monitors according

to a consistent definition of regions. The EPA intends to use the.

larger of the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or the Consolidated

Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) (if one exists), as defined by

the Office of Management and Budget, as the geographical area within

which monitoring sites are grouped for analysis. Sites falling into

separate non-MSA counties will be counted as representative of

discrete areas.

Using these counting conventions, the 1934-1936 data indicate

that 62 areas violated the ozone NAAQS during that period. These

areas are listed in Table A-l of Appendix A. Portions of these areas

are designated nonattainment for ozone under section 107 of the Act.

See 40 CFR Part 31. Almost half of the 62 areas appear to be only
51
-------
marginally nonattaininent li.e., have a current air quality "design

value"12 of 0.13-0.14 parts per million (ppm)].

Witn a few exceptions, all of the major population centers in

the country violate the ozone standard. Nonattainment is most severe

in the Los Angeles arsa and some otner California cities, the "Nortneast

Corridor" (roughly from netropol i tan Washington, O.C., to Portland,

Maine), and the Houston area. The EPA does not expect the larger

cities in these areas to be able to attain the ozone standard without

massive reductions in emissions, particularly to offset growth in

mobile and area sources of those emissions.

For determining whether an area is nonattainment for CO, EPA uses

air quality data from the most recent 2-year period for which data are

available. The standard defines a violation as more than one exceedance

of the prescribed level in a year. [40 CFR 50.3 (1986)] (The EPA

looks at data from the most recent 2-year period to ensure that

attainment shown in one year is supported by data in the second year

and is not merely an aberration.) Table A-2 in Appendix A shows that
12The current air quality "design value" is the ozone level which
represents the degree to which the 0.12 ppm NAAQS is exceeded. Where
3 years of complete data (i.e., at least 75 percent of the days
during the ozone season having valid daily maxima) exist at a site,
the site-specific design value is the fourth highest measured ozone
level during the period. For 2 years of complete data, it is the
third highest, and for 1 year of complete data, it is the second
highest. Most cities had 3 years of complete data. In the case
where there is more than one monitoring site, the design value for
the MSA or CMSA is the highest of the site-specific design values.
52
-------
65 areas violated the CO NAAQS during at least 1 year in the period

1985-1986. Although most of these areas are MSA's (some are non-MSA's),

EPA generally intends to use the CMSA (where one axists) for SIP calls

and planning purposes. By the date of EPA's final policy, EPA expects

to have CO air quality data for 1936 and Tiost of 1937 available for

usa in making decisions on SI? calls.

Nationwide, CO concentrations have generally been declining each

year, largely as a result of the reductions jeing achieved by a combina-

tion of the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and vehicle

inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. The EPA expects that tne

1986-1987 data may indicate that fewer than 65 areas are violating

the CO standard. Because of expected continuing reductions from

these existing programs for the short term, it is possible that only

a limited number of areas will need substantial additional reductions

beyond those programs to attain the standard.

Because EPA uses multiyear periods of data (3 years for ozone, 2

years for CO) for SIP call and redesignation purposes, it is possible

to project which areas will remain in nonattainment during the next

data period by examining only the most recent of the data. For

example, any area with a total of more than three exceedances of the

ozone standard during 1935 and 1986 will be unable to avoid a showing

of nonattainment during the 1985-87 period, since the ozone standard

allows no more than three exceedances during 3 years. Similarly, any

area that measures two or more exceedances of the CO standard in 1986

will be unable to show attainment during the 1986-37 period, since

the CO standard allows no more than one exceedance in any year. 3y

53
-------
this method, EPA has identified in the tables 45 areas for ozone that

will be nonattainnent during the 1985-37 period and 52 areas for CO

that will be nonattainment during the 1936-87 period.

In addition, Appendix A lists areas that nay not attain d-jring

Me 1935-37 period (1986-1937 for CO;, :>ut only if the 1937 data show

nonattainment. These areas are comprised of two categories. The

first are thos.i exceeding the iJAAQS during 1984-35 (1935-1936 for CO),

but not identified on the lists as nonattainment djring the 1985-87

period (1936-1987 for CO). Second are any areas which currently

measure attainment, bjt have recently measured nonattainment (e.g.,

during the 1983-35 period for ozone or 1934-1935 for CO). Any area

showing renewed nonattainment in tne 1985-37-period (1986-1987 for

CO) is likely to.come from one of these two groups. It is also
* . •
possible that areas which have not recently (or never) measured

nonattainment could begin to exceed the standard. However, due to

the size of this potential group, EPA has not chosen to identify

these areas on the tables.

In early 1983, EPA will compile for publication a new list

of areas violating the ozone and CO standards, based on inclusion

of the available 1987 air quality data. Shortly thereafter, and

after EPA takes final action on this policy, EPA will issue a SIP

call to each area on the new list. The SIP calls will trigger the

applicable requirements for submitting an approvable SIP revision.
54
-------
The EPA believes that data collected from the 1935-1937 ozone

seasons will provide an adequate basis for determining whether an

area's existing SIP is adequate to produce attainment by the end of

1937 or shortly thereafter. Plans for areas that projected attainment

oy the end of 19d2, out that werj experiencing viol Jtions during

1985-1937, are probaoly inadequate to assure attainment by any short-

term date, and to assure maintenance thereafter.13 Those jlans hivo

had 5 years beyond the projected attainment date to produce attainment,

but still have failed to do so. For that reason, EPA believes that

it can reasonably presume that those plans need strengthening to

produce attainment in the near term. It is doubtful that tnose

plans will produce sufficient emissions reductions shortly after the

summer 1987 ozone season to shift those areas from nonattainment to

attainment in the short term. While marginal nonattainment extension

areas may be recording fewer ozone standard exceedances, EPA' proposes

to require these areas to prepare SIP revisions demonstrating attainment

and maintenance of the standard. Based on EPA's experience with

withholding SIP calls from marginal nonattainment areas subject to

tne 1932 attainment date, EPA has little confidence that the existing

SIP's for areas that are marginally nonattainment today are adequate
nonextension areas received SIP calls in 1934 or 1935 and submitted
SIP revisions recently. The EPA expects to act on these revisions
over the next several months. The EPA's approval of such a revision
will indicate that EPA may not need to issue a SIP call for such an
area in early 1988. Disapproval, however, will act effectively as a
reaffirmation of the SIP call for such an area.
55
-------
to assure attainment and naintenance in the short term. Should air
quality data for the period 1986-1933 reveal, however, that an area
has attained the air quality standard, the area may be eligible for a
redesignation to attainment or some other form of relief from tha
obligation to submit $ revised SIP according to the schedule described
below, subject to the maintenance requirements of £?A's policies,
including today's proposal. Moreover, if an area with a recently
approved SIP is slated to achieve significant additional emissions
reductions and its SIP projects attainment very soon after 1937, tne
area may be eligible for similar relief regarjing submittal of a
revised SIP. The EPA solicits comments on whether such relief is
appropriate.
•For CO, EPA intends to examine the available 1987 data before .
determining which areas should receive SIP calls in 1988; however,
EPA does not expect that all data through the end of the year will
have been reported by the date of the final policy notice. In some
cases, EPA may rely on the 1935-36 data to determine an area's air
quality status. Similar to the above treatment for ozone, should CO
air quality data for the 1937-88 period reveal that an area has
attained the standard, the area may be eligible for redesignation to
attainment or some other form of relief from the obligation to submit
a revised SIP, subject to the maintenance requirements of EPA's
policies, including today's proposal.
56
-------
I. AFFECTED AREAS

Each area that receives a SIP call will ba subject to the

requirements of EPA's final policy on post-1987 ozone and CO SIP

revision requirements and, tnerefore, will be required to prepare

and submit a revision to its SIP according to the schedule described

in section II of c;iis policy statement, (n addition, EPn proposes to

require that all areas requesting redesignations under section 107 in

the future (i.e., after the date of today's notice) be subject to

the maintenance and redesignation requirements of this policy (see

Section V).

A. Ozone Nonattainment Areas

Where EPA bases the SIP call on violations of the ozone standarj,

the minimum affected area shall be the county in which the violation

was. measured. For an affected county located within an MSA or

within a CMSA, EPA proposes to expand the SIP call to include all

the counties within the MSA or CMSA.14 By definition, a MSA contains

a large urban center together with adjacent communities that have a

high degree of social and economic integration with that population

center. Counties included within an MSA have similar population

densities and percentages of commuters to the urban core and,

hence, large transportation systems and associated vehicular emissions.
r maps showing counties (or, in New England, parts of counties)
contained in MSA's/CMSA's are available from the U.S. Government Printing
Office. Specify "United States Maps, GE-50, No. 84, CMSA's,
PMSA's, and MSA's, 1987."
57
-------
Due to these emissions and emissions from stationary sources located

throughout the MSA/CMSA, EPA believes that attainment of the ozone

standard may not 02 fully realized in these areas unless the State

considers the emissions originating from all tie counties within

tne MSA/CMSA15 in its control strategy. As explained in section-

IV.E., control of MSA/CMSA emissions will also help reduce transport

of ozone or ozone precursors downwind.

Subjecting the entire MSA/CMSA to trie SIP call will not,

however, necessarily require that the State control emissions from

sources located in these outer counties in the same way as it would

if those sources were located within the actual "central" county(ies).

See Section IV.A. for control requirements. Rather, the State r.iay

control these emissions to the extent necessary, provided that, in

accounting for all emissions in.this broader "demonstration area,"

the revised plan will produce progress and attainment according to

the requirements of EPA's policy.

Where a previous SIP has used a planning area (or section 107

designated nonattainment area) larger than the MSA/CMSA, that larger

area should continue to serve as the planning area. For areas

previously found to be rural nonattainment areas under the old
discussed in the section III, EPA intends to require also that the
demonstration reflect emissions fro.n certain large stationary sources
located outside, but within 25 miles of, the MSA/CMSA boundaries. This
"extra-MSA/CMSA" area, however, will not technically be subject to the
SIP call.
defined by the Bureau of the Census, a central county of an MSA
has at least 50 percent of its population living in the urbanized area.
For the New England States this shall mean the central core as also
defined by the Bureau of the Census.
58
-------
policy that are classified as urban (MSA) under today's proposal,

the minimum planning area will be the MSA.

The EPA has historically established fewer requirements for

rural nonattainment areas than for urbanized areas. The air quality

problems of the rural areas oft2n appear ta be caused '.>y t-ie trinspor

of ozone from upwind areas, rather than the generation of emissions

locally. In previously issued guidance (e.g., at 44 FR 20372,

April 4, 1979), EPA stated that it would not require rural areas to

submit a demonstration of attainment but, instead, would call for

such areas only to implement a small set of stationary source

control measures to create growth allowances that would obviate the

need for case-by-case emissions offsets for new source construction.

The EPA is proposing today to change its policy .definition of

"rural areas" from an area with an urbanized population of less than

200,000 to any county outside an MSA. An MSA is generally an

urbanized area with a population of at least 50,000. Some rural

counties adjacent to MSA's have ambient 'nonitors that have currently

recorded violations of the ozone standard. The EPA proposes to

include these rural adjacent counties with monitored violations as

part of the MSA/CMSA planning area and to include them as a part

of the MSA/CMSA SIP call area. The EPA believes that in some parts

of the country these adjacent rural counties may be quite large and

might include areas that are distant from the urban (MSA) ar?a and

are likely not contributing significantly to the nonattainment

problem. The EPA is considering whether the more distant parts of
59
-------
these rural adjacent counties should be Included in the plaining

area for the MSA and invites comment on this issue. In particular,

EPA solicits comment on the need for excluding these more distant

areas from the planning area and on the appropriate critaria (e.g.,

population or emission density, percent of county -jTii scions covered,

other jjrisdictional boundaries) to -iso in -nakimj such an axlusion.

The EPA also proposes to distinguish between "self-generating

isolated rural areas" (those areas that produce or significantly

contribute to local ozone levels), and "nonsel f-goner.itinj isolated

rural areas" (those areas that do not .significantly contribute to

local ozone levels). Each isolaieJ r.jra1. area receiving a SIP call

must submit a denonstration of which classification applies.

Appendix B of this policy discusses the procedures for distinguishing

between the two types of isolated rural areas. A demonstration

that an area is nonself-generating must be accompanied by an identi-

fication^ Of the upwind area or areas within 10 hours travel tine

believed to be causing or contributing significantly to local

nonattainment. The EPA will require these upwind areas to account

for and control, in their demonstrations and control strategies,

their contribution to ozone problems in the isolated rural areas.

In the event an upwind area causing or contributing significantly

to a rural area's nonattainment would not otherwise be subject to a

SIP call, EPA will issue the upwind area such a call and require
i7Isolated rural areas in the Regional Oxidant Model (ROM) domain
(i.e., the Northeast) found to be nonself-generating must delay
identification of upwind areas until the ROM results are available.

60
1
-------
that the plan revision for that area demonstrate attainment in the

rural area.

3. Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Areas

Where a nonattaininent area rriGasjring a violation of the CO

NAAQS is locate! witnin an MSA/ CMSA, trie entire MSA/CMSA ^'ll :>e

subject to a SIP call. If the area measuring CO violations is not

located within an MSA/CMSA, then the county in which the violation

occurs shall be issued the SIP call. States must account for

emissions from sources throughout the SIP call area in developing

the control strategy and attainment demonstration. The EPA will

provide an exception to this requirement for an area affected only

by localized points of traffic congestion, or "hotspot," CO problems

For such an area, EPA will allow the planning area to be reduced to

an area consistent with the scope of the nonattainment problem and

its likely solution, in accordance with modeling requirements

described in section III of this policy.
determination of hotspot problems, see section III.A.
61
-------
II. PLANNING SCHEDULES
A. Basic Schedule for Response to SIP Call
Section 110(c)(i)(C) of the Act indicates that a State's
response to a SIP ca'l snould be submitted within 60 days "or such
longer period as [the Administrator] may prescribe." The EPA believes
that this language -.authorizes t;ie Administrator to prescribe any
additional period for the State response that is reasonable in
light of tne circumstances.
The EPA believes that preparation of effecti'/e ozone and CO plans
(including the air quality analysis, evaluation and selection of
measures, and demonstration of attainment) will require a najor
effort from State and local agencies and officials as well as from
EPA. Air agencies will need to identify and evaluate a number of
control options against various criteria (e.g., emission reduction
potential, cost, and administrative feasibility) and then rely on
State and local decision-making processes to arrive at their final
plans. Since many of the easier, more obvious control measures
have been implemented in the past for botii ozone and CO nonattai nment
areas, EPA believes that development of post-19d7 plans may be
especially difficult and time-consuming. Therefore, EPA is proposing
to allow States a greater amount of time than generally allowed in
the past in which to develop and submit their ozone and CO plans--
specifically, 2 years from the SIP call. This planning period,
however, will not allow States to modify existing planning or
implementation schedules that1 apply to them now. These schedules
will remain in effect until and unless the EPA-approved post-1987

62
-------
SIP (developed in accordance with the provisions of this policy)
modifi2s the schedules.
The EPA Regional Offices will work closely with State and affected
local governments during the preparation of the ozone and CO SIP
revisions to ensure that interim products and activities are completed
on a schedule that will enable the submitt-il deadline to be net.
For example, EPA will raquire States to submit 3 draft emissions
inventory within 12 months of the SIP call to ensure that adequate
progress is being inade to develop the inventories consistent with
national guidance. In addition, within 6 months after the SIP
call, the State must review with EPA its schedules, commitments,
and any progress in the development and adoption processes regarding
SIP rule discrepancies and inconsistencies, previously required
measures (e.g., rules for sources covered by CTG's), and anticipated
measures for satisfying emission reduction requirements, particularly
where those measures will require extra time for development and
adoption.
Also, to ensure that the State and local governments give high
priority to the development of the SIP, the Governor, after
consultation with principal elected officials of each local government
in the affected area, must submit within 3 months of the SIP call a
written commitment to develop a SIP revision in accordance with
this policy.
63
-------
8. Schedules For Special Situations

The proposed policy will provide all States 2 years in which

to develop and submit their ozone and CO plan revisions. Although

EPA has identified two situations (described below) in whicn additions'

time nay be needed to de/?lop a refined SI? call response, EPA

proposes to require areas in these situations still to submit an

initial (2-year) revision tnat is as complete as Feasible. In

addition, a State must review with EPA within 1 year after the SIP

call its expected need for additional time to complete development

of the SIP in accordance with the two situations described below.

The State should clearly demonstrate why tho complete submittal

cannot be made within 2 years. For example, areas expecting to

need long-term measures (see discussion below) would have tp identify

those measures within 1 year so that EPA could concur that additional

time was justified for development and adoption of the measures.15
two situations described in the text below do not include
areas involved in the analysis of ozone transport in the Northeast
(see IV.E. "Transport Considerations"). These areas will not have
the results of the ROM analysis until well after the 2-year submittal
deadline. The EPA believes, however, that currently available
models and methodologies will be adequate to enable these areas to
estimate transport effects as well as impacts from their own sources
before the ROM results are available. Control requirements can
thus be determined and included in the 2-year plan submittal based
on these analyses. Once the ROM analysis is completed, these plans
can be revised to the extent necessary to incorporate additional
controls to reduce downwind impacts. The EPA expects the plans to
be revised expeditiously after the ROM results are available upon
completion of the ROM analysis. The EPA will work with States in
determining schedules for revising their SIP's upon completion of
the ROM analysis but expects all revisions to be accomplished and
submitted within 5 years of the date of the SIP call.
64
-------
1. Isolated Rural Areas20

Some rural areas may not have or may not be abls to

produce within the 2-year planning period sufficient air quality

monitoring data to determine whether their nonattainment problems

are caused predominantly by emissions in upwind ar^as or their own

emissions. This determination (i.e., whether the area i-i self-

generating or not) will have a significant effect on the requirements

for an area.

If the area does not have sufficient air quality monitoring

data at the time of the SIP call, the State must develop such data

as exp'edi tiously as possible. The EPA realizes, however, that

sufficient data may not be able to be produced in time to determine

if the area Is self-generating and to develop and adopt the appropriate

measures (should additional measures be required) within the 2

years allowed for the SIP submittal.

Therefore, in these areas, EPA proposes to require that only

the minimum control requirements described later in this notice be

included in the SIP revision due 2 years from the SIP call. (See

section IV.A. for the specific requirements for the different

types of rural areas.) The initial SIP must also contain a schedule

for completing the air quality monitoring, self-generation determination
20Defined as any county experiencing ozone violations and not within
or adjacent to an MSA or CMSA. Requirements For counties that
experience ozone violations and are adjacent to an MSA are discussed
above in I.A., "Ozone Nonattainment Areas" and discussed later in
this notice.
65
-------
and modeling analysis, and a schedule for developing and adopting

additional measures the modeling shows are needed.

The EPA expects the air quality monitoring and data analysis

to be concluded expecitiously so that further planning can be

conducted. The additional required planning after the monitoring

and data analysis (including the development and adoption of measures)

must be completed no later than 1 year from tne date the initial

SIP revision was due. For areas found to be nonself-generating,

the second SIP submittal must summarize the air quality analysis

and identify which upwind areas are responsible for the ozone

violations in this area.21 The plan revisions for the upwind araa(s)

must be revised to provide for expeditious attainment in the downwind

area. The EPA assumes that the determination that an isolated

rural area is nonself-generating will be made soon after the initial

submittal due date so that the upwind area can be notified and can

revise its SIP expeditiously. The EPA will work with upwind areas

to identify an appropriate timefrarne for revising their SIP's; however,

the SIP revision for the upwind area to account for nonattainmerit

in the downwind nonself-generating area will be due no later than 1

year from the 2-year submittal date.22
2lAreas that are found to be nonself-generating and that are in the
ROM domain (see section IV.E.) cannot make an acceptable determination
of the responsible upwind area(s) until the ROM results are available.

22Qf course, in some cases, the upwind areas will already have begun
revising their SIP's because of their own nonattainment problems and
may already be accounting adequately in their revisions for effects
on all downwind areas.
66
-------
If the air quality monitoring shows that the area is self-

generating, EPA expects the State to submit expeditiously a SIP

satisfying the requiraments for such areas. The EPA will work with

the State to establish an expeditious time frame for submittal,

extending no mor<_' than 1 year from the 2-year submittal date.

Some isolated rural areas may already have sufficient air quality

monitoring data to determine whether they .are self-generating.

Knowing whether they are self-generating will determine the applicable

requirements for these areas, as described later in this notice,

within the initial 2-year planning period. These areas generally

must submit their complete SIP revisions within 2 years of the SIP

call.

2. Areas Needing Long-term Measures

Some areas requiring large emission reductions may

need to adopt nontraditional measures in order to demonstrate

attainment. Some of these measures may require complex planning or

review and may be subject to adoption processes that cannot be

completed within the 2 years between the SIP call and the generally

applicable SIP revision due date. These measures would be those

that require multiple approvals and/or planning and engineering

studies before such approvals can be obtained. For example, most

stationary source controls [such as control technique quideline

(CTG) reasonably available control technology (RACT) regulations]

would involve adoption primarily by the State and implementation

over a relatively short time period. On the other hand, certain
67
-------
transportation control measures (such as a major mass transit
system) would likely require preliminary design studies before
being adopted by the affected government Bodies, which could include
a number of local, regional, State, and Federal agencies and officials.
In addition, some measures may b2 controversial and unfamiliar in
the affected area and may require extensive public awareness and
involvement processes before adoption,of ^he measure can occur.
Examples of these measures include programs to alter vehicle use
patterns (e.g., alternate drive-day programs) and measures to
regulate residential emission sources (e.g., household products,
lawn mowers). The EPA generally regards tnese types of measures as
long-term measures more because of the difficulty and time require-
ments associated with planning and adopting the measures, not the
time needed to implement them. The EPA recognizes, however, that
some long-term measures likely will also require considerable time
for implementation.
Even if an area needs long-term measures, the initial submittal
(due in 2 years) for the area must include the demonstration of
attainment, an identification of long-term measures (with expected
emission reduction benefits along with a description and commitment
to the process and schedule to complete all planning, review, and
decision steps leading to adoption of those measures), and full
adoption of all other measures. The EPA believes that up-front
commitments to adopt these long-term measures are needed to ensure
that the SIP submittal represents a complete control strategy for
63
-------
the area. The EPA recognizes that during the development and
adoption process for these long-term and somewhat complex measures,
strategy options may need to change. Therefore, EPA will allow the
State to substitute measures for these long-term measures, as long
as the substitute measures would produce comparable emission reducti
and are adequately adopted within the time period allowed for the
second SIP submittat. The State must complete full adoption of and
submit the long-term measures expeditiously, hut no later than 3
years from the due date for the initial SIP. The EPA Regional
Offices will work with States needing long-term measures to develop
expeditious schedules for completing the necessary planning and
adoption activities.
In general, EPA expects these areas to consider first both
traditional and nontradit.ional measures which can be developed and
adopted within the 2-year initial planning period before adding
long-term measures to the control strategy. The EPA expects to
provide guidance concerning long-term measures, particularly with
regard to the types of measures for which less than complete adoption
by the 2-ycar submittal will oe allowed, what types of areas will
likely need long-term measures (and, therefore, additional time for
the complete adoption of all measures) and what information and
commitments will be required in the 2-year submittal. (See
Section IV.C.4, "Requirements for Adoption of Transportation-Related
Control Measures.")
69
-------
III. MODELED DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT
As described above, EPA bel i eves* that the Act requires all SIP's
to contain control measures demonstrated to result in attainment of
the ozone and CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but by a
data certain. The EPA historically has required that States demon-
strate attainment throujn the use of computer models that predict
the effects of emission reductions on amoient pollutant concentrations
The EPA recognizes that the use of modeling and node! data bases
for ozone and CO in the past for various reasons has led to imperfect
predictions of attainment. However, EPA continues to believe that
modeled attainment demonstrations that are assembled with reasonable
care and are consistent with EPA guidance can provide a rational
basis for EPA's determinations of whether SIP's "provide for"
timely attainment, within the meaning of sections 172 and 110 of
the Act. As a result, EPA intends to continue its reliance on
modeling analysis in the post-1987 round of air quality planning as
modified by subsequent experience.
The proposed Policy Statement near the end of today's notice
explains in detail EPA's proposed requirements for assembling
adequate modeling demonstrations. A brief summary of the more
notable aspects of those requirements appears below.
A. Model s
1. Ozone
Determination of the reduction in VOC's or NOX needed
to attain the ozone NAAQS may be made using one of two modeling
70
-------
approaches. The preferred model is the Urban Airshed Model ('JAM),

a photochemical grid model. The second acceptable approach is the

use of the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach (EKMA), wnich is

less costly to rjn than UAM.

The UAM has greater potential than EKMA for evaluating trie

details of ozone control strategies, primarily because this ^odel

considers meteorology in greater detail and can relate emissions

directly to ambient ozone concentrations. This model can take into

account wind fields, dispersion, and relative position of sources

in addition to atmospheric chemistry.

At a minimum, all areas must jse a model with the accuracy of

the city-specific EKMA. The inability of simpler models to account

adequately for chemical kinetics and meteorological processes

reduces their ability to represent local conditions accurately.

Accordingly, EPA will not approve plans based on attainment demon-

strations that rely on linear or proportional rollback techniques.

Also, EPA proposes not to allow States to rely on the wind trajectory

analysis, known previously as Level II, because of the poor performance

of that approach in the past. The EPA has revised its guidance to

be more explicit with regard to the use of wind data in EKMA. The

EPA is also issuing new guidance which includes updated methods for

estimating future ozone, nonmethane organic compound, and nitrogen

oxide transport levels for use in EKMA. These changes should

result in less optimistic assumptions concerning reductions of

transported ozone than provided under the previous guidance.
71
-------
Use of a model other than EKMA or Urban Airshed must be approved
by EPA prior to a commitment by the State to its use. Since the
UAM requires more time and resources than EKMA, EPA does not expect
many areas initially to choose the UAM approach. Those areas
expecting to perform Urban Airshed modeling should be awary that
EPA will not allow States to delay the initial submittal of attainment
demonstrations just oecause of time or resource complications
resulting from the use of this model. {However, an ar«?a may update
its attainment demonstration in subsequent years with more accurate
or complete information.) Areas expecting to perforn Urban Airshed
modeling should begin early to acquire the necessary data bases so
that the demonstration can be submitted on time.
2. Carbon Monoxide
The EPA presumes that most CO problems, especially
those of a long-term nature, are not merely a collection of "hotspots,"
but are either areawide (needing areawide control measures) or are
caused primarily by an underlying areawide problem. In particular,
EPA believes that larger metropolitan areas with high volumes of
traffic, high traffic densities, or many closely-spaced congested
intersections will typically have an areawide problem, even though
isolated hotspots may also contribute to violations in such areas.
In contrast, EPA believes that true "hotspots" lacking any significant
areawide contribution are generally characterized by a limited
number of isolated points of traffic congestion-(i .e., widely-spaced
congested intersections, high-volume traffic generators such as
72
-------
shopping centers, etc.) found typically in areas with relatively
low population. In these areas, removal of the cause of congestion
would, by itself, eliminate the CO violation at the hotspot. Given
the absence of an areawide contribution, solutions for such hotspot$
generally should not involve long-term measures, since short-tjrm,
localized measures are typically availabls. The EPA relieves that
States can solve such CO hotspot problems with tne application of
short-term measures {within 3 years of the date EPA approved the SIP).
The choice of models depends on classification of tne problem
as either areawide or hotspot, or both. If, after using the above
criteria, the State believes that a problem should preliminarily se
characterized as a hotspot (or small collection of hotspots) without
an areawide problem, it should first define an area around the
hotspot which contains sources contributing emissions seen by the
hotspot monitor (or the model receptor if a hotspot modeling analysis
was used). Then, other likely hotspots in the remaining portions
of the county should be analyzed through monitoring and modeling to
confirm whether they are indeed hotspots. Due to the localized
nature of hotspots, EPA believes that hotspot control measures
(e.g., traffic flow improvements, intersection or corridor modifica-
tions, etc.) can be implemented in the short term (i.e., not later
than 3 years after EPA approved the SIP). Hotspot problems requiring
longer time periods for correction will be presumed to require
areawide measures (e.g., enhanced I/M, VMT reduction measures).
Where both short-term hotspot controls and areawide controls
73
-------
are applied, the State should perform both hotspot and areawide

modeling. The datailed requirements for performing the necessary

modeling analyses appear in the proposed Policy Statement and

associated guidance.

3• Data Requirements

1. p_zp_ne

a< te og_r a ph_i c_ A _r_eia for Em is si or^ I n v e n to ry.

The EPA believes that the geographic scope of

the demonstration areas used in the past has been either too narrow

or inconsistent from State to State. To remedy this situation, EPA

proposes, in most cases, to standardize the demonstration are.i for

all emission sources as, at a minimum, the boundary of the MSA or

the CMSA (if one exists). The detailed requirements relating to

emission inventories in these areas appear in the proposed Policy

Statement and associated guidance.

The EPA also believes that major sources of VOC's, CO, and NOX

(greater than or equal to 100 tons per year potential to emit23)

outside but near the MSA/CMSA boundary may contribute to exceedances

of the NAAQS in the SIP call area. For this reason, EPA proposes

to require that States include emissions from such major stationary

sources located within 25 miles24 Of the MSA/CMSA boundary in the
23As defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a).
25-mile distance is based on the maximum distance downwind of
urbanized areas recommended for location of ozone monitors (see
Appendix I).
74
-------
demonstration area inventory, even if the 25-mile distance extends

into another State or MSA/CMSA.

Where the 25-mile band for two MSA's receiving SIP calls would

overlap, it would be appropriate for the two metropolitan areas to

include the sane sources in their baseline inventories. In other

cases, sources may be within 25 miles of mor-j than one MSA/CMSA.

These results are not inconsistent with the goal of broadening

planning boundaries, because large sources may contribute to ozone

concentrations in one MSA on one 'Jay and a different MSA on another

day. In those instances where a major source is within 25 miles of

an MSA/CMSA but resides in an adjacent State, EPA intends to rsly

on the thrust of section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act to call on adjacent

States to provide such information to neighboring States. If.

necessary, EPA may issue SIP calls to States failing to provide the

requi red data.

If monitoring sites which exceed the ozone MAAQS are located

in non-MSA counties adjacent to an MSA/CMSA, EPA will presume that

such counties should be treated as extensions of the MSA/CMSA for

planning purposes. Such adjacent non-MSA counties should inventory

sources as if they were part of the defined MSA/CMSA, except that

the 25-mile planning guideline does not apply. For isolated non-MSA's

(i.e., rural areas not adjacent to an MSA), the baseline inventory

should include at a minimum all sources within the county containing

the site which exceeds the NAAQS.
75
-------
b. Air Qua11ty Data.
Data requi r^ents for ozone modeling are set forth
in the proposed Policy Statement near the end of today's notice. A
discussion of these data requirements, as v;el 1 as ozone modeling-
procedures, is contained in Appendix I, "Modeling Procedures and
Data Base Requirements to Support Post-1937 Ozone Policy." These
requirements and procedures are intended to replace those published
in the November 14, 1979, Federal Register (44 FR 65667) "Data
Collection for 1932 Ozone SIP's."
2. Carbon Monox i de
Depending on the modeliig requirements, the geographic
coverage of the CO inventory may b3 as broad as the MSA/CMSA or as
limited as a central business district (CBD) .traffic corridor or
other demonstrated hotspot problem. The EPA proposes to require
that cities with areawide CO problems include within their emissions
inventory at a minimum all sources within the MSA/CMSA. Areas that
can demonstrate (using the procedure in section II I.A) that their
CO problem is limited to a few hotspots in the CBD and that the
solutions to those hotspot problems lie in solely short-term,
localized control measures rather than areawide measures may limit
the geographic coverage of their inventories as appropriate, with
approval of the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
76
-------
C. RequlrementsforEmission BaselInes and Projections
1. BaselInes
Base year emissions must represent emissions which
contributed to ozone exceedances during the 3- or 4-year period of
air quality data jsed in the modeling. Therefore, it must represent
typical ozone season weekday emission levels which existed during
tnat period. Uhere possible, baseline inventories should be prepaid
for a 1987 base year. Base year emissions must reflect actual conditions,
defined as the estimated typical emission factor (emissions per unit
of production) multiplied by the typical weekday production rate
and hours of operation.
If emissions changed significantly from one year to the next,
during the 3- or 4-year period of air quality data .used in the
modeling, it may be necessary to select more than 1 year's emissions
as representative of the base period. In this case, attainment
emissions levels should be calculated by applying the modeled
percent reduction for each year of air quality data in the base
period to the corresponding year's emissions. Then, the overall
attainment emissions level is the fourth highest'2^ of these levels
as opposed to the fourth highest percent reduction if a single base
year inventory is used. (Current practice allows modeling only the
years after the emissions changed, thus excluding the previous data
2^Assuming 3 years of complete data. If fewer than 3 years of complete
data exist, then the third or the second highest attainment level must
be used.
77
-------
from consideration. The EPA proposes not to allow this practice in
the future.
Base year inventories for ozone in the entire MSA/CMSA as well
as non-MSA counties that are adjacent to an MSA and exceeding tha
NAAQS shall individually list all VOC sources with a potential to
emit at least 10 tons per year and CO and NOX sources wit'i -i potential
to emit at least 100 tons per year. Sources with emissions below
these amounts may be aggregated by source category. For the 25-mil-j
band around the MSA/CMSA, VOC, CO and NOx sources with a potential
to emit at least 100 tons per year shall be listed individually.
Base year inventories for sources affected by existing regulations
must also reflect appropriate effectiveness levels, as described
below. .
2. Credit for Rule Effectiveness
a. Ozone:
The EPA believes that one reason ozone levels have
not declined as much as expected is that reductions from national
and local control measures have not been as high as expected. Past
SIP's have assumed that implemented rules would be fully effective
in practice, and would achieve all of the required or planned
emission reductions. Based on past experience, however, EPA now
does not believe that rules are fully effective across all sources,
all source categories, and over time. Limited studies in California
indicate that the effectiveness (i.e., the ratio of actual reductions
to expected reductions expressed as a percentage) of some rules, is
much lower than 100 percent.
78
-------
Section 110(a)(2)(8) of the Act requires that SIP's include
measures "as necessary to ensure attainment and maintenance" of the
"IAAQS. The EPA believes this provision requires that plans should
attempt to provide a high degree of confidence that attainment will
in fact be achieved through implementation of tie adopted meas^re-i
and commitments.
Elsewhere in this policy, under tne section entitled "Maximizing
Effectiveness," EPA is proposing to require States to assess existing
rules and take appropriate corrective action, including SIP revisions
to those rules, to improve their effectiveness. The EPA expects
that States will meet these requirements and that the effectiveness
of both existing and future rules .will improve as a result.
The-EPA does not believe, however, that it is appropriate to
continue the past practice of assuming in the attainment demonstrations
that either existing rules with future compliance dates or future
rules will be fully effective, unless such effectiveness has been
adequately demonstrated. Therefore, for both new and existing
rules, EPA proposes t.o allow States to assume not '"nora than 30
percent of full effectiveness unless higher levels are adequately
demonstrated, as described in the policy. The EPA recognizes that,
to date, States have performed few rule-effectiveness evaluations
quantifying the amount of reduction actually achieved from various
rules. The EPA also recognizes that an assumed effectiveness
percentage cannot ful-ly represent the effectiveness of all rules
and all source categories in all cities. Yet, EPA believes it is
79
-------
important to establish a consistent planning guideline for use
until sufficient data become available to justify a different
effectiveness 12vel. The assumption of 30 percent effectiveness
represents EPA's judgment that most rules are not achieving the
full credit which has be•-••". assumed in previous SIP's, hut that ,\
combination of improved auditing and enforcement (see section '/! of
the policy) should produce a relatively high level of effectiveness,
perhaps comparable to full compliance in at least four out of five
sources. However, because some rules may in practice achieve less
than 80 percent, EPA expects States to implement the requirements
for improving the effectiveness of existing rules, as described in
this proposal under "Maximizing Effectiveness of Existing Program,"
(see section VI) including any programs for futura corrective
actions. The EPA anticipates that implementation of these require-
ments will also improve the effectiveness of future rules, due to
improved enforcement and training, and elimination of ambiguities
and deviations from EPA policy.
The EPA expects that reductions will se achieved as a result
of corrective actions from rule effectiveness evaluations. However,
since neither the amount of this reduction nor t'-ie effectiveness
level of the rule will be known, EPA will not allow States to assume
in their base year inventory that existing control measures are
more than 80 percent effective prior to the evaluation. If evaluations
have been performed for existing sources, the base year inventories
of such sources must reflect the effectiveness level determined by
80
-------
the evaluation. Additional requirements for determining effectiveness
credit for now and existing rules appear in the proposed Policy
Statement near the end of today's notice.
b. Carbon Monoxide:
As for ozone, EPA will allow States t:) assume
effectiveness levels of more the 30 percent in their CO SIP's only
if supported by evaluations meeting EPA criteria. Requirements !"or
determining effectiveness credit for I/M programs and transportation
control measures (TCM's) appear in the proposed Policy Statement
and in associated guidance.
3. Projections
The demonstration must project all amissJon reductions
occurring by, or in, the year- in which attainment is projected to
occur. If attainment is projected to occur more than 3 years from
the base year, the demonstration must project reductions occurring
within every intervening 3-year period prior to attainment for all
sources in the inventory. Areas subject to requirements for interim
progress [e.g., to avoid discretionary sanctions or to obtain a
2-year extension under section 110(e)] must make the first interim
projection for 5 years (rather than 3 years) after the base year.
These areas should then make 3-year interim emission reduction
projections starting from the initial 5-year projection and extending
to the attainment date.
Additional requirements for projecting emissions appear in the
proposed Policy Statement.
81
-------
IV. REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL STRATEGY
Introduction
Once the State has determined the percent reduction needed to
attain the NAAQS and the associated necessary reduction in baseline
emissions, it nust identify control measjres that will meet tnis
requirement, and will result in attainment as expediti ously as
practicable and by a date certain. Implement at ion of existing and
proposed national measures by EPA and affected industries will aid
States in meeting the control targets. In the past, due to the
imprecision inherent in control targets for ozone, EPA has required
minimum reasonably available levels of control on certain types of
VOC sources. This policy does not alter those requirements. The
EPA proposes to require that, any of these requirements which may
not have already been implemented, be implemented expeditiously but
not later than the end of 1992.
Beyond the national measures and the required State measures,
EPA is proposing to require minimum rates of locally prescribed
emission reductions for all areas except those with a truly marginal
nonattainment problem. Areas subject to this progress requirement
cannot rely on the Federal measures or any previously required
State measure in determining compliance with the minimum rate of
progress.
Areas that can demonstrate attainment in the short term will be
required to demonstrate maintenance for up to 10 years from the SIP
due date.
82
-------
A. Federally-Implemented Measures, Federal ly-Prescnbjd Measures, •
and Technjcal Support

To assist States in achieving the required emission reductions,

EPA is evaluating the need for additional Federal support on emission

control technology. Four levels of support that could be provided

are 1isted below:

- Federal !y-inpl ementJ-1 .neasures {e.g., Federal regulation

of gasoline refueling emissions, regulations for hazardous

waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities)

- Federally-prescribed measures for stationary sources (e.g.,

CTG document's that contain presumptive levels of '
-------
barriers make it difficult for individual States to deal with an
industry in a perceived fashion.
The EPA solicits comments on the need for additional Federal -
support, the criteria for selecting which level of support is
appropriate, and the source categories that should be included in
each level. The EPA is aiso interested in comment on what forms
of techical support ire most desirable. Sone source CritDories
that may be candidates for additional Federal support are listed in
Table C-l of Appendix C. Additional discussion of the four levels
of Federal support is contained in the following section.
1. Federal ly-Impl ernented Measures
The EPA believes that su:ne categories of emissions
should be controlled through regulations adopted at the national
level. The EPA's .current or planned regulations for these emission
categories are described below. These measures will reduce emissions
in areas that are experiencing ozone or CO violations.
a. Regulation of Evaporative Emissions from Fuels
Evaporative VOC emissions from gasoline-fueled
vehicles occur when gasoline vapors expand in the fuel tank and
when residual engine heat causes evaporation of fuel remaining in
the carburetor and fuel lines. These emissions are dependent on
the volatility, measured in part as the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP),
of the fuels involved. The EPA issued a comprehensive technical
study in November 1985 of various alternatives for controlling
evaporative emissions and has reviewed comments on that study.
84
-------
Among other things, the study shows that the volatility of fuels in

use has edged significantly higher than the volatility of fuels

•jsed during vehicle certification under EPA's Title II regulations.

As a consequence, evaporative emissions from vehicles operating on

co;rmercial fjels are well above EPA's certification standards.

To address this problem, EPA is considering limits on volatility

of in-use fuels in order to reduce 'jvaporative VOC emissions. The

EPA has published a notice of proposed rulemaking and is soliciting

comment on all relevant issues, including the technical feasibility

and cost of its proposal and alternative control methods [see 52

FR 31274 (August 19, 1937)].26

b. Refueling Emissions

Ozo-ne attainment demonstrations that States have

submitted In the past reveal that emissions from the refueling of

motor vehicles at service stations account for a significant fraction
EPA is aware that several northeastern States are examining
whether to adopt regulations limiting the volatility of fuels used
within those States prior to any final action by EPA to control
fuel volatility. While the Agency generally encourages States with
persistent nonattainment problems to consider all possible means to
bring about attainment, the selection of measures affecting fuel
content may, under section 211{c)(4) of the Act, require an analysis
of such Issues as whether the State action has been preempted by
Federal action and, if so, whether the State action is necessary to
attain the relevant standard. The EPA intends to address these
issues in future FEDERAL REGISTER notices.
35
-------
of VOC emissions inventories. The £PA recently proposed regulations
to achieve the control of emissions from vehicle refueling through
the use of "on-board" control technology (see 52 FR 31162, August 19,
1987).
Twelve local areas ii California, as well as the District of
Columbia, have already implemented regulations to achieve the
reduction of refueling emissions tnrough the use of alternative
means, namely, equipment at service stations that capture the vapor
during vehicle refueling (Stage [I vapor recovery). The State of
Missouri has already begun to implement a Stage II program for the
St. Louis area, and projects that it would result in a sizeable
reduction (about 3 percent) in the area's emissions inventory.
Also, both New-York and New Jersey included in their approved ozone
SIP's, legally enforceable commitments to adopt a Stage II program.
In its recent regulatory proposal concerning onboard controls",
EPA stated that it is considering onboard vehicle control as the
preferred national strategy to limit motor vehicle refueling emissions.
It should be noted that choosing a refueling control strategy
presents an unusual issue in that one control measure (Stage II)
could be employed and eventually replaced by a more effective
alternative (onboard).
The EPA is soliciting comments on all relevant issues involving
technical feasibility and the cost of alternative control methods.
Pursuant to section 202(a)(6) of the Act, EPA must consult
with the Secretary of Transportation with respect to motor vehicle
safety before promulgating a requirement for onboard technology.
36
-------
Because of the statutory significance attached to this consultation,

EPA will reopen the record on that rulemaking (onboard) when the

EPA receives comments from the Secretary of Transportation and will

repropose the rule to assess changed circumstances.

The EPA believes that the decision as to whether States must

implement Stage II controls for t'ne interim period before onboard

controls become fully effective should depend on the extent to

which States have already planned for and implemented Stage II.

Accordingly, in areas where Stage II has already been installed, or

is in the process of being installed, the State must continue to

install and use these systems while onboard controls are phased in.

In these circumstances, the continued use of existing Stage II

would provide interim environmental benefi-ts at a reasonable additional

cost. Such areas could, however, phase out these systems as onboard

is phased in. Such changes, of course, would need to be incorporated

in revisions to the applicable SIP. Areas that have not begun

implementation of Stage II controls, but whose SIP's contain commit-

ments to do so, should proceed with implementation since those

areas and EPA have already relied on those reductions to produce

progress toward eventual attainment. In other nonattainment areas,

interim Stage II controls would remain a control measure that

States could consider including as a part of the area's overall

ozone attainment strategy, as discussed in section IV.B.
87
-------
c. New Standards for Hydrocarbon Emissi ons From
Li gnt-Duty Trucks
The EPA recently published an advance notice
informing the public that EPA is contemplating various new rulemakings
related to motor vehicle emissions standards and regulations [sao
51 FR 32032 '(September 3, 1936}]. The EPA stated in that notice
that it is evaluating, among other things, more stringent hydrocarbon
exhaust emission standards for light-djty tr-jcks generally and for
light- and heavy-duty trucks at higher altitudes. Reducing hydrocarbon
emissions from these vehicles could contribute significantly to
reductions in ozone concentrations in nonattainment areas.
d. FMVCP
The FMVCP consists of a set of measures carried
but at the national level that are-intended to assure that mobile
sources are designed and durably built in accordance with, the
emission reduction goals set out in the Act.
Prjor to production, prototype vehicles are tested over a 50,000-
mile cycle, and manufactjrers receive a certificate of conformity
with emission standards. Vehicles are also randomly sampled from
assembly lines to assure that the manufacturing process conforms
with design specifications. Finally, there are provisions for
recalling classes of vehicles with common defects, and warranty
protection for individual vehicle owners where emission controls
fail within a vehicle's useful life.
88
-------
The FMVCP will continue to provide additional VOC and CO

reductions in the near term, as the vehicle fleet turns over. The

EPA will continue to provide guidance on now States should calculate

the emission reductions to be achieved by the FMVCP over the next

several years so that States may rely on these reductions in their

attainment demonstrations.

e. Hazardous Waste TSDF

The EPA is investigating the magnitjde of area source

(noncombustion) emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage,

and disposal facilities (TSDF) [Facilities penrri Ued under subtitle C

of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)j. Where

warranted, air regulations will be issued 'under the RCRA or the Clean

Air Act. There are seven potential air emission sources at TSQF:

surface impoundments, landfills, wastewater treatment tanks, waste

piles, land treatment, pretreatment facilities, and transfer operations.

Pollutants being considered include VOC, particulate matter, and a

range of specific toxic substances. Preliminary analysis indicates

that TSDF air emissions are sufficient to warrant regulation and

that emissions of VOC are particularly significant.

The TSDF rules are being developed in different stages. On

February 5, 1987 (52 FR 3743), a rule was proposed covering VOC and

toxic emissions from waste solvent treatment facilities and fugitive

emissions from equipment leaks. This proposed rule was developed

in concert with the land ban rules being developed under RCRA. The

proposed rule addresses so,rne new sources of air pollution that are
39
-------
expected as industry develops naw traatment technologies in response
to the land ban rule. The next stage of regulation will be the
comprehensive rules covering all seven types of area sources in
TSDF. These rules are currently under development.
f. Mun i c i pal Landf 111 _s
Uncontrolled municipal landfills emit VOC and
toxic pollutants due to migration to the surface of organics contained
in the waste or generated during the decay process. Current control
techniques consist of underground organic collection and combustion
systems. The EPA is currently exploring regulatory options under
the Act for controlling these emissions.
g. Additional National Measures
The EPA will evaluate additional potential
national measures to be federally implemented and will consider
whether to commence rulemaking to implement them. Such measures
could include regulations to control emissions from certain consumer
products. Such consumer products may be appropriate areas for
national regulation since they are marketed across State lines and
are pervasive throughout society, so that it may be difficult for a
local area to regulate them without interfering with interstate
commerce. National regulation of manufacture or distribution may
be more practical than local control for such products. National
regulations in this area could be advantageous to industry also,
since nationwide distributors of products would have to deal with a
much smaller number of regulations applying to their products than
90
-------
if each local area were to adopt its own regulations. The EPA
solicits comment on whether it should pursue such regulations and
whether EPA has sufficient authority (e.g., under section 301 of
the Clean Air Act or other statutes) to promulgate them.
2. Federa 11 yP r escr 1_bed fleasures
Numerous control measures have been federally prescribed
and adopted as part of previous EPA-approved SIP revisions.
Continuing current policy, the EPA requires that these measures
remain in effect while the area is violating the "JAAQS and until
such time as the measures are modified in accordance with established
SIP revision procedures. This requirement also applies to previous
regulations not specifically required under today's proposed policy,
for example, where pre-1937 rural nonattainment areas were required
to implement Group I and II CTG's for major sources, but which are
now adjacent non-MSA's and have no new control requiraments. In
particular, EPA believes that nonattaining areas in the Northeast
"corridor" should maintain previously adopted and EPA-approved
regulations since many areas in this region could eventually need
to employ minimum or additional control measures to solve the
Northeast transport problem.
a. Stationary Source Measures
Because of the relative imprecision of such ozone
databases and modeling techniques as city-specific EKMA, EPA historically
has required most areas to include in their control strategies
certain stationary source control measures that EPA believes are
91
-------
reasonably available, and necessary to ensure that the SIP "provides
for" attainment of the ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable.
See section 110(a)(2)(A) and (8) and section 172(a). The EPA
proposes to continue this requirement.
In the past, the volume of minimum control requirements 'nat
EPA has thought necessary to assure attainment in an area has
turned on whether the area is urban or rural. Consistent with
today's proposal to require new attainment demonstrations for
self-generating rural areas, EPA intends to apply to such areas
certain minimum control requirements applicable already tj jrban
areas. Nonself-generating rural areas would remain subject only to
a subset of those requirements. These different sets of measures
are described below.
i. Urban Areas and Self-generating Rural Areas
In EPA's guidance of April 11, 1979 (44 FR
20372), EPA required all urban ozone nonattainment areas to include
in their Part D SIP's regulations to apply RACT to sources falling
into the categories covered by the first two sets of CTG's that
were issued at the time.
In EPA's January 1981 guidance on the requirements for extension
area plans, EPA required extension areas to supplement the first
two sets of RACT rules with RACT rules for the categories covered
by the third set of CTG's as well as for sources with the potential
to emit 100 tons per year or more uncontrolled but not falling
within any CTG category. In EPA's January 1984 guidance, EPA
92
-------
extended these requirements for extension areas to certain nonextansion

areas receiving SIP calls. This policy will not alter these require-

ments. If not already implemented, these measures should be imple-

mented expeditiously,, but not later than the end of 1992. The 1992

date would provide for the most complex cases to develop and a:Jo.)t

regulations within a year and would provide up to 3 years for

compliance with the regulations. However, in many cas^s, ~PA

expects implementation of these regulations within a shorter period

of time to be feasible.

The EPA now proposes to require all urban areas r •;!••; eiving

post-1987 SIP calls for ozone, whether they are extension or nonextension

areas for purposes of Part D planning, to adopt RACT rules for all

of the CTG categories.27 This requirement will apply as follows:

for areas currently designated as nona-ttainment, and areas

redesignated to attainment but measuring violations of the ozone

standard, the requirements will apply in the section 107-designated
a State uses photochemical dispersion modeling (Urban Airshed)
to show that attainment may be reached within 3 years after EPA's"
approval of the required SIP without employment of all of these
measures, then these minimum requirements would not apply and the
State could use any mix of measures necessary to demonstrate timely
attainment. A State's desire to use a photochemical dispersion
•model, however, would not be sufficient reason to delay its submittal
of a SIP meeting the requirements of this policy. Absent a timely
submittal of an Urban Airshed modeling analysis showing that the
control measures described are unnecessary, EPA will presume that
they are necessary.. Thus, a State contemplating the use of such a
model should account for the extra time required for such an analysis
by commencing its analysis as early as possible.
93
-------
(or previously designated) area or the control area included in the
previously approved Part D SIP, if appl icable;23 for newly found
nonattainment areas those requirements will apply to the "central"
county(ies). This change will add needed certainty to tne attainment
demonstrations for some areas and reduce the disparity in niniTVjin
stationary source controls that resulted fryn the historical
classification of urban areas as extension or nonextension.
The EPA also proposes to require t'-iat areas that are classified
as self-generating rural nonattainment areas be subject to the same
minimum requirements for stationary source control (i.e., adoption
of RACT for all Group I, II, and III CTG sources) as urban areas.
Previous policy required all rjral areas to apply RACF only on
sources with the potential to emit 100 tons per year or ,nore and
falling within the Group I and II CTG source categories, on the
assumption that few if any rural areas were self-generators of
ozone. Extension of urban area requirements to self-generating
rural areas is appropriate because it is likely that such rural
areas would have been subject to pre-1987 urban requirements if
they" had been found to be self-generating prior to this policy.
23ln the situation in which the area was previously classified as a
rural nonattainment area under the old policy but is classified as
urban (MSA) under today's proposal, the minimum area for control
will be the central county in the MSA. However, RACT requirements
applicable to the previous control area would continue to apply
unless modified through appropriate SIP revision procedures.
94
-------
Continuing a long standing requirement for adoption of new

control measures, the post-1987 policy will require nonattainment

areas subject to this policy, except truly marginal nonattainment

areas29 and isolated rural nonself-generating areas, to adopt an

appropriate enforceable regulation for each source category covered

by any new CTG. The .EPA is proposing to exclude truly marginal

nonattainment areas from this requirement on the grounds that

reductions from federally-implemented measures, pre-1987

requirements (such as Group I, II, and III CTG's) and enhanced

effectivenss of pre-1937 requirenents, are likely to produce noar-

term attainment in these areas and it is unlikely that new CTG's

could be adopted and implemented in sufficient time to advance the

"attainment date. However, EPA will require such marginal areas to

-include in their SLP's a commitment that, if attainment is not

achieved by the projected date, they will adopt new CTG's {including

any new CTG's issued since today's proposal). The regulation must

apply as follows: for areas currently designated as nonattainment,

and for areas redesignated to attainment but measuring violations
defined in Section IV.B., truly marginal nonattainment areas
are those with design values below 0.16 ppm ozone (0.155 ppm where
data are reported to three decimal places) or 17 ppm CO and able to
demonstrate attainment in the short term by relying only on emission
reductions from (1) federally-implemented measures, (2) measures
required for the area in EPA's pre-1987 guidance, and (3) other
measures adopted by the State and approved by EPA on or before
publication of today's proposal.
95
-------
of the ozone standard, trie regulations must be adopted for the

section 107-designated (or previously designated) area or the

control area included in the previously approved Part 0 SIP, if

applicable; for newly found nonattainment areas, these regulations

must apply to the "central" county(ies) as define by tie Bureau

of the Census. Satisfaction of these requirements requires adoption

by each subsequent January of additional regulations for sources

covered by CTG's issued by the previous January.

i i. Nonself-Generating Rural Areas

The EPA does not intend to require nonself-

generating rural nonattainment areas to adopt Group III CTG stationary

source requirements, but EPA will continue to apply existing

requirements "to these areas. As indicated in the guidance EPA

issued on Hay 19, 1973 (43 FR 21673) and April 4, 1979 '(44 FR

20372), and in subsequent rulemakings, EPA required the SIP's for

these areas to contain RACT regulations only for major (potential

to emit 100 tpy or more) sources covered by the first two sets of

CTG's, and new source review requirements other than the requirement

for case-by-case offsets. The policy propo'sed today continues to

apply that guidance.

As indicated earlier, EPA continues to believe that the ozone

problems suffered by these areas are attributable primarily to

emissions from upwind areas. The EPA believes, however, that even

though these areas may not contribute significantly to their own

ozone concentrations, they may cumulatively generate sufficient VOC
96
-------
emissions to contribute significantly to ozone concentrations in

downwind areas. The EPA believes that the above requirements will

adequately minimize the transport of VOC's to downwind areas and,

as mentioned earlier, provide an adequate margin for growth that

would obviate the need for case-by-caso offsets.

b. Enhanced I/M 30
The EPA has considered the potential for g

VOC and CO reductions from vehicle inspection and maintenance

programs, and believes that a substantial enhancement of reductions

beyond what the basic existing program will achieve is avail.ibla

for areas wtih relatively serious ozone or CO nonattainment problems.

The EPA is considering a variety of alternative approaches with

respect to enhanced I/M. One option would be not to establish a

specific enhanced I/M requirement, but instead, to allow States to

consider the benefits available from enhanced I/M, along with those

from other available control measures, in deciding how to meet the

3 percent average annual reduction requirement described in lat^r

sections of this policy. There are advantages to this approach.

8y allowing States to balance the benefits of an enhanced I/M program
3QEPA is considering a variety of options regarding enhanced I/M,
including establishing a specific enhanced I/M performance level
for some nonattainment areas as well as relying on the 3 percent
reduction requirement to force consideration of enhanced I/M. At
other places in this document, the distinction between these options
may not always be expressed, but is intended throughout this policy.
97
-------
along with other availab'e control maasures instead of mandating a

national enhanced I/M requirement, States may be better able to

tailor their control programs to meet the 3 percent annual reduction

requirement. The EPA is soliciting comment on this option, and

whether the 3 percent annual reduction requirement obviates the

need for a separate enhanced I/M requirement in the post-1987

'nonattainment area policy.

Another possible approach, and the way EPA is presently leaning,

is to establish a specific enhanced I/M requirement for ar^as -vi th

relatively serious ozone or CO nonattainment problems. If EPA

decides to establish a separate enhanced I/M requirement, EPA would
•
also make it applicable to all urbanized areas with a design value,31

•based on 1935-1987 data, at or above Q.lo ppm for ozone or 17'ppm

for CO. The EPA doubts that areas with ozone or CO design values

equivalent to or above the stated values will be able to danonstrate

persuasively tnat they will attain in the near term.

The EPA, therefore, is considering whether to require such

areas to implement changes to raise the performance level (tnat is,

the VOC and/or CO reduction effectiveness) of their I/M programs

well above that of the basic I/M requirement. Consistent with

existing EPA policy, a new I/M requirement, if adopted, would not
31por determining areas subject to this requirement, and other
requirements employing these "outpoints," EPA will use the rounding
convention t>hat values ending in 5 through 9 round up, and values
ending in 1 through 4 round down. Hence, an ozone design value of
0.155 ppm becomes 0.16 ppm and a CO design value of 16.5 ppm becomes
17 ppm.
98
-------
apply to urbanized areas, as defined by the U.S. Census 3ureau,32

with a population below 200,000.

In EPA's view, enhanced I/M may be a minimum indicator of

"reasonable efforts" for Part 3 areas within the meaning of

section 176(a)(3j, and therefore could be part of EPA's consideration

of whether to implement other discretionary sanctions after 1'387.

In areas which will be able to persuasi/eiy demonstrate attainment

of the standards within the 3-year period, EPA believes that, local

flexibility is important and does not plan to include thorn under an

enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted.

One reason for considering a separate enhanced I/M requirement

is that the sooner areas have some certainty that enhanced I/M is

required, the more expeditiously they can accomplish its implementation.

Establishing a design value cutoff for the requirement, although admittedly

imprecise, could eliminate the loss of time associated with modeling

and with alternative strategy evaluation. The EPA is requesting

comment on both the approach and on the appropriateness of the

design value levels being proposed if a separate enhanced I/M '

requirement is adopted. The remainder of this section discusses

various aspects of and issues related to a separate enhanced I/M
•*t An "urbanized area" is an
according to specific criteri
settled area around each city
population of at least 50,000
a boundary based primarily on
persons per square mile, but
areas within corporate limits
railroad yards, golf courses
development.
area defined by the Bureau of the Census
a, designed to include the entire densely
. An urbanized area must have a total
The urbanized area criteria defines
a population density of at least 1,000
also include some less densely settled
and such areas as industrial parks,
if they are adjacent to dense urban
99
-------
requirement if adopted. In several places, specific issues are
identified on which EPA is soliciting comments.
Possible enhancements to I/M programs for greater VOC and CO
reductions fall into four categories. First, operating losses due
to improper inspections, incomplete enforcement, or lenient repair
waiver systems can be recuced. Some affected areas may have already
taken steps to do so. Second, additional vehicles which ara
presently exempt based on age, type, or owner residence can be
subject to the inspection requirement. Third, the emission test
portion of the periodic inspection can be made more sophisticated
or the pass/fail limits or cutpoints more stringent. Fourth,
important emission control components can be-checked visually, or
by other means that-do not involve, emissions measurement, for .
evidence of tampering or misf'jeling. Some of the major components
that could form the basis for an enhanced I/M program include: (1)
adding older vehicles (back to 1968) to the program, (2) increasing
program stringency up to 35 percent, (3) changing from idle test to
two-speed or loaded-mode tests, (4) adding catalyst and filler-
inlet inspections, and (5) adding complete anti-tampering programs.
Rather than require States to adopt specific enhancements from
any of the specific categories above, EPA would define the enhanced
I/M requirement, if adopted, in terms of a numerical performance
level which may be achieved by an combination of program elements.
The EPA is considering a performance level at roughly equivalent to
the design level of the third most stringent of the 27 or so distinct
I/M programs now planned or in operation in ozone nonattainment
100
-------
areas. 3y preliminary EPA estimates, this level will correspond to
about 35 percent more VOC reduction than the median of those 27
designs, and 150 percent more than the least stringent of them.
For CO, this level corresponds to about 20 percent more reduction
than the median design and 130 percent more than the least stringent.
In choosing a performance level for enhanced I/M, EPA believes
it is important to maximize the emissions reductions that can be
achieved while minimizing the costs of control and preserving as
much as possible the States' flexibility in designing programs that
will meet their needs and desires. As discussed in Appendix E, the
performance level discussed above corresponds to an average annual
reduction of 57UO tons of VOC per million vehicles in the areawide
fleet. This level would provide a significant additional increment
of emissions reduction and allow the States to choose among major
program design options, such as, biennial versus annual inspection
frequency and decentralized versus centralized format.
There are a number of other options at higher or lower
performance levels which EPA could also select for an enhanced I/M
performance level. For instance, EPA could select the* most stringent
current program, which would provide an even larger incremental
reduction. The most stringent program would provide annual VOC reductions
of 7200 tons; however, it would force most States to choose a
centralized, annual program with strict tailpipe I/M and strict
anti-tampering checks. On the other hand, EPA could choose a lower
performance level, for example, one equivalent to the fifteenth
101
-------
most stringent program. This performance level would provide a
lower incremental emission reduction, since it would provide an
average annual VOC reduction of about 4500 tons. However, it
would provide Statas even more flexibility in designing their
programs. This lower level could je met by having an intensive
tailpipe I/M program alone or ay various combinations of tailpipe
I/M and anti-tampering checks.
Because of the wide range of enhanced I/M performance levels
that EPA could choose, EPA is soliciting comment on the apprDprl
of alternative performance Jevels being considered for an enhanced
I/M requirement. The EPA also intends, in making a final decision,
*
to make a full study of the likely costs of alternative I/M programs.
The EPA has previously required that the minimum emission
reduction level be achieved in the urbanized area as defined by the
U.S. Census Bureau. Areas which extended their I/M program boundaries
beyond the urbanized area were permitted to "bubble" the reductions
from the additional vehicles and to reduce the overall stringency
of the program. In some cases, this bubble has allowed programs to
suffer significant operating losses while avoiding a call for a
corrective plan.
For an enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted, EPA is planning
to retain the U.S. Census Bureau's defined urbanized area as the
base for geographic coverage. The EPA is considering, however, not
to allow emission reductions obtained from vehicles Outside the
urbanized area but within the MSA/CMSA to count toward meeting an
102
-------
enhanced I/M performance level, if adopted. This is because EPA

believes that reductions obtained by expanding the enhanced I/M

program outside the urbanized area would, therefore, most

appropriately apply toward meeting the progress requirements for the

MSA/CMSA (as described later in this notice) rather than toward

weakening I/M requirements in the urbanized areas.

The EPA recognizes that the M5A/CMSA could also serve as a

reasonable basis for geographic coverage. Part of the definition of

an MSA is that it encompasses the commuting area around an urban

core. EPA is soliciting comment on whether an enhanced I/fl

requirement, if adopted, should be required in the entire MSA/OBA.

Detailed guidance on an enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted, is

included in Appendix E. This appendix states the specific numerical

performance requirement being considered. It also contains

instructions for estimating the VDC and 00 emission reductions

achievable from various combinations of program elements, i.e., a

yardstick by which affected areas can compare their current I/M

program and various enhancement alternatives to the new performance

standard.

In addition to the new numerical performance standard. Appendix

E describes certain other required I/M program features necessary to

insure that adequate resources and management tools and practices

are in place to assure that each enhanced I/M program contributes to

attainment as fully as expected. These administrative requirements

include strict criteria for cost waivers, measures to assure proper
103
-------
inspection in decentralized programs, and activities to improve
repair effectiveness.
Appendix £ also describes proposed requirements being considered
for periodic self-evaluation and reporting for enhanced I/M programs.
These requirements would allow EPA to identify programs which are
not meeting the performance requirement due to shortcomings in
implementation, and to propose nonimplementation sanctions in such
areas.
The EPA is also soliciting comments on the questions listed
below related to the enhanced I/M program requirement being
considered:
- Should a lower population threshold than 200,000 in the
urbanized area be used to exempt areas from requirements of I/M?
- Should the population of the entire MSA be counted toward
meeting the 200,000 population cutoff for requiring enhanced I/M?
- Should thresholds be lower in transport areas where ozone
levels are severely impacted by upwind sources?
- Should areas under 200,000 population which are upwind of a
nonattainment area and are contributing to its long-term nonattainment
also be required to implement enhanced I/M?
3. Technical Support
a. Alternative Control Technology (ACT) Documents
From time to time, it may be appropriate to
publish documents that provide technical information about the
control of individual source categories. The documents would
identify the emission control technologies that are available for a
particular source category along with information on process operation,
104
-------
control efficiency, costs, and other impacts of control. A State
could use this information as the basis for an emission limit based
on the control technology that is most appropriate given the local
needs and circumstances. The ACT document would not specify a
presumptive RACT nor a minimum level of control that would be
required.
Source categories that are selected as candidates for ACT
documents are those which may contribute to local nonattainment
problems, but which may not warrant national measures. Some
candidates might include batch processing vents from synthetic
organic chemicals manufacturing, industrial wastewater processes,
automobile refinishing, and web offset lithography. The EPA solicits
comments on the need for ACT documents and source categories that
should be addressed.
b. Control Technology Center
The Control Technology Center (CTC) is a program
that can provide technical assistance to State and local agencies
on individual problems that pertain to control technology and
source testing. A hotline has been established to respond to
requests for assistance and to provide a quick response to questions.
Callers will be put in contact with EPA engineers who have the most
knowledge about the topic in question. The CTC hotline provides
access to available expertise in both the Office of Air and Radiation
and the Office of Research and Development, whichever can best
fulfill the needs when an individual request for assistance occurs.
This service is available to all State and local agency staff. The
CTC hotline number is (919) 541-0800.
105
-------
In some cases, the information to satisfy a hotline request is
not readily available from existing literature or staff expertise.
When this occurs, the CTC may undertake original engineering analysis
to satisfy the request. In determining when it is appropriate to
perform such analysis, tne CTC will consider the level of need and
urgency to the State or local agency making the request, the ability
of the CTC to provide a timely and useful response, cost, value of
the product to other States, and availability of resources. This
service is intended to augment the technical and analytical
capabilities of the States for problems that cannot be handled by
their resident expertise.
The CTC does not overlap any of the responsibilities of the
•
EPA Regional Offices. The CTC is a mechanism for providing
engineering assistance only. Questions that involve such topics as
policy guidance or enforcement determinations should continue to be
addressed to the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
106
-------
B. Requirementsof Expeditious Attainment Dates and
Reasonable" "Progress"

For the reasons described earliar in this notice, EPA proposes

to approve only those post-1987 SIP revisions that demonstrate

attainment of the ozone and CO standards within 3 years of the date

of EPA's approval of the revisions [with a possible 2-year extension

under section 110(e)]. Thus, EPA will impose the applicable con-

struction ban in any designated nonattainment area lacking such a

demonstration for the MSA/CMSA in which the area is located.33

Areas that cannot demonstrate attainment within the 3- (or 5-) year

period could also become subject to other sanctions if they fail to

make reasonable efforts to submit a plan showing attainment by an

attainment date suitable for the area and reasonable progress
33ihe restrictions in EPA's regulations implementing the construction
ban "apply only to major stationary sources of emissions that cause or
contribute to concentrations of the pollutant for which the
nonattainment area was designated as nonattainment, and for which
the SIP does not meet the requirements of Part D or is not being
carried out in accordance with the requirements of Part D"
[40 CFR 52.24(d)]. The EPA's current regulations imply that only
emissions of VOC are considered ozone precursors for purposes of
the construction ban [See 40 CFR 52.24(e)(f}(4)(ii), and (f)(5){ii)].
For this reason, for ozone nonattainment areas, the ban would apply
to major new sources and major modifications of existing sources of
only VOC.

The demonstrations required for areas with NMOC/NOX ratios of
greater than 10:1 may reveal that new emissions of NOX would
contribute significantly to ozone formation in some areas. The EPA
solicits comment on whether it should initiate a rulemaking to
amend the regulations described above to identify NOX as an ozone
precursor for purposes of the construction ban in such areas.

For CO nonattainment areas, the ban would apply to major new
sources and major modifications of existing sources of CO.
107
-------
in the interim. The following discussion describes the requirements
for progress and attainment dates for both long- and short-term
nonattainment areas.
1. Areas Demonstrating AttainmentWithin the
3-year Period
As indicated above, the required attainment dates
for post-1987 planning are keyed to the date EPA approves the SIP
revision [see sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(e)]. For purposes of
planning, EPA suggests that States developing plans to produce
attainment in the short-term after 1937 assume that EPA's review
and approval of their plans will be complete within 1 year from the
date the plans are due. This would mean that, to receive approval,
the plans would have to demonstrate attainment within 4 years of
the date the SIP is due [1 year for EPA approval plus the 3-year
period in section 110(a)(2)(A)]*
Consistent with section 110(a)(2)(A) and, for Part D areas,
section 172, EPA will require the SIP's to demonstrate attainment
as expeditiously as practicable, even if that date would arrive
before the end of the 3-year period. The EPA will assume that
short-term nonattainment areas that apply the applicable minimum
control measures,(no later than the end of 1992) described in the
preceding section are employing all "practicable" measures. Thus,
only if those measures, combined with the relevant federally implemented
measures, would advance an area's projected attainment date from the
3-year date would EPA require the area's SIP revision to show
attainment by that earlier date.

108
-------
Plans for areas that are still subject to the Part D planning
requirements must also, as required by section 172(b)(3), be adequate
to produce RFP. This means that they must, as required by the
definition of RFP in section 171(1), produce "annual incremental
reductions" in emissions, including "substantial reductions in the
early years following approval" of their plans, sufficient to
provide for timely attainment. Plans for these areas should demon-
strate that their control strategies will provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable. Such demonstrations should show that
earlier implementation of control measures would not significantly
advance the attainment data.
The EPA's experience in the early 1980's indicates that,
»
despite efforts to review in detail all aspects of the demonstration
of attainment, there have been instances in which the control
strategies were assessed overly optimistically as to their ability
to produce large emission reductions over relatively short time
periods. Of particular concern have been those plans which delayed
most of their reductions until the final year(s) before the projected
attainment dates so that it was difficult to determine the likelihood
of attainment until late in the plan implementation process.
Because of the requirement for SIP's to contain sufficient measures
to assure expeditious attainment [section 110(a)(2)(A) and (B)] and
EPA's belief that in order to assure such attainment the plan must
show progress in the interim years, EPA is proposing to require all
109
-------
areas {including those with short-term demonstrations) to achieve
their required emission reductions at a minimum rate unless the
area truly has a marginal nonattainment problem.34 The EPA proposes
to define an area as truly marginal if it has a design value below
0.16 ppm ozone or 17 ppm CO and it can demonstrate attainment in
the short-term by relying only on emission reductions from (1)
federally implemented measures, (2) measures required for t'ne area
in EPA's pre-1987 guidance, and (3) other measures adopted by the
State and approved by EPA on or before publication of today's
proposal. In all other cases, the area must achieve an average
annual emission reduction, of at least 3 percent of the adjusted
base year (typically 1937) emissions inventory for the demonstration
»
area, commencing the year of the SIP call. The use of an annual
3 percent emissions reduction rate is based primarily upon previously
realized reductions achieved through the application of CTG controls
in nonattainment areas. The EPA believes that a 3 percent annual
reduction will provide for an expeditious rate of attainment while
also providing for the implementation of control measures at a
feasible rate. The EPA does, however, invite comment on whether the
3 percent annual rate of emissions reduction is the optimum rate
considering the need to balance expeditious progress and reasonable
efforts requirements.
34As stated above in section IV.A., any area with a design value
at or above 0.16 ppm for ozone or 17 ppm for CO must also implement
an enhanced I/M program.
110
-------
Reductions not creditable towards the 3 percent are: (1) the
federally implemented control measures, (2} measures required for
the area in EPA's pre-1937 guidance, and (3) other measures adopted
by the State and approved by EPA on or before today's proposal.
For this purpose, the base year inventory would be adjusted by
subtracting from it the emissions that would have been eliminated
if the area had implemented all of the applicable requirements of
both EPA's pre-1987 policies and the other approved portions of its
SIP (as just described). (See Table 1 "Summary of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide SIP Requirements.") Reductions occurring in the period
before the date the SIP is due, but after the base year will be
creditable toward required reductions (i.e., they are creditable if
they are not included in one of the three categories listed above).
The EPA expects States to continue developing and implementing
those scheduled measures that have been found appropriate from
prior planning efforts. Such measures should be viewed as part of
the foundation effort to start the post-1987 program and are creditable
toward the 3 percent requirement only if they are not included in
one of the three categories listed above.
States should develop their control strategies so that the
minimum average annual 3 percent reduction starts as early as
possible and occurs at a continuous rate until attainment is achieved.
The EPA recognizes, however, that development and adoption of
regulations often occur over irregular time periods and compliance
efforts can require considerable time. In general, EPA believes
111
-------
that the earliest practical time to assess compliance with the
3 percent average annual requirement will be the fifth year from
the SIP call: 2 years for SIP development and submittal and 3
years for source compliance. Therefore, the State's annual progress
report (discussed in section V.A.I) for 1992 (due in 1993) must
show that creditable emission reductions of at least 15 percent (5
years times 3 percent per year) of the base year inventory have
been achieved. Stated differently, the report for 1992 must show
an average reduction of 3 percent per year from 1988 to the end of
1992. For example, an area needing emission reductions of 17
percent (beyond the reductions from measures listed above for the
"marginal test") would have to achieve reductions of 15 percent by
the end of 1992 and the remainder thereafter at an average rate of
3 percent per year until attainment (i.e., achieve the remaining 2
percent by the end of 1993). An area needing additional reductions
of, say, 7 percent would be required to achieve those reductions by
the end of 1992. Because of the possible unique circumstances of an
individual area, EPA is soliciting comment on the need for and ways to
provide additional flexibility in implementing the 3 percent requirement.
For example, certain localities might be allowed a different averaging
time to achieve the requirement, depending upon such criteria as
their emissions inventory mix.
The EPA believes that VOC control measures (such as those
described in Appendix C) are available for application in these
112
-------
long-term areas to meet this requirement. Although this may prove
to be a very ambitious goal in some areas, EPA's review of past
ozone SIP's indicates that those SIP's have included measures that
were capable of achieving average annual reductions in past emissions
inventories of 3 to 4 percent.
For example, the previous SIP's for ozone extension areas
contained RACT measures for stationary sources which would produce
emission reductions mostly in the range of 10-15 percent. Implementa-
tion of these measures generally occurred over a 3- to 4-year
period, resulting in average annual emission reductions of about 3
or 4 percent.
3y not allowing measures required by EPA's pre-1987 policies
to count toward the 3 percent reduction, EPA believes that the
disparity in the past control efforts of different areas will be
reduced significantly. The following example will illustrate this
effect. An extension area that was required to implement the basic
I/M program required by section 172(b)(11)(8) of the Act before
1987, did not do so, and cannot after 1987 demonstrate attainment
of the standard within the 3-year period, could not count toward
the 3 percent reductions from the portion of any post-1987 I/M
program that corresponds to a basic I/M program. It could, however,
count toward the 3 percent requirement any reductions achieved by
enhancements of the I/M program beyond the basic program. Thus,
such an area would achieve no advantage from its failure to adopt
the basic I/M program required before 1987. The EPA believes that
113
-------
it is appropriate to recognize in this way the various levels of
past State efforts and progress in defining the efforts that would
be reasonable for an area aftar 1987.
Emission reduction requirements will not be identical, however,
from area to area, because ozone nonattainment areas faced different
control requirements before 1987. For example, nonextension araas
that never received SIP calls were not required before 1937 to
adopt RACT rules for sources in the third category of CTG's, while
nonextension areas that received SIP calls in 1984 or 1985 did face
such a requirement under EPA's 1984 guidance on the correction of
Part 0 SIP's. Hence, the former areas will be able to count the
reductions from such RACT rules adopted after 1987 toward meeting
the 3 percent requirement, while the latter araas will not. Similarly,
nonextension areas that did not receive SIP calls in 1984 or 1985
were not required to adopt a basic I/M program, while nonextension
areas that received such calls and could not demonstrate attainment
by the end of 1987 were required by EPA's 1984 guidance to adopt
such a program. Thus, only the former areas will be able to count
toward the 3 percent the reductions from a basic I/M program adopted
after 1987. Table 1 sets forth the minimum control measures and
percent requirements for each type of area.
In the above demonstrations of attainment, the areas must
account for any growth in mobile or stationary source emissions
expected to occur between the base year and the attainment date.
So long as federally-implemented measures continue to achieve
114
-------
a net emissions reduction, considering growth in sources subject
to those Federal measures, the State will not be required to account
for such growth in meeting the 3 percent requirement. However,
States must account for all other source growth during this period.
If reductions due to turndowns in production (or source shutdowns)
are used to demonstrate attainment, or are used to meet the 3
percent annual reduction requirement, they must be submitted as SIP
revisions and must be federally enforceable.
The EPA also intends to require areas that can demonstrate
near-term attainment to show that their plans will provide for
maintenance of the standards well into the future despite the
emissions growth projected to occur. Plans for these areas must
project future emissions out to at least 10 years from the SIP due
date and must contain commitments and schedules for any additional
measures that may be needed to ensure maintenance of the standards.
This requirement will also apply to any other area with a projected
attainment date before the end of 1995.
Areas projecting near-term attainment must include in their
SIP a commitment that, if they do not actually attain the standard
by their projected attainment dates, they will meet the 3 percent
average reduction requirement, and adopt new CTG's (including any new
CTG's issued since today's proposal), and implement enhanced I/M
(if required), starting when EPA finds that the area continues to
violate the standard after its specified short-term attainment
date. These areas will also be subject to whatever additional
115
-------
future requirements EPA ultimately finds are needed for long-term
areas to provide for expeditious attainment.
2. Areas that Cannot Demonstrate Attainment Within the
Per i od
As described above, areas subject to the construction
ban because they cannot demonstrate attainment of the standards by
the end of the 3-year period set forth in section 110(a)(2)(A) will
be able to avoid the additional discretionary sanctions if they
demonstrate reasonable efforts to submit adequate plans. The EPA
proposes to define such efforts as the submittal, according to the
planning schedule described earlier, of a plan that will produce
reasonable progress toward attainment by a fixed date suitable for
the area. As described below, the "reasonable efforts" attainment
date for each area will depend on the degree of progress that the
plan will produce aach year. For that reason, the discussion below
focuses first on the amount of progress EPA will regard as reflecting
reasonable efforts for each pollutant, and then on the attainment
date that would reflect such efforts.
a. Progress Requirements
i. Ozone
For ozone, EPA proposes to define a "reasonable
efforts" level of progress for an area as the percent reduction
described above for nonmargina! short-term nonattainment areas,
extended until the year attainment is projected. Thus, after an
initial demonstration of at least a 15 percent reduction for the
period 1988-1992, the area must show a 9 percent reduction (beyond

116
-------
the measuras noted earlier) for each subsequent 3-year period until

attainment.35
35 Whera attainment is projected to occur between 3-year projections,
the 3 percent annual reduction is required to continue until tne
year in which attainment is projected. In that year, the balance
of the required reduction (up to 3 percent) is due.

Where such long-term nonattainment areas implement a measure that
is later implemented at the national level, the areas may take
credit toward the 3 percent requirement until the federally-implemented
measure is in effect. At that time, the areas would have to have
achieved sufficient emission reductions so that they continue to
meet the annual requirement to obtain 3 percent emission reductions
beyond all federally-implemented measures. The EPA solicits comments
on this approach" and other options to address these situations. In
particular, EPA invites comment on whether the State should be able
to maintain the "credit" toward the 3 percent requirement even after
a Federal measure is implemented which would supersede or duplicate
the effect of the State measure. One option may be to allow the State
this credit indefinitely except for those measures that EPA is currently
implementing or has proposed as of the date of this notice. This
option might also require the State measure to be implemented for a
minimum amount of time before the Federal measure is effective in
order for the "indefinite credit" to be allowed.
117
-------

_J (— «C OS
«C Z QS co «C

13 LU - 1
< LU «C LU

Z a. LU co z
as o co z H- _i
O « ro < _l

U_ CO CO QS Z «X
CO U. O •— i - z: — F—
Z o co ae — 10
LU LU <—> Z< O CJ
QS CD r— -3 r— Z LU
i— • e£ O Q Z LU Z
13 ee ^ Z
LU > LU u_ z o Li-
as <: as o •-» «_> o
i —
1 CO LU 1
jj QS as o

**
LU
Z
O
p-g «c
O
r> LU z z
Oryj OS w Q.
LU Z LU 1 — O
as i— z LU LU z
t— LU Z _i O
o as z z ec» i— t
LU O Q 5 _i i-» 3 a. as co
loaoooOZO-Luz
^1 *C ^^ l^~ !•••* <3C C^ ^"?
Q*CJ ^ - O_ LU _) UJ
™JQ.I— DQX k«^
ZBH t*o *""< *^ —} ^^ «.ii.i
jj |_ \ |j ^*^ ^5 <^ yr tjj
3 1ZT 3C 'il cyt/> uj Q
• f tjj ^^ — -0 Z
1 Z Z
UJ ^"- LU •— « 1 O
OS 00 _l 3> —
•— O> 23 h- O CO
^ f-< «c z as as
O* H- LU O. LU
jj LU >— " z o- a. *— •
as as o LU «c co z
o LU as "-• o
o u_ as — o Q *-«
LU LU c_j TT> s: i—
ea ca o- — )<:
•— • 1— LU CO ff CC
FV 1 1 1 Q rv yj ^j ^>
§*«^ (/^
Z Z
LU «C LU Z CO LU O
OS O OS ~ CO Z Z
u. p. ~^ o i— «i <_> LU
f"*% j i r L » 1 1 ^ u*^2 f~°*
!>- O_ LU LU t—
>_ j_| a. OS S CJ O CS
OS _l < LU Z Z
LU LU
a z o 2 -J — i o
LU LU z O O ca o
u. z <: t— u
4.

0.
Q.

t/)
^j
*
(U
o
N
o

•a
eo
ai
u
CO
^

4^
fi
JC
4J

iB
1)
&•
**

i— I

^^
CO
IM
E'CO"
(B IB O
5- XI O
O» t- •
t. O
a. c CM
IB
^* ^
i— i jJ O
•r- <^
0 5 iB
ii—
-F-
^3 (B *B
C F—
0 <- 3
>, O CL
CO M- O
XI — — • Q-
o c
H- O
(_j e
1 C
c = ••-
O — "0 Z
C J-> •**,
•a 4j •— i
i_ a) fo
o ••- c o
•*™> r— O -r-
iB Q. C tf)
E a. IB
^3 (JJJ QQ
(- C
O CO O
<*- X» N
0 O
•o o o
C 4J -0
IB CO -O
"4J C

"— « CO C •
i— i o o>
c o co c. >M
lO tfl ^O ^1 ^^

a.
^^ «yj
c to c
o » E o
en CO F— C -i-
C CT» CO -F- C.
4J 1 IB 4^ CX
X 4-> 3 J->
co vi a* <1»
r*«. IB j^ >j
•»i CO iB 1
s_ ro
C 0 0 4->
O ^ c ty> C
— 2 C ••-
4-> (/> o x:
U T3 <1) E -U
CO C O CO -F-
tn IB -a T> S

"3
(/>
ry^
OJ

1
CO
0
cr
x:
c
LU

. •
O

•o
c
IB

CO
C
o

5^
o
u

•a

t_
lp- x-"**
g-S
(U — ,
C- r-l
i— <
E ~ - "
ftj >— ^
I- XI
O CM
t- r-.

^— K
^^
^**
CM
S
o"
1-^
^H

c
0

-M
(_>
CO
c/t

C
•F"

•
CO
o
X)

tf)

a>
€

'
oca
e s

•— D
Fv
CJ1 ^j
L. C
IB 0)
E E

IB '«
V) 4->

^
r^ *
C 4-> CO
0 IB C
E T3 N
iB O C O
t- O CO <4-
y fQ >
>x. CO F- O CO
—i > 3 XI >
O Q. (B O
o ^ o ^a
•F- IB O. t- IB
(/) O
*B V) ^3 Lk
XI ^B 01 E O
(UNO.
-0 e- -r- Q. E
c « c CL
O IB ^Q CX
>, C. X) -H
0) o t. . r-»
XI *- 3 0 -H

(V>
00 T3
cr> o

CM
^
0
J_9
CJ
4)
t/)

_^
4^
'^*
3

fQ
CO
L.
F-
r i (_
4J C 4)
i/» O O.
O E 4J
Q. S C t_
-C3 CO IB
a E >=>>
0 — -F- 1
_^^ ^J IB ^O
25 4-* 4J
IB 4-» CO
C 3 IB j=
0 CT 4J
F- (U CO
ui -a co c
^^ (^ 4^ »^»
CJ IB JZ
4J a. t- 4->
X — 4J ••-

•
o -a o
L. a; O
a. N CM

Z c co '
' — . IB >
—i XI 0
«- -O
(J 3 IB
x: c
IB 4-> O
S 4-> '
^a IB !
C V} r—
O "B 3
>> co a.
co e o '
Xt IB Q.
C
•«• O T3
CO — C 1
O^ I/I ^
— < "4- c r '
O W C CO
I/I +J O JC
- c x s 4J
«C O CO CO
Q. ~- C 13 >,
LU 4J O Xt -— »
O C 4«* 4^
e >i-

F- t. S_ C C
t_ O CO 4->
T3 O **- T? E 3
TJ -F- JC
•F- C - IB 4-»
3 o a. 4J j-> .F-

CO CO IO JC 4-» CTt 1
CO TT 4-> IB (B F-I
3 3 IB t_ 4-> U-
ena. IB v» o

«- -o >,
CO -F- .C «/)
•o x:
CO
^J

c
o

(/I
c
CO
f *
X
CO
c
0
z
.
l~l
4-> 4-> O C «-
O 13 TJ E ,T3 — «J
>*-»'^ IB c E cb- -u >,
IBO— O C IB f— i 4-> 1
1) CO— CTO CO I * <~
4_> c t < i (^ fQ CT^ CT^ iB 4J
C 3 4J a. — i i— 1 t-
CO IB— 1(1)14-14- I4->C
EF-x:co>oo<«-4Jtfi-»-
e •»- Oc/tcjc
F- t. r*. CO i— c OO4-»
iB 3 ji •» CO O IB O "^3 *^> E *F~
4J t_ >,cr» oj > •-— c co 2 -a
4J O-— i t- O 4-> 4! ^»
C. *O ^^ *D -i-i* Qn fi_ .u3eE Q-

LU
CO

1 —

y_
O
'-U
a.

i —
CO

z
o

CO
LU
h—
O
Uwmt
O
O
u_
-------
r

Cm?

»•— SP
O.
LU
^
Z
U—
z
o
{^5
^^^

^_I

LU
-_!
CO
^£
t-

— 1 1— >-
Z CC >- ">.

r~ 2
ITS 03
— _j at O> TO
O i— i co =t _j
U. CO O2 a: Z e£
co y_ o •— t c_>
t— i— l O a U_
Z 2 LU CS Q_
LU LU Z 1— >- Z i— •
£ O co a* i— co
UJ LU i— • Z3 O O
Of CD 1— -D I— Z LU
(— l «C O Q Z LU Z
ID O£ S - —
o; i— m LU LU •z.
t— LU Z _] O
Q o: £ £ ao *-•
UJO Q 3 < Z I—
iy* it ^^ >^ i 2* ^D —i i--. 3 a. a; co
CO *^ 00 *""** ^^ f^ t_i E *^^
1 1 * ^c oS u— *»M — < LU
_i a: LU z z o o
^* Qb LU f ' > 1
j^iZSSLuScz
•f < i— a: z o w
a; co •— > •— " ^ •— « i
UJ ^— t • * /*"> ^3 t^D y »jj
Q Z Z LU O*CO LU Q
Jj 1 1 1 t—i rv i 1 1 ^£ *T* c^
U_ E 1— O (X — •«_> £
1 Z Z
LU f». LU i— i 1 O
a: co _t > i-i

= I-H < -z. a; Q:
CX 1— LU Q- LU
UJ UJ i— i S O- Q- -— «
Q; a; Q LU _i z s: >-• co
CO CO CD ^ £ 31
LU - Q. LU LU 1 —
— i a. a; s cj O CD
— 1 «C LU ^ Z
«C Z Q Z Q. i— i
ce to i— o; £ _i
LU 1— < ^ LU LU
0 Z Q 3 _l _J Q
LU LU 2= O O CQ O
Li- £ <: t— 0
*^ 4vJ
i^ tQ > i

C i— QJ
J-> O 3 C
C . Q.4-> O
Ol E O IB N
E <*-
UJ £ 0 >
^ — i > O J3 >
O O TO O
O U -O CVJ ja
c_^ >^- TO ^ IB
(/I CJ O
^5 TO m > t.
c .a > «- 0 t-(
N 4) O -i- . P-.
o _a v- -u o ^^

^-
CO
0%
1— 1

ai
OL

0
^
rg ^-^
at
tn O
^ c
a> -S
C i^
(Q 3
CO O>
-o
4-> 0
1 C -i-
4-> 0) t-
v> E (U
O >, C O.
Q.I— -i-
dj TO c.
4-^ +J 4^ TO
3 TO +j a»
J3 3 TO ^
O" 1
M ^ t/1 CO
>— i "O O>
i— • TO *J 0)
^^ TO .P^
0- S- *J

'O C/} t/) C
C 'i""*
CD P*«i O f
E CO E *J
co ^ -a 2
»
ai

^_
a.
a.

E
c s-
£ O O>
"•*. -i-O

i— o
a> o 3 ai
o _r* *"* L. c
C TO O t- £
TO Q.*J 3
S. 2 cr
N flJ O -i— O O)
O «- CsJ 2 4-> t-

M ^J
1—1 C
H-t O
IM
** o
^_!
-o
o o
^_ 4^
r ^ TO TO
C (U
C- CD t.
O °r* TO
4— I/)
O -U
i— -a c
0 0)
<: c E
Q£ •— C

i— i TO
• • i— t 4^
ail— 4_>
0 1^3 C
(^ t» CJ (/I
C7> T3 O -r- CL CT O
•i- 0) OJ^-CLO^Q.
C/} fL. ^. O ^~ rt3 »^ JCT
^ nj QJ QJ ^ 4.J |-> ^y
T3 ^3 i— O t/J ^ (/>
-4-> C «• fmm |>H O
C C Z3 4J ^ ^£ 4_j Q g^
O CJ fO *""• Q* trt 3«
.,_ g ^_ _{» (y^ |jj ^ ^j
wi C O C "O
c-r-u r^-oEOic

4_J Jj_> tmrn >*CT> > "O C
X JO O I-H *«•• •fM. A
QJ fO C *r» 1 QJ (Q rt3 f^"»
cc^^-ojo JJJGO
O O JC O L. CU ^-* +•> <7^
2: C-M CLQ.L. O
^3 2

4-> +-> T3
O C O
CT IB

k—4 >.
to * fO
CO t- 01
<— 1 U) -M

-------

^^
LU
33
1—
O
0

t__l

LU
_l
CO
*t »
1—

-
Z S£ >- *v.
— > ro <« _l
u_ QO CQ ce z <:
CO LL. O •— i o
1— (-. O O U_
z z: LU o a.
LU LU Z 1— >- Z. i— i
X O 01 Q* "— i to
(jj UJ >— i a> O O
oc ca (— *? i— z LU
«-< CC =>«C UJ S t—
C7LU O > S
LU 3» LU U. Z O U_
0* LU z a: .
O*LU ce "— • a.
LU Z LU r- O -—•
OS 1— 3T LU LU Z
1— LU Z _J O
o o; x x so >—i
LU o Q rs «e z i—
Q tj- ^^ ^3 * 5* ^D <3C
•-« as CO H-
/jMcoozatujz
Lu- Q. LU _J LU
j ft p» QQ y 1/1 i g PI
_J«CU-— i <— ' 3 i— " _j
> i p»* ^j r"^ **"* tO ^* 1 1 1
4JLU>— IQ£UJ- LU i— i 1 O
OZ CO _1 > >-«
i— i z t—
CQ CQ cr _i ^ C£
0£ LU O Of LU O 1—
J ^J ^-^ ^* H- 4 O1
to so o => s z
LU i 1 1 1 - _ ~'^ y^
>_ a. LU LU I—
_1 a. C£ Si 0 O CD
i ^£ r 1 1 *f** 2T
«t Z Q Z Q. —•
ac 01 1— az x _i
LU h- < 3 LU LU
Q Z Q 3 _! _I O
LU UJ Z O O CQ O
U_ X < 1— 0 < S

^C
yj
s

u.
0

UJ
O-
*

t/1
V)
d>

c
3

OJ
^~
<^
(^1
O
^m.
O.
CL

in
to
01
E
to

, •
O)
c
o
N
O

|
j__*
O
CL
4->
3
XI

n
>
in
_>
e c
= 0)
E
fO C

1/1
ctj ft3
a> c
1- O

0) O (O
> C t. O t-
O O O CTI 1
j3 .,- i*_ t_ o O>
tS 4-> O 5- C.
ra O) <4- a.
W) r— > tj
rd 3 O O> O)
O) Q.J3 > t- C
t- o 3
t- (O C ,-^
t» -a o DO
o a> t- u
<4- N E 0 t-
•^ a o en
>, c Q. S <4- c:
F** fl ^^ «^~
C -Q VO O.4-> 4->
O t- «-H -I- ^CJ O) 4^
•o o »-i oi E c
(DO (_ O>
t- O 4-> « CJ T3 E
•i— f^ to o) t— 01
3 " c JT (O L.
O"O "O O 4-> 2 •>-
CT"

-o
4-> O
C -i-
>c Q.
"a! « t_
4-> 4-j ,
a- V
O> in ro
13 01
fO 44> Ol
"1 J=
a. t- 4->
*""* 4-i
to Irt C
c —
f*"» O JTI

Cf^ 0^ *^
^-02

OJ
,—
__Q
in c -s.
i— i ra *pw ^*4
i«^ 2
« -o , — -a
>— • c t— r** oi
' ro 0 CO U

t^ 1-^ ^^ ^^ - to O
CJ "-> C_ t_ O) O
«* ro O Q. «-
Ov ^2 ^M* 'O ^5
1 T3 C
C •/> «J C ro
.. 0 0» 5- —
Ollc O «•— ffl OI
C t- 3 4J C
O «- 3 cr «- o
N[O o N
Of*— en t, o O
1— 1 t_
— ' 4-> O
4-> a. i •<-}
•O C O) c CM fO
C O) U O OO E
E x E en T
c cu «y r-t c
« — -a o
•O in >> C
CO 4-> OI (O -Q
i— 4_> o a> o>
O ra fc. t_ 4-> C
C 3 ro C -f-
t- 0 0 OI i—
O c in 0> E •—
M- JC C O
•^ — [_•> .^ ^
h— O) c— ro j->
O 4-> ro OI 4J C
^C ro L. 4h> o
0£ C t- O> ra (_>
U> O J^
•1-14- 2 T3 4->
• • U1 «_* O» 3
O)]O) «4-> O
C n3 ro j * ro <™
IM C t_ jr aJ -r-
OJ-i- as +J «n 2

4*-*t
>> *
ico -o
C Q ai —
HI 4-> t- CJ F—
ra C j= 2 2 S
O 4-> O
e c o 4J o_
O ' — C. 0 •->
•F- -O OI C to
0) ro ^
c *j at c -a r-.
01 (O t- 3 T- OO
4J C ro ^J G^
X O> i— i-t
OI '^^ |_fc (Q 4^ |
c in c c_ ra Oi
O OJ OI 3 JZ t-
z -o E L. 4~> a.

.1
c t.
o en
•i- O
•M t-
O ro a.
> •— o
030)
JD C. «_ C
rQ O *^* E
f^ 4^ 3
in E t—
^0 ^3 ^U ^3
0) Ol o
* -^ 0 01
(_ ro •—
O X3 J-t J-) 4->
tf. ^ *F- Ol C
3 T3 Ol Ol
TJ Oi E E
Ol O C. 0)
t_ o
01
0 «-
t- 0
3 ••->
^3 *^
in c
0) .,-
0 J=
t3 1 4->
C *F~
a. o 2
•— e
to Ol 4-> T3
TJ C 0
r**- oi -r-
BO >, S t_

«— I rjj -i— Q.
1 4-) ro
| * fO 4n3 (v
O O" ro Ol
O. CJ >.
T3 0) 1
OJ ro 4-> ro
t/\ ro
O 4-> t- Ol
_c o -•-> JT
2 c in 4->

o
OJ
1 — 1

-------

••^•n
o
UJ
T3
Z
u_
—i >— - -v.
«C LU ft LU
Z Q- LU CO Z
OS O - Z i— i
1

^— s
It3 UJ
w> c at

3 S C
= at
01 E
r- O O TJ <| LU S t—
Cruj a > E
LU > LU U. Z O U_
OC. «t OS O —i 0 O
1—
r co LU i
LU as se o
QJ « O h-
— ' u_ u_ o o
=1 UJ Z Z
cruj ac — Q.
LU Z LU I— O -— *
as h- z LU uj z
1— LU Z —1 O
Q OS Z S CD •— -
LU O Q ^ < Z I—
OOU-ZO— J S> O «£
—> _i r»* 3 a. a; co
coeacooza-Luz
LU «t a> i— i— i «sr ex o
or o •— • to E
Q. p— I cC 1— O ^- LU
— 1 OS LU Z Z Q Q
>- Q. LU —I LU
1 O_ 1— CO E to _J to
_J•-•
ae co •—! ~ ^> — i _i
UJI— LUOOCOSCU
O Z E LU O'CO LU Q
UJLUi— IO*UJ<:ZO
LuEK-UQC^— tJE
Z
O
CJ

1—*

LU
—1
CO
<
i—

1 Z Z
LU r-» LU i— i i O
a; co _i > — •
>— i CT> CO 1 — O OO
O -f- 4->
••- 4->
, — (tj (O
Q. at c
Q. «- O
•* <« C
4->
-p O
c c
a E
•— "— i ul C ~^»
1— 1 lt> •!— •— 1
— • S
— i -0 *-» T3
—i C 1— r-. 0)
— < QC ^H ITJ
O -C
C3 J= O C
t- t— O 4-> LU
O O •«-
4- J= i-
t. 5 Ocj ••
1— o -i- (o o
t- t- ai <_>
< us o a. t-
ce e M_ *j -a
1 T3 C
c t/} a> c «
,. O O) !- -•-
at c u -i— «s at
C t- 3 4-> C
o U- 3 cr t- o
IM o o ai ai N
Of*- ul t- 0 O

— < !_
i— I 4-> O
4-» Q. t -T7-)
T3 C Ol C PO i-H 1
LU UU <— • E Q. Q. -—•
Q; a£ Q LU «£ CO Z
o LU a: •— i o
O U_ CC — O Q «
LU LU O 3 Z t—
co co cr _i *c
>— • (— LU co -s.-z.
LU <: UJ Z CO LU O
0; o x —• co z E
Q- •— < O *— *£ t-3 LU
—1 U. LU — -O Q
>- Q. UJ UJ 1—
_J Q_ OS EO O O
_!-
1—

C 1J 1) i— i C
—• — -o o
«s >s> >, c
O 4-> 3) UJ J3
i— 4J o
U CZ
C 3 (0 C -r-
u o o at .—
o c ••- t_
(— Ol r- (TJ 4J
cj 4-> m c
«=C !T3 1. 4-> O
oc c «- at
• • ui •_ at 3
ail ai «4-> o
era TJ 4-> TJ jz
o! ai to t. +j
Nl C C~ .C 4-> -i-
Oh<- "5 4-> w 3
•a
4J O
1 C ••-
4-> E 4>
o >, c a.
Q.^.^
+J 4-> fO
3 ,
cr i
•• 0) (/» CO
i— i -o at
•— < (O aj OJ
> TJ -C
a. t_ 4->
1/1 1— 1 4->
<« CO U1 C
c ••-
at r->. o j=
E 00 E 4^
ITJ ON at -^"
CO ^-i -o 5
»
»««
=>

at o «
> C J- O t-
O O O Ol
.a •<- M- t_ o
T7 4-> O S-
i — > O
ITJ 3 o at ai
ai O.JD > i_ c
t- O >B O -i- E
TJ Q. ^ -U 3
t. TJ C »—
t- T3 0 U 0
o at i- u
u- N E o c.
••— Ci O !7>
>, c a. E <*- c
i— 4-)
O t_ ^H -— O) C
3 . r*. -D ai at
•o o <—* at E s
oj o t. at
V. O 4-> - O T3 l_
i- o T> at «- -i-
3 « C JZ TJ 3
cro -o o 4-> 2 cr
It O C N -r- O Ot
t- t-

T3
at
t-
P"

cr >,
ai •—
<- c
o
U1
TJ !/>
2 ai
u
I— L.
LJ 3
1
1

ja
TJ
O

fw.
Q.
Q.

e
E •—
l—l-^±3
1—1 i— i t_ S)
O O (U
• TJ -O «4- =
p— i ai 4)
«- u 4_> -a
U3 TJ C •<- (- 4->
i— TJ -a TJ c
o c j= at s at
•«— c <- a_s
L. TJ LU U 4J Ot
O 4-> L.
4- «- -c 6 "-
O< •• 4->
«« c o t-
QS -r- -O « t-
C TJ Q.O
1
1
•

•—3
TJ TJ

3 _e c j

at ~ E '
r— C t- (j S_ 1
E O O O CT> '
«— — . J3 -,- <4~ C. Q '
1—1 i— i TJ 4-> OS.
<_> fO O if- CX '
« *O -O (/I (— > o !
— «ataiTj3ooioi i
C. Q.^3 > t_ c: 1
tDTJCt-OTJ O— E 1
1 — TJ TJ CX J3 4-) 3 '
5_> C J= S_ TJ C •— 1
••- c t- TD o at o '
t- TJ LU O 41 t- U !
O 4-> >*- M E O 5- '
4- s- — ex o r« '
at •• >, c: cx E "- c i
H- U Oh— TJ CX ••-
t-> o c: JT3 ^o o -^-> j-J 4_>
^c ot-^^ ••— at c:
ce-^-o 3 «r^T3Oiai
C -O O ^- 11 F P:
— < TJ fli i — . TJ (Li O 4- nil
• • — i t_ a) cr
ai i— i at •!- t- E
C C 3 •>— 3
o ^a o CT4-* i—
N C N 11 C O
o TJ o t- at o

•« O
ce ui

<> <—
o
at -r-j
U 03
I_ E
3
O C
(/» O

Ol
o
*J
c
oi ai
E i 4-> at
C 4-1 TJ JZ
•«— «/> S- 4->
TJ O 4->
O 4_> CLiJ t/t C
C 4-> O C •<-
TJ at c o jc
en c E •)->
C O O >4-> C-
TJ Ol T3 •— C Ol
4-> 4J e a. ai ai a.
e « 4-> E
o c to TJ c t.
o en « 3 -^ TJ
•i— <9 Is*. cr TS at
< v> at co oi 4-> >,
co at t- os TJ 4J i
E T3 TJ •— I 3 oH
isicMaioe sj—oa>
OTjot-c'gTj o 3 4J i.!
i
f
i
i
i
!

i
I
I
t
i
j
i
[
!
1
t
1
t
1
1
1
i
1
Ol I
£ i
1
-o i
4-1 O
C •!-
i at t-
+-> E Oi
f> >i c rx
O 1— •!—
ex o TJ c_
4J 4-> TJ |
4J TJ 4-> CJ 1
3 3 T> >,
j3 a- i
Ot ifl CO
.-o at
X TJ 4J Ol
•— ' T> JS
CX. t- 4-»
tO >— i 4J
to co ui c
C •!—
Ot r>v o JS 1
e co E 4-> '
(O C^ QJ 'r1*
CO rt -o S
•
X
-------
a
LU

_j 1— «< a:
•
z as >• -».
- Z »—
S o co as >— t i/j
>_U LU <— > 3 O CJ
as o i— o i— z LU
i— s;
LU > LU U_ Z O Lt_
QS < as o — o o

i—
1 OO LU 1
UJ QC Q£ O

as <— i o h-
•— i U. U. CD O
=3 UJ Z 3=
o-uj oe i— c a.
LU 3: LU t— o
as K- z LU LU z
1— LU Z _! O
a as x £ 03 i-i
JJ 0 0 = < Z h-

•— i «c os o o »-! as
as uj — ' LU
_J OS UJ Z Z O Q
>- a. LU _J LU
_ j rt ^m /v^ y (/} i ^3
_I«£U.— < •— ' ^ •— < — 1
LlJ J^ ' • * <"^ *"^ OO ^^ LU
a z z LU o-co LU Q
• i i 1 1 1 ta^ f¥* ^ij ^£ TT f^
LL.SI— CJOS — OS!
1 Z Z
UJ r-». UJ w 1 O
QS OO _l •> ~
>— • CH QQ 1 — O CO
ra -H-
as as Q LU <£ co z
0 LU OS — O
o u, as «— « o o "— «
LkJ LU O 3 "Z. h-
QO ea O* i co 3: z
o. •— < o i — «c o LU
_i u_ LU<— o a
>- a. LU uj i—
_i a. os f. o o o

*< a: o z a. •-•
as to H- as s: — )
LU i— «t S UJ UJ
a z o 3 _i _! a
LU LU z o o ca o
Lw 3E «S 1- 0,
03 f— 4J
CL T3

M- * * t_ > p
•f- 4J «j c La
o OJ OJ en ' ^ '^ • O
r— (O 1 W ]••—
JD io s_ ro tu
o o in c
•t- -O C ••- <+-
^- o jr ••-
Q.O. E -U
0.1— CU ._ t_
< CO -o 3 O

V)
O)
O OJ -0
I_ U Ol
3 fc. 4->
r—
a.
CL

4_>
O
z

0 3 <0

•— H f^ ^J
1— tj -0
O '-3 =
«C 1— = 0
OS -0 •— C

T3
c 3;

a>
c
o

•^>
C fj

ra
Vt C
a> en
w *^*
t_ or>
3 Q) *O
o -a ai
in «-
^^ ^3
L. .^
0 4J
•t-ji— i C
(O IM^ CU

S- C -.-
O *o *o
<4« 4^
-^ 4->
^ ro
CJ CO =
«C f— O
as o c
c
cu o
Sle

« 2 § c1
^— . T3 I/I 4->
«— c
«- C C CO
3 «O C
L. T3 01
•— ' <0 O> O>
4-> C 1
o>
CJ '^
L> (/>
3 a> fo
o -a —> c
•a •— i ai
e= £
•o c
t_ c -^
O ro T»
l^_ 4^
h- o o
1 — C
C Cw
C ro 4->
3 e c
= cu
0) H

ro (/> ra
LJ -^ -U
•^ XJ
r^' fi *O
a. at c
Q. 1- O
< to C

*-H
H^
1-^

"xu
c
«3

M
»— 4
>— *
nj
. 0)
— < fc.
ra
f n
h— --
O ' —

^ 4^ Of «- c C
^'JrttS §3
^ SU J= ra

t- C
*-*£:£: o>
f- 4V |
-------

f ^

*"**
LU
=>
h-
Z
O
CJ
•^^

1—4

LU
—J
.*f»
<
(—

^£

— J 1 — LU «c z: uj
Z <_> LU C_> >-
Z OS >- -*.
if. _i
u. co co a: z «c
CO U. O i— i CJ
1— •-. O Q U_
Z Z LU (J3 CL.
UJ LU Z (— S- Z — •
E O CO Q£ — < CO
LU LU i— " ID O CJ
ar CD t— »o (— z LU
i— i «t O Q Z LU Z
13 a: O <: LU s I—
O-LU Q > z
LU > LU U_ Z O Li-
ar <: as o >— i o o
i—
1 CO LU 1
LU a: a: o
Q£ i-« O 1—
«— < U- U- CD O
ID LU z z
o-uj ce — • Q_
LU 31 LU h- O
a: f— 3C LU LU z
r— LU Z _] O
a a: s Z ea «
uj o a ID cc z h-
«— i «t a: o o -* as
a; LU <: o a: co i—
O — 1 r- 3 a. ac co
COCOODOZC1.LUZ
LU ^C *D^ h^ •""* ^C *"* l*^
O£ CJ •— t CO Z
Q- •— i <• 1— O >— LU
_j ae uj z z a o
>- — H
i— i cri CD f— o co
ID «~i «=c z ac as
O* h— LU Q. LU
LU UJ ~* S O- Q- — »
or ac Q 'jj «a: co z
O LU Q£ — • O
o y_ ce — o Q i— i
Ly LU O =) Z t—
co en o- _i<
M (— LU co «sc or
OC LU O O£ UJ O 1 —
o _j z z •-• co
CO fiQ CD 3 S Z
UJ «X UJ Z '/> LU O
or cj a: — • co z E
o_ i— < o p— <: <_> uj
_1 u. LU- — O Q
>• Q- '-U UJ h-
-J Q_ QC Z O O CD
_J < z

i^
UJ
oe
4^

U-
O
UJ
CU
1—

1
turn. fO
flj Jj
4->
V

(_j i^ tX}
>p— p
^_ ^ 1 '
Q. C
Q. in (LI
«* -^ E
(U
•o > c o o c
C Z 0 O N *4- •<-
(B •— ' Q — O 4-1
i— i p-^ fQ -f -* 4-} QJ
>— i ITS C •<- E •-
e. r* , , ^^ CO •* iB 3
f— O 4-1 • Ol — IB jQ O t. O"
CJ >r^ ^™% t_^ C i^ fB CJ ^J 3>
O CL
•• O « >i t_O4-> fUC
C t-CC3« f-l-i-3
o «- 3 3 o cro -a -u i—
rvlOOONOJOCUCQ
O**- «" OOt-Od "3 O OJ C_3
T3 •«-- a>
^J «•*
g C IB 0
•- 01 L.
t, (.0.
O "— ' IB CL
t[ IH^ rB
j ^
r— T3 C IB
O C OJ 0) '— >
^C IB S c. ^
o; c >a <— i
^-> -r- CO
IB ^^
•• C3 4-> O Q
f-^
IB
(J
•f— 1
,_ 1
Q.
CL

E
-o > c* t.
c z o o en
IB i— i "***x -CT .p— o
t— < i— i (B J-> S-
i— fO CL
•— • "O T3 in i — CJ
>— i c p— aj to 3 c jz e —
t_ p— l_) LU O d) CJ
O O <4- M «_
c. .c •• >, c u- c
P— 0*3 -Olr-^lB •- .
CJ '*") *"** CJ C J3 4-1 4-3 4_>
^C IB C tp^ O ^ ''^ CI C
O£ E *p™' ^ ^ 3 "^ ^ (U
1 -p- C Tl ~~~- IB OJ O 5- ttj
•• O 0) >t t-OO-Di-
4) C U 4-> 3 CT
rMOOOMl»O-i-O (~
L- 4m> QJ
3 IB JZ !
O C 4-1
(/) Q) O C

t- t/> S_ • !
O ^-»
«c IB e f- CL
QS C IB •— <
— • — CO
T} .
• • CD 4-1 o a
O) t— *J t. OJ t— 4J C.

O C C l_
Nl C O O IB
OK = 00.
t_
ai a> i
P— T3 J-> 4J
iB C C T3
3^K .•> j* .K
-tJ l/l *J CL
u a» t. o on c
t. 3 CL C C -f- C
T3 ftS CJ iB ^3 JZ 'p'^
U Tg c. O E •*->
4-> 4-1 C Q. 33 .,- T3
TJ c «j j= -a s o
CO) (- O •<-
en E >> ai -P- >,-K> t.
*^ C O ^J ^ p^ c Q) •
(/> -p- .r- C 3 QJ O» Q.O-
CJ rB P— 3 4-> E ~^
^3 Aj O 3>i IB {Z C— CO
JJ 1*^-.— *. (J 3 4J >,oo
t- O i— Z O "O 4-> ICT>
«C SZ O O-
o c c c-
N C O O IB
o f>- c u a.

•—
§-^
o
•r"
p— IB oo

X T3
IB IB 93 -r- C
OO o TJ f. -P-
.
X
-------
QJ

O
UJ

O
C
o

-o

T3 i—
•u u t_
c: ••- -a
CO

"— 4-> C
•— o

L-. (^) 4^
CO'—- U
•o o
<0 -O Q.
M- C

-o
CO C
c=
2 >>

o <-j o
ecu.
•i- O
CO -O c/j
t- co c
ITS *J O

*g
-a
Ol
• r- -^^
i *J <£
= <
C I -o
a> co ai
§*•; -U
a. a.
•-- o
*O i/» "O
4-»- (O
UJ
CO ••- ifl
-M 4->
i -a e
C. 4) 3)
•5«_--:
Ol t* J->
c •--
CO E
CO J= -=
*J *J O
(t* O CO
u
•— o
o c

•-- M
tn
-8<»-
co o

(TJ C
dl -—
U J3
X 3
yj o.
•o ••-

o
4.) 0}

t_ en o
«- 3 C
-3 O -f- =
o •—
*J «/» C "0
C (TJ (I) <_

E t_ c_ C
c -a aj *- CO
-I-
"O IT3 (tj
a> o a> T3
+J -r- t. CU
"O <— O.TJ- Q.
•-» t3 3j *-*
^^ ^J ^—J
CO <*- -0
T3 f C <0
c-n'-
.,— rg
-C C3L m
•»-> "—« UJ in
on -a-—
c o
— -=^>^-

•O *J 1/1 C
CO (- 3 O

i^ S. -2 °
o. > «

fl3 Q^ ^ A3
> Q. QJ
CO O (-
t- t- -O
t/l
U -1- •-- •!->

0) CO (_> C
^: t- co o
I— O. in C
u
-------
Since future measures are expected to be increasingly more
difficult to-develop and implement, EPA believes that the lower end
of this range (i.e., 3 percent per year) should be used in determining
whether the State is making reasonable efforts. In addition, EPA
believes that a requirement of less than 3 percent per year could
result in unreasonably long-term attainment dates for some areas.
Therefore, EPA will presume that an area is making reasonable
efforts to_provide for expeditious attainment (and reasonable
further progress) if its SIP measures (not including the measures
described earlier) will produce average annual emission reductions
equal to 3 percent of the base year emissions. Once the Federal
measures no longer provide a net benefit, all growth including that
from sources affected by Federal measures, must be factored into
the 3 percent requirement. Stated differently, long-term ozone
nonattainment areas will need to demonstrate sufficient reductions
to reduce their emissions inventories by the required percentage
regardless of the amount of growth that occurs from all source
categories. In high-growth areas, this could require reductions
from existing sources greater than an average annual 3 percent, in
order to compensate for new source (or vehicle) growth. The EPA
solicits comments on whether it should alleviate the additional
pressure that growth would create, by permitting States to use the
expected reductions from the FMVCP to compensate for emissions
growth while meeting their percent reduction requirement (as long
as the FMVCP program and other Federal measures provide a net
reduction).
125
-------
Areas that cannot demonstrate attainment within the 3-year
period in section 110(a)(2)(A) may seek to avoid the construction
ban by demonstrating attainment within the extended period allowed
by section 110(e). As indicated earlier, that section permits a
2-year extension of the attainment date only if:
(A) One or more emission sources (or classes of moving
sources) are unable to comply with the requirements
of such plans which implement such primary standard
because the necessary technology or other alternatives
are not available or will not be available soon enough
"~ to permit compliance within such 3-year period, and
(B) The State has considered and applied as a part
of its plan reasonably available alternative means
of attaining such primary standard and has justifiably
concluded that attainment of such primary standard
within the 3 years cannot be achieved.
It is clear that Congress intended to authorize EPA to consider the
economic feasibility or reasonableness of the available means of
attainment in making the judgment under paragraph (A). (If Congress
had not intended to do so, no area would be eligible for the extension,
since all areas can attain the standard within 3 years simply by
shutting down all economic activity.) Therefore, EPA interprets
paragraph (A) to require only a showing that the implementation of
the "reasonably available alternative means" (RAAM) described in
paragraph (B) would not bring about attainment within 3 years.
Paragraph (B), then, would provide assurance that those reasonably
available means are indeed implemented to achieve progress within
the 3-year period.
Therefore, an area will be eligible for the 2-year extension
if it demonstrates that it is actually implementing the RAAM within
126
-------
the 3-year period and that it still cannot attain within that
3-year period. The area then would not be subject to the construction
ban if it could then demonstrate attainment in the 2-year extension
period. The EPA proposes to define the RAAM as the set of prescribed
measures and the emission reduction percentage that are also applicable
to other long-term ozone nonattainment areas.
ii. Carbon Monoxide
For long-term CO nonattainment areas, EPA
proposes to define "reasonable efforts" as two sets of measures—one
for hotspots and one for areawide problems.
For hotspots, defined for these purposes as localized problems
with localized solutions (such as traffic changes at the hotspot
locations), EPA will require the State to include in its SIP revisions
enforceable commitments (1) to implement the localized solutions
for all currently known hotspots by the end of the 3-year period
and (2) for all hotspots identified for the first time within that
period or thereafter, to implement the localized solutions within
3 years of the identification.
For areas that have areawide CO problems, EPA proposes to define
"reasonable efforts" as, in addition to any hotspot requirements
that may apply, the average annual emission reduction described
above for long-term ozone nonattainment areas. Although past CO
SIP's have relied primarily on the FMVCP to reduce emissions by
this range of annual levels, EPA believes that additional measures
are potentially available at reasonable cost for application in

127
-------
these long-term areas. A list of available measures that States
should consider in deciding how to meet the percent reduction
requirement appears in Appendix C.
As discussed above for ozone, States should develop their
control strategies so that the minimum 3 percent reduction starts
as early as possible and occurs at a continuous rate until attainment
is achieved. But, for the same reasons discussed above for ozone,
the earliest practical date to assess compliance with the reduction
requirement will be in 1993 (for the year 1992). States will be
required to achieve creditable emission reductions of at least
15 percent {an average of 3 percent over the 5-year period of
1988-1992} by the end of 1992. Thereafter, States must achieve
reductions of at least 9 percent every 3 years until attainment.
The EPA is considering, however, whether it may be appropriate
to require a lesser reduction from long-term CO nonattainment areas
(perhaps especially in the period shortly after the SIP revision is
due). In contrast to the case for ozone, these areas will not be
able to rely significantly on stationary source control measures to
supplement TCM's as a means to meet the requirements. Most CO
nonattainment problems result almost exclusively from automotive
pollutants. Thus, it may be more difficult for CO nonattainment
areas than for ozone nonattainment areas to meet a 3 percent reduction
requirement (in addition to offsetting growth), at least in the short
term. The EPA solicits comments especially on how to assure that
local areas aggressively continue to implement reasonably available

128
I
-------
local controls while not requiring more control than can or needs
to be achieved, i.e., is 3 percent most appropriate or is another
level or approach more appropriate?
So long as federally-implemented measures continue to achieve
a net emissions reduction, considering growth in sources affected
by those Federal measures, States will not be required to account
for such growth in meeting the 3 percent requirement. However,
States must account for all other source growth during this period.
Once the Federal measures no longer provide a net benefit, all
growth must be factored into the 3 percent requirement. The EPA
solicits comment, however, on whether it should alleviate the
additional pressure that growth could create, by permitting States
to use the expected reductions from the FMVCP to compensate for
stationary source emissions growth in their percent reduction
calculations.
As in the case of ozone, EPA will use the requirements for long-
term areas, described above, as its definition of "reasonably
available alternative means," for the purpose of its decisions on
whether to'grant extensions to CO nonattainment areas under section
b. Attainment Dates
The attainment dates that EPA believes will
reflect "reasonable efforts" for long-term ozone and CO nonattainment
areas are the dates on which attainment of the relevant standard is
projected to occur if the required level of progress is achieved.
129
-------
Thus, the applicable "reasonable efforts" attainment date for an
area will turn on the percent reduction required. As a simplified
example, if an area needs a 50 percent VOC emission reduction to
attain the ambient standard and if national measures (e.g., FMVCP,
RVP, onboard) will provide reductions of 20 percent, the area must
achieve a net emission reduction {accounting for growth) of 30
percent. Assuming the minimum required rate of progress of 3
percent per year, the area must show that its strategy will provide
for attainment within 10 years of the base year (30 percent reduction
divided by 3 percent reduction per year).3^ Procedures and a worksheet
for calculating the attainment date are in Appendix K. For areas
demonstrated to be limited to CO hotspot problems and their solutions,
tha attainment date is the date (presumed to occur within the 3
year period) by which all necessary hotspot control measures will
be implemented.
36pr0vided that the federally-implemented measures produce the
20 percent reduction within the same 10-year period.
130
-------
C. MeasuresSelected by the State
States ara required to select such measures as will allow their
nonattainment areas to attain by the required data as discussed in
section IV.8. and to show the required expeditious progress in the
interim. There are conceivably a variety of different control
programs which could achieve this requirement. The discussion
below addresses some issues that are likely to arise as the States
study and select control measures after 1987.
1. Stationary Source Control Measures
The EPA has prescribed RACT requirements for the Group I,
II, and III CT6 sources discussed in section IV.A. and previously
approved SIP's may have included additional stationary sources
control obligations (as shown in Table I). Rather than specifically
prescribe yet additional control requirements needed, this policy
requires an average 3 percent reduction in emissions per year for
many areas, as described in section IV.B.
In order for an area to show the required 3 percent reduction,
it may be necessary for stationary source controls beyond those
specifically required by EPA to be adopted. In areas that exceed
the ozone standard by a wide margin, it seems almost a certainty
that new stationary source control measures will have to be incorporated
into the SIP.
Stationary sources fall into two types: (1) point sources and
(2) area sources. States will have to evaluate what stationary
sources in affected areas are present and not already covered by
131
-------
EPA requirements. Table C-l in Appendix C gives a list of various
types of stationary point sources which are not covered by CTG's.
Appendix C also contains titles of some technical reports written
by EPA which may be of help to States as they evaluate non-CTG
source control. The Table C-l list could be a good starting point
for States to use in evaluating where emission reductions can be
made through stationary source control. However, this list is neither
exhaustive nor prescriptive, and each State should examine its own
emission inventory to identify stationary point sources that may be
suitable for control.
Area sources can give rise to VOC emissions which, in some
locations, may be as large or larger than point sources. However,
area sources are often not addressed in control programs and have
not been control!ad in many locations in the past.
Area sources are emission sources that are relatively small
taken individually, but in the aggregate are large, because thera
are large numbers of these sources scattered throughout the area.
An example would be architectural coatings. Thousands of homeowners
in an urban area may each use a few gallons of paint per year.
Individually, each user's VOC emissions are small, but taken together,
because of the large number of individual users, emissions could be
relatively large. Table C-l in Appendix C lists some important
area sources that States should consider controlling for large VOC
reductions. One item on the list which may need explanation is
"consumer solvents." This term covers solvent emissions from common
132
-------
household items such as aerosol paints from small spray cans, hair
spray, cleaners, insect sprays, polishes, waxes, deodorants, and
many other common items. Control measures to reduce VOC emissions
from these items would probably entail reformulating the product so
that it contained less VOC, perhaps by making it as a waterborne
product.
For stationary sources, in order for emission limiting regulations
and control measures to be properly adopted, the regulation or measure
must meet the requirements for public hearing, be adopted by the
appropriate board or authority, and establish, by regulation or
permit, a schedule and date for each affected facility to achieve
compliance.
2. Air Toxics/Ozone Policy Interface
Ozone SIP development has significant relevance to
important nationwide efforts currently under way for the control of
toxic air pollutants. This is in part true because both programs
are concerned with many of the same sources and are being implemented
in large measure by the States and local agencies. For these and
other reasons (stated below), EPA is proposing a policy which
stresses that the development of ozone SIP's should, wherever
possible, incorporate measures that reflect air toxics controls.
Air toxics present a complex national problem resulting from
numerous and diverse sources. A large potential problem is believed
to exist from the mixture of sources and toxic pollutants present
in most major urban areas that are also nonattainment for ozone.
133
-------
Under EPA's National Air Toxics Strategy, released in June 1935,
the Administrator stressed the importance of using all available
existing authority to address the air toxics problem. One of the
principal existing authorities envisioned for use under the strategy
is that contained in section 110 of the Act governing SIP development,
since it had proven in the past to be effective in limiting the
aggregate 'risk to the public. Based on previous estimates within
EPA's 6-month study, 37 particulate matter and VOC SIP actions are
believed to have reduced the aggregate risk from 16 different toxic
pollutants by about 50 percent during the period from 1970 to 1980.
A follow-up study suggests that additional reductions of 25 percent
and more would result from new SIP control activities. Many of the
same sources causing the ozone problem will be of concern in evolving
State air toxics programs. Thus, for reasons of regulatory effec-
tiveness, administrative efficiency, and good sense the development
of ozone SIP's and State air toxics control programs should be well
coordinated in their timing and substance.
Toxics and ozone control programs.should be coordinated at
various levels. First, State and local programs will be encouraged
to develop and implement a toxics component in their ozone plans on
their own initiative. This is conducive to efficient air quality
37jhe Air Toxics Problem in the United States: An Analysis of Cancer
Risks for Selected Pollutants, U.S. EPA, May 1985.
134
-------
management because, as stated above, the ozone and toxics efforts
address many of the same sources. Second, EPA can promote the
adoption of toxics measures through the way it reviews SIP's. This
can take the form either of discouraging proposed provisions that
are counterproductive to toxics control or of encouraging productive
measures as part of general determinations of whether "reasonable
efforts" are being made. Third, EPA will consider air Doxies concerns
in its own actions relative to ozone SIP development. These actions
include the possible development of any nationally presumptive VOC
control measures or promulgation of any measures under section
110(c) of the Act. Finally, increased attention can be paid in
nonattainment new source review permitting under Part D of the Act
to reflect an intended consideration of air toxics.
The EPA is in the process of examining a variety of potential
strategies for reducing air toxics in the context of VOC control and
estimating the payoff associated with these various potential SIP
measures. This should assist State and local agencies in not only
maximizing total environmental benefit of the VOC control strategies
selected but also in avoiding control measures that are counter-
productive. The EPA intends that this initial guidance be available
in time to facilitate implementation of the policy on ozone and air
toxics as articulated above. The EPA solicits comments on what
this guidance should consist of and on the contents of today's
proposed policy for coordinating air toxics control and ozone SIP
development.
135
-------
3. Transportation Control Measures
In many cities exceeding the ozone NAAQS, mobile sources
make up one-half or more of the VOC emissions. The CO nonattainment
problem is almost exclusively related to mobile sources. The EPA
recognizes that many cities are experiencing high rates of growth
in overall VMT, which will overcome reductions from the FMVCP and
I/M programs in the near future. In a few cities with extremely
rapid growth, this event has already occurred. The EPA believes
that many metropolitan areas will, of necessity, evaluate and
select for the control strategy, transportation measures capable of
offsetting the effects of such growth in the future to the extent
necessary to provide for attainment and maintenance, and to meet
the required rate of progress.
a. Requirements for Adoption of Transportation-Related
Control^jteasures
Emission reductions from the transportation sector
range from short-term measures that can be developed and implemented
over a few months or a couple of years and with limited intergovern-
mental coordination, to measures that involve very complex planning
and extensive political processes. The latter measures are generally
referred to as "long-term" measures. These long-term measures will
generally be more difficult to implement, have higher social impacts,
and therefore have a greater degree of public interaction. In
certain cases, some of these measures (e.g., tax disincentives and
vehicle restrictions) could be implemented in the short-term;
136
-------
however, the States may choose to implement these measures later in
thair long-term strategies due to the high social "impacts. In
other cases, it may take a long time to develop these measures
conceptually, develop the technical details, and secure the necessary
funding {e.g., major mass transit projects). While the States may
choose measures as long-term measures for these noted reasons, EPA
believes that for the SIP strategy to be credible and approvable,
there must be at least some minimum "form of adoption" for these
long-term measures. This adoption may be somewhat different from
that of the short-term measures that have implementation commencing
in the immediate future. However, the long-term measure adoption
must be sufficiently binding on the State to assure that the identi-
fied measure will in fact be implemented according to the schedule
approved in the strategy.
Transportation control measures are to meet the following
criteria in order to be considered as properly adopted. The SIP
must contain the following:
• (1) A complete description of the measure and its estimated
emission reduction benefits must be provided;
(2) Evidence that the measure was properly adopted by the
jurisdiction(s) with legal authority to commit to and execute such
program (e.g., Attorney General's certification of adoption);
137
-------
(3) Evidence that funds to implement the measure are
obligated or on an acceptable schedule; '
(4) Evidence that all necessary approvals have been
obtained, from all appropriate governmental entities, including
State Highway Departments where applicable;
(5) A schedule for completion of planning, engineering,
development, start of construction, if applicable, and for start of
operation which has been adopted by the implementing agency
in an appropriate enforceable form; and
(6) A description of the monitoring program to assess
the effectiveness of the measure and to allow for in-place corrections
or alterations to obtain the full effectiveness.
As noted above, EPA believes that for some areas to attain the
ozone or CO standard, certain additional measures will be required,
over and above those now commonly accepted as implementableJn the
short term. In previous SIP submittals, EPA has accepted commitments
from States to study various control scenarios, with the condition
that the State submit a future SIP revision describing the results
of its study and adopting a particular control measure or measures
to adequately demonstrate attainment. Such "open-ended" study
programs have rarely resulted in adopted control which has contributed
to the emissions reductions shortfalls that have prevented these
areas from achieving attainment.
138
-------
The EPA proposes today that, for areas needing long-term measures
(including, but not limited to, TCM's) to demonstrate attainment of
the NAAQS, such SIP revisions must contain "adequately adopted"
programs to ensure that commencement of implementation of those
measures occurs in the most expeditious manner practicable. The
EPA recognizes that not all areas needing such long-term measures
will be able to complete all of the necessary and required activities
and processes associated with such long-term measures by the due
date of the initial SIP. Therefore, for those areas requiring
long-term measures to demonstrate attainment but that cannot fully
complete the adoption process associated with such measures in the
first 2 years, EPA will allow a two-phase adoption process. The
initial SIP must identify the long-term measures, estimate their
expected emissions reduction benefit, describe the various processes
to complete all planning, funding, and review by the various agencies
and organizations involved, define the decision steps leading to
adoption, and provide a schedule and commitment for completion of
adoption of these measures. .
The second phase of the adoption process will require that the
measure be submitted to EPA in "final adopted" form, in the most
expeditious manner but no later than 3 years after the initial SIP
is due (see Section II, Planning Schedules). In addition, this
second submittal is to provide a final schedule for the implementation
of the previously selected measure(s) described in the initial SIP.
139
-------
If the States fail to carry out their adoption process with
respect to these measures, EPA will consider that the State is not
making reasonable efforts to develop a plan which provides expeditious
attainment and the State, therefore, may be subject to additional
sanctions.
The EPA recognizes that some of these long-term measures may
not actually be scheduled for implementation until well into the
future. However, given the overall emission reduction targets for
some of these areas and the lead times required to implement such
measures, EPA believes that requiring this "up-front adoption" from
the State will provide some additional assurances that the air
quality standards will be achieved in a manner consistent with the
demonstration.
In subsequent rounds of demonstrations (every 6 years) when a
new demonstration is made, there may be an opportunity to revise
the measures and provide additional detailed information and
milestones regarding the implementation of those measures. Any
modifications to the strategy must ensure that the required annual
emission reductions are achieved.
140
-------
D. Role of Nitrogen Oxides
The efficacy of VOC and NOX controls depends on the relative
amounts of each pollutant in the atmosphere. If there is a lot of
VOC and little NOX ozone can be reduced by controlling the limiting
ingredient (NOX). Relative amounts of VOC and NOX are expressed as
the NMOC/NOX ratio. The higher the ratio, the more likely NOX
controls are to be beneficial. In some cases (photochemical grid
models), this ratio is derived from inventories and meteorological
inputs. In others (EKMA model), it is derived from measured data.
There is considerable uncertainty attendant to both approaches.
The EPA has been conducting special, limited duration studies for
the past 3 years in which NMOC/NOx ratios were measured. Although
there is wide variability in the data, typical ratios appear to be
about 12:1. This value is in a range where HQ^ controls, in addition
to VOC reduction, could be useful in reducing ozone under some
conditions. Evidence suggests that each city can be characterized
in terms of a "critical" NMOC/NOX ratio above which control of NOX
may be beneficial in reducing ozone. Based on currently available
information, EPA believes a critical ratio may be about 10:1.
Therefore, recognizing this potential for NOX controls to contribute
in an ozone attainment strategy, EPA proposes to require post-1987
ozone SIP's to evaluate the effectiveness of locally-implemented NOX
control where the median ambient NMOC/NOX ratio is equal to or
above 10:1. Below this ratio, benefits of reducing NOX in addition
141
-------
to VOC are less likely. Of course, States may still evaluate NOX

controls at ratios below 10:1, even though EPA does not require the

evaluation.

The effectiveness or advisability of NOX reductions could be

assessed to determine their ability to (1) expeditiously reduce

peak ozone, (2) work effectively with VOC measures needed to attain

the NAAQS, and (3) reduce population exposure to ozone. Guidance

describing the technical requirements for the evaluations is

contained in "Consideration of NOX Control in Ozone SIP's,"

EPA, Sept. 1987 (Draft).

Upon completion of trie evaluation, States may proceed to identify

and, if appropriate, implement NOX measures which will supplement

VOC controls and produce attainment of the ozone NAAQS. The EPA

will require States implementing MOx measures to determine a minimum

rate of NOX emission reduction which will result in attainment as

expeditiously as a VOC-only strategy .38 Then, the VOC annual reduction

requirement may be adjusted such that the VOC strategy achieves

reductions at a uniform rate from the date of the SIP call to the

attainment date previously determined by the VOC-only strategy.

The procedure for this is included in the proposed Policy Statement

at the end of this notice.
determining compliance with this rate, EPA will not require States
to account for growth in sources affected by federally implemented NOX
measures (i.e., FMVCP) so long as these measures continue to achieve a
net emission reduction considering the effects of such growth. However,
States must account for all other sources growth during this period. After
this period, all growth must be considered in determining compliance with
the rate.
142
-------
The EPA's present policy allows NOX controls to supplement VOC
strategies in certain cases. However, because certain VQC RACT
controls are required (see Table I) as assurance of attainment
(in recognition of the uncertainties associated with the EKMA modeling
demonstrations) substitution of NOx control for the required VOC
RACT controls is not allowed unless supported by a rigorous
demonstration using photochemical grid modeling. The EPA will
continue this policy.
143
-------
E Control of Transported Ozone and Precursors
1. Northeastern States
The EPA recognizes that the phenomenon of multi-day
transport of ozone and Us precursors in the northeastern States
significantly complicates efforts of individual States to develop
strategies to attain the ozone NAAQS. With a nearly continuous
string of closely-located urban areas spread over extended distances
and political boundaries, this portion of the country will ultimately
need a regionwide analysis to determine the collective adequacy of
various State control strategies.
Northeastern States need information to estimate inbound ozone
and precursors when they use urban scale models, and to evaluate
the effects of both regional and combined urban ozone control
strategies on regional ozone and precursor levels. Applications of
the EPA-developed ROM and subsequent interpretation of the results
will provide this information. However, due to the need for the
development of a regional emissions data base and multiple strategy
assessments, the ROM results will not be available until after the
upcoming SIP revisions are due.
Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires each SIP to contain provisions
adequate to prohibit emissions from stationary sources in the State
that would "prevent attainment or maintenance by any other State"
of any standard. For the reasons described in the section entitled
"Affected Areas," EPA believes that States must account for the
emissions contribution of attainment areas located within a CMSA
144
-------
(or MSA) to nonattainment problems within the same CMSA (or MSA).39
This is required even where the attainment areas lie across the
State border from the nonattainment areas within the CMSA (or MSA).
To ensure this, EPA will issue SIP calls for all counties within
the CMSA (or MSA), as well as non-MSA counties adjacent to the CMSA
(or MSA) that are experiencing violations of the standard. These
contributing areas will be required, through the planning process
described earlier in this notice and the use of acceptable urban
scale models, to show that their emissions controls are adequate to
meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E).
The EPA believes that the planning requirements for CMSA's (or
MSA's) and adjacent non-MSA counties will satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E) to the extant allowed by current urban scale
modeling capabilities. These requirements, whi.ch focus on reducing
emissions from CMSA's (MSA's) and adjacent nonattaining non-MSA
areas, will address a majority of emissions contributing to ozone
concentrations produced and transported within the northeast region
(see discussion below).
Moreover, EPA believes that until the ROM effort is concluded,
the Agency cannot determine the impact that these emissions have on
multi-day transport of ozone and its precursors. Current information
on such transport is insufficient to support a finding under section
39References to emissions in this section in a CMSA (or MSA) also include
all 100 tons per year stationary sources within 25 miles of the CMSA (or
MSA) boundary.
145
-------
110(a)(2}(H) that the SIP's for areas outside those covered by
today's proposal are substantially inadequate to meet the interstate
transport safeguards in section 110(a)(2)(E). See 49 FR 48152
{December 10, 1984) and 49 FR 34851 (September 4, 1984), for a more
detailed discussion of EPA's interpretation of section 110(a)(2){£).
Thus, while EPA recognizes that ROM results will be very
helpful and ultimately necessary in determining the relative contri-
butions of transported pollutants to ozone exceedances, EPA does
not propose to allow a delay in the submittal of the post-1987
ozone attainment demonstrations and revised SIP's for areas affected
by ROM.40 The EPA believes the Act requires that attainment demon-
strations be made using currently available models and data. This
means that States must use urban-scale models, with appropriate
assumptions of future transported ozone and precursors, based on
recent experience, to provide city-specific SIP reduction targets.
(Procedures for estimating present and future transported levels of
ozone and precursors for use in the EKMA analysis are contained in
the revised EPA guidance documents "Guideline for Use of City-Specific
EKMA in Post-1987 Ozone SIP's" and "Consideration of Transported
Ozone and Precursors in Regulatory Applications.") This urban-scale
4°To aid in the development of regional strategies using results of
the ROM analysis in the Northeast (ROMNET), EPA is proposing a
State/EPA advisory committee. The committee would consist of
senior EPA and State management. The EPA expects this committee to
(1) coordinate with the ongoing ROMNET programs, (2) upon completion
of the ROMNET analysis assist in selection and testing of the effects
of regionwide control strategies in the development of urban scale plans,
(3) help manage conflicts, and (4) review appropriate technical and policy
guidance.
146
-------
analysis must be submitted with the initial SIP. The EPA expects
that implementation of control strategies designed to meet these
urban-scale targets will substantially reduce local ozone and
precursor levels and, in turn, will reduce transported ozone and
precursor levels downwind. Whether these combined urban strategies
are adequate to produce attainment must subsequently be tested in
more refined demonstrations once the ROM results are available.
One of the issues concerning transport in the Northeast is
whether to include upwind attainment areas in regional control
strategies. These areas are believed by some to be a significant
contributor to downwind transport. To assess the potential
contribution of these areas to region-wide emissions (and to multi-
day transport problems), EPA compared the emissions in a 13-State
regional to the emissions of the MSA's/CMSA's within this area. Of
the 5.9 million tons of VOC in the 13-State area, 75 percent are
emitted in MSA's or CMSA's subject to this proposed policy. An
additional 10 percent of the total emissions are from mobile sources
in attainment areas in the 13-State region. These mobile sources
are, or are expected to be, controlled by Federal measures (FMVCP,
RVP, and onboard) which EPA intends to continue or to promulgate.
Therefore, a substantial portion (85 percent) of the VOC emissions
in the 13-State Northeast region would be affected by this policy.
410hio, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
New York, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine,
Massachusetts, Vermont, and District of Columbia. Source of emissions
data, 1980 National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP).
H7
-------
Transport directly affecting downwind cities on the afternoon
of the same day it was generated is primarily limited to a 100-mile
range. The EPA also conducted a review of emissions in this smaller
region. Within the 100-mile range of the MSA's (or CMSA's) located
in the Northeast "corridor" (generally, cities along the coast),
EPA's review indicates that nearly all (95 percent) of the emissions
in this smaller region are affected by this policy. This is because
the emissions in this smaller region are either (1) in an MSA (or
CMSA) measuring nonattainment, (2) in a nonattainment area in the
100-mile range, or (3) come from mobile sources controlled or to be
controlled by Federal measures.42
If the ROM analysis indicates that further emission reductions are
needed from sources in areas outside MSA's and CMSA's covered by
today's proposal, EPA will use its authority under section 110(a)(2)(H)
to call for SIP revisions to achieve those reductions. Where
emissions from stationary sources in one State are found to prevent
attainment in another State, EPA will require the upwind State to
address those emissions. Although section 110 contains no comparable
provision to address interstate transport of mobile source emissions,
EPA will use its authority under section 110(a)(2)(B) to require
States to address mobile source emissions affecting nonattainment
42See "Consideration of Transported Ozone and Precursors" for draft
recommendations concerning considerations of transport in the
absence of regional scale modeling.
143
-------
problems elsewhere within their own borders and Title II of the Act
to address other mobile source emissions as appropriate.
2. Other Areas Affectej by Jransport43
The EPA considers the transport problem in other areas
to be generally of a single-day phenomenon and confined to a smaller
scale and to involve fewer States and cities than the Northeast
problem. In addition, EPA's proposed requirement that the planning
area be the MSA/CMSA is intended to address many of these situations
involving smaller scale transport. Therefore, EPA believes that
transport in these areas will be handled successfully by a combination
of a broader planning area and urban-scale models, such as EKMA and
Urban Airshed. While EPA does not anticipate the need for a regional
model in areas outside the Northeast region at the present time,
EPA clearly does not intend to discourage the development of more
refined analytical tools which can be used in long-term nonattainment
areas in subsequent rounds of nonattainment demonstrations.
*3This policy does not specifically address situations involving
international transport. The EPA intends to address such situations
through separate FEDERAL REGISTER notices involving the affected
areas.
149
-------
F Accounting for Growth
The EPA believes that one important reason for continued
nonattainment problems is that the growth in emissions from new and
existing sources was not accounted for in earlier plans and that
control requirements have been less effective (than planned) in
limiting or mitigating the increases. This growth, if not mitigated
in the future, could significantly impede future attainment of the
ambient standards.
The post-1987 ozone and CO plans must contain provisions adequate
to ensure that future growth will be accounted for and reasonable
further progress is maintained.*^ At least two options exist for
addressing emission increases from major new sources or existing major
source modifications: (1) require emission increases to be offset
with decreases at other sources, or (2) allow strategies to provide
margins of growth (i.e., growth accommodation) by controlling beyond
the federally-prescribed measures and other measures already neaded
to show reasonable further progress. Although an emissions offset
program may provide more direct control over emissions growth at
these sources, EPA believes that areas still subject to Part D of
the Act are entitled specifically by virtue of section 173(1) to
choose between an offset program and a control strategy which
provides a growth accommodation for emission increases. In addition,
EPA believes that the post-1987 nonattainment policy should establish
44When N(L control is part of the ozone strategy, NOX emissions must
be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
150
-------
consistent requirements for all areas to the extent they are
consistent with the language and purposes of section 110 and Part D.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to allow all States including those
subject to section 110 [and, specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)] to
choose between these two approaches for addressing future emissions
growth.45 if the State chooses to provide a growth allowance for
new or modified sources, it must describe in detail its tracking
and recordkeeping procedures to manage such growth.
States may also decide on the approach for addressing growth
from minor or area sources. An offset program for minor point
sources or additional control measures to accommodate growth from
minor point sources or area sources could be used to ensure that
RFP is maintained. Where a State has an indirect source review
program, it may be a useful tool for evaluating growth.
On a related matter concerning emissions growth in designated
attainment areas and unclassifiable areas,46 EPA is proposing to
discontinue its practice of allowing statewide adoption of RACT as
a substitute for preconstruction monitoring required under the Agency's
prevention of significant deterioration program (PSD). In the
past, EPA has allowed States to adopt RACT on a statewide basis
instead of requiring preconstruction monitoring for VOC sources
45(}f course, the construction ban on major source growth will continue
in a nonattainment area until its SIP demonstration provides for
attainment within 3 years of EPA's approval of its plan.
46Areas where sufficient monitoring has not been available to determine
whether the area is nonattainment or not.
151
-------
subject to PSD. The EPA now believes that this RACT option was an
inadequate substitute for the knowledge gained from preconstruction
monitoring. In addition, in some cases, this policy was also used
inappropriately for sources subject to nonattainment requirements.
As a result, this policy allowed some sources to avoid the offset
requirement. In either case, EPA proposes to no longer allow such
substitutions.
In addition, EPA proposes to extend the requirement for case-by-
case offsets (or a growth allowance in an approved SIP) to major new
sources and modifications to be located in self-generating rural
ozone nonattainment areas. In its past policies (e.g., 44 FR
20372, April 4, 1979), EPA allowed such construction in all rural
ozone nonattainment areas without meeting that requirement. The
EPA now believes, however, that rural areas shown to contribute
significantly to their own ozone problems should be treated, for
purposes of the offset/growth allowance requirement, the same as
urban ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA proposes to retain its
policy of not applying that requirement in nonself-generating rural
ozone nonattainment areas for the reasons discussed in its previous
policy notices.
The EPA believes that additional emission reductions are
achievable through the NSR/PSD programs. States may wish to consider
measures which could obtain further control of emissions from new
sources or modifications to existing sources as one way to address
152
-------
long-term growth in sources and their emissions. A list of possible
new source review measures that States may wish to consider is
contained in Appendix C.
153
-------
G* Adoption of Enforceable Regulations
1. Legal Authority
The requirements for a State to document Us legal authority
with regard to the adoption, enforcement and recordkeeping requirements
for stationary source emission regulations have been previously
established through EPA policy and regulations [see 40 CFR 51.340
(1987)]. However, with transportation-related control measures,
there is less certainty on what would constitute an adequate adoption.
As discussed in Section IV.C., many States will likaly have to
consider the adoption and implementation of various transportation
related measures in order to demonstrate attainment of the ozone or
CO air quality standards. These measures must be adopted and
implemented under adequate legal authority, if they are to be
successful. Of particular concern are those neighboring States
with a common MSA/CMSA that need to have compatible legal authority
in order to implement TCM's across the entire MSA/CMSA boundary.
Therefore, EPA proposes to require that the SIP revision contain
the Attorney General's opinion regarding the State's legal authority
with respect to the adoption, implementation, and enforcement of
transportation related control measures.
2. Public Participation
The plan requirements set forth in this Policy Statement
will require some nonattainment areas to evaluate and adopt a
number of longer-term control measures that may depend for their
creation on an extensive and complex planning and implementation
process.

165
-------
measures needed to achieve at least an equivalent amount of reductions
as expeditiously as practicable. This would apply even to those
TCM's that, though fully adopted, did not achieve the projected
emission reduction. Additional measures must be submitted in a SIP
revision within 9 months after the annual RFP report due date and
must achieve the shortfall in emission reductions within 2 years of
the end of the year being reported on. Subsequent annual reports
should document the implementation of these additional measures.51
If delays in full compliance with the regulation(s) are expected,
the State should highlight the compliance problems, estimate the date
for full compliance, and within 9 months of the end of the reporting
year discuss with the EPA Regional Office the problem and any
recommended steps for resolution. The EPA believes the National
Air Audit System may provide an appropriate forum in which to
discuss these problems and possible solutions. Delays of less than
1 year will be assumed not to be significant, but the State and EPA
will conduct quarterly reviews to ensure that the delays do not
EPA will evaluate the State's performance in responding
adequately to identified emission reduction shortfalls or problems
in implementing control measures* A failure on the part of the
State to respond to such shortfalls or problems may result in EPA's
rescinding its finding of "reasonable efforts" and imposing sanctions
in the area. Although EPA does not expected to take immediate
corrective action (e.g., sanctions) when a State first experiences
implementation problems, persistent failure to meet the emission
reduction requirements and implementation milestones in the current
demonstration of attainment, despite the State's talcing correction
action as outlined in this section, may also result in EPA's rescinding
its finding of "reasonable efforts" and imposing sanctions.
166
-------
extend beyond 1 year. If delays are expected to last more than 1
year, States are required to develop and implement interim measures
to achieve reductions equivalent to the shortfall until full compliance
with the original SIP measure is achieved or to substitute measures
to replace the original measure. Interim or substitute measures
must be submitted within 12 months after the reporting year, and
schedules for implementing the measures must ensure that the
shortfall in emission reductions is achieved within 2 years of the
end of the year being reported on. Subsequent annual reports must
document implementation of the substitute or interim measures.
The EPA proposes also to require States to update every 3 years
the entire emission inventory for their nonattainment areas. The
initial plan submittal must contain a commitment to revise the SIP
(within 9 months) of the due date of the RFP report containing the
updated inventory if the inventory updates are higher than the
emissions represented on the RFP curve. Corrective actions must
ensure that the targetted emission inventory level will be achieved
expeditiously, but no later than the end of the base year for the
next inventory update.
These inventory updates will help ensure that initial assumptions
for major and area source growth, emission factors, or inventory
procedures are still correct. The emission inventory base year for
each 3-year period shall coincide with the 3-year projection years
167
-------
used in the demonstration of attainment.52 The emission inventory

updates will be included in the annual progress reports for those

years (i.e., the inventory update is due 9 months after the end of

the updated base year5*3). These complete emission inventories every

3 years should also detail new source review (NSR) activity. New

source growth should be summarized along with the offsets produced

or the reductions from the plan's allowance for such growth.

Specific guidance on tracking emissions reductions is contained

in an EPA document entitled, "Revised Guidance for Tracking Reasonable

Further Progress (RFP) in Ozone Control Programs." (See Appendix H.)

The guidance in this document generally applies to CO also and to

NOX where NOX controls are included in the ozone control strategy.
52The demonstration of attainment will contain projections of the emission
inventory at 3-year increments. An updated, actual emission inventory
will be required from States to show that they are achieving their required
emission reductions. The inventory updates will be included in the
annual progress report which covers that year.

53The emission inventory contained in the initial plan submittal
generally must reflect emissions in 1987. (See Section III.C) The
plan must also show emission reductions projected to occur between
1988 and 1992 and beyond. As stated in Section IV.B. "Requirements
of Expeditious Attainment Dates and Reasonable Progress," EPA
believes that, in most cases, 1992 will be the earliest year in
which compliance with the 3 percent annual reduction requirement
(which begins in the year of the SIP call) can be expected. Therefore,
EPA will require the State to show that creditable emission reductions
of at least 15 percent have occurred in 1992. Thus, the first
progress report that will contain an entire emission inventory will
be due in 1993 and will cover the emissions in 1992. Subsequent
inventory updates for the projection years in the demonstration of
attainment will be contained in the progress report for those years
(i.e., 1995 inventory reported in 1996, 1998 inventory reported in
1999, etc.).
168
-------
The EPA plans to develop' guidance on tracking the implementation of
TCM's. This guidance will focus on specific steps to determine the
reductions that are actually being achieved by the TCM's. Specific
guidance for developing the emission inventories is contained in
"Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-1987 Ozone State Implementation
Plans."
b. Imp!ementati on Mi 1estones
States must annually report on the status of
those milestones and commitments which wera to have been satisfied
in the reporting year. The status of milestones and commitments
scheduled but not met in earlier years should also be reported. If
a milestone has not been, met, the State must document the problems
and the plans for satisfying the commitment. The EPA will assume
that delays of more than 1 year in meeting a milestone will
significantly interfere with implementation of the measure. As
such, EPA will consider rescinding its approval of the SIP (or, in
the case of long-term nonattainment areas, its prior finding of
reasonable efforts) and the imposition of sanctions unless the State
demonstrates that full implementation of the measure will not be
delayed beyond the original date contained in the SIP.
If the State finds that an expected milestone(s) for a measure
is no longer appropriate, the milestone can be amended through a
SIP revision. Thorough documentation will be needed to show that
adjustments to the milestones and schedule are warranted. Significant
delays in the implementation of the measure may necessitate substitute
169
-------
or interim measures. The EPA will review such changes and the need
for substitute measures on a case-by-case basis. The EPA's decision
will depend greatly on the schedule for other State measures and
the efforts on the part of the State to implement this and other
measures.
c. Ai r Qua!_rty_
States should compare their emission reductions
from year to year with ambient air quality levels. Although consider-
ably variable, air quality levels can be used as indicators of the
effectiveness of the control strategy measures. Air quality levels
for ozone and CO should be reported in accordance with the "Revised
Guidance for Tracking Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in Ozone
Control Programs." Significant divergence of air quality trends
from estimated emission reductions may indicate the need for rsexamina-
tion of the control strategy and demonstration of attainment.
In areas with long-term attainment dates, States are required
to monitor each year the nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC)
during the ozone season. The EPA proposes to require that the
initial plan revisions contain commitments to perform NMOC and NOX
monitoring. These monitoring data are to be compared with the
periodic (every 3 years) emission inventories in the appropriate
annual progress report. These monitoring data will be used to
evaluate the long-term trends and effectiveness of the control
strategy and to support subsequent updates to the demonstration of
attainment. Other States are also encouraged to establish monitoring
sites for NMOC.
170
-------
2. Rule Effectiveness Evaluation
Each year States and EPA Regional Offices will evaluate
selected SIP regulations and programs to determine whether they are
achieving their intended effect. The EPA will provide guidance for
the rule effectiveness evaluations and identify each year those
regulations and programs which should be the focus of the evaluations.
In selecting regulations to evaluate, the EPA Regional Office and
the State may jointly decide on a substitute regulation for evaluation
according to the criteria in the above guidance.
The EPA will work with States, possibly through the existing
National Air Audit System (NAAS), to complete a detailed review of
one or more VOC regulations per year to uncover such problems as
inadequate enforcement, improper test methods, ambiguous language
in the regulations, and lack of proper training for agency or
industry staff. The EPA and the State would then complete a joint
report on the problems identified during the evaluation.
The results of each year's rule effectiveness evaluations will
be summarized in the State's annual RFP report. Major problems
will be identified, and actions needed to remedy the problems will
be listed. The report should contain a schedule of the steps the
State will take to correct implementation problems. The EPA expects
implementation problems to be corrected within 1 year after the due
date for the annual report. Subsequent annual reports should
summarize corrective actions taken and their results.
171
-------
3. Subsequent Demonstrations of Attainment
The EPA proposes to require States to reexamine
their demonstrations of attainment periodically (every 6 years to
coincide with every other updated emission inventory) based on
up-to-date emission levels, modeling techniques, emission factors,
and air quality levels (03, NOX, NMOC, CO). States with attainment
dates within the subsequent 6 years (from the original SIP due date
or the date the updated demonstration is due) must also project
their emissions for at least 10 years (from that date) to show that
their strategies will provide for maintenance of the standards.
States may also want to review and modify their demonstrations more
frequently if changes in emission factors, air quality levels,
modeling techniques, or other factors affecting the demonstration
might indicate the need for changes to their control strategies.
The EPA will periodically provide States guidance on these subsequent
demonstrations, including information on base year emission inventories,
modeling methodologies, and schedules for submittal. The EPA
expects that these subsequent demonstrations will be due within 18
months aftar the end of the 6-year period.54 The updated demonstration
of attainment will consider the effects that implemented measures
have had, including a comparison between these effects and the
projections in the earlier demonstration(s).
54The first update to the demonstration of attainment (covering the
period through 1995} will be due by mid-1997.
172
-------
The primary objective of the demonstrations of attainment
(subsequent to the initial submittal) is to determine whether the
resulting control program effectiveness, changes in air quality
levels, the science of ozone formation and transport, or modeling
or emission calculation procedures might significantly affect the
strategy that has been developed for an area. Also, these subsequent
demonstrations can provide greater detail for long-term measures
(as additional details become available on the implementation of
these measures) and fully incorporate any previous changes in the
strategy (e.g., new measures to make up for shortfalls). The
annual report should ensure that the original strategy is being
effectively implemented. The updated demonstration of attainment
will evaluate the ability of the strategy (as it has been implemented)
to continue to achieve emission reductions sufficient to achieve
the ambient standard as planned. If, for example, the updated
demonstration indicates that more emission reductions will be
needed than will be provided through full implementation of the
current strategy, then additional measures must be developed and
adopted by the State. Similarly, changes in the knowledge of ozone
formation could possibly indicate that NOX emission reductions, in
addition to VOC reductions, would be effective in reducing ozone.
The EPA will work closely with States in evaluating the implications
of these types of changes as well as new developments in control
technologies.
173
-------
The EPA also believes that the subsequent demonstrations of
attainment will provide an opportunity to review the performance
to date of the State with regard to implementation of measures and
achievement of the RFP emission reductions. In the review of the
updated demonstrations of attainment, EPA plans to assess whether
reasonable efforts are still being made by the State to provide for
expeditious attainment of the standards.
B. Maintenance PTan and Continuity of Control Programs
The objective of all SIP's is to attain the ambient standards.
However, once attainment is reached, States must ensure that the
SIP's are capable of maintaining the standards into the future.
Maintenance programs will be composed of the redesignation from
nonattainment to attainment (where this section 107 process is
appropriate), continued monitoring of air quality levels and emission
inventories, and maintenance strategies for assuring continued
emissions reduction.
1. Nonattainment Redesignation
The EPA's current policies for redesignating an area
from nonattainment to attainment will continue to apply. In general,
for redesignations the State must demonstrate that the area no
longer violates the ambient standard and the control plan for the
area has been fully implemented. The specific requirements for
ozone redesignations differ somewhat from those for CO redesignations
174
-------
particularly with regard to the air quality data needed to show
that no violations have occurred.55
a. Ozone
States must provide at least 3 years of air quality
data showing that no violations of the ambient standard have occurred.
The data must represent (or be adjusted to represent) three complete
ozone seasons. The EPA believes that the emissions throughout an
MSA/CMSA can affect air quality throughout the MSA/CMSA. Under the
planning requirements described earlier, EPA is proposing to require
States to consider emissions throughout the MSA/CMSA in developing
their ozone control strategies. Similarly, with regard to redesignations,
EPA proposes to require States to show that no ozone violations are
occurring at any monitoring sites in the MSA/CMSA before the designated
nonattainment area can be redesignated to attainment. This is
because the designated nonattainment area in such a case may be
contributing to the monitored violations in the MSA/CMSA.
The EPA is considering alternatives for addressing redesignation
requests involving transport areas. Under current policy, areas with
downwind design sites located outside of the control area must show
that attainment has occurred at the design site as well as in the
control area. For such transport situations The EPA proposes to
continue this policy.
55The EPA policy on nonattainment redesignations is further described in
the following memoranda: "Section 107 Designation Policy Summary,"
April 21, 1983, Sheldon Meyers to Regional Office Division Directors;
"Section 107 Questions and Answers," G. T. Helms to Regional Office Air
Branch Chiefs.
175
-------
For more complex transport situations {e.g., the Northeast areas
covered in ROM analysis), EPA recognizes that several upwind areas
may affect a specific area or several downwind areas. Several
options are available for treating redesignations for these areas.
A similar approach to the above, where all nonattainment areas
remained designated so until attainment is shown in the downwind
areas, could be followed. This approach would apply to an area
that has fully implemented its strategy and reduced emissions to
attain in that area, and reduced sufficiently its share of transport
to the downwind area. This approach would require such an area to
remain nonattainment whila other areas (which contributed to transport)
implemented their strategies over possibly much longer timeframes.
Although the new source requirements would be similar after redesig-
nation to attainment as they were under nonattainment (see discussion
below on "Maintenance Strategy Requirements"), there would be fewer
and less frequent reporting requirements and, of course, the area
would be able to show that its air quality was in attainment.
As an alternative to requiring attainment in the downwind area
before any upwind area could radesignate, EPA could allow an area
to redesignate if it had attained in its area and achieved reductions
for its share of the transport problem.56 The EPA will evaluate this
alternative and the one described above plus any others identified
through comments to determine an equitable approach to redesignating
56Determination of reductions needed in attainment areas to reduce
downwind transport will depend on the results of regional models.
176
-------
upwind areas while still ensuring expeditious attainment in all
areas (upwind and downwind).
In addition to requiring areas to show 3 years of ambient data
with no violations, current policy requires areas to show that
the SIP for the area has been fully implemented and that the planned
emission reductions ha^e occurred. (The EPA will consider requests
for redesignations where full implementation has not occurred if
the State provides legally enforceable compliance schedules for
those sources not yet in compliance.) This requirement stems from
EPA's obligation, implicit in sections 107 and 171, to assure that
an area's air quality improvement is not a temporary phenomenon but
rather the result of permanent reductions achieved by implementation
of its approved plan. The EPA will also review available NMOC
monitoring data to assess whether those air quality trends reflect
actual changes in the emissions inventory.
The EPA is proposing to require States to demonstrate that the
emission reductions and the resulting attainment inventory level (see
discussion following) will be maintained into the future.57 Although
EPA recognizes that long-term growth projections can be highly
speculative, States will be required to use the best available
57jhe requirement to maintain the attainment inventory level in areas
which had areawide CO problems will apply to the entire MSA/CMSA.
For areas which had only CO hotspot problems, smaller areas (after EPA
approval) may be used in determining the attainment inventory level.
177
-------
information to project growth and related emissions as far as
reasonable into the future. A minimum future projection of 10
years from the redesignation will be required. The EPA will
provide guidance on projecting emissions and other aspects of
developing a maintenance plan. The air pollution control requirements
that will apply to that growth should be considered in determining
what the resulting emission level will be.
All EPA-approved attainment strategy requirements are in effect
during the redesignation process and until such time as modified
in accordance with established SIP revision procedures. Even
though the current NSR regulations allow a potential exemption from
nonattainment area NSR requirements for sources wishing to locate
in an area designated nonattainment that can demonstrate attainment
before the source would start operation, EPA proposed removing this
exemption on January 23, 1981 (at 46 FR 8124). The EPA is now
considering implementing this rule change in this policy and invitas
comment on this issue.
b. Carbon Monoxide
The EPA proposes to continue the current policy
of requiring at least 2 years of ambient monitoring showing no
violations of the standard for redesignations to attainment. Also,
States must continue to show that the CO control strategy has been
fully implemented and the planned emission reductions have been
achieved. As with ozone, EPA will consider redesignations even
178
-------
though full implementation has not occurred if the State provides
legally enforceable compliance schedules for the source(s) not yet
in compliance. In addition, States must show that future growth
under applicable control requirements (see V.8.2 below) will not
cause significant increases in the attainment emission inventory
level (i.e., the initial baseline inventory minus the reductions
needed for attainment) or otherwise interfere with maintenance of
the standard. A minimum future projection of 10 years is required.
The EPA will provide guidance on projecting emissions and other
aspects of developing a maintenance plan.
In some areas, for CO, States may desire to reduce the coverage
of the nonattainment area. The EPA will consider such requests if
the State provides air quality data and a detailed modeling analysis
showing that areawide or hotspot violations are no longer occurring
(and none are projected to occur for 10 years) in the area outside of
the proposed nonattainment area (including any designated attainment
areas in the MSA/CMSA outside of the proposed nonattainment area).
The EPA will no longer consider requests for redefining the CO
nonattainment area smaller than the urbanized area because it is
clear that vehicles at residences and businesses throughout that
area contribute to even localized hotspot CO problems in the area.
2. Maintenance Strategy Requirements
Maintenance strategies are needed to ensure that
future violations will not occur in an area that has attained the
standard and to clearly set forth the procedures for monitoring
179
-------
growth and emission changes and possibly modifying certain elements
of the £PA-approved attainment strategy after attainment occurs.
The primary components of these strategies are the mechanisms for
tracking emissions and air quality after attainment, the requirements
related to new source growth, projecting emissions growth, and the
need for additional measures and the procedures for modifying the
existing attainment strategy (particularly with regard to relaxations
of requirements in the approved SIP's).
The emission level taat is the basis for redesignation to
attainment is called the attainment inventory. For ozone, this
inventory is based on actual emissions during the 3-year period
corresponding to the 3-year period during which no ambient violations
were recorded. For CO, 2-year periods are used. The lowest annual
emission level during this period will be considered the attainment
inventory. The EPA will provide additional guidance later to
States on the development of the attainment inventory.
a. Tracking Emissions and Air Quality
The procedures for tracking emissions and air
quality after an area has attained the standard will be an extension
of the reporting requirements used in monitoring RFP (see Section
V.A.I. - Aggressive Tracking). Under the maintenance strategy, the
States will report less frequently and will focus more on new
source growth rather than implementation of additional control
measures. However, measuring and improving the effectiveness of
regulations and control programs will continue to be important
objectives for the States and EPA in the maintenance strategies.

180
-------
For maintenance, EPA is proposing to requira States to provide
a report every 3 yaars summarizing all new source growth and other
emission changes from the attainment inventory. The first report
will be due 45 months53 aftar the end of the year in which (I) the
area is formally redesignated (for section 107 designated non-
attainment areas) or (2) the area is found to no longer violate tha
ambient standard (for areas which never had section 107 nonattainment
designations or were designated attainment under section 107). The first
report will address all emission changes in the year of the redesig-
nation plus the following 3 years. Thereafter, the report will
cover emission changes dnd other related items in subsequent 3-year
periods and will be due within 9 months after the end of the 3-year
period. This report and all subsequent reports will also document
the results of the rule effectiveness evaluations which have occurred
in the 3-year reporting period. Appropriate effectiveness levels should
be used in developing subsequent emission inventories (see below).
The report will document any steps being taken to improve rule
effectiveness.
In the 3-year report, the State will provide a complete up-to-
date emission inventory. The base year should be the third year of
the 3-year reporting period. The inventory should be presented in
the form contained in "Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-1987
53The 45 months is based on a requirement to report within 9 months
of the first 3-year period.
181
-------
Ozone State Implementation Plans." The summary of emissions should
delineate the emissions growth from new sources or sources which
have expanded. Minor and area source growth should be shown, and
the State should indicate whether previous assumptions used in
projecting minor and area source growth are still appropriate. The
sources and magnitude of emissions offsets should be identified.
NOX and CO emission summaries should also be provided.
If the updated inventory reported to EPA is higher than the
attainment inventory, the State must take appropriate action to
lower its emissions.59 Within 9 months from the due date for that
report, the State must (1) demonstrate that within the calendar
year after the end of the last reporting period, the emissions
inventory fell below the attainment inventory or (2) submit a SIP
revision containing appropriate measures to ensure that the inventory
will fall below the attainment inventory as expeditiously as practicable.
The 3-year report from the State should also summarize air quality
levels and trends. If an area had been nonattainment for ozone, NMOC
and NOX levels and trends should also be reported. The EPA will
develop additional guidance for States to Follow in summarizing
their air quality data under the maintenance strategies. The EPA
is also proposing to require States to project in every other
CO hotspot problems, the attainment inventory will be used as an
indicator of the potential for additional or recurring CO problems. The
State will not have to maintain emissions below the attainment inventory
if it demonstrates that the increases are not related to and will not
have an effect on the previous problem area.
132
-------
3-year report (i.e., every 6 years) their expected emissions over
the next 10 years. In this report, the State must show that its
current SIP is adequate to maintain the standard after attainment.
If the SIP measures will not be able to ensure that emissions stay
below the attainment inventory level, the State must submit in that
report its plan for additional measures to accommodate the growth.
The State must commit to implement those additional measuras at a
rate such that the emission reductions occur before the emission
increases from expected growth.
b. New Source Growth Requirements
The State must ensure that emissions growth from
new sources {major, minor, stationary, mobile) does not interfere
with attainment.
Because of the complex processes involved in the formation of
ozone, the difficulty in modeling the impact of specific VQC and
NOX sources, and the fact that, with models currently in most
widespread use (i.e., EKMA), the exact location of VOC and NOX
sources is not as important as the total emissions within an area,
EPA believes that for VOC and NOX^ major sources, offsetting emissions
from within the area is needed to control emissions growth. The
EPA believes that States should have flexibility to use either
case-by-case offsets or develop areawide accommodative plans, or
both, in developing maintenance strategies. Therefore, EPA proposes
°"This requirement applies where NOX control is part of the ozone
control strategy.
183
-------
to allow each State to decide its own approach for addressing
emissions growth as long as there are assurances that the attainment
inventory level is maintained and provided that the State satisfies
other regulatory requirements {e.g., PSD, in areas redesignated to
attainment). The State must keep records to show at any one time
that the new growth can be accommodated by the SIP.
The paragraphs above address emissions growth from new or modified
major VOC sources. To account for minor source and area and mobile
source emissions growth, the State must adopt and implement additional
control measures to accommodate the incraases and keep area emissions
below the attainment inventory. The State will have considerable
flexibility in developing this part of the maintenance strategy to
compensate for emissions growth. For example, the State could
address minor point source growth by applying to minor sources the
preconstruction review process for major sources and modifications.
Alternatively, the State might adopt additional measures, such as
further controls, mitigation fees, or other innovative approaches,
that will provide a margin of growth for minor point, area, and
mobile sources. The State must show, however, that its measures
will produce the necessary emission reductions within the same
period or before the emissions growth occurs (whether from minor
point, area, or mobile sources). Some of these measures will have
been identified in the demonstration accompanying the request for a
redesignation to attainment. Others may be developed later and
submitted as SIP revisions, so long as they create the emission
reductions prior to the emissions growth.

184
-------
The EPA believes that it may also be reasonable to ensure
maintenance of the CO ambient standard in an approach similar to
the one discussed above for ozone. Although "hotspot" CO problems
have been identified in several areas, these high CO concentrations
are often an indication of broader problems associated with significant
CO emissions across a larger area. Therefore, EPA is proposing to
require CO maintenance plans to (1) ensure that emissions remain
below the attainment inventory for an area and (2) periodically (in
the 3-year report) assess the effects of new source growth. Exceptions
to the first requirement may be allowed if the State demonstrates
that its previous CO problem was entirely a hotspot problem and
that the emission increases will not cause or contribute to a new
hotspot problem.
c. Modifying the Attainment Strategy
In general, EPA believes that measures implemented
to attain the ambient standard will continue to be needed to maintain
the standard. The EPA expects, however, that there may be some
cases in which the emission reduction potential of a measure decreases
due to a change in the source profile or other technological develop-
ments (e.g., more effective new car emission controls). In addition,
a State may have other reasons for which it desires to modify the
strategy it had developed, adopted, and implemented to attain the
standard. Any modification to an attainment strategy would have to
be submitted as a SIP revision and approved by EPA before it would
affect the applicability of the previously approved SIP.
135
-------
C. Reguirements for Emergency Episode Plans
Each State is required to develop an emergency episode plan
outlining the steps the State and its sources will take to lower
emissions rapidly in the case of highly elevated pollution levels
(40 CFR 51, Subpart H). The EPA believes that this emergency episode
plan should be consistent with and supportive of the proposed
policy to ensure that special occurrences will not interfere with
the State's efforts to attain the standards and achieve RFP in the
interim. Therefore, EPA proposes to require the initial plan
submittals from the States to demonstrate that their emergency
episode plans are consistent with the requirements of this policy.
If a State is unable to provide such a demonstration in the initial
submittal due to the need for significant changes i.n its emergency
episode plan, EPA proposes to allow the State up to the due date
for the first RFP report to provide the demonstration. The initial
submittal must contain a commitment to and description of actions
needed to provide this demonstration.
The EPA is proposing that source areas in one State that contribute
to ozone exceedances in another State develop emergency episode plans
which consider those receptor areas. These plans must include a
provision for interstate coordination involving air quality data
and quality assurance information.
D. Conformity of Federal Actions With the SIP
Section 176(c) of the Act aims to ensure that Federal actions
conform with the SIP. This requirement helps to ensure that SIP
186
-------
growth projections are not exceeded, RFP targets are achieved, and
air quality maintenance efforts are not undermined.
Section 176(c) of the Act requires all federally approved or
financially assisted actions (projects, plans, approvals, assistance,
etc.) to conform to the SIP's for the areas in which those actions
will take place. MPO's are prohibited from approviny any project,
program, or plan that does not conform to the SIP for that area.
Assurance of conformity is also an affirmative responsibility of
the head of each Federal agency.
Due to the existing DOT/EPA Conformity Agreement of June 12, 1980,
the conformity approach contained in this section and the more detailed
criteria contained in the proposed Policy Statement do not apply to
transportation plans, programs, and projects approved by Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) and approved or funded by DOT. EPA and
DOT will discuss the joint updating and revision of the 19&0 Conformity
Agreement. Any changes to the 1980 Agreement, following these discussions,
will be reflected in a separate rulemaking action: by DOT in a revision
of 23 CFR 770 which will be published sometime in the near future.
187
-------
Since Congress enacted these requirements, some MPO's and Federal
agencies have read the conformity provision to require only that a
proposed project be consistent with regulations in the SIP. This
narrow reading could allow activities that, while not inconsistent
with an actual State or local rule, could cause a NAAQS violation
(in the near- or long-term) or be inconsistent with the demonstration
of emission reduction progress or of attainment in the approved
SIP. Thus, the use of such a narrow reading would pose an ossentially
unchecked threat to the intagrity of the SIP's on which EPA and the
States will rely to produce progress and eventual attainment.
The primary purpose of SIP's is to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. For this reason, the EPA believes that it must take concrete
steps to ensure that federally approved and financially assisted
actions conform with the SIP by not causing NAAQS violations.
Federal actions should conform to both the SIP regulations and the
emission reduction projections demonstrating progress and attainment
on which EPA relies to approve new SIP's and to decide on discretionary
sanctions. The EPA believes that it already has the authority to
establish these safeguards. Section 110(a)(2)(3), which applies to
all areas receiving SIP calls, requires SIP's to contain emission
limitations, schedules, and timetables for compliance with such
Limitations, and "such other measures as may be necessary to ensure
attainment and maintenance of such primary or secondary standard. . . ."
188
-------
To ensure that projects, programs, or plans approved by MPO's
do not cause NAAQS violations or interfere with timely attainment
of the standards (and hence do conform to the revised SIP), EPA
will require that each revised SIP explicitly identify direct and
indirect emissions expected from projected major Federal actions
that the State and MPO expect to occur in coming years. The SIP
should document assumptions used in predicting future emissions so
that emissions associated with Federal actions can be readily
compared to emission projections in the SIP. This should include
assumptions on growth that can be readily disaggregated (including
population, employment, VMT, and emissions, as appropriate).
Beyond that, the SIP must contain a clear definition of the circum-
stances in which a federally funded or approved project will or
will not conform to the SIP. That definition must state that a
project conforms to the SIP only if the emissions that it will
cause (calculated using assumptions consistent with SIP assumptions)
will not bring aggregate emissions for the planning area above the
level projected for the area for the relevant timeframes in the
SIP's demonstration of emission reduction progress and attainment.
Where existing MPO section 176{c) review procedures ensure
that such projects would not cause violations or interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance of the air quality standards,
the definition of conformity in SIP submittals could simply mirror
the definition used by those agencies. For other cases, however,
the SIP conformity definition would fill the gap left by the existing
189
-------
procedures. Stated differently, the inclusion of a broad definition

of conformity in the SIP will ensure that projects reviewed by

MPO's would be evaluated against the appropriate criteria.61

The proposed Policy Statement at the end of today's notice

contains a more detailed list of the criteria that should comprise

the SIP's definition of wnen federally-assisted projects conform

with the SIP.
6lAt least one Federal agency, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, has a separate Federal statute that authorizes the
EPA to delegate its responsibilities under section 176(c) to the
recipient of Federal approval (and funds) for the project. In such
cases, the recipient would need to use the SIP's broad definition
of conformity in making the section 176{c) determination.
190
-------
VI. MAXIMIZING EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAM
The policy being proposed today recognizes that the control
strategy development process and associated regulatory development
are a predictive process, predicated upon technical and socioecononric
assumptions and projections, and often upon developing and implementing
new technology and science. The EPA recognizes that, in developing
control strategies, control measures, and regulations that must be
implemented on a national basis, the potential for varying interpre-
tations and inconsistent application exists.
With regard to current SIP's, EPA believes that variations and
inconsistencies between some State regulations and program functions
and the requirements of existing EPA policies do exist and, when
viewed in total, have a potentially significant effect on whether
emissions will actually be reduced to the levels contained in the
SIP thus effecting the ability of the SIP to achieve attainment.
•
These errors and inconsistencies must be reduced and eliminated
to allow for the fullest implementation of existing control measures
and strategies.
In April of 1987, the EPA Administrator sent letters to 42 State
Governors expressing his concern that current SIP requirements may
not be adequate to provide for the attainment of the NAAQS for
ozone and carbon monoxide. While stating that additional control
efforts may have to be undertaken, the Administrator also proposed
a three-part process to ensure that current SIP's are achieving the
reductions consistent with those to which the States had committed
191
-------
in their SIP's. This three-part process will require EPA to: 1}
review the federally-approved control commitments in the SIP to see
that they have now been adopted, 2) review the adopted measures to
determine if they are technically adequate and meet minimum national
standards, and 3) initiate a comprehensive program to determine
whether adopted regulations are being effectively implemented.
In addition to these efforts, EPA has found that a number of
SIP's contain various inconsistencies with respect to EPA policy
and misinterpretations of national guidance. The EPA proposes to
require States to correct these deficiencies and inconsistencies as
expeditiously as possible but at least by the time the initial SIP
is due (in 2 years from the SIP call). The EPA will work with
the various States in identifying specific inconsistencies contained
in their SIP's and in developing a schedule for submitting the
needed revisions. The EPA is also in the process of upgrading
»
guidance material, developing new guidance where needed, and formulating
State-EPA workgroups and clearinghouses to assist the States in
improving their overall program effectiveness.
As previously stated, EPA proposes to require the revised SIP's
for those areas receiving SIP deficiency notices to include corrections
to those portions of their plans that are inconsistent with national
policy or have ambiguities that allow for interpretations different
from what existing EPA guidance would allow. Appendix D contains a
detailed discussion of those inconsistencies and provides EPA's
proposed guidance on how States should correct them in their
revised SIP's.
192
-------
Also, Appendix J lists a number of other measures that the States

may consider in improving the overall effectiveness of their programs.
193
-------
STATEMENT OF EPA POLICY FOR APPROVAL OF POST-1987
OZONE AND CARBON MONOXIDE PLAN REVISIONS^
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title.

Introduction
I. Affected Areas
II. Planning Schedules
III. Requirements for Modeled Demonstration of Attainment
IV. Requirement for Development of Control Strategy
A. Federally-Implemented Measures, Federally-Prescribed
Measures, and Technical Support
B. Requirements for Expeditious Attainment Dates and
Reasonabl e Progress
C Measures Selected by the States
D. Role of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
E. Control of Transported Ozone and Precursors
F. Accounting for Growth
G. Adoption of Enforceable Regulations
V. Measuring and Assuring Progress and Maintenance
VI. Maximizing Effectiveness of Existing Programs
VII. Miscellaneous
62"The following is a complete statement of the policy elements
discussed previously in this notice. The final version of this
Policy Statement will appear in EPA's publication of a final notice
on post-1987 ozone and CO plan revisions.
194

-------
INTRODUCTION
A number of areas in the United States, mainly metropolitan
areas, currently have ambient levels of ozone and carbon monoxide
(CO) in excess of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).
A list of these areas can be found in Appendix A. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) believes that many of these areas will not
be able to attain the air quality standards by December 31, 1987,
the latest date by which State implementation plans (SIP's) established
under Part 0 of the Clean Air Act (the Act) were to provide for
attainment. The following policy will govern post-1987 planning
for the areas that were not able to attain the standards by that
date and have been notified by EPA that their SIP's are substantially
inadequate, or that their pending SIP subnrittals are not approvable.
The EPA intends this policy to apply to planning even in areas
whose SIP's are found substantially inadequate subsequent to the
round of SIP calls expected in 1988. The FEDERAL REGISTER notices
and documents in Appendix H provide useful background for this
policy.
The requirements set forth in this policy are designed to result
In State plans that attain the ozone and CO standards as expeditiously
as practicable and by a date certain. The policy addresses the need
for State and local agencies, in designing their control strategies,
to develop and implement stringent and innovative measures for the
control of volatile organic compounds (VOC's), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and CO. Attainment of the ozone and CO air quality standards
in an area will require the implementation of nationally implemented

195
-------
measures and EPA-prescribed measures, as well as locally developed
and implemented measures designed specifically for that area's
needs. The area must also account for the contribution of ozone
and its precursors from the surrounding areas.
All designated nonattainment areas will be required to achieve
reductions in the near term from implementation of measures previously
required in their Part D SIP's. Areas that cannot demonstrate attain-
ment in the near term will become subject to a construction moratorium
and, to avoid additional sanctions, will be required to demonstrate
that they will achieve at least a minimum level of reduction in
emissions periodically until attainment can be demonstrated.
While a large portion of this policy discusses additional
requirements for ozone and CO control, EPA also points out the
potential for improving and maximizing the effectiveness of both
existing and future measures. The EPA has found through its program
of auditing State performance that a number of inconsistencies and
misinterpretations of national policy exist. These discrepancies
can result in predicted emissions reductions not being fully realized
and therefore attainment of the standards being delayed. The EPA
will, through this policy, delineate specific areas of concern, and
suggest ways to correct or alleviate these existing problems. In
addition to encouraging maximum existing program effectiveness, the
policy will reiterate the requirements for adopting regulations to
apply reasonably available control technology (RACT) consistent
with the EPA Control Technique Guideline (CTG) documents published
196
-------
for the categories of sources in Groups I, II, and III, and major
non-CTG sources, where applicable. The statement also discusses the
requirements for implementing an enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance
(I/M) program (where there is a final decision to require enhanced I/M).
Beyond these measures and the benefits to be derived from the Federal
Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) and EPA's proposed regulations
to require onboard VOC controls for automobiles and the control of
gasoline vapor pressure, EPA will require each area to incorporate
the necessary type and mix of controls needed to demonstrate attainment
of the NAAQS and to meet applicable rates of progress. The EPA
recognizes that a large reduction in VOC emissions has already occurred
in many urban areas due to the FMVCP, I/M, and RACT controls on
stationary sources. Although mobile source emissions will continue
to be reduced over the next few years, the benefit may be diminished
in the mid-1990's by completion of fleet turnover to vehicles with
more stringent emissions controls if there is continued growth in
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). With these events in mind, EPA believes
many State and local agencies will have to select and commit to
implement transportation-related control measures in their attainment
strategies to obtain sufficient emission reductions.
A new concept to account for planned reductions from control
measures is being proposed through this policy. Historically,
States assumed in their planning that emission-limiting regulations
would be 100 percent effective, meaning that the regulatory agency
could take full credit for the reduction in emissions that the
197
-------
implementation of a particular emission regulation would theoretically
achieve. Experience in compliance monitoring and rule effectiveness
evaluation shows, however, that regulations are often implemented
on less than a fully effective basis, due to such factors as the
failure of some sources to comply, periodic Failure of control
equipment, plant upsets, leaks, and spills. Also, projections of
reductions in the SIP can be inaccurate and may overstate the effec-
tiveness of control measures. Based on this, EPA requires that~
an effectiveness lavel of less than 100 percent must be factored
into the SIP demonstrations. The EPA will also require States to
measure effectiveness levels of existing regulations and use these
levels in planning for expected reductions.
For those areas unabla to demonstrate attainment in the near
term, the plan must also commit to providing periodic updates to
the SIP on a 6-year frequency. These updates are to validate
control measures implemented during the previous 6 years and update
and refine the commitments planned for the next 6-year segment. In
addition to the "segment" plan requirements, the SIP must commit to
reasonable further progress (RFP) reporting. These RFP reports ara
to provide an annual summary of results and status of the control
strategy. The SIP must also commit to providing a complete emissions
inventory update, revising or confirming previously established
emissions growth and reduction projections, on a triennial basis.
The SIP must also commit to maintain the ambient standards once
they are attained. For areas demonstrating near-term attainment, EPA
198
-------
requires SIP's to provide sufficient control measures to ensure
continued maintenance. The EPA will provide for maintenance by
requiring the SIP's to contain commitments to take actions necessary
to maintain emissions at or below the level associated with attainment
(the "attainment inventory"), even after attainment is reached.
The requirements set forth in this policy involve technologically
complex issues. In addition to establishing the framework and dis-
cussing detailed requirements for State and local action, the
policy mentions a wide range of guidance EPA will provide to assist
in developing an approvable plan. Appendix H of this notice includes
a list of guidance material that is available to assist the States
in the development of their strategies and SIP revisions. The EPA
will, from time to time, add additional guidance to this list, in
order to provide the latest available information to the States.
199
-------
I. AFFECTED AREAS
All areas with ozone or CO design values in excess of the NAAQS
will receive a SIP call if there has not been a SIP disapproval for that
area. Areas with disapproved SIP's must also meet the requirements
of this policy.63 Any area with monitored violations or whose SIP
has been proposed for disapproval will be referred to herein as a
nonattainment area. In addition, all future areas requesting
redesignations under section 107 will be subject to the maintenance
and redesignation requirements of this policy (see Section V:
Measuring and Assuring Progress and Maintenance).
A. Areas Violating the Ozone NAAQS
Where a nonattainment area is located within a Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA),64 the boundary of the MSA must be used as a
planning area for the purpose of constructing the base emissions
63EPA has proposed (52 FR 26404, July 14, 1987) disapproval of 14
ozone and CO SIP's. The SIP's for some other areas have already
been disapproved, e.g., CO SIP for Albuquerque.
general concept of an MSA is one of a large population nucleus
together with adjacent communities that have a high degree oF
social and economic integration with that nucleus. These areas are
defined and designated by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, which follows a set
of official published standards developed by the Federal Committee
on MSA's (45 FR 956, 1/3/80).
The MSA's are defined in terms of entire counties, except in the six
New England States where they are defined in terms of cities and
towns. If an area has more than 1 million population and meets
certain specified requirements, it is termed a Consolidated Metro-
politan Statistical Area (CMSA).
200
-------
inventory and projecting emission reductions from VOC and ?JQX
sources. Where the MSA is included within a CMSA, the boundaries
of the CMSA must be used as the planning area. The EPA will not
accept plans based on attainment demonstrations that do not fully
account for emissions in this planning area. Where a previous SIP
has used a planning area (or section-107 designated nonattainment
area) larger than the MSA/CMSA, that larger area should continue to
serve as the planning area.65 Accordingly, EPA intends its SIP calls
to apply to the larger of these areas. In addition, plans must
account for emissions from large sources located outside, but
within 25 miles, of the boundary of the MSA/CMSA. Some non-MSA
counties adjacent to a nonattaining MSA/CMSA have design values for
ozone in excess of the standard. For planning purposes, these
adjacent counties that have monitored ozone violations are to be
included in the adjacent MSA/CMSA planning area.
The EPA recognizes that many of the MSA/CMSA's involve more
than one State and therefore the level of coordination and interagency
discussions and agreements are heightened significantly. While
each State associated with a particular MSA/CHSA will be responsible
for its portion of emissions inventory information, and adoption
and implementation of specific measures and regulations, EPA encourages
the various States to participate in a joint planning effort to
develop a single strategy for the MSA/CMSA. The EPA Regional
Offices will work with the States and local metropolitan planning
65For areas previously classified as rural nonattainment areas under the
old policy that are classified as urban (MSA) under today's proposal, the
minimum planning area will be the MSA.
201
-------
organizations in developing the various aspects of the control
strategy.
Counties that violate the standard but are not within or adjacent
to the boundary of an MSA/CHSA shall be defined as isolated rural
areas that are either "self-generating" or "nonself-generating."
Self-generating areas are those areas that cause or significantly
contribute to local ambient levels of ozone. Nonself-generating
areas are those areas that do not cause or significantly contribute
to local ambient levels of ozone. (See Appendix 8 for procedures
to determine whether a rural area is self-generating.) Nonself-
generating areas must identify the upwind area (or areas) within
10 hours travel time believed to be causing or contributing
significantly to local nonattainment.6^ For isolated rural areas,
the minimum area affected by the ozone portion of this policy is
the county in which the monitored violation occurred.
B. Areas Violating the CO NAAQS
For areawide CO problems, the boundary of the MSA/CMSA is to
be used for purposes of control strategy planning. Where the
violation occurs in an area not included within an MSA/CMSA, then,
for purposes of control strategy planning, the affected area is the
county where the violation was measured. For an area impacted only
by "hotspot" problems determined by using procedures in section 111.A.,
^Isolated rural areas in the Regional Oxidant Model (ROM) domain in the
Northeast found to be nonself-generating must delay identification of
upwind areas until the Regional Ozone Modeling of Northeast Transport
(ROMNET) program results are available.
202
-------
EPA will allow the area of nonattainment planning to be reduced to
an area commensurate with the scope of the nonattainment problem
and its likely solution.
203
-------
II. PLANNING SCHEDULES
A. Basic Schedule for Response to SIP Calls
The EPA requires all areas receiving ozone or CO SIP calls
or final plan disapprovals to revise their SIP's within 2 years of
the SIP call or disapproval, whichever is applicable. The planning
period, however, will not allow States to modify existing planning
or implementation schedules to which they may now be subject.
These schedules will remain in effect until and unless the EPA-approved
post-1987 SIP (developed in accordance with the provisions of this
policy) modifies the schedules. The revised SIP's must meet the
2-year submittal requirement specified in this policy, except that,
for the situations involving certain rule adoptions and isolated
rural area analyses discussed below in Section II.B, those
requirements must be satisfied in a supplemental revision due after
the initial 2-year period. A draft detailed and comprehensive
emissions inventory will be due from all areas within 12 months of
the SIP call or disapproval.67 The EPA will work with State and
local air agencies to establish appropriate schedules and milestones
to ensure that the plans can be developed and adopted by the submittal
deadline.
To ensure that the State and local governments give high priority
to the development of the SIP, the Governor, after consultation
explained below, certain isolated rural (non-MSA) areas will not
have to submit the emission inventory within this 2-year period.
204

-------
with principal elected officials of each local government in the
affected area, must submit within 3 months of the SIP call a written
commitment to develop a SIP revision in accordance with this policy.
In addition, within 6 months after the SIP call, the State must raview
with EPA its schedules, commitments, and progress in the development
and adoption processes regarding enhanced I/M, SIP rule discrepancies
and inconsistencies, previously required measures (e.g, CTG's), and
all necessary measures for satisfying minimum prescribed rate of
progress requirements described later in Section IV. (See Appendix M
for a summary of timing of these and other key policy requirements.)
8. Schedules for Special Situations^
The EPA will allow additional time for the development and
completion of adoption of the control strategy in the situations
discussed below. In order for a State to receive additional time
to complete development and adoption of its SIP, it must review
with EPA within 1 year after the SIP call its need for additional
time to complete the development and adoption of the SIP in accordance
with the situations discussed below.
68The EPA is aware that other situations may necessitate SIP revisions
after the initial submittal. For example, the ROM analysis for the
northeast States, which will not be complete within the 2-year
period, will provide a more rigorous regionwide analysis of ozone
transport and the effects of control strategies. The EPA believes
that currently available models and methodologies will enable the
ROM areas to estimate transport effects as well as impacts from
their own sources before the ROM results are available, so that an
adequate plan can be revised to the extent necessary to incorporate
additional controls to reduce downwind impacts. The EPA will work
closely with States to ensure that SIP revisions based on these
updated analyses are made expeditiously. However, EPA would expect
all supplemental revisions arising from the ROM analysis to be
accomplished and submitted within 5 years of this initial SIP call
or disapproval.
205
-------
1. Isolated Rural Areas69
The EPA will allow additional time for the SIP
submittal from those isolated rural areas experiencing ozone violations
which will not have within the 2-yaar period air quality information
adequate to determine whether or not the area is "self-generating"
(see Appendix B for procedures for determining whether an area is
self-generating). The EPA expects the complete plan revision to ba
submitted expeditiously and no Tatar than 3 years from the date of
the SIP call. The initial SIP (due in 2 years) must contain the
minimum RACT requirements for a rural area described in section
IV.A., below, as well as the requirements described in section VI.
and Appendix 0, below. Additionally, the initial SIP must include
a schedule for completing the air quality monitoring, self-generation
determination, modeling analysis and a commitment and schedule for
developing and adopting additional measures which the modeling
analysis shows are needed.70
Areas found to be nonself-generators must summarize and submit
their air quality analyses in the second submittal along with an
identification of the upwind area(s) determined to be responsible
for violations in the isolated rural area.71 The EPA will require
^Defined as counties not included within or adjacent to an MSA.
Requirements for non-MSA counties that experience violations and are
adjacent to an MSA are discussed above in I.A. "Areas Violating the
Ozone NAAQS."
70$ee section IV, "Requirement for Development of Control Strategy" for
description of requirements for different types of areas.
71Areas that are found to be nonself-generating and that are in the
ROM domain will not be allowed to make this identification until
the ROM results are available.
206
-------
the upwind area to develop an expeditious schedule for the area to

revise its SIP to account for the downwind isolated rural area.

This schedule will call for the SIP revision in the upwind area

within 1 year of the submittal of the air quality analysis for the

isolated rural area.72

Areas found to be self-generators will be required to submit a

SIP expeditiously which satisfies the same requirements as an area

within an MSA. The EPA will require the State to establish an

expeditious timeframe for the SIP submittal, which will extend no

more than 3 years from the date of the SIP call.

2. Areas Needino, "Long-Term" Measures73

The EPA will allow areas needing long-term measures

up to an additional 3 years {from the SIP due date) to complete the

formal adoption of all measures. The initial submittal (due in 2

years from the SIP call) for these areas must include: (I) the
f course, in some cases the upwind areas will already have begun
revising their SIP's because of their own nonattainment problem,
and may already be accounting adequately in those revisions for
effects on all downwind areas.

73In this context, long-term measures refer to those which may require
complex or extensive planning or review and adoption processes that
cannot be accomplished within 2 years. These measures will likely
also require considerable time for implementation. As described
earlier, areas that cannot adopt enough measures to demonstrate
attainment in the short terra will become subject to the construction
ban. Thus, the following discussion relates to areas that do not
show attainment in the short term but are seeking to avoid additional
sanctions by adopting measures that will produce attainment by a fixed
date in the longer term.
207
-------
demonstration of attainment; (2) an identification of long-term
measures (with expected emission reduction benefits), along with a
description of, and commitment to, the process and schedule to
complete all planning, review, and decision steps leading to adequate
adoption of those measures; and (3) full adoption of all other
measures. The EPA will work with these areas to determine the most
reasonably expeditious timeframe for the second submittal, which
may extend no more than 3 years from the SIP due date.
Although the initial submittal must identify the long-term
measures and commit to the process and schedule for developing and
adopting these measures, EPA recognizes that during evaluation and
consultation steps, options may need to change. Therefore, EPA
will allow the State to substitute measures or modify these long-term
measures in the second SIP submittal or subsequent updates as long
as the modified or substitute measures yield comparable emission
reductions. Furthermore, the emission reductions from the substitute
measure must be consistent with the control strategy in showing
that applicable rates of emission reduction progress will be achieved.
208

-------
III. REQUIREMENTS FOR MODELED DEMONSTRATION OF ATTAINMENT
A. Models
The input data and assumptions used in ozone and CO models
must be adequately documented in the SIP.
1. Ozone:
The preferred model is the Urban Airshed Model. The
second acceptable model is the Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach
(EKMA).
At a minimum, EPA requires that areas use the city-specific
EKMA approach. The EPA will not approve plans based on linear or
proportional rollback techniques. The EPA's guidance for EKMA is
contained in "Guideline for Use of City-Specific EKMA in Preparing
Post-1987 Ozone SIP's" (see Appendix H). Appendix I contains data
base requirements for EKMA and a brief description of the model.
Areas should not use the wind trajectory analysis, previously
known as Level II, because of poor past performance. The EPA's
guidance on EKMA has been revised to be more explicit for using
wind data in EKMA.
The EPA has also revised its guidance to include updated methods
for estimating future ozone, nonmethane organic compounds (NMOC),
and NOX transport levels for use in EKMA, which should result in
more realistic assumptions concerning reductions of transported
ozone.
Use of models other than the Urban Airshed Model or EKMA must
be approved by EPA prior to a commitment by the State to its use.
Guidance for the Urban Airshed Model is contained in "The SAI

209
-------
Airshed Model Operations Manual," in "Guideline on Air Quality
Models (Revised)," and in "Guideline for Applying the Airshed Model
to Urban Areas" (see Appendices H and I). The EPA will not allow
areas to delay submittal of the attainment demonstration because of
time or resource complications resulting from the use of Urban
Airshed modeling.
2, Carbon Monoxide:
States should first determine the scope of the problem,
then choose an appropriate model.
The EPA presumes that hotspots lacking any significant areawide
contribution are: (1) limited in number, (2) isolated points of
traffic congestion, (3) typically found in areas of relatively low
population, and (4) solved through the application of short-term
control measures (within 5 years of the SIP due date). If after
using these criteria, the State believes that a problem should be
preliminarily characterized as a hotspot (or small collection of
hotspots) without an areawide contribution, the State first should
define an area around the hotspot which contains sources contributing
emissions seen by the hotspot monitor, or the model receptor if a
hotspot modeling analysis was used. Then, the existence -of other
likely hotspots in the remaining portions of the county should be
determined through monitoring and modeling. The EPA believes that
all hotspot control measures can be implemented within the short
term (i.e., not later than 4 years after the SIP is due). Hotspot
problems requiring longer time periods for correction will be
210
-------
presumed to require areawide measures.74 Where both hotspot and
areawide control measures are applied, the State must perform both
hotspot and areawide modeling.
Hotspot Models - For intersections, traffic and emissions
should be analyzed using Worksheet 2 of EPA's "Guidelines for Review
of Indirect Sources" (Volume 9) - Revised (Second Printing) (see
Appendix H) or an equivalent procedure approved by EPA. Dispersion
should be modeled using the CALINE3 line source model described in
"CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollution
Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets," 1979. Other models may
be used if approved by EPA in accordance with established procedures.
Areawide Models - Either the Urban Airshed Model or RAM
are recommended. Guidance for RAM is in "User's Guide for RAM--2nd
Edition," 1987. Due to the proportional relationship between CO
emissions and air quality, linear rollback also may be used to
determine the overall areawide emission reduction percentage needed
to attain the NAAQS. Other models, such as APRAC or box models, may
be used on a case-by-case basis with EPA approval. The "EPA Guide-
lines on Air Quality Models" (see Appendix H) or the EPA Regional
Office should be consulted for more information on araawide CO
modeling.
74Long-term areawide CO problems are subject to rates of progress
requirements (see section IV.B.}.
211
-------
B. Data Requ1rements
1. Ozone:
a. Geographic Area for Emission Inventory.
As described above, in most cases, EPA will
standardize the planning, or demonstration, area for all emission
sources as, at a minimum, the boundary of the MSA, or the CMSA (if
one exists). In cases where a previous Part D SIP has used a
planning area (or section 107-designated nonattainment area) larger
than the MSA or CMSA, that larger planning area should be usad.
The planning area inventory must include all VOC, CO, and NOX
sources and must represent actual emissions typical of ozone season
weekday conditions.75 Additional requirements are described in the
EPA guideline document, "Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-1987
Ozone SIP's" (see Appendix H).
The EPA also requires that States use a 25-mile distance from
the MSA/CMSA boundary as a planning guideline and presume that
large sources located within this distance may contribute to the
nonattainment problem. States must include sources (greater than
or equal to 100 tons per year potential to emit75) of VOC, CO,
and NOX within this distance in the demonstration area inventory,
even if the 25-mile distance extends into another State or MSA/CMSA.
emissions are defined in section III.C. of this policy,
defined in 40 CFR 51.165(a).
212

-------
In those instances where a major source is within 25 miles of
an MSA/CMSA but resides in an adjacent State, EPA reminds States of
the requirements set forth in section 110(a)(2)(E) of the Act.
These requirements specify that each State in its SIP shall include
provisions adequate to prohibit emissions from stationary sources
within the State from preventing attainment in a nearby State.
The EPA will review SIP's from States receiving SIP calls to ensure
that these requirements are met. A State with a source or sources
significantly affecting ambient pollutant concentrations in a
nearby State should provide information on the source(s) to the
affected State for use in developing the inventory and constructing
an attainment demonstration.
If monitoring sites which exceed the ozone NAAQS are located
in counties adjacent to, but not within, an MSA/CMSA, EPA will
presume that such counties should be treated as extensions of the
MSA/CMSA for planning purposes. Such adjacent non-MSA counties should
inventory sources as if they were part of the MSA/CMSA, except that
the 25-mile planning guideline does not apply to areas outside
these adjacent non-MSA counties.
If an area is an isolated non-MSA, the baseline inventory should
include at a minimum the county containing the site which exceeds the
NAAQS.
b. AJ^r Quality Data.
Each area must reduce, validate, and summarize
in its subtnittal the most recent 3 years of air quality data available
213
-------
at the time of the notification of SIP deficiency or SIP disapprovals.
Generally, this means that all areas receiving SIP calls or disapprovals
prior to the summer of 1988 would be required to use data from the
1985, 1986, and 1987 ozone seasons. The EPA would allow 1988 ozone
data also to be used in the modeling analysis if the use of such
data would not delay the submittal of the SIP.
For EKMA, the data base must meet the requirements described
in Appendix I. These requirements and procedures replace those
published in the November 14, 1979, FEDERAL REGISTER (44 FR 65667),
"Data Collection for 1982 Ozone SIP's." Specific and updated monitoring
requirements are also described in "Guideline for Use of City-Specific
EKjMA in Preparing Post-1987 Ozone SIP's."
For the Urban Airshed Model, requirements are specified in "EPA
Guideline on Air Quality Models (Revised)," in "SAI Airshed Model
Operations Manual," and in "Guideline for Applying the Airshed Model
to Urban Areas." A minimum data base to support an Urban Airshed
Model application must be determined on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
2. Carbon Monoxide:
a. Geographic Area for Emission Inventory.
Cities with areawide CO problems should inventory
all counties within the MSA/CMSA. Areas whose problems are limited
to demonstrated hotspot problems (using procedures described in
section III.A.) may inventory smaller areas with the approval of
the appropriate EPA Regional Office.
214
-------
b. Air Quality Data.
At least one CO monitor must be located in an
area representative of expected maximum CO concentrations.

C. Requirements for Emission Baselines and Projections
1. Baselines
Baseline inventories should be prepared for a 1987
base year. Base year emissions must be on an actual basis, defined
as the estimated typical emission factor multiplied by the typical
production rate for each source. The EPA will allow States to
limit their analysis to reactive VOC emissions.77
Previously, States have excluded from modeling 1 or more years
of air quality data where emissions changed significantly from one
year to the next during the required 3-year period of air quality
data. The EPA is eliminating such exclusions. Instead, and
in such cases, attainment emissions levels should be calculated by
applying the modeled percent reduction for each year of air quality
data in the base period to the corresponding year's emissions. The
overall attainment emissions level is the fourth highest of these
levels.78 This procedure is further described in "Guideline for Use
of City-Specific EKMA in Preparing Post-1987 Ozone SIP's."
77Reactive VOC's are those not listed among the 11 negligibly reactive
VOC's (see following FEDERAL REGISTERS: July 8, 1977, 42 FR 35314,
June 4, 1979, 44 FR 32042; May 16, 1980, 45 FR 32424; and July 22,
1980, 45 FR 48941).
78Assuming 3 years of complete air quality data. If fewer than
3 years of complete data exist, then the third or the second highest
attainment emissions level must be used.
215
-------
Base year inventories for ozone in MSA/CMSA and adjacent non-MSA
counties exceeding the NAAQS shall individually list all VOC sources
with a potential to emit at least 10 tons per year and CO and NOX
sources with a potential to emit at least 100 tons per year.
Sources below these amounts should be aggregated by source category.
In the 25-mile distance outside the MSA/CMSA, VOC, CO, and NOX
sources with a potential to emit 100 tons per year shall be listed
individually. Baseline inventories for sources affected by existing
measures must also reflect appropriate effectiveness levels as
described below.
2. Credit for Rule Effectiveness
a. Ozone:
For both new and existing rules, EPA will allow
States in constructing their emission reduction projections (and,
for existing rules with past compliance dates, in constructing
baseline emission levels), to assume not more than 80 percent of
full effectiveness unless higher levels are adequately demonstrated,
as described below. If lower levels are demonstrated, or found
through upcoming State/EPA effectiveness studies, the State must
use these levels. To assume an 80 percent level without an evaluation,
States should be adequately implementing the requirements for
improving the effectiveness of existing rules, as described in this
notice under "Maximizing Effectiveness of Existing Program,"
including any programs for future corrective actions.
216

-------
To assume more than 30 percent effectiveness, the SIP must
contain a rule-effectiveness evaluation which meets EPA criteria
and which demonstrates that the higher number has been achieved in
practice. If such an evaluation has been performed, the SIP may
take credit for whatever additional reductions were determined to
be appropriate by the effectiveness evaluation. The rule-effectiveness
evaluation must be performed on the rule for which credit is claimed
and in the area where the rule has been implemented. Guidance on
rule effectiveness evaluations is contained in the EPA document
"Guideline for Evaluating Effectiveness of VOC Regulations." (See
Appendix H)
The EPA expects that reductions will be achieved as a result
of corrective actions from rule-effectiveness evaluations. Since
neither the amount of this reduction nor the effectiveness level of
the rule will be known, EPA will not allow States to assume existing
control measures to be more than 80 percent effective in the base
year prior to the evaluation. The base year inventory must reflect
this assumption.
If evaluations have been performed for existing sources, the base
year inventories of such sources must reflect the effectiveness lave!
determined by the evaluation.
b. Carbon Monoxide:
For both new and existing rules, States are allowed,
in constructing their emission reduction projections, to assume not
more than 80 percent of full effectiveness unless higher levels are
217
-------
adequately demonstrated, as described below. If lower levels are
demonstrated, States must -use these levels. In order to assume an
80 percent level without an evaluation, EPA expects States to be
adequately implementing the requirements for improving the
effectiveness of existing rules, as described in this notice
under "Maximizing Effectiveness of Existing Programs," including
any programs for future corrective actions.
For a SIP to assume full effectiveness for a future I/M program,
it must show that the I/M rules are fully consistent with the
assumptions used in calculating the emission reductions in the
appropriate MOBILE model, and satisfy the ten elements described in
EPA's Final Policy-Criteria for Approval of 1982 Plan Revisions (46
FR 7185 January 22, 1981). For transportation control measures
(TCM's), the SIP must show through evaluation or study that the
assumptions used to predict future reductions, such as changes in
*
VMT, mode shifts, and speed changes, have occurred from the imple-
mentation of the TCM for which credit is claimed.
Unless an effectiveness evaluation has been performed, existing
control measures may not be assumed to be more than 80 percent effec-
tive in the base year arid the base year inventory should reflect
this assumption. If evaluations have been performed for existing
control measures, the base year inventory for sources affected by
existing regulations must reflect the effectiveness level determined
by the evaluation.
218
-------
3. Projection of Emissions InvjUTtory.
At a minimum, inventory projections must be made for
the attainment year. If this is more than 3 years from the base
year, interim projections at 3-year intervals must be made of the
full inventory. Long-term areas subject to the percent reduction
requirements must make the first interim inventory projection 5
years after the base year.79 These areas should then make 3-year
interim projections starting from the 5-year projection and extending
to the attainment date. That is, the inventory projections would
include emissions for 1992, 1995, 1998, etc.
Emissions from individual sources listed in base year inventories
shall be projected individually to the attainment year and shall
include any growth or production changes for the source. Interim-
year projections for individual sources are also required and are
described in the EPA guideline documents "Revised Guidance for
Tracking Reasonable Further Progress in Ozone/CQ Control Programs"
and "Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-1987 Ozone/CO SIP's"
(see Appendix H for complete reference).
Projected emissions must be calculated on an allowable emissions
basis, which EPA will define as the product of an enforceable
emission rate (e.g., pounds of VOC per gallon of solids applied) and
the expected typical production rate {e.g., gallons of solids
applied per day) in the future year (typical ozone season weekday).
79These requirements are described in Section IV.8. Requirements for
Attainment Date and Expeditious Attainment.
219
-------
Projected emissions must then be adjusted for effectiveness, using
procedures described above under "Credit for Rule Effectiveness."
Growth factors used in projecting production rates must be listad
for each point source identified in the baseline and adequately docu-
mented. Population projections and other forecasts used for deter-
mining growth rates and areawide emission estimates must be consistent
with population projections developed in accordance with EPA's
cost-effectiveness guidelines for wastewater treatment facilities
(40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix A). Projected year inventories
must be developed in accordance with EPA's "Emission Inventory
Requirements for Post-1987 Ozone/CO SIP's."
220
-------
IV. REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF CONTROL STRATEGY
Introduction
Once the State has determined the percent reduction in baseline
emissions needed to attain the NAAQS over the relevant period(s) of
time, it must identify control measures that will meet this require-
ment, and that will result in attainment as expeditiously as practicable
and by a date certain. Implementation of existing and proposed
national measures by EPA and affected industries will aid States in
meeting the control targets. In the past, due to the imprecision
inherent in control targets for ozone, EPA has required minimum
reasonably available levels of control of certain types of VOC
sources. This policy does not alter those requirements. The EPA
shall require that any of these requirements which may not have
already been implemented be implemented expeditiously but not later
than the end of J1992.
Beyond the national measures and the required State measures,
EPA will require minimum rates of progress for areas that cannot
demonstrate attainment in the short term. Such areas cannot count
the Federal measures or any previously required State measure in
determining compliance with the minimum rate of progress.
Areas that can demonstrate attainment in the short term also
will be required to demonstrate maintenance for up to 10 years from
the SIP due date.
221
-------
A. Federally-Implemented Measures, Federally-Prescribed Measures
and Technical Support
Several measures for controlling emissions will be instituted
by EPA as national measures. Other measures may be prescribed by
EPA for State adoption, and the States will be required to adopt
and implement these measures in the near term.
1. Federally-Implemented Measures
The States may assume that benefits will continue for
the following federally-implemented measure:
(a) The existing FMVCP, which ensures that new automobiles
are designed to meet certain exhaust limits.
In addition, States would realize additional benefit from
other national measures that EPA has proposed to implement. They
are:
(a) Regulations to control Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) to
reduce the volatility of gasoline and thereby reduce
evaporative emissions from vehicles {proposed at 52 FR
31274, August 19, 1987);
(b) Regulations to require reductions of automobile refueling
emissions through "onboard" carbon canister control
technology on automobiles (proposed at 52 FR 31162,
August 19, 1987);
(c) Regulations proposed for hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities {TSDF) (proposed at 52
FR 3743, February 5, 1987) and other regulations for
TSDF now being developed.

222
-------
2. Federally-Prescribed Measures
The EPA requires that all control measures adopted as
part of previous EPA-approved SIP revisions remain in effect while
the area is violating the NAAQS and until such time as the measures
are modified in accordance with established SIP revision procedures.
This requirement also applies to previous regulations not specifically
required under today's proposed policy, for example, where pre-1987
rural nonattainment areas were required to implement Group I and II
CTG's for major sources, but which are now adjacent non-MSA areas
and have no new control requirements. In particular, nonattaining
areas in the Northeast "corridor" must maintain previously adopted
and EPA-approved regulations since many areas in this region might
eventually need to employ minimum or additional control measures to
solve the Northeast problem.
a. Stationary Source RACT
Rules requiring the application of RACT for all
sources covered by Groups I, II, and III of EPA's CTG's must be
included in urban and self-generating rural ozone nonattainment
areas designated in 40 CFR Part 31. Where previously required (see
Table I), EPA will continue to require the application of RACT to
sources not covered by a CTG that have the potential to emit 100 or
more tons per year. Also, an area issued a SIP call because it has
newly been found to be nonattainment will be required to adopt the
Groups I, II, III CTG source rules for the "central" county(ies)80
defined by the Bureau of the Census, a central county has at least
50 percent of its population residing within the urbanized area.
223
-------
containing the measured nonattainment problem (or, in the case
of self-generating rural areas, to the county measuring the non-
attainment problem). At a minimum, all nonself-generating rural
nonattainment counties are required to adopt RACT for Groups I and
II CTG sources which have the potential to emit (uncontrolled) 100
tons/year emissions or greater.
For most areas, the EPA will continue existing policy requirements
regarding issuance of any new CTG's. That is, areas subject to
post-1987 policy requiraments except truly marginal iionattainment areas^l
and isolated rural nonself-generating areas must adopt an appropriate
enforceable regulation for each source category covered by a new
CTG, presumptively reflecting guidance given by the CTG. Truly marginal
nonattainment areas are exempt from this requirement on the beliefs that
(1) such areas will attain in the near term due to reductions from
federally-implemented measures, pre-1987 requirements (such as
CTG's I, II, and III) and enhanced effectiveness of pre-1987 requirements
and (2) it is unlikely that such areas could adopt and implement new
CTG's in sufficient time to advance the attainment date. As a
safeguard, EPA requires these areas to include in their SIP's a
commitment that, if attainment is not achieved by the projected date,
they will adopt new CTG's (including any new CTG's issued since today's
defined in Section IV.B., truly marginal nonattainment areas
are those with design values below 0.16 ppm ozone (0.155 ppm where data
are reported in 3 decimal place) or 17 ppm CO and able to demonstrate
attainment in the short term by relying only on emission reductions
from (1) federally-implemented measures, (2) measures required for the
area in EPA's pre-1987 guidance, and (3) other measures adopted by the
State and approved by EPA on or before publication of today's proposal.
224
-------
proposal). The regulation must apply as follows: for areas currently

designated as nonattaimnent and for araas redesignated to attainment

but measuring violations of the ozone standard, the regulations

will apply in the section 107 designated (or previously designated)

area, or the control area included in the previously approved

Part D SIP, if applicable; for newly found nonattainment araas

these regulations will apply to the "central" county(ies). Satisfaction

of these requirements requires adoption by each subsequent January

of additional regulations for sources covered by CTG's issued by

the previous January.

b. Enhanced I/M82

The EPA has considered the potential for greater

VOC and CO reductions from vehicle I/M programs, and believes that

substantial VOC and CO reduction enhancement is available for areas

with relatively severe and/or long-term nonattainment problems.33

The EPA, therefore, is considering a variety of alternative approaches

with respect to enhanced I/M. One option is not to establish a
82ihe EPA is considering a variety of options regarding enhanced I/M,
including establishing a specific enhanced I/M performance level
for some nonattainment areas as well as relying on the 3 percent
reduction requirement to force consideration of enhanced I/M. At
other places in this document, the distinction between these options
may not always be expressed, but is intended through this policy.

33A long-term nonattainment area is an area where attainment will
not be demonstrated within 3 years of the SIP approval date [period
prescribed in section 110(a)(2)(A)].
225
-------
specific enhanced I/M requirement out instead, to allow States to

consider enhanced I/M, along with other measures, in deciding how

to meet the 3 percent average annual reduction requirement included

elsewhere in this policy. Anotner option is to require long-term

urban ozone and CO nonattainment areas to implement changes to

their I/M programs to raise the performance level (i.e., the VOC

and/or CO reduction effectiveness) of their programs wel1 above

that of the basic I/M requirement.

If a separate enhanced I/M requirement is .^tabl isited, the

urbanized portions of SIP call areas with ozone design values

of 0.16 parts per million (ppmj or abova and/or CO design values of

17 ppm or above ("severe nonattainment areas") will be considered

to be subject to this requirement.84 {For determining areas subject

to this requirement and other requirements employing these "cutpoints,"

EPA will use the rounding convention that values ending in 5 through

9 round up, and values ending in 1 through 4 round down. Hence, an

ozone design value of 0.155 ppm becomes 0.16 ppm and a CO design value

of 16.5 becomes 17 ppm.) Also, under the option being considered,

an area with design values below these levels would be required to
84"Urbanized area" is an area defined by the Bureau of the Census according
to specific criteria, designed to include the entire densely settled area
around each city. An urbanized area must have a total population of at
least 50,000. The urbanized area criteria define a boundary based
primarily on a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square
mile, but also include some less densely settled areas within corporate
limits and such areas as industrial parks, railroad yards, golf courses,
and so forth, if they are adjacent to dense urban development.
226
-------
implement enhanced I/M if the modeled attainment demonstration for

the area shows that it is a long-term nonattainment area.35 Urbanized

areas with a population less than 200,000 .vould be exempt from

these requirements for enhanced I/M. Such areas could still use

enhanced I/M reductions to meet attainment or show RFP if tney

desire.86

Rather than require States to adopt specific enhancements fryn

any particular categories of possible improvements, EPA would

define the enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted, in terms of a

numerical performance level which may'be achieved by any combination

of program elements. The specific numerical performance level EPA

is inclined to select and other pertinent information are discussed

in Appendix E.

For an enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted, EPA is planning

to retain the urbanized area as the base for geographic coverage.

Emission reductions obtained from vehicles outside of the urbanized

area but within the MSA/CMSA would not count toward meet ing the
course, areas that received an attainment date extension under
Part D must implement at least the basic I/M program required by
section 172(b)(ll)(B) of the Act even if they can demonstrate
near-term attainment without such a program. Similarly, areas that
were required by EPA's 1984 guidance on the correction of Part D
SIP's to adopt a basic I/M program (because of the inability to
demonstrate attainment otherwise by the end of 1937) must implement
a program of at least that stringency even if they can demonstrate
near-term attainment without it.

86RFP (for some areas called the "reasonable efforts progress
requirements) is described in Section IV.B.
227
-------
enhanced I/M performance level, If adopted, however, but would
assist the area in meeting its overall emission reduction requirements
for the MSA/CMSA.
3. Techin i c a 1 S u p po r t
a. Alternative Control Technology Documents
From time to time, it may be appropriate to
publish documents that provide technical information about the
control of individual source categories. The documents would
identify the emission control technologies that are available For a
particular source category along with information on process operation,
control efficiency, costs, and other impacts of control. A State
could use this information as the basis for an emission limit based
on the control technology that is most appropriate given the local
needs and circumstances. The ACT document would not specify a
presumptive RACT nor a minimum level of control that would be
required.
b. Control Technology Center
The Control Technology Center .(CTC) is a program
that can provide technical assistance to State and local agencies
on individual problems that pertain to control technology and
source testing. A hotline has been established to respond to requests
for assistance and provide a quick response to questions. Callers
will be put in contact with EPA engineers who have the most knowledge
about the topic in question. The CTC hotline provides access to
228
-------
available expertise in both the Office of Air and Radiation and the
Office of Research and Development, whichever can best fulfill the
needs whan an individual request for assistance occurs. This
service is available to all State and local agency staff. The CTC
hotline number is (919) 541-0300.
229
-------
B. Requirements of ExpeditiousAttainment Dates andReasonable
Progress

The EPA will approve only those post-1987 SIP revisions that

demonstrate attainment of the ozone and CO standards within 3 years

of the date of EPA's approval [with a possible 2-year extension

under section HQ(e}]. Thus, EPA will impose the applicable con-

struction ban in any designated nonattainment area lacking such a

demonstration.37 Areas that cannot demonstrate attainment within

the 3- or 5-year period could also become subject to other sanctions

if they fail to make reasonable efforts to submit a plan showing

attainment by a date suitable for the area, and reasonable progress

in the interim. The following discussion describes the requirements

for progress and attainment dates for both long- and short-term

nonattainment areas. .

1. Areas Demonstrating Attainment Within the 3-Year Period

As indicated above, the required attainment dates for

post-1987 planning are keyed to the date EPA approves the SIP

revision [see sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 110(e)]. For purposes of

planning, EPA suggests that States developing plans to produce

attainment in the short term after 1987 assume that EPA's review

and approval of their plans will be complete within 1 year from the

date the plans are due. This would mean that, to receive approval,
ozone nonattainment areas, the ban would apply to major new sources
and major modifications of existing sources of VOC's, as defined at
40 CFR Part 52 (see, specifically, 40 CFR 52.24). For CO nonattainment
areas, the ban would apply to major new sources and major modifications
of existing sources of CO.
230
-------
the plans would have to demonstrate attainment within 4 years of
the date the plans are due [1 year for EPA approval plus the 3-year
period in section 110(a)(2)(A)].
Consistent with section 110(a){2)(A) and, for Part 0 areas,
section 172, EPA will require the SIP's to demonstrate attainment
as expedi tiously as practicable, even if Mat date would arrive
before the end of the 3-year period. The EPA will assume that
short-term nonattainment areas that apply the applicable minimum
control measures (no later than the end of 1992) described in the
preceding section are employing all "practicable" measures. Thus,
only if those measures, combined with the relevant federally-
implemented measures, would advance an area's projected attainment
date from the 3-year date would EPA require the area's SIP revision
to show attainment by that earlier date.
Plans for areas that are still subject to the Part D planning
requirements must also, as required by section 172(b)(3), be adequate
to produce RFP. This means that they must, as required by the
definition of RFP in section 171(1), produce "annual incremental
reductions" in emissions, including "substantial reductions in the
early years following approval" of their plans, sufficient to
provide for timely attainment. Plans for these areas should demon-
strate that their control strategies will provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable. Such demonstrations should show that
earlier implementation of control measures would not significantly
advance the attainment date.
231
-------
As a means to ensure timely attainment, EPA will require all

areas (including those with short-term demonstrations) to achieve

their required emission reductions at a minimum rate (described

below) unless the area truly has a marginal nonattainment problem.80

The EPA will define an area's problem as truly marginal if the area

has a design value below 0.16 ppm ozone or 17 ppm CO and tlie jr3a

can demonstrate attainment in the short term by relying only on

emission reductions from (1) federally-implemented measures, (2)

measures required for the area in EPA's pre-1987 guidance, and

(3) other measures adopted by the State and approved by EPA

on or before publication of today's proposal. In all other cases,

the area must achieve emission reductions from an adjusted base year

inventory at an average rate of at least 3 percent per year commencing

the year of the SIP call. For this purpose, the base year inventory

would be adjusted by subtracting from it the emissions that would have

been eliminated by the end of 1987 if the area had implemented all

of the applicable requirements of EPA's pre-1987 policies and the

portions of the area's SIP that were approved at or before the SIP

call or overall disapproval. (See Table I, "Summary of Ozone and

Carbon Mo'noxide SIP Requirements" in discussion of policy issues.)

Reductions occurring in the period before the date the SIP is due,

but aftar the base year, will be creditable (i.e., they are creditable

if they are not included in one of the three categories listed

above} toward the annual reduction requirement. All reductions

creditable toward the 3 percent annual reduction requirement must
stated above in section IV.A., any area with a design value at
or above 0.16 ppm for ozone or 17 ppm for CO must also implement an
enhanced I/M program.

232
-------
be derived from enforceable regulations or other enforceable measuras
Any reductions which are counted toward the requirement and are due
to turndowns in production (or shutdowns) must oe submit tad as SIP
revisions and be federally approvable. Emission reductions from
measures which are included in the "test" for truly marginal ars
not creditable toward the 3 percent requirement. As discussed
below under "Areas That Cannot Demonstrate Attainment VJU'iin the
3-Year Period," the first opportunity to assess compliance with
this requirement will be for the period 19(33-1992, reported on in
1993. For example, an area needing emission reductions of 17
percent (beyond the reductions from measures listed above for trie
"marginal test"), would have to achieve reductions of 15 percent by
the end of 1992 and the remainder thereafter at an average rate of
3 percent per year until attainment {i.e., achieve the remaining 2
percent by the end of 1993). An area need'ing additional reductions
of, say, 7 percent, would be required to achieve those reductions
by the end of 1992.
In the above demonstrations of attainment, the areas must
account for any growth in mobile or stationary source emissions
expected to occur between the base year and the attainment date.
If reductions due to turndowns in production (or source shutdowns)
are used to demonstrate attainment, or are used to meet the 3
percent annual reduction requirement, they must be submitted as SIP
revisions and must be federally enforceable.
The EPA also will require areas that can demonstrate near-term
attainment to show that their plans will provide for maintenance of
the standards well into the future despite the emissions growth
233
-------
projected to occur. Plans for these areas must contain projections
of emissions at least 10 years from the SIP -due date and commitments
and schedules for any additional measures that may be needed to
ensure maintenance of the standards. This requirement will also
apply to any area with a projected attainment date .oefor^ the end
of 1995.
Areas projecting near-term attainment must include in their
SIP's a commitment that, if EPA finds that they do not actually
attain the standard by their projected attainment dates, they will
meet-the additional requirements including the adoption of enhanced
I/M and the achievement of an average 3 percent emission reduction
annually {if not already required) commencing the calendar year
when EPA makes the finding. These areas will also be subject to
whatever additional future requirements EPA ultimately finds are
needed for long-term areas to provide for expeditious attainment.
The EPA will approve plans that meet the requirements of this
policy for demonstrating near-term attainment of the ambient
standards.
2. Areas That Cannot Demonstrate Attainment Within the_
3-Year Period
As described above, areas subject to the construction
ban because they cannot demonstrate attainment of the standards by
the end of the 3-year period set forth in section 110(a)(2)(A) will
be able to avoid the additional discretionary sanctions if they
demonstrate reasonable efforts to submit adequate plans. The EPA
will define such efforts as the submittal, according to the

234
-------
planning schedule described earlier, of a plan that will produce
reasonable progress toward attainment by a fixed date suitable for
the area. As described below, the "reasonable efforts" attainment
date for each area will depend on the degree of progress made each
year. For that reason, the discussion below focusus first on the
amount of progress EPA will regard as reflecting reasonable efforts
for each pollutant, and then on the attainment date that would
reflect such efforts.
a. Progress Requirements
i. Ozone
For ozone, EPA intends to define a "reasonable
efforts" level of progress for an area as an average annual emission
reduction of at least 3 percent of an adjusted base year (typically
1987) emissions inventory for the demonstration area, commencing
the year of the SIP call. As in the case of the progress requirements
for non-marginal nonattainment areas with short-term attainment dates,
States cannot credit toward the 3 percent any reductions from (1) the
federally-implemented control measures, (2) measures required for
the area in EPA's pre-1937 guidance, and (3) other measures adopted
by the State and approved by EPA on or before publication of today's
proposal. For this purpose, the base year inventory would be
adjusted by subtracting from it the emissions that would have been
eliminated by the end of 1987 if the area had implemented all of
the applicable requirements of EPA's pre-1987 policies and the
portions of the area's SIP that were approved at or before the SIP
235
-------
r
call or overall disapproval. (See Table I, "Summary of Ozone and

Carbon Monoxide SIP Requirements" in discussion of policy issues.)

Reductions occurring in the period before the date the SIP is due,

but after the base year, will be creditable (i.e., they are creditable

if they are not included in one of the tnree categories listed

above) toward the annual reduction requirement. All reductions

creditable toward the 3 percent annual reduction requirement mist

be derived from enforceable regulations or other enforceable measures.

Any reductions which are counted toward the requirement and are due

to turndowns in production (or shutdowns) must be submitted as SIP

revisions and be federally enforceable.

In general, EPA believes that the earliest practical time to

assess compliance with the 3 percent annual requirement will 36 the

fifth year from the SIP call: 2 years for SIP development and

submittal and 3 years For source compliance. Therefore, the State

annual progress report (discussed below in section V.A.) for 1992

(due in 1993) must show that creditable emissions of at least 15

percent of the base y3ar inventory (an average of 3 percent per

year in 1988-1992) have been achieved. Thereafter, each 3-year

Inventory updates (see section V.A.) must show that an additional 9

percent emission reduction has been achieved.39
applying an annual 3 percent reduction results in expected
attainment between 3-year projections, the reduction remaining to be
achieved after the previous 3 year-period must -be achieved by the year
in which attainment is projected.
236
-------
So long as federally-implemented measures continue to achieve

a net emissions reduction, considering growth in sources subject

to those Federal measures, the State will not be required to account

for such growth in meeting the 3 percent requirement. However,

States :Tiust" account for all other source growth during this period.

Onca the Federal measures no longer provide a net benefit, all

growth, including that from sources affected by Federal measures,

must be factored into the 3 percent requirement.

Areas that cannot demonstrate attainment within the 3-year period

in section 110(a)(2)(A) may seek to avoid the construction ban by

demonstrating attainment within the extended period allowed by

section 110(e). As indicated earlier, that section permits a

2-year extension of the attainment date only if:

(a) One or more emission sources {or classes of moving sourcesj
are unable to comply'with the requirements of such plans which"
implement such primary standard because the necessary technology
or other alternatives are not available or will not be available
soon enough to permit compliance within such 3-year period, and

(b) The State has considered and applied as a part of its plan
reasonably available alternative means of attaining such primary
standard and has justifiably concluded that attainment of such
primary standard within the 3-years cannot be achieved.

The "available alternatives" in paragraph (a) are defined as

only those that are "reasonably available" within the meaning of

that term in paragraph {b). The "reasonably available alternative

means" of meeting the standard is defined as the set of measures

and the emission reduction percentage described above as applicable

to other long-term ozone nonattainment areas. Thus, if a State can

demonstrate that those measures will not produce attainment within

the 3-year period and the State actually adopts and implements

237
-------
r
thosa measures in that period, it will be eligible for the 2-year
extension. The State would not be subject to the construction ban
if it could demonstrate attainment in the 2-year period.
i i. Carbon Monoxide
For long-tern CO nonattainment areas, EPA
defines "reasonable efforts" as two sets of •neasurss--one for
hotspots and one for areawide problems.
For hotspots, defined for these purposes as localized problems
with localized solutions (such as traffic changes at the hotspot
locations), EPA will require the State to include in its SIP revision
enforceable commitments (1) to implement the localized solutions
for all- currently known hotspots by the end of the 3-year period
.and (2) for all hotspots identified for the first time within that
period or thereafter; to implement the localized solutions within 3
years of the identification.
For areas that have areawide CO problems, "reasonable efforts"
are defined as, in addition to any hotspot requirements, an average
annual emission reduction, resulting from measures other than (1)
the federally-implemented control measures, (2) any measures required
for the area in EPA's pre-1937 guidance, and (3) other measures
adopted by the State and approved by EPA on or before the date this
policy was proposed, of at least 3 percent of an adjusted base year
emissions inventory, adjusted as described above for ozone commencing
the year of the SIP call. A list of available measures that States
should consider in deciding how to meet the percent reduction
238
-------
requirement appears in Appendix C.
All reductions creditable toward the 3 percent annual reduction
must be derived from enforceable regulations or other enforceable
measures. Any reductions which are counted toward the requirement
and are due to turndowns in production (or shutdowns) must be
submitted as SIP revisions and be federally approvable.
As stated above for ozone, generally the earliest practical date
to assess compliance with the 3 percent reduction requirement will
be the fifth year after the SIP call. Therefore, the State annual
progress report (see discussion below in Section V.A.) for 1992 (due
in 1993) must show that creditable emission reductions of at least
15 percent (an average of 3 percent per year in 1333-1992) have
been achieved. Thereafter, the 3-year inventory update (see Section
V.A.) must show that an additional 9 percent emission reduction has
been achieved.9°
So long as federally-implemented measures continue to achieve
a net emissions reduction, considering growth in sources affected
by those Federal measures, States will not be required to account
for such growth in meeting the 3 percent requirement. However,
States must account for all other source growth during this period.
Once the Federal measures no longer provide a net benefit, all growth
must be factored into the 3 percent requirement.
9°Where applying an annual 3 percent reduction results in expected
attainment between 3-year projections, the reduction remaining to
be achieved after the previous 3-year period must be achieved by
the year in which attainment is projected.
239
-------
As in the case of ozone, EPA will usa the requirements described
above in Table I as its definition of "reasonably available alternative
means," for the purpose of its decisions on whether to grant extensions
to CO nonattainment areas under section 110(e).
b. Attainment Dates
The attainment dates that EPA believes will
reflect "reasonable efforts" for long-tern ozone and areawide CO
nonattainment areas are the dat^s on which attainment of tne relevant
standard is projected to occur (i.e., the projected emissions
inventory is equal to or below the inventory level needed for
attainment) if the required level of progress is achieved. Thus,
the applicable "reasonable efforts" attainment date for an area
will turn on the percent reduction required. Procedures (including
a worksheet) describing how States should" determine attainment
dates for both short-term and long-term areas are contained in
Appendix K, "Determining Attainment Dates." For areas demonstrated
to be limited to CO hotspot problems and their solutions, the
attainment date is the date (presumed to occur within the 3-year
period) by which all necessary hotspot control measures will be
implemented.
240
-------
C. Measures SelectedByThe States
1. Stationary Source Control Measures
Several large point source categories of VOC emissions
have not been covered by CTG's, yet are likely amenable to control.
States which need large VOC reductions should consider developing
regulations for these sources since it nay be difficult or impossible
for States to achieve the required emissions reduction if sjch
sources are left uncontrolled.
In addition, area sources of VOC can be major contributors to
emissions. Such sources have often not been controlled in the past,
and offer an opportunity for significant reductions..
Appendix C lists a number of specific industries and area
source categories.which States should examine to see if reductions
may reasonably be achieved from those types of sources. This list
is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive and "States should thoroughly
examine other potential measures in their local areas to determine
what emission sources are available for control in'order to meet
the required reduction.
2. ' Air Toxics Considerations
Under today's notice, State agencies are encouraged
to consider air toxics in selecting control measures for their
ozone SIP's. The EPA presumes that State plan submittals will be
coordinated between the air toxics and ozone programs. Such coordina-
tion will be considered by the EPA during review of SIP revisions.
The EPA is developing guidance to assist States in their assessment
of air toxics benefits of possible ozone strategy measures.

241
-------
3. Transportation Control.Measures (TCM's)
The EPA believes that many -netropol itan areas, of
necessity, will have to examine TCM's and select those measures
that contribute to meeting the required rate of progress and help
to offset expected mobile.and stationary source growth, and to tie
extent necessary to provide for attainment and maintenance. The '
TCM's in SIP's must be submitted in an enforceable adopted form
(see discussion below regarding requirements for adoption). Appendix
C contains some TCM's tnat States should examine to see if reductions
may reasonably be achieved. The Appendix C TCM's are those that
have been evaluated or implemented in certain areas, included in
Part 0 SIP's, or that EPA believes may be necessary in areas needing
large reductions in mobile source CO, VOC, or NOX emissions.
4. Requirements for Adoption of Transportation-Related
Control MeasureT:
The TCM's are to meet the following criteria in order
to be considered as properly adopted. The SIP must contain the
following:
(1) A complete description of the measure and its estimated
emission reduction benefits must be provided;
(2) Evidence that the measure was properly adopted by the
jurisdiction(s) with legal authority to commit to and execute such
program (e.g., Attorney General's certification of adoption);
(3) Evidence that funds to implement the measure are
obligated or on an acceptable schedule;
242
-------
(4) Evidence that all necessary approvals have been obtained,
from all appropriate governmental entities, including State highway
departments whera applicable;
(5) A schedule for completion of planning, engineering,
development, start of construction, if applicable, and for start of
operation which has been adopted by the implementing agency in an
appropriate enforceable form; and
(6) A description of the monitoring program to assess the
effectiveness of the measure and to allow for in-place corrections
or alterations to obtain the full effectiveness.
The EPA recognizes that the 2 years allov/ed for submission of
the initial plan may not be sufficient to allow for the proper
adoption of long-term measures. Where complete, "up front" adoption
is not possible, EPA will require that the initial subnittal identify
the measures and schedules for completing the adoption process;
estimate expected emission reduction benefits, and indicate when
such reductions are to occur.
Along with the identification of the measures and schedules,
the initial submittal is to include: (1) a description of the
process to complete all planning, funding, review, and decision
steps leading to adoption; (2) a schedule of those steps; (3) a
commitment to carry out the process leading to the adoption of
these or appropriately substituted measures.
243
-------
The schedule must commit to implement the measure as expeditiously
as practicable consistent with the time required to advance the measure
through all planning and programming steps to full scale implementation,
including the time required for construction, if applicable.
•
For measures unable to 'be fully-adootod, EPA will require that
the adoption of the measure identified in the initi.J1 submission be
completed in the most expeditious manner but not to exceed 3
additional years (see section II, Planning Schedules). The initial
SIP submittal must include legal commitments by all agencies,
boards, etc., responsible for funding, construction, operation,
enforcement, and monitoring of the measures. In addition, EPA
shall require that the SIP contain a certification by the State
Attorney General that the commitments included in tne SIP are
properly adopted by the jurisdiction with the legal authority
to implement the measure.
The EPA recommends that, to the extent possible, the agencies
previously designated under section 174 for the preparation of Part D
SIP's be retained. However, in all cases, the State must adequately
document that a satisfactory process has been carried out pursuant
to section 121 for consultation with general purpose local governments,
designated organizations of elected officials of local governments,
and any Federal Land Manager having authority over Federal land to
which the SIP applies.
244
-------
D. .Role of Nitrogen Oxides

The EPA believes that, in some circumstances, NOX control ;nay

be beneficial in reducing ozone levels. Therefore, States with

post-1987 ozone SIP's are required to evaluate locally-lmplemented

NQX control where the median ambient NMQC/NOX ratio is equal to or

above 10:1. Guidance describing the technical requirements for the

evaluations is contained in "Consideration of NOX Control in Ozone

SIP's," EPA, September 1987 (Draft). Upon completion of the evaluation,

States may proceed to identify and, if appropriate, implement NOX

measures which will supplement VOC controls and produce progress

toward attainment (including ultimate attainment) of the ozone

NAAQS as expeditiously as a strategy which did not rely on State-

adopted (or locally-adopted) N0-x measures. States implementing NOX

measures must determine a minimum rate of NQx emission reduction

which will result in attainment as expeditiously as a VOC-only

strategy .91 The procedure for this is as follows: (An example

demonstrating the application of this procedure can be found in

Appendix L.)

1. Determine the modeled VOC reduction target necessary to

attain based on a VOC-only strategy and whatever NOX emission
91 For determining compliance with this rate, EPA will not require States
to account for growth in sources affected by federally-implemented
NOX measures (i.e., FMVCP) so long as these measures continue to
achieve a net emission reduction considering the effects of such
growth. However, States must account for all other source
growth during this period. After this period, all growth must be
considered" in determining compliance with the rate.
245
-------
changes are expected If the Stata implemented no NOX measures.
Using the procedures contained in Appendix K, find the attainment year
for the VOC-only strategy at the required 3 percent annual rate of
progress.
2. Determine VOC and NOx reduction targets, necessary to atta-in
with a VOC/'10X strategy, including the NOX emission reductions
expected from the NOX strategy.
3. Find the required annual NOX reduction by dividing the
reductions expected from locally implemented NOX measures by the
number of years from the date of the SIP call to the attainment
date from Step 1. The NOx reductions (or increases) ^xpocted to
occur from events other than the locally-adopted measures should
not be included in determining compliance with the annual NOX
reduction, requirement.
4. Adjust the required annual VOC rate of progress such that
the locally-adopted VOC measures plus whatever emission changes
projected to occur in nonmobile VOC emissions occur at a uniform
rate from the date of the SIP call to the attainment date determined
in Step 1.
The annual VOC and NOX reduction requirements may be rounded to
the nearest tenth of a percentage point. As in the case of VOC,
EPA will use initially the fifth year from the SIP call, and subse-
quently at 3-year intervals to determine compliance with these
requirements. For this purpose, States must round the 5-year (and
3-year) reduction requirements to the nearest higher percentage
point. When attainment is projected to occur before the end of a
»,
246
-------
3-year period, the balance of the reduction required to attain is
due by the end of the year in which attainment is projected.
In addition to Che above procedural requirement, measures in
an NOX control strategy must meet all other requirements appropriate
for VOC control measures (e.g., measuras adoption, tracking, and
reporting of compliance).
247
-------
E. Control of Transported Ozone and Precursors
1. Northeastern States
The EPA recognizes that the phenomenon of multi-day
transport of ozone and its precursors in the Northeastern States
significantly complicates efforts of individual States to develop
strategies to attain the ozone NAAQS. '/Jith a nearly continuous
string of closely located urban areas spread over extended distances
and political boundaries, this portion of the country will need a
region-wide analysis to determine ultimately the collective adequacy
of various State control strategies.
Northeastern States need information to estimate inbound ozone
and precursors for urban scale models, and to evaluate the effects
of both regional and combined urban ozone control strategies on
regional ozone and precursor levels. Applications of the EPA-developed
ROM and subsequent interpretation of results will provide this
information. However, due to the need for the development of a
regional emissions data base and multiple strategy assessments, the
ROM results will not be available until after the upcoming SIP
revisions are due.
While EPA recognizes that ROM results are necessary in determining
relative contributions of transported pollutants to ozone exceedances,
EPA will not allow a delay in the submittal of the post-1937 ozone
attainment demonstrations and revised SIP's for areas affected by
ROM. The EPA believes that the Act requires that attainment
demonstrations be made using currently available models and data.
This means that States must use urban-scale models, with appropriate
assumptions of future transported ozone and precursors, to provide
243
-------
city-specific SIP reduction targets. The EPA expects that implementation
of control strategies designed to meet these targets will substantially
reduce local ozone and precursor levels and, in turn, will reduce
transported ozone and precursor levels downwind. Whether these
combined urban strategies are adequate to produce attainment must
subsequently be tested in urban-scale analyses when the ROM results
are available.
Procedures for estimating present and future transport^.!
levels of ozone and precursors for use in the EKMA analysis are
contained in the revised EPA guidance document "Guideline for the
Use of City-Specific EKMA," and in "Consideration of Transported
Ozone and Precursors in Regulatory Applications."
2. Other Areas Affected by Transport
The EPA considers the nature of the problem in other
areas to be generally of a single-day phenomenon confined to a
smaller scale and involving fewer States and cities than the Northeast
problem, and believes that it can be handled successfully by urban-
scale models, such as EKMA and Urban Airshed. Therefore, EPA does
not anticipate the need for a regional model in areas outside the
Northeast region.
249
-------
F. Accounting for Growth
The post-1987 ozone and CO plans must contain adequate
provisions to ensure that future growth will be accounted for and
RFP is maintained.92 Tha £PA has oeen considering two possible
options for addressing emission increases from new major sources
or major modifications to existing sources: (1) require emission
increases ta be offset with decreases at other sources, or (2)
allow State strategies to provide margins of growth (i.e., growth
accommodation) by controlling beyond the federally-prescribed
measures and other measures already needed to show RFP. Although
an emission offset program .nay provide more direct control over
emissions growth at these sources, EPA believes that areas still
subject to Part D of the Act are entitled specifically oy virtue
of section 173(1) to choose between an offset program and a
control strategy which provides a growth accommodation for emission
increases. In addition, EPA believes that the post-1937 nonattain-
ment policy should establish consistent requirements for all
areas to.the extent possible. Therefore, all States including
those subject to section 110 [and, specifically, section 110(a)(2)(0)]
are allowed to choose between these two approaches for addressing
future emissions growth. Where an accommodative approach is
chosen, the State must keep records to show at any one time that
the new growth can be accommodated by the SIP.
NOX control is part of the ozone strategy, N0» emissions must
be accounted for in accordance with the provisions of this subsection
250
-------
Statas may also decide on the approach for addressing growth
from minor or area sources. An offset program for minor point
sources or additional control measures to accommodate growth from
minor point sources or area sources could be used to ensure that
RFP i s maintained.
On a related "natter concerning emissions growth in dasijnated
attainment areas or unclassi f iabl
-------
purposes of the offset/growth allowance requirement, the same as
urban ozone nonattainment areas. The EPA will retain its
policy of not applying that requirement in nonself-genarating
rural ozone nonattainment areas, for the reasons discussed in its
previous policy notices.
The EPA believes that additional emission reductions are
achievable in many areas through more stringent new source review/
prevention of significant deterioration (NSR/PSD) programs. The
EPA encourages States to consider measures which could obtain
further control of new sources or modifications to existing
sources as a way to deal with the problem of long-term growth in
sources and their emissions. A list of possible new source review
measures is contained in Appendix C. The EPA >s not requiring
States to implement any or all of these measures, but the Agency
would consider these measures if it were promulgating a plan or
reviewing a plan which indicated that a State could not identify
sufficient emission reductions to attain by the required date or
meet progress requiraments.
252
-------
G. Adoption of Enforceable Regulations
1. Legal Authority
The plan must evidence that sufficient legal authority
currently exists at the applicable levels of government for the (1)
adoption and enforcement of emission limiting regulations for
stationary sources; and (2) adoption, operation, enforcement, and
monitoring of TCM's. The SIP is to also include the State Attorney
General's opinion regarding sufficient legal authority for controlling
stationary sources and implementing transportation-related control
measures. (See also Section V.C.4.)
2. Public Participation
The policy will require some areas to evaluate and
adopt some longer term measures that may need an extensive and
complex planning and implementation process. Some of the longer-term
transportation-related control measures listed in Appendix C could
fall into this category, such as road pricing or use of alternative
fuels if implemented on a broad scale. Measures that affect a
broad segment of the public such as auto commuters should result
from a process that effectively involves the public and all other
affected interests. States must comply with the criteria in sections
172(b)(l), 172(b)(9), and 174 of the Act and related guidance which
EPA will use to apply the requirements of sections 108(e), 110(a)(2)(J),
and 121 in carrying out their public participation process. (See
Expanded Public Participation Guideline reference in Appendix H.)
253
-------
3. Form of Emission Limits - VOC

This post-1987 ozone policy continues EPA's previous

position of not requiring enforceable mass emission caps (e.g.,

caps on pounds of VOC per day) as a condition for plan approval.

Generally, emission limits can be expressed as weight or mass per

unit of production (e.g., pounds of VOC per gallon of coating).

States may want to consider whether it is appropriate also to

specify emission limits on a "cap" basis ^s one way to .assure their

emission reduction targets are met. If a mass emissions cap is

adopted by the State, it must be reflected in the State plan demon-

stration. If a State chooses to adopt an emissions cap type limit,

this must only be done as a supplement to a rate-type emission limit.

Other acceptable forms of an emission limits include: (1)

rules setting a requirement for a percent reduction in emissions

where the baseline for the reduction is specified,'and (2) equipment

or work practice standards that are clearly enforceable.

4. Recordkeeping

State rules should require explicitly that sources

keep records needed to assess compliance for the timeframe specified

in the rule.94 The basic principle to follow here is that sufficient
compliance averaging time associated with each emission limit
(e.g., continuous or daily compliance) may include periods longer
than 24 hours only in accordance with the memorandum from John
O'Connor, Acting Director of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, January 20, 1984, titled "Averaging Times for Compliance
with VOC Emission Limits - SIP Revision Policy." Without a stated
compliance time, rules will be interpreted to require continuous
compliance. The EPA recommends that State rules specify an enforceable
compliance time.
254
-------
records must be kept such that the State, EPA, or a citizen can
easily and quickly determine without doubt the status of compliance
of all operations for any time period in question. The rule must
specify all appropriate recordkeeping requirements (e.g., reporting
schedules and formats, length of record retention, etc.) For example,
if the rule requires daily compliance, then daily records must be
required. If units of pounds VOC/gallon solids are required for
daily compliance, the source must record the gallons of solids useJ
per day and the pounds of VOC emitted per day. The rules should
also require sources to list separately the amount of diluents and
where applicable to determining compliance, VOC used in wash-jp and
clean-up operations. Also, sources which keep records based on th2
coating manufacturers1 data must make sure that such data have been
generated through a proper test method, where applicable, and not
merely through the formula of the coating.
5. Test Procedures
State rules should require the use of the most appropriate
and current test methods. To determine the VOC content of coatings,
States should require EPA-approved test methods [e.g., Reference
Method 24 (1-hour bake) or equivalent American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) Methods]. The method used to determine volume
percent solids should be EPA-approved {see "Procedures for Certifying
Quantity of Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and
Other Coatings," EPA-450/3-84-019, December 1984). The test procedures
in outdated ASTM methods and the Volume II Control Techniques
Guidelines are no longer acceptable. Procedures should specify

255
-------
that EPA or States may verify test data submitted by companies with
independent tests and that EPA-or State-conducted tests will take
precedence.
6. Compl1ance Schedules
All emission limiting regulations, control requi r-.ments,
or control measures that have future compliance dates or establish
other future requirements must be accompanied by a schedule for
implementation. Such schedules must show interim milestones of
progress and describe the consequences of failure to meet such
interim dates. Such milestones must be contained in the adopted
regulation submitted to EPA, or must be contained in a federally
enforceable permit for each affected source. The schedules for
implementation of these measures must not contravene any
applicable percent reduction described in-section IV.B.
7. Further Requirements for Enforceable Regulations
Appendix D includes problems found in current SIP's
which interfere with efficient enforcement of those regulations.
The States must take steps to remove such problems from revised
SIP's. (See Section VI.) Also, EPA issued guidance and a checklist
to assist States and Regions in developing enforceable regulations.
That guidance, signed by Assistant Administrator for QECM, OAR, and
OGC is entitled "Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency."
256
-------
V. MEASURING AND ASSURING PROGRESS AND MAINTENANCE
For measuring and assuring implementation of the SIP and progress
toward attainment, a program composed of aggressive emissions
tracking, rule-effectiveness evaluations, and periodic updates to
the demonstrations of. attainment will be required . To ensure that
the ambient standards will be maintained after they are attained,
EPA establishes specific requirements related to redesignating
areas to attainment, tracking emissions and air quality, modifying
the attainment strategy, and accounting for new source growth. The
EPA will require the initial plan revision for each area to contain
commitments to provide annual implementation tracking reports,
periodic updates to the emission inventory, and periodi-c updates to
the demonstration of attainment. The initial plan revision will
also be required to contain a commitment by the State to satisfy
the reporting procedures and other requirements specified in this
policy to ensure maintenance of the ambient standards. The EPA
will review the State tracking and update activities and corrective
actions (when needed) to determine if the State is continuing to
make reasonable efforts to provide for expeditious attainment and
RFP. Major deficiencies or problems in tracking progress or
implementation of measures could result in EPA's revoking its
contingent approval or its finding that the State is not making
reasonable efforts and is, therefore, subject to (additional)
sanctions. The EPA is also proposing certain requirements for
State emergency episode plans to ensure such plans are consistent
with and supportive of this policy. The EPA is also proposing to

257
-------
require the State plan to specify the criteria and procedures to be

followed to ensure that federally-assisted projects conform with

the SIP.

A. Measuring and Assuring Progress

States are to aggressively track and report (1) annually,

emission reductions from SI? compliance and, periodically, the

total emission inventory; (2) the status of implementation milestones;

and (3) air quality levels. In addition, States are to roport on

the results and corrective actions associated with rule-effectiveness

evaluations and, every 6 years, to redo their demonstrations of

attainment to ensure that t'oeir control stratagies are still adequate

to provide expeditious attainment and adequate progress in the

interim.

1. Aggressive Tracking

States will be required to report on certain

emission reductions, implementation milestones, and air quality in

an annual report due within 9 months after the end of the calendar

year being reported on. Every third annual report will also contain

a complete, updated emission inventory.95 jne first annual report

will be for the first full calendar year after the initial plan

submittal due date. The first annual report should cover emission

reductions and measure implementation since the base year.
discussed later, the first inventory update will be for the year
1992 and will be submitted in the annual report due in 1993.
258
-------
The annual raport will delineate the emission reductions which

have occurred during that year as a result of compliance with the

SIP regulations or measures.96 These reductions will ae compared

with projections and expected reductions from the demonstration of

attainment to serve as indicators of RFP.9? The State will also

provide the status of regulations which were to have been adopted

in that year plus the status of compliance efforts by affected

sources. Emission reductions occurring in the reporting year which

were initially scheduled for earlier years should also be

covered. If implementation or compliance problems cause a shortfall

in the expected emission reductions fro;n a source category (including

expected reductions from mobile source measures) to occur, the

State must develop and implement additional measures needed to

achieve at least an equivalent amount of reductions as expeditfously

as practicable. Additional measures must i>e submitted in a SIP

revision within 9 months after the annual RFP report due date and

must achieve the shortfall in emission reductions within 2 years of

the end of the year being reported on. Subsequent annual reports should

document the implementation of these additional measures.
^Reductions should be net; that is, they must account for the
emission growth {from all sources} which has occurred in the regulated
categories being reported on. Reductions must also consider appropriate
levels of control measure effectiveness.
97since n°t 2! 1 emissions and growth are to be addressed in the annual
report, compliance with RFP requirements cannot be determined totally
in each annual report. However, compliance with expected emission
reductions projected for specific source categories will be used to
assess RFP in years where total emission inventories are not developed.
259
-------
If delays in full compliance with the regulation(s) are expected,

the State should highlight the "compliance problems, estimate the date for

full compliance, and within 9 months of the end of the reporting year,

discuss with the EPA Regional Office the problem and any recommended

steps for resolution. The State and EPA will conduct quarterly reviews

to ensure that the delays are not substantial. If delays are

expected to last more than 1 year, States are required to develop

and implement interim measures to eliminate the redaction shortfall

until full compliance with the original SIP measure is achieved or

to substitute measures to replace the original measure. Interim or

substitute measures must be submitted as SIP revisions within 12

months after the reporting year, and schedules for implementing the

measures must ensure that the shortfall in emissions reductions is

achieved within 2.years of the end of the year being reported on.

Subsequent annual reports must document implementation of the

substitute or interim measures.98

States are required to update every 3 years the entire emissions

inventory for their nonattainment areas. These 3-year updates must

coincide with the years of the interim projections used in the
98EPA will evaluate the State's performance in responding adequately
to identified emission reduction shortfalls or problems in implementing
control measures. A failure on the part of the State to respond to
such shortfalls or problems may result in EPA's rescinding its
finding of "reasonable efforts" and imposing sanctions in the area.
Although EPA does not expect to take immediate corrective action (e.g.,
sanctions} when a State first experiences implementation problems,
persistent failure to meet the original emission reduction requirements
and implementation milestones (discussed later), despite the State's
taking corrective action as outlined in this section, may also
result in EPA's rescinding its finding of "reasonable efforts" and
imposing sanctions.

260
-------
demonstration of attainment. The first inventory update will be

for the year 1992 and will be included in the annual report submitted

in 1993. The emission inventory update will be included in the

RF? report for the same year for which the inventory was projected

in the attainment demonstration.99,100

The initial plan submittal must contain a commitment to revise

the SIP (within 9 months of the due dat.? for the RFP report containing

the updated inventory) if the emissions reflected in the inventory

updates are higher than the emissions represented on the RrP curve.

Corrective actions must ensure that the targatted emission inventory

level will be achieved expeditiously, but no later than the end of

the base year for the next inventory date. These complete emission

inventories should also detail new source review (NSR) activity. New

source growth should be summarized along with the offsets produced

for such growth.

States must also report annually {in the RFP report) on the

status of the implementation milestones and commitments which were

to have been satisfied in tne reporting year. The status of milestones

and commitments scheduled but not met in earlier years should also
99Additional information on the schedule a.tj content of the inventory
updates is contained in "Revised Guidance for Tracking Reasonable Further
Progress (RFP) in Ozone Control Programs." The guidance and the above
requirements also apply to CO and NOX {where NCy controls are part oF
the ozone strategy). Inventories should be compiled in accordance
with "Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-1987 Ozone SIP's."
first emission inventory update will be for the base year
1992 and will be reported in the annual report due in 1993. The
next inventory update will cover the base year 1995 and will be
reported in 1996, and so forth.
261
-------
be reported. If a milestone has not been met, the State must
document the problems and the plans for satisfying the commitment.
The EPA will assume that delays of more than 1 year will significantly
interfere with the scheduled implementation of the measure and,
therefore, RFP. As such, EPA will consider rescinding its finding
of "reasonable efforts" by the State or its plan approval (whichever
is applicable) and imposing availaole sanctions unless the State
demonstrates that full implementation of the measure will not be
delayed beyond the original due date contained in the SIP and that
RFP will continue to be met. Any milestone can be amended or a
measure substituted through a SIP revision if the State demonstrates
that RFP will continue to be met. Significant delays in the imple-
mentation of a measure may cause substitute or interim measures to
be required. Substitute measures must ensure that RFP is maintained.
The annual RFP report will also be required to contain a summary
of ambient air quality levels. Air quality levels for ozone and CO
should be reported in accordance with the "Revisad Guidance for
Tracking Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) in Ozone Control Programs."
In areas with long-term nonattainment dates, States are roquirad to
monitor NMOC at a minimum of one monitoring site each year during
the ozone season.101 other States are also encouraged to measure
NMOC each year to compare with emission inventory data and support
subsequent modeling analyses.
101
N0y monitoring would also he required at this site.
262
-------
2. Rule Effect 1 ven_e_s_s__E_va_Uia11 ons

States must commit in their initial SIP's to evaluate

selected regulations and programs annually to determine whether

tiiey are achieving their intended effect. The EPA will identify

2dch yaar those regulations and programs which should be the focus

of the evaluations.^ Guidance for this effort is contained in

"Guideline for Evaluating Effectiveness of VOC'Regulations." The

EPA Regional Offices and the States will jointly conduct these

evaluations, as discussed in the above guidance.

The results of each year's rule effectiveness evaluations must

be summarized in the State annual RFP report for that year. Major

problems must be identified, and actions needed to remedy the

problems must be listed. The report must contain a schedule of the

steps the State will take to correct implementation problems. The

EPA expects implementation problems to be corrected within 1-year

of the due date for the annual report. Subsequent annual reports

should summarize corrective actions taken and their results.

3. Subsequent Demonstrations of Attainment

States must reexamine their demonstration of attainment

periodically (every 6 years, to coincide with a cycle of two updated

emission inventories}!^ based on up-to-date emission levels, modeling

techniques, emission factors, and air quality levels (03, NOX, NMOC,
State and the EPA Regional Office may jointly decide that a substitute
regulation/program is more appropriate for evaluation. Criteria for
selecting substitute measures are contained in the "Guidance for Rule
Effectiveness Evaluations."

103fne first updated inventory will be for 1992, the second for 1995;
hence, the first subsequent demonstration will use the 1995 inventory .
as its base.

and quality assurance information.

D. Conformity of Federal Actions With the SIP

Section 176(c) of the Act requires all federally approved or

financially assisted actions (projects, plans, approvals, assistance,

etc.} to conform to the SIP's for the areas in which those actions

will take place. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO's) are

prohibited from approving any project, program, or plan that does

not conform to the SIP for that area. Assurance of conformity is also

an affirmative responsibility of the "head of each Federal agency.

Due to the existing OOT/EPA Conformity Agreement of Jjie 12,

1980, the conformity approach and criteri-a contained in this section

do not apply to transportation plans, programs, and projects approved

by MPO's and approved or funded by DOT. The EPA and DOT will

discuss the joint updating and revision of the 1980 Conformity Agreement,

To ensure that projects approved by MPO's do not cause NAAQS

.violations or interfere with timely attainment of the standards

(and hence do conform to the revised SIP), EPA will require that

each revised SIP explicitly identify direct and indirect emissions

from projected major Federal actions that the Stats and MPO expect

to will occur in coming years. The SIP must also set out the
273
-------
State's definition of what future projects would or would iot
conform with the SIP. The SIP should document assumptions used in
predicting future emissions so that emissions associated with
Federal actions can be readily compared to emission projections in
the SIP. This should include assjmptions on growth that can be
readily disaggregated (including population, employment, VMT, and
emissions, as appropriate).
State implementation plans snould also identify the local
review procedures and responsibilities in determining conformity
and provide for mitigation of violations resulting from Federal
actions and emissions not covered by SIP growth allowances. These
procedures should specify that conformity determinations cannot be
made until sufficient 'information exists and analysis has been
done to make a positive finding that conformity will be assured.
The SIP's conformity definition should state, at a minimum,
that a federally approved or financially assisted actions (projects,
plans, approvable assistance, etc.) subject to section 176(c) will
conform with the SIP only if:
(1) The associated direct and indirect increase* in emissions,
when considered with emissions from other expected actions, will
not cause or contribute to the violation of any NAAQS;
(2) The growth projections (population, employment, VMT) of the
proposed Federal action are consistent with the growth projections used
in the SIP, as disaggregated for the relevant areas;
274
-------
(3) The major stationary source, mobile source, and arsawide
emissions growth rates used or implicitly used are consistent with
emissions growth rates used in the SIP;
(4) The associated direct and indirect increases in emissions
projected to result from the project are consistent with the SI?
growth allowances and projections, to allow RFP toward attainment
of all NAAQS as expeditiously as possible;
(5) The proposed action is consistent with the timely imple-
mentation of SIP TCM's in accordance with SIP schedules and does
not reduce or interfere with the effectiveness of the TCM's in the
SIP;
(6) All relevant SI? requirements for stationary source review
and permitting are met, including procedural and substantive
provisions (e.'g., emission limitations and operation requirements);
(7) Associated direct and indirect increases in emissions (a)
will not contribute to any exceedances of any prevention of
significant deterioration increments and (b) will not interfere
with Class I area visibility protection; and
(8) The facility or activity complies with all other goals,
provisions, policies, and requirements of the SIP.
275
-------
VI. MAXIMIZING EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
The EPA requires States receiving SIP calls or disapprovals to
correct the SIP deficiencies and inconsistencies described in Appendix D
as expeditiously as practicable but at least by the time the initial
SIP is due {2 years from tne SIP call). The EPA will work with the
various States in identifying specific deficiencies contained in
their SIP's and in developing a schedule for submitting the needed
revisions. The EPA is in the process of upgrading guidance material,
developing new guidance where needed, and formulat ing. State-EPA
workgroups and clearing houses to assist the States in improving
their overall program effectiveness.
276
-------
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether this action is "major1
and therefore subject to the requirement of a Regulatory Impact Analysis.
This action is not major because it establishes policies, as opposed to
regulations,
This proposed policy was submitted to the Office of flanagement and
Budget (OMB) for review. Any written comments from OMB to EPA are
available for public inspection in the Docket. Pursuant to U.S.C.
605(b), I hereby certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because
this action proposes policy as opposed to binding regulations.
Date
Lee M. Thomas
Administrator
277
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
POTENTIAL 1988 SIP CALL AREAS
-------
TABLE A-l

POTENTIAL 1988 SIP CALL AREAS - OZONE
EPA
Region Area
(a)

Exceeding
NAAQS
1984-86
(b)

Will exceed
NAAQS
1985-87
(c)

May exceed in
1985-87, depending
on 1987 data
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA unless marked CMSA)
Boston, MA CMSA YES
Connecticut/Massachusetts1, CT-MA YES
New Bedford, MA YES
Portland, ME YES
Portsmouth-Dover, NH-ME YES
Providence, RI CMSA YES
Worcester, MA YES
Atlantic City, NJ YES
New York, NY CMSA YES
Allentown-Bethlehem, PA YES
Baltimore, MD YES
Charleston, WV
Erie, PA
Harrisburg, PA
Lancaster, PA
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE CMSA YES
Pittsburgh, PA CMSA
Reading, PA
Richmond, VA
Washington, DC-MD-VA YES
York, PA
Atlanta2, GA
Birmingham, AL
Charlotte, NC-SC
Huntington, WV-KY-OH
Jacksonville, FL
Lexington, KY
Louisville, KY (IN suburbs2}
Memphis, TN-AR-MS
Mi ami-Hi alean, FL CMSA
Nashville, TN
Tampa, FL
Chicago2, IL CMSA (IN suburbs2)
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN
Cleveland, OH
Dayton-Springfield, OH
Detroit, MI CMSA
Grand Rapids, MI
Indianapolis, IN YES
Janesville-Beloit, WI
Milwaukee, WI YES
Muskegon, MI YES
Baton Rouge, LA YES

A-l
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
-------
TABLE A-l

POTENTIAL 1988 SIP CALL AREAS - OZONE
EPA
Region Area
Non-MSA's

I Acadia National Park, ME
I Gardiner, ME
I Hancock County, ME
I Knox County, ME
I York County, ME
III Dover, DE
III Northampton County, VA
III Seaford, DE
VI Iberville Parish, LA
VI Point Coupee Parish, LA
VI St. James Parish, LA
(a)
Exceeding
NAAQS
1984-86
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
(b)
Will exceed
NAAQS
1985-87
(c)
May exceed in
1985-87, depending
on 1987 data
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Total
62
45
31
1 Connecticut/Massachussetts includes Bristol, Hartford, Middletown,
New Britain, New Haven, and New London, CT, and Springfield, MA MSA's.

2 One of 14 ozone or CO SIP's proposed for disapproval, July 14. 1987
(52 FR 26404)

Explanation of Column Headings:
(a) Locations having expected exceedances of 0.12 ppm greater than 1.0
per year during 1984-86.

(b) These areas are above 0.12 ppm and have measured more than three
exceedances during 1985 and 1986. They will continue to exceed the
NAAQS during the 1985-87 period even if no exceedances occur in 1987.

(c) Areas currently exceeding NAAQS and showing "YES" in this column
measured 3 or fewer exceedances in last 2 years (1985-86). Other areas
are not currently exceeding NAAQS, but did so during 1983-85, and may
show renewed nonattainment in 1985-87. SIP calls in 1988 for areas in
this column will depend on 1987 data. Other areas may also exceed in
1985-87 (see Discussion).
A-3

-------
TABLE A-2

POTENTIAL 1988 SIP CALL AREAS - CARBON MONOXIDE
EPA
Region
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
III
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Area^
Boston, MA
Hartford, CT
Lowell, MA-NH
Manchester, NH
Nashua, NH
Providence, RI
Springfield, MA
Stamford, CT
Worcester, MA
Bergen-Passaic, NJ
Jersey City, NJ
Nassau-Suffolk, NY
New York, NY
Newark, NJ
Syracuse, NY
Trenton, NJ
Baltimore, MD
Norfolk-Virginia Beach, VA
Philadelphia, PA-NJ
Pittsburgh, PA
Washington, DC-MD-VA
Atlanta, GA
Birmingham, AL
Charlotte-Rock Hill, NC-SC
Greensboro/Winston-Sal em, NC
Lexington, KY
Louisville, KY
Memphis, TN-AR-MS
Miami-Hialeah, FL
Nashville, TN
Raleigh-Durham, NC
Chicago, IL
Cleveland4, OH
Davenport -Rock Island, IA-IL
Detroit, MI
Duluth, MN
Milwaukee, WI
Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN-WI
Peoria, IL
Rockford, IL
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
St. Cloud, MN
Toledo, OH
(a)
Exceeding
NAAQS
1985-86
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES
YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

(b)
Wi 1 1 exceed
NAAQS
1986-87
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

YES
YES
YES

YES
•

YES

YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2

POTENTIAL 1988 SIP CALL AREAS - CARBON MONOXIDE
EPA
Region
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX

IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
Area3
Albuquerque, NM
Dallas, TX
El Paso, TX
Houston, TX
Oklahoma City, OK
Des Moines, I A
Dubuque, IA
Kansas City, MO-KS
Lincoln, NE
Springfield, MO
Wichita, KS
Boulder-Longmont, CO
Colorado Springs, CO
Denver4, CO
Fort Collins, CO
Greeley, CO
Missoula, MT
Provo-Orem, UT
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT
Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA
Chi co, CA
Fresno4, CA
Las Vegas, NV
Los Angeles -Long Beach,4 CA
Modesto, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Reno4, NV
Sacramento, CA (includes
S. Lake Tahoe area)
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
San Jose, CA
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA
Tucson, AZ
Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa, CA
(a)
Exceeding
NAAQS
1985-86
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
(b)
Will exceed
NAAQS
1986-87
YES

YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

•YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES
(c)
May exceed in
1986-87, depending
on 1987 data

YES

YES
YES
YES

YES

YES
YES

A-5
-------
EPA
Region Area3
TABLE A-2

POTENTIAL 1988 SIP CALL AREAS - CARBON MONOXIDE

(a) (b)
Exceeding Will exceed
NAAQS NAAQS
1985-86 1986-87
(c)
May exceed i n
1986-87, depending
on 1987 data
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Anchorage, AK
Boise City, ID
Fairbanks, AK
Grants Pass, OR
Medford, OR
Portland, OR
Salem, OR
Seattle, WA
Spokane, MA
Tacoma, WA
Yak i ma, WA
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES

YES
YES

YES
65
52
36
3 Generally, the area includes the MSA if one exists. In some cases
{e.g., the Sacramento, CA MSA) the air quality status may be based on
a site distant from the central urban area.

4 One of 14 ozone or carbon monoxide SIP's proposed for disapproval
July 14, 1987 (52 FR 26404)

Explanation of Column Headings:
(a) Locations with at least two exceedances of 9 ppm during 1985
and/or 1986.

(b) Areas with at least two exceedances of 9 ppm in 1986. They
will continue to exceed the NAAQS during the 1985-87 period
even if no exceedances occur in 1987.

(c) Areas in this column are:
1. Exceeding the NAAQS, but did not measure more
than one exceedance in 1986, or
2. Not exceeding the NAAQS, but did so during 1984-85.

SIP calls in 1988 for these areas will depend on 1987 data.
Other areas may also exceed NAAQS in 1986-87 (see Discussion).
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B: PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING SELF-GENERATING VERSUS
NONSELF-GENERATING ISOLATED RURAL AREA
The EPA defines a rural area either as an adjacent rural area,
a self-generating isolated rural area or as a nonself-generatlng
isolated rural area. (All rural areas are non-MSA's.) An adjacent
rural area is a county with actual monitored violations of ozone
that borders a MSA that has been issued a SIP call for ozone. A
self-generating isolated rural area is an area that produces, or
significantly contributes to, local ambient ozone levels. These
areas cannot rely upon upwind areas to provide for attainment in
the isolated rural area. Self-generating isolated rural areas will
most likely have to adopt additional control measures to demonstrate
attainment. A nonself-generating isolated rural area is one that
does not signficantly contribute to local ambient levels of ozone.
Attainment of the ozone standard in a nonself-generating isolated
rural area will occur when sufficient emissions reductions have
been achieved from the upwind sources to cause the ambient concentra-
tions of ozone to decrease to the NAAQS in the isolated rural area.
"Self-Generating Tests"
The EPA believes several, simple tests can be performed by the
State to determine if an isolated rural area is a self-generating
ozone area. Data used for determination of self-generating ozone
areas should be taken from the most recent "ozone season" and
should be based upon generally recognized data analysis techniques.
8-1

-------
1) Ozone Gradient - These tests require upwind and downwind
ozone monitors for the rural site. If an increase in ambient
levels of ozone is observed between the upwind and downwind monitors,
local emissions may be responsible for generating the ozone increment,
If no increase in ambient levels are shown between the upwind and
downwind sites, the area may be classified as a nonself-generating
isolated rural area. An area defining itself as a nonself-generating
isolated rural area is to identify the upwind source area(s) that
is causing, or in combination with other areas contributing to,
local nonattainment.
2) Time of Ozone Peaks - Locally produced ozone typically occurs
between 12 noon and 6 pm. Peaks observed outside of these hours may
be caused by transported ozone from upwind areas.
At times of day when ozone would be highest (i.e., when the
gradient, if one exists, might be most significant), large vertical
differences in ozone concentrations would not be anticipated. The
number of days which would have to demonstrated as due to transport
would depend on the total number of exceedances and on whether or
not "transport" days can be attributed to a particular upwind MSA
and that MSA's SIP adequately accounts for the day in question.
For a 3-year period:
B-2

-------
1 of Exceedances
n (n > 4)
n
n
n
# Transport
n-3
n-2
n-1
n
Allowable

Self-Generated Exceedance

3) Distance From Upwind Source Area - If the isolated rural

area is (a) within 10 hours travel time of an upwind MSA, (b) no

gradient is present, and (c) trajectory analysis based on surface

wind data Indicates that the air parcel corresponding with observed

violations is not likely to be in the vicinity of the rural area

between early morning and noon, the rural area may be assumed
•

nonself-generating and the upwind MSA may be presumed to be responsible

for the isolated rural area's ozone levels.

The EPA Regional Offices will work with the States in determining

the proper test or data needs to determine if an isolated rural

area is self-generating or nonself-generating.
8-3
-------
APPENDIX C INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE USEFUL IN ASSISTING STATES
TO ACHIEVE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
The following sections list a number of transportation related
control measures, stationary source measures, and potential new
source review measures that EPA believes the States can use in
selecting measures to gain additional emission reductions above and
beyond the federally implemented and federally prescribed measures.
These lists are not intended to be exhaustive. State and local
agencies may be able to, and are encouraged to, identify other
effective control measures.
Transportation Control Measures
The following measures, especially when put into comprehensive
packages and implemented on a wide scale, can contribute to achieving
periodic emission reductions needed to demonstrate expeditious
attainment by a date certain. Nearly all the measures have been
implemented somewhere.
1. Voluntary No Drive Days
2. Trip Reduction Ordinances
3. Employer Based Transportation Management (including tax incentives
for employer programs)
4. Improved Public Transit
5. Parking Management Programs
6. Park and Ride/Fringe Parking
7. Work Schedule Changes
8. Road Pricing (Tolls)
9. Traffic Flow Improvements

C-l
-------
10. Ride Share Incentives
11. Control of Extended Idling of Vehicles
12. Reduction of Cold Start Emissions
13. Gasoline Fuel Additives1
14. Conversion of Fleet Vehicles to Cleaner Fuels or Enginesi
More controversial measures used more prevalently outside the
United States include mandatory no-drive days, gas rationing, or
such economic instruments as taxes on gasoline, vehicles (purchase
and annual registration), and parking. The tax incentive-type
measures will tend to discourage or prohibit automobile use. For
example, a higher tax will result in a greater disincentive to
drive. For the gasoline tax, especially, the level of the tax
could be adjusted to help achieve the desired reduction in vehicle
miles traveled.
Stationary Source Measures
Table C-l lists a number of source categories where control may
give significant emission reductions. The heading, "Tightening
existing regs. (LAER)," in Table C-l refers to revising all current
regulations to the level of the most stringent regulation found in
any SIP.
EPA is currently soliciting comment on two technical reports related
to alternate fuels. One discusses the air quality benefits of
alternative fuels and the other includes guidance on estimating motor
vehicle emissions reductions from the use of alternative fuels and fuel
blends. The EPA currently plans to finalize these two technical
reports by January 1988.

C-2
-------
TABLE C-l

SUMMARY OF STATIONARY SOURCE MEASURES
Source category

SOCMI distillation
Petroleum wastewater
SOCMI reactor process
Plastic parts coating
Metal rolling
SOCMI batch process
Web offset lithography
Electronics manufacture
Aerospace coating
Wood furniture coating
Autobody refinishing
TSDF
Bakeries
Fabric printing
Clean-up solvents
Municipal landfills
Industrial wastewater (including POTW's)
Marine vessel loading
Pesticides Application
Paint manufacturing
Ink manufacturing
Wineries

POLICY CHANGES:

Tightening existing regs. (LAER)

AREA SOURCES:

Architectural coating
Traffic paint
Industrial maintenance paint
Consumer and commercial solvents
Adhesives
Potential
reduction,
(in nonattainment
areas)

66,000
11,000
12,000
16,000
7,000
38,000
31,000
4,000
3,000
25,000
53,000
330,000
27,000
10,000
41,000
58,000
63,000
395,OOO3
68,000
26,000
15,000
77,000
46,000
^These are emission reductions expected to be achieved by application
of appropriate control measures, not total emission inventories.
reduction is an estimate based on a preliminary survey of
available data.
C-3
-------
Area sources are an important source of VOC emissions which
have often been overlooked in the past. On this list, traffic
paint refers to coatings used to paint highway and parking lot
stripes. Consumer solvent refers to solvents found in common
household products such as hair sprays, deodorants, polishes, and
cleaners. It may be possible to reformulate many of these area
source products so that they still perform the same function, but
contain lower amounts of VOC.
Non-CTG Control Technology Information Documents
The EPA has prepared a number of documents over the years which
deal with control technology for VOC emission sources which have
not been covered by a CTG. These non-CTG technology information
documents have been published in a variety of ways. Some have been
given EPA publication numbers and are widely available; others have
been prepared by EPA region offices and have been distributed
mainly within EPA. Other reports have been issued in draft form
only, but nevertheless have received wide circulation as information
sources. As States investigate ways to gain further emission
reduction through stationary source control, they may find this
information useful. Listed below are many of the technology information
documents that have been prepared by EPA:
1. Summary of Technical Information for Selected Volatile Organic
Compound Sources Categories, EPA-450/3-81-007, May 1981.
C-4
-------
This document contains information on the following industries:
Adhesive Application
Asphalt Air Blowing
Barge and Tanker Cleaning
Barge and Tanker Loading
Beer Making
Fabric Printing
Flares
Lube Oil Manufacturing
Oil and Gas Production Storage Tanks
Petroleum Coking Processes
Solvent Extraction Processes
Surface Coating of Large Aircraft
Surface Coating of Large Ships
Surface Coating of Wood Furniture
Waste Solvent Recovery Industry
Wine Making
Styrene - Butadiene Copolymer Latex
2. Air Pollution Control Engineering and Cost Study of the Paint and

Varnish Industry, EPA-450/3-74-031, June 1974.

3. Evaluation of the Problems Associated with Application of Low Solvent

Coatings to Wood Furniture, EPA-600/2-87-007, January 1937.

4. Nonmethane Organic Emissions from Bread Producing Operations,

EPA-450/4-79-001, prepared by Midwest Research Institute, December 1978.

5. Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing,

EPA-450/3-83-005a, December 1933

6. Benzene Emissions From Coke By-Product Recovery Plants - Background

Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-450/3-83-016a, May 1984.

7. Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines - Background

Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-45G/3-33-019a, December 1985.

8. Photochenrically Reactive Organic Compound Emissions from Consumer and

Commercial Products, EPA 902/4-86-001, prepared by EPA Region II,

November 1986.

9. Evaluation of a Paint Spray Booth Utilizing Air Recirculation,

EPA-600/2-84-143.

10. Benefits of Microprocessor Control of Curing Ovens for Solvent

Based Coatings, EPA-625/2-84-031, September 1984.
C-5
-------
The EPA Region IV has prepared, with contractor assistance, a
number of reports on specific non-CTG sources in specific cities.
These reports describe control technology which is available. The
reports listed below were prepared by EPA Region IV.
11. Volatile Organic Compound Control at Specific Sources in Louisville,
Kentucky and Nashville, Tennessee, EPA-904/9-81-087, December 1981.
This report discusses control technology for these industries:
wood furniture
aluminum rolling mill lubricant control
fiber glass reinforced polyester boat building (styrene emissions)
12. Technical Support in the Development of a Revised Ozone State
Implementation Plan for Atlanta, Georgia, prepared for EPA Region IV
by Pacific Environmental Services, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3387,
August 1985.
This report includes:
Architectural Surface Coating
Automobile Refinishing
Commercial/Consumer Solvent Use
Fuel Combustion
Gasoline Volatility
Aircraft Emissions
Degreasing
Lawn and Garden Equipment
13. Summary Report for Technical Support in Development of a Revised
Ozone State Implementation Plan for Memphis, Tennessee, prepared for
EPA Region IV by Pacific Environmental Services, EPA Contract No. 68-02-
3887, June 1985.
This niulti-volume report includes:
Wood Furniture Coating
Barge Loading Facilities
Sheet Fed Paperbpard Coating
Chemical Processing Plants
Solvent Extraction
Offset Lithography
Sulk Plants
C-6
-------
14. Technical Information Document for Technical Support in Development
of a Revised Ozone State Implementation Plan for Birmingham, Alabama,
prepared for EPA Region IV by Pacific Environmental Services, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3887. This consists of a series of reports
published in October and November 1984 and February 1935.
Industries covered include:
Surface Coating of Large Aircraft
Paint Manufacturing
Coke Processes
Lamination of Vinyl Countertops
Mineral Wood Production Industry —-
Brick Manufacturing Industry
Explosives Manufacturing Industry
A number of control technology documents have been widely circulated
as draft documents for review. Some of these documents have never
been issued as final documents such as CTG's for various reasons,
but they still contain much helpful technical information. Copies
of some of these may be still available from EPA, especially from
the Emissions Standards and Engineering Division of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Among these are:
15. Draft, "Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Full-Web Process-Color Heatset Web Offset Lithographic Printing,"
August 1981.
16. Draft, "Control Technique Guidelines for the Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Wood Furniture Coating," April 1979.
17. Draft, "Fabric Printing Industry - Background Information for
Proposed Standards", April 21, 1981.
18. Draft, "Economic Impact Analysis of Catalytic Incineration and
Carbon Adsorption on the Fabric Printing Industry," November 1981.

C-7
-------
19. Draft, "Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing
Stationary Sources: Paint Manufacturing Industry," U.S. EPA, OAQPS.
In addition, EPA's Air Toxics Control Technology Center has
issued the following report:
20. Air Stripping of Contaminated Water Sources, Air Emissions and
Control, July 20, 1987, Prepared for Air Toxics Control Technology
Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
Potential New Source Review (NSR) Measures —
The primary approach a State could follow to mitigate the effects
of growth by reductions through its NSR program would be to subject
more sources to new source review.
The following measures are being suggested for States to
consider in their control strategies as appropriate techniques to
deal with growth, under current rules, new sources and modifications
may be exempted from the Part D major NSR requirements by: (1)
having a potential to emit below certain thresholds [100 tons per
year (tpy) for new sources and 40 tpy of VOC for modifications to
existing major sources]; (2) not being located in an area designated
as nonattainment under section 107 of the Clean Air Act (Act); and
(3) qualifying for one of the specific exemptions contained in the
NSR regulations (e.g., conversion to municipal wastes for power
generation, production increases not limited by a permit, increased
operating hours.
C-8
-------
Each of these situations has a separate set of possible solutions
or revisions.
(1) Thresholds - The thresholds contained in the NSR program
could be lowered to, say, 25 tpy for major sources and major modifi-
cations. A significant portion of the total VOC emissions generally
come from small sources, so lowering cutoffs would bring significantly
more of the VOC emissions into the major NSR program. Even 25 tpy
threshold may not cover a majority of the emissions resulting from
new sources. One study has shown that for VOC's, modifications and
new sources emitting less than 5 tpy compose 55 percent of total
new VOC emissions.
(2) Location Outside Nonattainment Area - States may wish to apply
the nonattainment area NSR requirements of section 173 of the Clean
Air Act (and State programs under that section) to sources located
outside but near designated nonattainment areas.
(3) Specific Exemptions - The definitions currently contained
in the NSR program exempt certain increases in emissions from being
considered as a modification. These exemptions allow sources
capable of accommodating alternative fuels or raw materials to
switch fuels or raw materials (e.g., from oil to coal) without
being subject to major NSR requirements. Also, sources may increase
their operating hours (e.g., from 8 hours per day to 24 hours per
day) and throughput (e.g., from 60 percent of capacity) to the
maximum possible while meeting Federal NSR requirements (unless the
changes are specifically limited by Federal enforceable conditions).
States could remove these exemptions from the NSR regulations.

C-9
-------
APPENDIX D: DISCREPANCIES AND INCONSISTENCIES FOUND
IN CURRENT SIP'S
The EPA has raviewed a number of SIP's and found inconsistencies
and discrepancies from established EPA policy and guidance. The
following discussion lists the most prominent problems and suggests
corrections to these problems. While no State or local agencies are
specifically identified, EPA intends to discuss individual State and
local deficiencies with the appropriate agencies at the time the SIP
call is made.
a. Achieve Consistent Implementation of New Source Review Programs:
During its audits of State and local NSR programs, EPA has found
considerable differences in how agencies implement their NSR regulations,
EPA has found, for example, that many major modifications of sources
escape preconstruction review and that lowest achievable emission
reduction (LAER) determinations for sources subject to NSR are often
inconsistent and insufficiently stringent. In many cases, these
problems may result from improper interpretation of the applicable
rules. To minimize the likelihood that this will occur in the future,
EPA intends to develop guidance on such issues as how emissions
increases and decreases should be calculated for netting purposes,
when and how implementing agencies may use growth allowances as a
substitute for offsets, and how to ensure that best available control
technology and LAER determinations reflect the best technology for
the source in question rather than simply the new source performance
standards control level. The EPA also intends to increase its
auditing and enforcement of State programs.
D-l
-------
0 New Source Review Regulations
The primary focus of the new source review regulations is to
evaluate the emissions impact of new or modified source projects
before construction commences on the projects. The basic requirement
for a new source of air pollution is to ensure that its emissions do
not cause any new nonattainment situations or exacerbate any existing
nonattainment problems. All sources must "prove," generally by
modeling air quality impacts before and after the proposed change,
that they do not cause or contribute to any nonattainment problem.
For major new sources and major modifications wishing to locate in
designated nonattainment areas, the applicant must also show that the
most stringent pollution control equipment (LAER) is being installed,
that all other sources owned by the applicant within the State are in
compliance {Statewide compliance), and that the emission increases
are either offset or taken into account with an approved growth
allowance (emission offsets). These requirements are listed in the
Clean Air Act in sections 172 and 173.
The wording in some State NSR regulations allows or has the
potential to allow certain sources to avoid some or all of the intended
requirements of new source review. This is in conflict with the
Federal provisions, since State rules can be more stringent than the
Federal provisions, but in no case can they be less stringent. The
EPA believes that appropriate guidance and technical support can help
ensure that States implement the new source review regulations in
conformance with EPA policy; however, States may need to correct or
D-2
-------
clarify some of their regulations to avoid possible applicability or
enforcement problems that may arise under new source review due to
less stringent provisions. The following areas are the focus of efforts
to achieve conformity with EPA policy.
0 Exemptions
ou Permit Conditions: Federal requirements state that only
federally enforceable permit conditions may be used to exempt a source
from the requirements for major sources. State operating permits and
State consent decrees are not federally enforceable unless incorporated
into the SIP either through EPA approved case-by-case rulemaking or
through a generic mechanism. State preconstruction permits issued by
States under EPA-approved SIP regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18,
51.24, or 51.30, as well as construction permits issued by EPA or by
delegated States under 52.21 are federally enforceable.
°° State Nonattainment Designations: The EPA will not
permit a State to exempt sources located in nonattainment areas that
the State has designated "attainment" without EPA approval. Similarly,
States will not be permitted to use attainment demonstrations that
have not received EPA approval to determine whether an offset or
netting transaction is consistent with RFP.
00 General: States should revise their regulations to
remove any regulatory provisions that could be used to exempt any
source from any major NSR requirements. The only exclusions are
those contained in the Federal definitions of major stationary sources
0-3
-------
[40 CFR 51.165(a)(l)(iv)J or major modifications [40 CFR 51.165(a)
(l)(v)]. No source type (e.g., cotton gins, resource recovery facility)
or source class (e.g. reactivated sources) may have a blanket exemption
from any new source review requirement. This is a problem under the
major source and major modification thresholds, since the NSR provisions
require that all emission increases be accumulated for applicability
purposes. For example, a single cotton gin may be a minor source,
while four cotton gins (under common ownership) locating on one piece
of land would constitute a major source or major modification.
States may retain exemptions from minor source permitting requirements
if (1) there exists a federally approved growth allowance to mitigate
resulting increases in emissions and (2) State regulations expressly
prohibit the use of the exemptions to exempt any major source or
major modification from major NSR requirements.
°° Clean Spot Exempt ion: As a result of the August 1980
rulemaking which was conducted as part of the Alabama Power decision,
State regulations cannot contain provisions that exempt a source from
major new source review requirements where the source does not
"significantly cause or contribute to a violation of a National
Ambient Air Quality Standard." The August 1980 requirements subject
any major source or major modification located in an EPA designated
nonattainment area to the major NSR requirements regardless of the
ambient impact of the source. Some SIP's, however, still retain this
exemption and should be revised.
0-4
-------
0 Offset/Netting Requirements1
00 Offsets: The EPA requires State regulations to contain
enforceable and specific criteria on the credibility of emission
reductions as offsets. These provisions must include a specific,
well-defined baseline for emission increases and decreases, a require-
ment that all emission reductions used for offsets be federally
enforceable (see section on permit conditions above), certain restric-
tions on the use of emission reductions caused by prior shutdowns and
curtailments as offsets, and the prohibition of the use of any emission
reductions already included in a State attainment demonstration.
The last requirement listed is to ensure that a State does not use
a reduction twice, i.e., once for attainment purposes and once for
mitigation of new source growth.
00 Netting: The EPA requires State regulations to contain
specific and enforceable criteria if a State wishes to allow a
source to "net out" of major NSR review. A source "nets out" of
major new source review by securing emission decreases within the
^•Pending, or future litigation, or subsequent rulemaking, particularly
final resolution of the settlement agreement arising from the industry
challenge to EPA's 1980 promulgation of revised NSR rules (Chemical
Manufacturers Association vs. EPA, No. 79-1112, D.C. Cir., February
1982),nmay alter these requirements. See 48 FR 28743 (August 25,
1983) (proposed revisions). However, unless and until EPA finally
revises the relevant regulations, the current requirements remain in
effect. If a State changes its regulations to meet these requirements
and EPA then relaxes these requirements pursuant to this CMA settlement
agreement, EPA will allow the States to change their applicable
regulations as appropriate.
D-5
-------
source to mitigate increases from the same source, resulting in an
"insignificant" emissions increase on a sourcewide basis. The
Federal regulations require the following criteria for netting: (1)
an "actual" baseline; (2) health and welfare equivalence between
the emission increases and decreases; (3) Federal enforceability of
emissions decreases (see section on permit conditions above); (4) a
specific contemporaneous time frame (up to 10 years); and (5) the
prohibition on the use of any reductions already incorporated in a
State's attainment demonstration (see discussion on offsetting
above). The health and welfare equivalence generally focuses on
the concept of air quality; the air quality effects of the proposed
netting action must result in equivalent or improved air quality.
For "stable" pollutants, this places an emphasis on dispersion.
For an ozone nonattainment area, the relative reactivities of the
VOC species also plays an important role in air quality determinations.
The State should not allow a netting transaction that causes an
increase in a reactive VOC and a decrease in a negligibly reactive
VOC even if the absolute amount: of VOC emitted does not increase
significantly. The contemporaneous timeframe is needed to ensure
that increases are accumulated over a reasonable period of time, to
discourage construction projects exempting themselves from NSR, and
ensure that decreases are not so old as to already be taken into
account in attainment demonstrations. Also, if a reduction occurred
a very long time ago, that reduction should go towards assisting an
area to show attainment rather than assisting a source to avoid
major NSR requirements.
0-6
-------
" Deflnitions
°° VOC: NSR regulations should use a VOC definition that
defines VOC as all organic compounds except those that EPA has listed
in its Federal Register notices as nonphotochemically reactive.
(See VOC definition in RACT regulations discussion.)
"° Other: NSR regulations should contain clear definitions,
consistent with Federal requirements, for the following terms: stationary
source; actual emissions; allowable emissions; fugitive emissions;
commence or begin construction; building, structure, or facility; and
major stationary source. State regulations that do not contain good,
concise definitions that meet the Federal requirements risk treating
sources inequitably because of varying interpretations of the definitions,
For example, minor variations in a State rule regarding the LAER
definition which appear unimportant could allow a source to avoid
installing proven technology by arguing that it costs too much, a
result that is unacceptable using the EPA definition. The definitions
must provide a framework to make decisions replicable among sources.
0 Small Sources
ou Lack of Minor Source and Minor jjojification Review: As
required by the Federal rules, SIP's should require a review program
of all sources of air pollution regardless of size. This review must
include an assurance that no new source or modification will interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the standard as well as a require-
ment that all construction projects be subject to public comment
D-7

-------
procedure. Many States only have requirements for major sources and
major modifications. States may only exempt minor sources from these
requirements if (1) there exists a federally approved growth allowance
to mitigate resulting increases in emissions and (2) State regulations
expressly prohibit the use of exemptions to exempt any major source
or major modifications from NSR requirements.
b. Ensure Conformity of SIP's Uith Existing EPA Policy:
Although most SIP regulations have met the terms of EPA's
requirements for Part D plans, EPA may have approved some SIP's
containing rules that do not meet those requirements.
Some State regulations controlling VOC emissions are being
implemented in a manner that is not consistent with EPA requirements
and policies and can, in certain cases, significantly interfere
with the effectiveness of those regulations. These implementation
problems appear to be caused by incorrect or ambiguous definitions,
variable interpretation, the lack of key provisions (e.g., compliance
times, test methods, etc.), or specific provisions in State regulations
that are inconsistent with current EPA policies. In some cases,
these problems can interfere with the States' ability to (1) secure
their expected emissions reductions from stationary source RACT
regulations or (2) control emission growth through their NSR regula-
tions. EPA plans to work with States to identify l;hese problem
areas and provide training, guidance, and other technical support
to ensure that RACT and NSR regulations are effectively implemented.
D-8
-------
° Stationary Source RACT Regulations
The existing RACT regulations were developed as a major component
of the SIP strategies to achieve VOC emission reductions. The
following describes the areas where RACT regulations have been
adopted and/or implemented on an inconsistent basis.
0 RACT Regulation Exemptions
Many of the CTG's that EPA issued in the late 1970's recommended
that States exempt from their RACT rules only those sources falling
below certain size or throughput cutoffs. Other CTG's recommended
no such cutoffs. Some of the RACT regulations now in the SIP's,
however, establish exemptions wider than those recommended in the
CTG's or provide exemptions so ambiguous as to be susceptible to
abuse. The EPA will require the States to amend such rules to
ensure that these exemptions conform to the CTG recommendations in
all cases except those for which the State provides adequate justification
that the CTG level would impose unreasonable requirements in that
State.
0 Definition of 100 Tons Per Year Source
The EPA guidance has called on SIP's for extension areas to
require RACT for sources with the potential to emit more than 100
tons per year (tpy), but that do not fall into a CTG category.
Although EPA intended the definition of source for this purpose to
be the entire plant, some SIP's are susceptible to an interpretation
requiring RACT only for individual emissions units emitting more
than 100 tpy. Also, some SIP's are susceptible to a reading under
D-9
-------
which the source must apply RACT only if it has a potential to emit
more than TOO tpy with controls. EPA intended, however, to have
States apply RACT to non-CTG sources emitting none than that amount
without controls. Therefore, EPA intends to require the relevant
States to amend VOC rules that do not clearly reflect EPA's intent.
0 Other Issues
Existing VOC rules contain a variety of other ambiguities and
exemptions that may impede efforts to achieve full RACT-level
reductions. Although some of the affected State or local agencies
currently interpret these rules consistently with EPA policy,
courts will frequently turn to the actual words of the rules to
decide the legal obligations of the affected sources. For that
reason, EPA believes it is essential for States to amend these
rules to state clearly what is required. Until the States change
these rules, the Agency will continue to interpret them consistent
with EPA's intent when it approved them and will encourage the
relevant State or local agencies to do the same. Examples of these
deficiencies are described generally below.
00 Emission Limit Units: VOC rules incorporating limits
expressed as pounds of VOC per gallon (Ib VOC/gal) of coating
should also list the equivalent Ib VOC/gal of solids emission
limit. It will be acceptable but not mandatory to totally replace
pounds of VOC per gallon of coating units with units of Ibs VOC per
gallon of solids. VOC rules should state that units of Ibs VOC/gal
of solids be used for all calculations involving emission trades,
D-10
-------
cross-line averaging, and determining compliance by add-on control

equipment such as incinerators and carbon adsorbers.

00 ExemptnSo1 vents: Compliance calculations for coatings

expressed as 15 VOC/gallon coating (less water) should treat exempt

solvents such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane and methylene chloride as

water for purposes of calculating the "less water" part of the

coating composition.

00 VOC Definitions: These rules should define VOC as all

organic compounds except those that EPA has listed as photochemically

nonreactive in its Federal Register notices. Many rules incorrectly

contain a vapor pressure cutoff (e.g., 0.1 mmHg) that effectively

exempts some photochemically reactive compounds (such as butyl

dioxitol, a paint solvent, and certain mineral oils) from control.

The following definition is a model for use:

Volatile Organic Compound .(VOCJ - Any organic compound
which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions;
that is, any organic compound other than those which the
Administrator designates as having negligible photochemical
reactivity. VOC may be measured by a reference method, an
equivalent method, an alternative method or by procedures
specified under 40 CFR Part 60. A reference method, an. equivalent
method, or an alternative method, however, may also measure
nonreactive organic compounds. In such cases, an owner
or operator may exclude the nonreactive organic
compounds when determining compliance with a standard.
D-ll
-------
00 Other Definitions: A variety of other definitions in

VOC rules are inconsistent with EPA's CTG's. EPA proposes to

identify these deficiencies and require the States to remedy them.2

00 Transfer Effic_1_en_cy: Transfer efficiency is a measure

of how efficiently coating solids are applied to the objects being

coated in spray coating operations. Increasing transfer efficiency

reduces the amount of coating used for a particular job and may

thereby reduce VOC emissions. Some States have attempted to provide

sources with credit for transfer efficiency improvements.

The EPA proposes to require that sources be allowed to seek

credit for transfer efficiency improvements only if the SIP specifies

a baseline transfer efficiency and a test method acceptable to EPA

for determining actual transfer efficiency. (The use of default,

assumed or table transfer efficiency values would be unacceptable.)

This could be done either with general or source-specific SIP

revisions.
2For example, definitions of "coating line" should not exempt from
control coating lines that do not have bake ovens. Also, definitions
of "refinishing" in miscellaneous metal coating rules should make clear
that "in-line" or "final off-line" repair by original equipment manu-
facturers is not refinishing. Refinishing should be defined as the
repainting of used equipment. The definition of paper coating should
be refined to make clear that the paper coating regulations cover
coating on plastic film and metallic foil as well as paper. Paper and
fabric coating should cover saturation operations as well as strictly
coating operations. Vinyl coating definitions should make clear that
organisol and plastisol coatings (which traditionally have contained
little or no solvent) cannot be used to bubble emissions from vinyl
printing and topcoating. Coating should be defined to include
"functional" as well as protective or decorative films.
D-12
-------
00 Cross Line Ave r ag i n gj A source may use crossline
averaging only upon (1) EPA approval as a source-specific SIP
revision or (2) State adoption under a cross-line averaging or
equivalency rule that EPA has approved generically.
00 Compliance Periods: VOC rules should describe explictly
the compliance timeframe associated with each emission limit
(e.g., instantaneous or daily). However, where the rules are
silent on compliance time, EPA will interpret it as instantaneous.
The rules could include periods longer than 24 hours only in accordance
with the memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated January 20,
1984, entitled "Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission
Limits-SIP Revision Policy," and only as source-specific SIP
revisions.
°° Recordkeeping: The EPA would require States to amend
their VOC rules to require explicitly that sources keep records
needed to assess compliance for the timeframe specified in the
rule. Records must be commensurate with regulatory requirements
and must be available for examination on request. The SIP must
give reporting schedules and reporting formats. For example, these
rules must requira daily records if the SIP requires daily compliance.
If a company is bubbling its emissions on a daily basis, the rules
must require daily records to determine compliance. If units of Ib
VOC/gallon solids is used in calculations for daily compliance, the
source must record gallons of solids used per day and pounds of VOC
emitted per day. The rules should also require sources to list
D-13
-------
separately the amount of diluents and, where relevant to determining
compliance, wash and clean-up VOC. Beyond that, they should require
sources to document (1) that the coatings manufacturer used either
EPA Method 24 or an EPA-approved State method to calculate the
amount of VOC per gallon of coating (less water and exempt solvents)
and (2) what method the manufacturer used to calculate the volume
percent solids content of the coatings.
00 Test Methods: EPA will require States to amend their
VOC rules to require the use of the most current test methods to
determine the VOC content of coatings [e.g., EPA Reference Method
24 (1-hour bake) or equivalent ASTM Methods]. The method used to
determine volume percent solids should be specific and should be an
EPA-approved method (see "Procedures for Certifying Quantity of
Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Paint, Ink, and Other Coatings,"
EPA-450/3-84-019, December 1984). The procedures in outdated ASTM
methods and the Volume II CTG are generally no longer acceptable.
Procedures should specify that EPA or States may verify test data
submitted by companies with independent tests and that EPA or State
conducted tests will take precedence.
The EPA will also require States to amend their VOC rules to
state the procedures to be used to measure capture and control
device efficiencies. For example, the rules for some types of
sources or control systems should require the use of temporary
enclosures, rather than material balances, in capture efficiency
tests. Provisions that require "well engineered capture systems"
D-14
-------
or "maximum reasonable capture" should be replaced with specific
control requirements.
00 Equipment Leak _Comg_o_nen_t_s. The EPA shall require
equipment leak SIP regulations to be strengthened according to the
intent of the CTG's. For example, sources that have previously
been exempt from monitoring requirements due to line size or the
use of plug and ball valves should become subject to the SIP require-
ments. In addition, SIP's should not exempt unsafe and inaccessible
valves from all periodic monitoring requirements. The EPA believes
that inaccessible and unsafe-to-monitor valves should be monitored
as often as practicable because of the potential for finding leaks
and reducing emissions. The EPA does not consider annual monitoring
or monitoring at shutdown to be an unreasonable burden for inaccessible
and unsafe-to-monitor valves.
For natural gas plants, RACT should apply to equipment that
contains or contacts a process stream with a VOC concentration of
1.0 percent by weight or more. Equipment with process streams
containing relatively low percentages of VOG (i.e., between 1.0 and
10.0 percent) contributes a significant portion of total emissions
from natural gas plants and, therefore, is subject to RACT requirements,
00 Exemptions and Variances: Many SIP's contain provisions
giving the State authority to grant variances, exemptions, and
alternative means of control strategies. SIP's must clearly state
whether EPA approval of such variances is required on a case-by-case
basis before such a variance, exemption, or alternative means
D-15
-------
becomes federally-effective. Provisions that are intended to be
generic (i.e., not requiring case-by-case EPA approval for the
alternative means to be federally-effective) must meet the general
principle of replicability described in EPA's Emissions Trading
Policy Statement (51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986).
D-16
-------
APPENDIX E: GUIDANCE DOCUMENT ON ENHANCED I/M

I. Introduction
The EPA has considered the potential for greater VOC and CO
reductions from vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, and
believes that substantial enhancement is available.
The EPA is considering a variety of options relative to enhanced
I/M, including establishing a specific enhanced I/M performance
level for some nonattainment areas as well as relying on the
3 percent reduction requirement to force consideration of enhanced
I/M in lieu of a mandated performance requirement. The latter
option would allow States to consider the benefits of enhanced I/M,
along with those of other control measures, in deciding how to meet
the 3 percent average annual reduction requirement.
The other option toward which EPA is presently learning would
be to establish a specific enhanced I/M requirement for areas with
relatively serious ozone or CO nonattainment problems. The remainder
of this appendix describes aspects of and issues related to a
separate enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted.
Possible enhancements fall into four categories. First,
operating losses due to improper inspections, incomplete enforcement,
or lenient repair waiver systems can be reduced. Second,.additional
vehicles which are exempt based on age, or vehicle type can be made
subject to the inspection requirement. Third, the emission test
portion of the periodic inspection can be made more sophisticated
or the pass/fail limits or outpoints more stringent. Fourth, important

E-l
-------
emission control components can be checked visually, or by other
means that do not involve emissions measurement, for evidence of
tampering or misfueling.
The concept of "enhanced I/M," therefore, covers both increases
to the coverage and stringency of inspection, and improved management
practices to assure full effectiveness. The requirements being
considered for areas adopting enhanced I/M are explained in detail
below.
II. Background
In 1973, EPA first established policy for the implementation of
the I/M programs required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1977. This policy addressed the elements to be included in SIP
revisions, minimum emission reduction requirements, administrative
requirements, and schedules for implementation. Approvable I/M
programs were to be in place in all ozone and CO extension areas by
the end of 1982, and were to produce at least a 25 percent reduction
in light-duty vehicle hydrocarbon exhaust emissions and at least 3
percent reduction in CO exhaust emissions as of the end of 1987.
At this time, there are I/M programs operating in 60 urban areas
in 32 States. There are a variety of program designs in place,
some which just exceed minimum levels, and some which contain
additional measures to achieve greater emission reductions. The
EPA audits of I/M programs over the last 3 years have identified
both considerable accomplishments by State and local agencies in
E-2
-------
implementing programs successfully, and a number of operating
problems. These audit-findings serve as the basis for the increased
stringency and the additional administrative requirements associated
with enhanced I/M.
III. New Performance Standard for VOC and CO Reductions
The EPA has developed a computer model which it proposes to
use to assess the benefits of various I/M program designs, expressed
as annual tons of reduction from a typical urban fleet of one
million vehicles. The model is based on MOBILES, but performs
additional manipulations of the emission estimates. The assumptions
employed in this computer model are explained in detail in the
technical report, entitled "Method for Estimating the Cost-Effective-
ness of Inspection/Maintenance Program Designs."
The EPA is leaning toward a nominal performance standard to be
achieved by enhanced I/M of 5700 tons of HC and 69,000 tons of CO
•
per year per million light-duty vehicles over the first 5 years of
operation of the enhanced program. This level represents the
design level of the third most stringent of the 27 or so distinct
I/M programs currently in operation. As discussed In the preamble
of this policy, EPA is also considaring other performance levels
which could be established, if a separate enhanced I/M requirement
Is adopted. The level of performance described above would be
equivalent to the following design:
Centralized biennial inspections
20 model years of passenger cars and light trucks
E-3
-------
20 percent stringency for pre-1981 vehicles
Idle test
207(b) cutpoints for 1981+ vehicles (1.2 percent
CO/220 ppm HC)
Catalyst, inlet, and lead deposit inspections on
1981+ vehicles
5 percent waiver on the emission short test
Programs which vary from this design yet have equivalent emission
reductions would be acceptable. For example, decentralized biennial
inspections and/or fewer model years of coverage are also allowed,
provided other features of the program design are strengthened such
that the estimated benefit meets the new performance standard.
Programs may show equivalency to this design using either
national or local conditions of tampering/misfueling rates, vehicle
type mix, average speed, ate. .Use of local conditions may result
in a performance standard different than 5700/69,000; in all cases,
equivalency to the above design would be the controlling criterion
for approval.
The new computer model has two features which were not included
in MOBILE3 but which grew out of the past 3 years of evaluating
operating programs. First, for purposes of SIP approval, decentralized
programs will be credited with identifying and repairing existing
tampering at a rate which is less than that modeled for centralized
programs. The initial analysis suggests a reduced effectiveness of .
decentralized programs of about 50 percent. Comment is specifically
requested regarding the appropriate effectiveness level of decentralized
E-4
-------
tampering programs and what design features might be necessary to
ensure that level of effectiveness. Comment is also requested
regarding the related issue of whether the proposed enhanced I/M
performance requirement is appropriate for both centralized and
decentralized programs.
Second, all programs which allow waivers must assume for purposes
of SIP approval a target waiver rate which will be translated into
a corresponding percentage loss of the repair benefit on the emission
short test. In previous SIP approval actions on I/M program designs,
EPA assumed no loss of benefits due to waivers. The administration
of the waiver program is discussed later in this document.
Programs which are not enforced through a registration denial
system must also make adjustments of the projected benefit based on
recent operating experiences. Those with known enforcement shortfalls
must assume continuation of the shortfall for SIP submittal purposes.
Programs may conduct new surveys to document improvements believed
to have occurred since the last EPA survey, but such surveys may
not be influenced by any one-time special enforcement effort.
IV. Where Enhanced I/M Mould Be Required
The EPA will call for new SIP's in areas which continue to
exceed the NAAQS for ozone and carbon monoxide after December 31,
%
1987. Each area receiving a SIP call will have two years to submit
a plan which contains detailed information on emission inventories,
new control measures, and a demonstration of attainment of the
NAAQS by a specific date.
E-5
-------
If a separate enhanced I/M requirement is adopted, the EPA
intends to require enhanced I/M for severe and/or long-term nonattain-
itient areas. Urban SlP-call areas with greater than 200,000 population
and with ozone design values of 0.16 ppm or above and/or carbon
monoxide design values of 17 ppm or above will be subject to this
requirement.
A nonattainment area with population greater than 200,000 with
design values below 0.16 ppm ozone and 17 ppm CO would also be
required to implement enhanced I/M, unless the EPA approved modeled
attainment demonstration for the area shows that it is not a long-
term nonattainment area, i.e., that attainment will be achieved
within 3 years after EPA's approval of the SIP.
An area needing less emission reduction to demonstrate near-tarm
attainment may include none, part, or all of the enhanced I/M measure.
as one of its locally selected controls.
V. Geographic Coverage
For extension areas and post-1982 SIP call areas, EPA previously
required that the minimum performance level be met for vehicles
registered within the affected urbanized area as defined by the
U.S. Census. Under an enhanced I/M requirement, if adopted, the
coverage area would remain the urbanized area. Emission reductions
obtained from vehicles outside the area but within the Metropolitan
Statistical Area/Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area would
not count toward meeting the enhanced I/M performance level, but
would assist the area to meet its emission reduction target overall.
E-6
-------
VI. Imp1ementatlon Schedule
There is a considerable amount of variation in the types of
steps individual areas will need to take to enhance their I/M
programs. In some cases, new legal authority will be necessary,
followed by rule changes. In other cases, rules would be modified
under existing basic authority. The longest leadtime would occur
where a complete system change (i.e., from decentralized to centralized
inspections) was contemplated.
Each severe and/or long-term nonattainment area receiving a SIP
call should move as expeditiously as possible to satisfy the enhanced
I/M requirement, if adopted. The EPA expects that even the long
leadtime program enhancements would be implemented by January 1,
1990, unless adequately documented circumstances prevent it. The
initial SIP submittal in response to the SIP call must contain all
enforceable rules and regulations for enhanced I/M.
*
VII. New Administrative Features
If EPA decides to adopt a separate enhanced I/M requirement,
in addition to the emission reduction requirement being considered,
and the minimum program requirements established in previous EPA
policy, all enhanced I/M programs will also be required to:
1. Incorporate appropriate criteria for the issuance of
cost waivers;
2. Employ measures to assure proper inspection in
decentralized programs including a requirement for
computerized analyzers in licensed stations unless
E-7
-------
alternative approaches have been proven and accepted
by EPA as effective;
3. Conduct activities to improve the repair
effectiveness of the commercial sector; and
4. Perform certain program assessments and evaluations.
A. Waivers
As mentioned previously, the model program design used to determine
the enhanced I/M performance standard being considered assumes that
five percent of the failed vehicles will receive repair cost waivers,
and will achieve no emission reduction benefit on average. This
waiver rate is actually lower than that experienced in many currently
operating I/M programs, and represents stricter control and tighter
requirements for waiver issuance.
Areas implementing enhanced I/M and wishing to maintain a repair
waiver should include at least the following criteria for receiving
a waiver in their program rules:
1. The vehicle must be greater than 5 years old or exceed
50,000 miles. (Owners of failed vehicles should be informed
that warranty coverage may be available, and the SIP should
contain a plan for assisting owners with warranty difficulties.)
2. The vehicle must pass a catalyst and inlet check, and a check
for tailpipe lead deposits.
3. The motorist must spend at least $75 for pre-1981 vehicles and
$200 for 1931+ vehicles on emission diagnosis and repair
related to the I/M failure. 1981+ vehicles waived one year
E-8
-------
under these cost rules may be waived in the subsequent annual
or biennial inspection cycle with only a $75 expenditure.
For the purpose of SIP approval, enhanced I/M areas will commit
to holding waivers to a target rate. Program effectiveness will be
measured using actual waiver rates.
B. Repair Effectiveness
The enhanced I/M SIP revision must include a plan for identifying
individual providers of I/M repair services, statistically monitoring
their performance in terms of waivers and post-repair emission levels,
and counseling/training the poor performers among them. This will
require, at a minimum, that drivers of retested vehicles identify
the facility which performed the repairs, and that the I/M program
enter this into a database along with retest scores. Licensing of
repair facilities, however, is not necessary to satisfy this requirement.
C. Proper Inspection in Decentralized Programs
Unless alternative approaches have been proven and accepted by
EPA as effective, licensed inspection stations in decentralized
programs must be required to use computerized emission analyzers
which restrict operation unless specific quality control checks are
satisfied; which accept vehicle identification and other information;
and which automatically make the pass/fail decision, provide hard
copy output, and store pertinent data for future analysis.
Automated quality control checks are required both to assure
adequate instrument accuracy (e.g., unit warm-up, periodic gas span
and leak checks) and to assure that the emission test is not deliberately
E-9
-------
defeated. An engine speed (RPM) lockout criterion must be Included
which has a ceiling during idle of not more than 1600 RPM. The
analyzers must be capable of reading RPM on any of the current or
planned distributorless ignition systems which have significant
market penetration. A bypass of the RPM lockout is permitted to
accommodate individual vehicle testing problems and future, unantici-
pated technologies with small market penetration. The use of the
bypass, however, must raise a flag in the recorded data.
The analyzer must also measure carbon dioxide (COg) in order
to invalidate a test where excessive dilution of the sample is
occurring. The CO plus C02 threshold must be no lower than
4 percent.
There must be a positive, retrospective verification that a
passing initial test, passing retest after repair, or official
waiver is recorded for each windshield sticker or certificate of
compliance that is issued. At a minimum, station by station totals
of inspection records and stickers/certificates must be compared on
a monthly basis, with established procedures for handling stations
with discrepancies.
Statistics on failure rates and waiver rates must also be
available by station, and an internal management report must be
generated, reviewed, and acted upon monthly which identifies stations
with unusual statistics.
E-10
-------
The SIP must commit to sufficient program administration and
enforcement to achieve the claimed emission reductions. Such
efforts should include routine analysis of inspection data for RPM
excursions, dilution failures, time between tests, et cetera, to
identify and investigate stations with suspicious inspection practices,
and a program to conduct undisclosed audits of inspection stations
on at least an annual basis.
The SIP must also contain a 'formal plan for processing and
penalizing violations of procedures, whether discovered through
periodic audits or covert audits.
D. Program Assessment
Each I/M program must prepare and submit a report to EPA on a
semi-annual basis. The report would contain the results of data
analysis conducted by program officials, a description of significant
changes in the program that were implemented in the last 6 months,
a description of significant problems experienced and a description
of any changes to the program that are being planned. The following
list describes the minimum data necessary for the semi-annual
report. Each of these items should be provided for the past 6
months and for the past 12 months.
1) Estimated number of vehicles required to be inspected
2) Number of vehicles recorded as receiving initial
inspection by model year
3) Number of vehicles failing the initial emission test
by model year
E-ll
-------
4) Number of vehicles failing each retest by model year
5) Number of vehicles failing for each tampering
component for which SIP credit is claimed by model
year
6) Number of vehicles receiving waivers by model year
For programs that have both centralized and decantralized
components, the data must be reported separately for each component.
In addition to the minimum data reporting requirements described
above, additional information is needed from decentralized programs.
The semi-annual report must contain information relating to station
performance. At minimum, the following items must be generated and
available to EPA on request:
1} Number of vehicles inspected by station and by model
year,
2) Number and percentage of vehicles failing the initial
*
emission test by station and model year,
3) Number and percentage of vehicles failing the retest
by station and by model year,
4} Number and percentage of vehicles failing for each
tampering component for which SIP credit is claimed,
by station,
5} Number and percentage of failed vehicles receiving
waivers by station and by model year,
6} Number of overt station audits conducted,
E-12
-------
7) Number and types of covert surveillance activities
conducted,
3) Number of facility licenses outstanding at the end of
reporting period,
9) ID numbers of stations warned, suspended, or revoked
for violation of rules, and
10) Number and percentage of analyzers found
malfunctioning (out of calibration, leak problems,
etc.) during the most recent audit cycle.
VIII. Effectiveness Tracking and Evaluation
If EPA decides to adopt a separate enhanced I/M requirement,
each enhanced I/M area will be required to commit to conducting an
annual self-evaluation. The date for submitting the evaluation
results each year would be specified in the SIP.
If a separate enhanced I/M requirement is adopted, a random
•
roadside or equivalent fleet survey will be required annually by
each enhanced I/M area to measure the emission failure rate and the
tampering rate for those model years and components which are
covered by the enhanced I/M program. The survey methodology must
be approved in advance by EPA.
The tampering rate found in the survey will be compared to what
the emission factor model predicts under national average conditions
or, if available, to local rates from recent, pre-enhancement,
EPA-approved surveys.
E-13
-------
Emission results 'from the survey will be used to calculate an
expected failure rate for the I/M program. This expected failure
rate, and the roadside tampering rate will then be used, along with
the program's reported failure rate, compliance rate, and waiver
rate to determine whether the program's emission reductions meet
the level of the SIP commitment. The guidelines for performing the
numerical analysis are contained in the report entitled "Method for
Determining Required Emission Reduction Compliance in Operating
Inspection/Maintenance Programs."
If the emission reductions do not meet the level for which
credit is claimed in the SIP, a corrective plan must be submitted
to EPA within 3 months of the annual evaluation date. The corrective
actions must be implemented by the next annual evaluation. If the
SIP-approved levels of effectiveness are not being met at the time
of the next evaluation due to a continuation of the previous identified
problems, EPA would then initiate the process of proposing appropriate
sanctions.
E-14
-------
APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Term
Definition
adjacent rural area
ASTM
a county with monitored ozone violations
touching an MSA measuring nonattainment.

American Society for Testing & Materials
attainment demonstration
attainment inventory level
A documented prediction that emissions
reductions from local and national
measures will be sufficient to reduce
pollutant concentrations ozone to
levels at or below the NAAQS by a fixed,
certain date.

The total emission inventory at the time
an area attains the NAAQS.
CAA
Clean Air Act, as amended 1977
CMSA
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Area
CO
Carbon Monoxide
CTG
design value
Control Technique Guideline document:
Guidance documents published by EPA
describing RACT for selected VOC sources

The current air quality "design value"
is the ozone level which represents
the degree to which the 0.12 ppm NAAQS
is exceeded. Where 3 years of complete
data (i.e., at least 75 percent of the
days during the ozone season having
valid daily maxima) exist at a site,
the site-specific design value is the
fourth highest measured ozone level
during the period. For 2 years of
complete data, it is the third
highest, and for 1 year of complete
data, it is the second highest.
F-l
-------
Term
Definition
EKMA
enhanced I/M
Most cities had 3 years of complete
data. In the casa where there is more
than one monitoring sita, the design
value for the MSA or CMSA is the
highest of the site-specific design
values.

Empirical Kinetic Modeling Approach,
an urban-scale, simplified atmospheric
simulation model ralating VOC and NOx to
ozone, used to predict the level of control
required to attain.

An inspection/maintenance program achieving
additional emission reductions from
increases to the coverage and stringency of
inspection and management practices.
extension area
FMVCP
hotspot
An area that received EPA's approval to
an extension under section 172(a)(2) of
the Act to provide for attainment of
the ozone or CO NAAQS by December 31,
1987.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program :
A program of federally-required vehicle
emission controls that reduce exhaust
and evaporative emissions.

A CO problem limited to local violations
of the CO standard and correctable by
short-term, local transportation control
measures.
I/M
Inspection and Maintenance, a program
requiring testing or inspection and repair
of vehicles failing test or inspection.
isolated rural area
LAER
a county which is 1) not within or adjacent
to a nonattainment MSA and 2) contains a site
measuring violations of the NAAQS.

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate, applicable
to new major sources or major modifications
subject to new source review.
F-2
-------
Term
Definition
long term area
major source
MOBILES, MOBILE4
MSA
NAAQS
an area that cannot demonstrate
attainment of the standards within 3
years of EPA approval of the SIP.

A stationary source of pollution with a
potential to emit 100 tons/year or more
(uncontrolled) of a pollutant (e.g. VOC's)

A computerized matrix of highway vehicle
emission factors used to generate mobile
source emissions in an area.

Metropolitan Statistical Area: An area
meeting standards established by OMB to
refer to urban areas generally with
populations over 50,000.

National Ambient Air Quality Standard
NAAS
NMOC
National Air Audit System: the coordinated
effort by EPA and States in which SIP
status, implementation, and compliance are
reviewed annually.

Nonmethane Organic Compound
NMOC/NOx ratio
An indicator useful for predicting the
success of NOx reductions to assist VOC
controls.
nonattainment area
Any area measuring violations of the NAAQS,
non-extension area
An area that did not receive EPA's approval
of an extension under section 172(a)(2) to
provide for attainment of the ozone or CO
NAAQS after 1982 but by December 31, 1987.
NOx
Nitrogen Oxides
NSR
New Source Review

F-3
-------
Term
Definition
OAQPS
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
03

Part D
Ozone
A major part of the Clean Air Act specifying
requirements for designated nonattainment
areas.
PSD

RACT
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Reasonably Available Control Technology
reasonable efforts
redesignation
Reporting year
The "test" in section 176(a) of the Act of
whether the 176(a) sanctions should be
applied. Used in the policy, the test is
applied to areas with longer term
attainment dates to determine whether any
additional sanctions (beyond the
construction ban) are applicable.

The process by which an area's designated
nonattainment status is changed to
attainment.

The year covered in the annual reasonable
further progress (RFP) report.
RFP
ROM
Reasonable further progress: A term defined
in Part D of the Act meaning annual
emission reductions, including substantial
reductions in early years. In the policy,
RFP means the required rates of progress
applicable to long-term areas.

Regional Oxidant Model: a regional-scale
photochemical grid model used to estimate
ozone concentrations over a broad
geographic area.
F-4
-------
Term
Definition
RVP
Reid Vapor Pressure: a measure of the
volatility of petroleum liquids
(e.g. gasoline).
SIP

SIP call

TCM
State Implementation Plan

A process by which EPA notifies a State
that its SIP is substantially inadequate
and requires corrective action.

Transportation Control Measure
transport
Term referring to the movement by the wind
flow of ozone and/or its precursors (VOC and
NOx) from a source area to and impact area
several hours to several days downwind.
Urban Airshed Model
An urban-scale photochemical grid model used
to estimate ozone concentrations, typically
in an urban area.
urbanized area
VOC
A term used by the Census Bureau for a
central city or cities, generally of at
least 50,000 inhabitants, and surrounding
closely settled territory,

Volatile Organic Compound
VHT
Vehicle Miles Travelled: Estimates of the
distances driven by highway vehicles in an
area used in combination with MOBILES or
MOBILE4 emission factors to generate total
mobile source emissions.
F-5
-------
APPENDIX G - REGIONAL OFFICE CONTACTS
Mr. John Hanisch, Chief
State Air Programs Branch
EPA Region I (APB-2311)
J.F.K. Federal Building
Room 2303
Boston, Massachusetts 02203-2211

Mr. William Baker
Chief, Air Programs Branch
EPA Region II (Room 1005)
Federal Office Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278

Mr. Jesse Baskerville
Chief, Air Programs Branch
EPA Region III (3AN10)
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107

Mr. Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365

Mr. Steve Rothblatt
Chief, Air & Radiation Branch
Air Management Division
EPA Region V (5AR)
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. Jack Divita
Chief, Air Programs Branch
EPA Region VI (6T-A)
Allied Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Mr. Carl M. Walter, Chief
Ai r Programs Branch
EPA Region VIT
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101

Mr. Douglas M. Skie, Chief
Air Programs Branch
Air and Waste Management Division
EPA Region VIII (8AT-AP)
999 18th Street
Denver Place - Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
Mr. David Calkins
Chief, Air Programs Branch
Air Management Division
EPA Region IX (A-2)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105

Mr. George Abel
Chief, Air Programs Branch
Air and Waste Management Division
EPA Region X (M/S-532)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101

Mr. Frank Giaccone, Chief
Air Compliance Branch
EPA Region II
Federal Office Building
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278

Mr. Larry Kertcher, Chief
Air Compliance Branch
Air Management Division
EPA Region V (5 AC)
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Mr. Tom Rarick, Chief
Air Operations Branch
Air Management Division
EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105

Mr. Marvin Rosenstein, Chief
Technical Support Branch
Air Management Division
EPA Region I IATS-2311)
J.F.K. Federal Building, Room 2203
Boston, Massachusetts 02203

Mr. Bernard Turlinski, Chief
Ai r Enforcement Branch
EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107

Mr. James T. Wilburn, Chief
Air Compliance Branch
EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
G-l
-------
APPENDIX H: SELECTED EPA GUIDANCE FOR SIP DEVELOPMENT

The following list identifies selected EPA guidance for
SIP development.
- Administrator's comprehensive SIP revision guideline memomandum
February 24, 1987 (43 FR 21673, May 9, 1978)
- General Preamble for proposed ruelmaking on approval of plan
revisions for nonattainment areas (44 FR 20372, April 4, 1979)
- Final Policy - Critera for Approval of 1982 Plan Revisions
(46 FR 7192, January 22, 1981)
- Final action on rulemaking - compliance with statutory
provisions of Part D of the Clean Air Act, (48 FR 50686,
November 2, 1983)
- I/M Policy Memorandum from David Hawkins to Regional
Administrators, July 17, 1978
- Guidance document for correction of Part D SIP's for
nonattainment areas, OAQPS, January 27, 1984
- CTG RACT applicability, memorandum from Darryl D. Tyler to
Regional Air Directors, June 25, 1984
- Redesignation criteria, memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to
Regional Air Division Directors, April 21, 1983
- Memomrandum of Understanding Between DOT and EPA regarding
the integration of Transportation and Air Quality Planning,
June 1978
- EPA-DOT Transportation-Air Quality Planning Guidelines,
June 1978
- EPA-DOT Expanded Public Participation Guidelines, June 23, 1980
(45 FR 42023)
H-l
-------
DOT-EPA Procedures for Conformance of Transportation Plans,
Programs and Projects with Clean Air Act State Implementation
Plans, June 12, 1980
Policy and Procedures to Implement Section 316 of the Clean Air
Act, as Amended, memorandum from Douglas M. Costle to Regional
Administrators, Region I-X, July 23, 1980 (45 FR 53382)
40 CFR Part 51, Subpart M - Intergovernmental Consultation,
June 18, 1979 (44 FR 35176)"
Guidance document for Post 87 CO/Ozone SIPs (to be completed)
a. Improving Existing Program Effectiveness
Source surveillance and inspection
Rule/measure evaluation procedures
Regulation effectiveness guidance
ambient monitoring- site selection, q.a., data validation
Ozone and NMOC
b. Measures
Enhanced Inspection/Maintenance
Basic Inspection/Maintenance
Stationary Source RACT
CTG's I, II, III - currently available
Presumptive RACT
Guideline for Developing Enforceable Emission Regulations
Stage II regulations
New Source Review
Transportation Control Measures
Effectiveness credit/monitoring program -
H-2
-------
c. Demonstration of Attainment
Development of local Emissions Reduction Slope and
attainment date criteria
Emission Inventory Requirements for Post-87 Ozone/CO SIPs
Methods for determining effectiveness credits
Modeling - EKMA : Airshed : ROM
CO modeling : Mobile3/4
General Strategy Considerations
planning areas vs control areas
growth projections, documentation, and population consistencies:
NOx control strategies
isolated rural area - ozone self generation determinations

d. Measuring and Assuring Continued Progress
Revised Guidelines for Tracking Reasonable Further Progress
in Ozone/CO Control Programs
Continuity of control measures
Establishment of emissions ceiling and growth impact
Segment Revisions - Validation of previous segment &
next segment's refinement
Future SIP revisions/demonstrations
H-3
-------
APPENDIX I: MODELING PROCEDURES AND DATA BASE REQUIREMENTS
TO SUPPORT POST-1937 OZONE POLICY
I. Introduction
The EPA is proposing procedures addressing the need to reduce
ozone (03) in locations which fail to meet the NAAQS for 03 by
December 31, 1987. One part of the proposal requires MSA's not in
attainment of the NAAQS to determine how much additional reduction
in 03 precursors (i.e., VOC and, in some cases, NOX) is needed to
attain the NAAQS. This determination is to be made using one of
two modeling approaches. The first is photochemical grid modeling.
The preferred model is the Urban Airshed Model, described in
Gu.i_de1_1_n_e On Air Quaj ity Model_s_ (Revised) (Reference 1), in SAI
Airshed Mode! Operations Manual (Reference 2), and in Gaid_e_1J_ne For
Applying The Airshed Model To Urban Areas (Reference 3). Input
requirements for the Urban Airshed Model are described in References
1 and 2. Minimum data bases needed to satisfy these requirements
are likely to vary, depending on the complexity of the situation
being simulated. Thus, a minimum data base to support an Urban
Airshed Model application must be determined on a case-by-case basis
in consultation with the appropriate U.S. EPA Regional Office.
The second acceptable modeling approach is use of the EKMA.
The EKMA model and its application in SIP'S is described in the
OZIPM4 Users Manual (Reference 4), and in the Guideline for Use of
EKMA In Post-1987 SIP Applications (Reference 5). The purpose of
this notice is to briefly describe the EKMA modeling approach
1-1
-------
and to identify data base requirements to support the use of EKMA
in post-1987 SIP's for 03. In order to explain why these data are
needed, it is useful to briefly describe the conceptual basis for
the model.
II. Model Description
The model underlying EKMA simulates chemical reactions in a
well mixed column of air containing initial concentrations of
precursors and 03 from the city being simulated. The simulation
begins at 8 a.m. Local Civil Time (LCT). At this time, the column
is assumed to be located over the center of the city being modeled.
Subsequently, the column migrates at a uniform speed from center
city to that 03 monitoring site observing the maximum 03 concentration
on the day being modeled, so that the column arrives over this site
at the time of the observed maximum concentration. As the column
moves, precursor emissions1 are injected into it from sources in
the county or counties traversed by the column. In addition, the
height of the column increases to simulate diurnal growth in the
surface mixing layer. As a result, two things happen: (1) 03 and
precursor concentrations already within the column become diluted;
and (2) 03 and precursors aloft (presently due to transport from
sources located upwind from the city being simulated) are entrained
into the column to participate in subsequent chemical reactions.
J-Volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxide (CO)
1-2
-------
The scenario described in the preceding paragraph is repeated
numerous times. On each such occasion, all model inputs are kept
constant, except for initial concentrations of NMOC, NOX and emissions
of VOC and NOX. As a result, 03 isopleth diagrams can be drawn.
These diagrams plot maximum hourly 03 as a function of initial NMOC
and NOx, and fresh VOC and NOX emissions, {i.e., post-8 a.m. emissions).
Each 03 isopleth represents a constant concentration of 03. VOC
and/or NOX control estimates are obtained by determining the relative
reduction in VOC and/or NOX needed to move from an observed 03
concentration to the level specified in the NAAQS (i.e., the 0.12
ppm 03 isopleth) as illustrated in Figure 1.
III. Model Inputs
Control estimates obtained with EKMA depend on three things:
(1) starting point on the isopleth diagram;
(2) shape and spacing of the 03 isopleths; and
(3) changes in inputs affecting the shape and spacing of the
isopleths between the base period (i.e., present) and
projected period (i.e., future).
The first two of these factors can be affected by the data base
used to support EKMA analyses, and are elaborated upon below. The
third factor depends on projections of these inputs, and is described
in references 4 and 5.
A. Starting Point on Diagram
The starting point on the diagram depends on two inputs:
(1) maximum hourly 03 concentration observed on the day and at
the site being modeled; and
1-3
-------
(2) a representative value for the NMOC/NOX ratio observed
before the onset of photochemistry in locations with high precursor
concentrations (i.e., having the greatest potential to lead to high
subsequent 03 concentrations).
B. Shape and Spacing of Isopleths
Shape and spacing of the isopleths depend on the following
model inputs:
(1) The chemical mechanism (i.e., a sequence of chemical
reactions which describes atmospheric chemistry by which ozone forms)
used in the model. The Carbon Bond 4 (CB4) mechanism will be used in
regulatory applications of EKMA. This mechanism is presented in
Reference 4. Reasons underlying its selection are outlined in
Reference 6.
(2) Composition (i.e., reactivity) of the ambient NMQC
and NOX. In most cases, a default composition will be used for
NMOC. The recommended default composition is based on NMOC species
analyses performed on samples collected in 35 cities during 1984-86.
In certain extraordinary cases, a city-specific NMOC composition
may be used after consultation with, and approval of, the appropriate
EPA Regional Office. The default recommendations, their basis, and
possible reasons justifying use of city-specific values are outlined
in References 5 and 7. For EKMA applications, the composition of
fresh VOC emissions is assumed to be identical to the measured
composition of initial urban NMOC. The fraction of initial NOx and
1-4
-------
NOX emissions which is NOg may also be specified as described in
References 4 and 5.
(3) Amount of fresh VOC, NOX, and CO emissions (i.e.,
"post-8 a.m." emissions) injected into the hypothetical column of air.
Calculation of "post-8 a.m." emissions for use in the model is described
in Reference 5.
(4) Sunlight intensity and Ultraviolet (UV) wavelength
distributions. As described in References 5 and 8, these are calculated
by the program once the user specifies the date and location (i.e.,
latitude, longitude, and time zone) being simulated.
(5) Atmospheric dilution. Dilution is considered by increasing
the height of the mixing layer during the day. In accordance with
References 4 and 5, the user specifies an 8 a.m. and daily maximum mixing
height and the time at which the increase in the mixing height begins.
As described in Reference 5, default values are recommended for minimum
8 a.m. mixing height, since physically induced turbulence from urban
structures may cause mixing estimates derived from city-specific measured
temperature soundings (usually taken at rural or suburban locales) to be
too low at this time of day.
(6) Transport. Shape and spacing of isopleths can be
influenced by concentrations of 03 and NOX, as well as by the
concentration and composition of NMOC, transported from upwind
sources. Transported pollutants can be present initially within
the surface-based column, as well as within a layer of air above
the surface mixing layer. As the simulation proceeds, the layer of
1-5
-------
air aloft containing transported pollutants gets entrained into the
column as a result of the increase in mixing height. Day-specific
values for transported 03 can be estimated from data routinely
obtained by an air quality monitoring network meeting certain
minimal requirements, to be described subsequently. For the urban
model applications for which EKMA is intended, transported NOX can
be assumed to be negligible. Transported levels and composition of
NMOC are generally not available from routine measurements. Default
recommendations are provided as described in References 5 and 7.
IV. Minimum Data Base Recommendations
In order to provide the input information needed to provide
reliable control estimates with EKMA, State/local agencies are
urged to compile data bases consistent with certain minimum
recommendations. These recommendations are identified below.
A. EmissionsData
Emissions data are needed to estimate hourly values for
"post-8 a.m." VOC, NOX, and CO emissions input to the model. In
addition, since a key model output is the percent reduction in VOC
and/or NOx emissions needed to attain the 03 NAAQS, the base period
emission inventory must be accurately known in order to derive
appropriate absolute emission targets. Further, these targets are
arrived at after an assessment of changes in CO emissions has been
made. These latter two uses require that VOC, NOX, and CO emission
inventories be compiled for the entire MSA. Emission inventory
recommendations for post-1987 SIP's are described in greater detail
. in Reference 9.
1-6
-------
1. Temporal Resolution of VOC, NOX,and CO Emissions
Diurnal patterns of VOC, NOX, and CO emissions (on an hour-
by-hour basis) are needed. Detailed procedures for deriving temporally
resolved emission inventories for use with EKMA are described in
Reference 10.
2. Spatial Pisaggregation of Emissions
Spatial disaggregation of emissions on a countywide
basis is recommended. Ordinarily, all surface or near-surface
emissions within the county in which the simulated column of air is
located are assumed to be injected into the column. In addition,
separate consideration of emissions from large point sources expected
to have effective stack heights greater than 250m is recommended so
that subsequent entry of these plumes into the surface mixed layer
can be considered by the model. Consideration of such sources is
described in Reference 5. In cases where very large counties exist
in which the bulk of emissions is concentrated in a portion of the
county, subcounty emission allocations are recommended. These
subcounty allocations should cover an area no larger than the area
traversed by EKMA's simulated column of air on the day being modeled.
3. Disaggregation of VOC Emissions by Chemical Species
It is not necessary to speciate VOC emissions for
applications of EKMA. As described earlier, a composite default
composition for VOC emissions is assumed. Nevertheless, certain
organic compounds deemed "unreactive" should be excluded from the
VOC inventory estimate. These compounds are identified in Reference 9.
1-7
-------
B. Air Quality Data

1. 03 Monitors (at Least Five Sites)
Five monitoring sites employing reference or equivalent
methods for measuring 03 (Reference 11) are recommended as a minimally
acceptable network. The sites should not be influenced by microscale
impacts. 03 monitoring data are needed to support EKMA analyses in
two ways. First, the data depict high daily maximum 03 within and
downwind of the MSA being modeled. Daily maximum 03 concentration
is one of two pieces of information needed to establish a starting
position on an EKMA isopleth diagram. The second use for 03 data
is to estimate the amount of 03 transported to the modeling domain
from upwind sources. These data are used, as described in References
t
4 and 5, to estimate 03 transport input to the model.
Daily maximum 63 needs to be accurately characterized
under a variety of meteorological scenarios (e.g., steady winds,
stagnations, etc.). This is necessary, because control estimates
to reduce 03 to the level of the NAAQS may be greater under some
circumstances than others. That is, there is not necessarily a 1:1
»
correspondence between extent of needed control measures and severity
of the 03 problem on individual days. Further, a network addressing
several likely meteorological scenarios is needed to provide greater
assurance that the NAAQS is being attained when the expected "exceedance1
rate is _< 1.0 at each site. The network design suggested below
addresses several sets of conditions representing winds of varying
velocities and persistence.
1-8
-------
1 Monitor: 10-30 miles in the predominantly upwind
direction from the city limits. Minimum
distance upwind should be determined on a
case-by-case basis, depending on city size
and surroundings. Data from this monitor are
to be used primarily to estimate 03 transported
to the model domain from upwind sources.
1 Monitor: Near the predominantly downwind edge of
the city 1imits.
1 Monitor: 10-20 miles from the city limits in the
predominantly downwind direction.
1 Monitor: 20+ miles from the city limits in the
predominantly downwind direction.
1 Monitor: 10-30 miles in the second most prominant
downwind direction.
2. NHOC Monitors (at Least Two Sites)
Ambient NMOC data are needed to estimate the NMOC/NOX
ratio, as described in Reference 5. This ratio is the second of
two pieces of information needed to establish a starting point on
an EKMA 03 isopleth diagram. NMOC should be sampled at at least
two monitoring sites. (In certain cases, subject to review and
approval of U.S. EPA Regional Offices, one NMOC monitor would be
acceptable.) These sites should be located so as to characterize
maximum 03 forming potential in an MSA. This is best done by
neighborhood scale monitoring sites (as described in Reference 12)
1-9
-------
located in areas with highest emission density of VOC and NOX
emissions. As described in Reference 13, reviews of existing
HMOC/NOX ratio data suggest day-to-day variability in the ratios of
individual sites, as well as differences between sites on individual
days. Because it is desirable to utilize as representative a ratio
as possible as input to the model, sampling at at least two sitas
is recommended. Samples should be taken continuously between 6-9
a.m. LCT and analyzed within one week of collection. Samples
should be taken on weekdays for at least a 3-month period during
the summer or during the 3-month period of expected peak 03 concen-
trations. Because modeling will consider more than 1 year of 03
data, State/local agencies are urged to sample and analyze NMOC for
several years. Since a major purpose of collecting NMOC data is to
estimate NMOC/NOx ratios, NMOC sampling sites must be collocated
with NOX monitors.
NMOC samples may be analyzed by Gas Chromatograph (GC)
and summing the species concentrations up to and including Ci2
species, or by the Cryogenic Preconcentration/Direct Flame lonization
Detection (PDFID) method, described in Reference 14. Results
obtained with PDFID agree closely with those obtained with GC
sum-of-species (Reference 15). Data obtained with other analytical
techniques are acceptable only if they can be shown'to agree closely
with results obtained with the GC sum-of-species or PDFID methods
(Reference 16).
1-10
-------
3. NOX Monitors (at Least Two Sites)
Like NMOC data, ambient NOX data are needed to estimate
NMOC/NOX ratios, as described in Reference 5. As such, NOX monitors
must be located at NMOC sampling sites. Appropriate siting considera-
tions have been described previously. NOX should be sampled and
analyzed continuously, using instruments operated in accordance
with specifications outlined in Reference 11. Because NOX concentrations
are lower than NMOC levels, the NMOC/NOX ratio is more sensitive to
small differences in measured NOX levels than is the case for NMOC.
Thus, it is essential that NOX data collected for use with EKMA be
subject to rigorous quality assurance procedures. Audit checks are
recommended (at continuously operated sites) within 30 days prior
to start-up of NMOC sampling programs. Audits should cover nitrogen
•
dioxide (N02) and nitric oxide (NO), as well as NOX. Appropriate
corrective actions should be taken as soon as possible.
4. CO Monitor (at Least One Site)
Ambient CO data collected during the ozone season is
needed, because presence of CO may affect ozone formation, particularly
after VOC emissions have been drastically reduced. The CO data
•
input to the model must be representative of a neighborhood scale
(Reference 12). It is preferable that the CO monitor be located
near one of the NMOC and NOX sampling sitas.
1-11
-------
C. Meteorol ogl ca_1 Data
1. Upper Air and Surface Temperature and Pressure Data
The EKMA model requires estimates of 8 a.m. LCT surface
mixing layer height, as well as the time of occurrence and depth of
the daily maximum surface mixing layer. Mixing heights can be
estimated using National Weather Service rawinsonde data (if available),
together with surface temperature and pressure data. Surface
temperature and pressure data should be collected at at least two
properly exposed sites. The first of these should be influenced by
urban heat island effects, characteristic of locations having
highest densities of VOC and NOX emissions. The second should be
at the rawinsonde site. Appropriate instrumentation and further
siting considerations ara described in .Reference 17. Procedures
for estimating mixing heights are described in Reference 5. If
rawinsonde data are not available, 8 a.m. and maximum afternoon
mixing heights can be estimated using Reference 18.
2. Surface Wind Data
Surface wind data are needed to assure that an underlying
assumption in EKMA is correct. That is, wind data are used to establish
that a monitor observing a daily maximum 03 concentration is indeed down-
wind from the modeled city and/or is likely to be impacted by the
city's emissions. This determination is made using surface wind data
to compute resultant wind velocities during certain times of day (Reference
5). As described in Reference 5, resultant wind velocity is one of
several factors used in establishing suitability of a particular day
1-12
-------
for modeling with EKMA and culpability of upwind MSA's for the observed
high ozone on the day in question.
In order for wind data to be suitable for use as described
above, it should be monitored and recorded continuously at at least two
properly exposed sites not subject to microscale influences. Criteria
for acceptable surface wind measurements are contained in Reference 17.
Most appropriate locations for surface wind monitors may vary from case
to-case. However, generally, one should be at the rawinsonde site (or
local airport), and a second should be in the predominantly downwind
direction near the site of expected highest ozone.
V. Summary
The following data bases are recommended for regulatory applications
of EKMA. All data should be carefuly quality assured.
A. Emissions Data (Section IV.A)
0 Seasonally adjusted hourly emission rates of VOC, NOX, and CO
0 Emissions for the entire MSA, spatially resolved on a county
basis, will usually suffice
0 Emissions from sources with effective stack heights greater
than 250m should be identified
u Organic species identified by EPA in previous Federal Register
notices as "unreactive" should not be included in the inventory
B. Air Quality Data (Section IV.B)
0 At least five continuously operated reference or equivalent
ozone monitors
'° At least two NMOC sampling sites, with samples analyzed using
GC sum-of-species or the PDFID technique

1-13
-------
VI.
0 At least two continuously operated reference or equivalent
NOX monitors so that NOX> NO, and N02 are measured or estimated
at each NMOC sampling site
u At least one neighborhood scale reference or equivalent CO
monitor located as near as possible to one of the NMOC and
NOX sampl ing sites
C. Meteorological Data (Section IV. C)
u At least two surface temperature monitoring sites
0 At least two surface pressure monitoring sites
0 At least two sites with continuously measured and recorded
surface wind velocities
References Cited
1. U.S. EPA, Guideline On Air Quality Models (Revised).
EPA-450/2-78-OZ7R, July 1986.
2. Ames, J.; T. C. Meyer; L. E. Reid; D. Whitney; S. H. Golding;
S. R. Hayes; and S. D. Reynolds, SAI Airshed Model Operations
Manuals, NTIS Publication Numbers PB85-292567 and PB85-191568,
~
3. U.S. EPA, Guidelines For Apply i ng The Airshed Model To Urban
Areas, NTIS Publication Number PB81-200529, 1980.
4. In Preparation. This will be similar to User's Manual For QZIPM2,
EPA-450/4-84-024.
5. In Preparation. This will be an updated version of Guideline
For Use Of City -specif ic EKMA In Preparing Ozone SIPs,
EPA-450/4-80-027, to reflect post-1987 policy concerning use
of EKMA with the CB4 or CALL mechanism.
6. In Preparation. This will be a memo describing reasons for
selecting the chosen mechanism.
7. In Preparation. A memo with an attached analysis in which default
recommendations are derived.
1-14
-------
8. Jeffries, H. E. and K. G. Sexton, Technical Discussion Related
To The Choice Of Photolytic Rates For Carbon Bond Mechanisms
In OZIPM4/EKMA, EPA-450/4-87-003, February 1987.

9. U.S. EPA, OAQPS: Emission Inventory Requirements For Post 1987
Ozone SIPs, in preparation.

10. U.S. EPA, OAQPS, Procedures for Preparation of Emission
Inventories for Volatile Organic Compounds, Volume I, Trd Edition,
in preparation.

11. Code Of Federal Regulations 40 Part 58, Appendix A.

12. Code Of Federal Regulations 40 Part 58, Appendix D.

13. Baugues, K., A Review Of NMOC. NQX And NMOC/NOX Ratios Measured
In 1984 And 1985. EPA-450/4-86-015, September 1986.

14. McElroy, F. F.; V. L. Thompson; and H. G. Richter, A Cryogenic
Preconcentration-Direct FID (PDFID) Method For Measurement Of
NMOC In Ambient Air, NTIS Publication Number PB-12Q631,
October 1985.

15. Richter, H. G.; F. F. McElroy; and V. L. Thompson, "Measurement
Of Ambient NMOC Concentrations In 22 Cities During 1984,"
Paper 85-22.7, presented at 78th Annual APCA Meeting, Detroit,
Michigan, June 1985.

16. Rhoads, R. G., Memorandum to U.S. EPA Regional Office Air,
Environmental Services, and Policy and Management Division
Directors, Subject: "Discontinuance of Funding for State
Operation of NMOC Continuous Analyzers," March 10, 1986.

17. U.S. EPA, OAR, OAQPS, Qn-Site Meteorological Program Guidance for
Regulatory Model Appl1 cations, (Draft) /December 1W6.

18. Holzworth, G. C., Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds And Potential
For Urban Air PolluTion Throughout The Contiguous United States.
AP-101, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
January 1972.
1-15
-------
APPENDIX J: OTHER MEASURES FOR IMPROVING EXISTING PROGRAMS

This appendix lists a number of measures that have been identified
which will improve existing VOC control program effectiveness. In many
cases, these are continuations and improvements to existing programs
being carried out by EPA and States.
a. Monitor and Correct Problems in Inspection/Maintenance Programs:
The EPA audits of inspection/maintenance programs over the past
3 years as part of the National Air Audit System have identified both
considerable accomplishments by State and local agencies in establishing
and operating I/M programs successfully, and a variety of operating
problems. The operating problems fall into the categories of improper
testing, incomplete enforcement of the requirement to be tested on
schedule, and poor repair effectiveness for vehicles which fail the
test. The latter manifested by high repair waivers or small emission
reductions from vehicles not waived. Additional emission reductions
which will contribute towards ozone and carbon monoxide attainment
are possible from correction of these operating problems. In some
I/M programs the losses in potential emission reductions are small,
but in others they are substantial.
The EPA will take action on the operating problems in a particular
I/M program whenever it appears that the combined losses due to those
operating problems are so large that the program is not achieving the
minimum emission reductions that were originally required for SIP
approval. These reductions (25 percent of passenger car exhaust
J-l
-------
hydrocarbon and 35 percent of passenger car carbon monoxide) were
established by a series of EPA policy memos beginning in 1978 based
on the legislative history of Clean Air Act section 172(b)(ll)(B).
The EPA has already taken action on certain I/M programs, and
further actions will follow the same course. In such actions, EPA
will inform the affected State that its operating problems have
caused the I/M program to fall short of the required reductions and
will request expeditious submittal of a corrective plan for the I/M
program. The corrective plan shall provide a schedule of commitments
to take specific measures of the State's own choosing to address the
operating problems identified. The corrective plan would not have to
be a formal SIP revision, but if a State did not submit an acceptable
plan EPA would make a formal call for a SIP revision so as to begin
an appropriate sanction process. Failure to provide such a corrective
revision ultimately would result in a finding of SIP inadequacy and,
where appropriate, a finding of failure to make reasonable efforts to
submit an adequate SIP revision or a finding of SIP non-implementation.
If a State did submit a corrective plan, but the State's corrective
actions were not successful within a reasonable period, EPA would
make a formal SIP call for specific program changes that, while
perhaps more difficult to achieve, would have a higher likelihood of
success than those tried by the State.
Many I/M programs were originally designed to provide more
emissions reductions that the minimum required for SIP approval.
Such programs might experience moderate or even large operating
J-2
-------
problems without affecting emission reductions to the point of becoming
subject to the process just described. The EPA will continue to
encourage and support the States' efforts to reduce operating problems
in such programs, but will not request corrective plans or formal SIP
revisions.
Elsewhere in this notice, new requirements relating to the
improvement, or "enhancement," of I/M programs in post-1987 nonattainment
areas are proposed. These requirements include a periodic assessment
of program achievements which will supersede the process described
above once a State has submitted and received approval for its improved
I/M program.
b. Improve the Skills of Implementing Personnel:
Due to the complexity of VOC control systems, EPA, State and local
agencies must have staff capable of making determinations regarding
such matters as compliance and application of LAER. The EPA intends
to organize a workgroup comprised of representatives of State and
local air pollution control agencies to meet periodically to assess
which VOC compliance issues need special attention and to determine
the best way to address each one. This would lead to new programs to
increase the training of staff and to disseminate new guidance on
such diverse topics as how to review plant records, what reporting is
useful, and how to perform capture efficiency calculations.
In addition to upgrading the VOC training program, EPA has
committed to use the VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) Clearinghouse to disseminate and solicit information pertinent
J-3
-------
to the post-1987 ozone policy. To the extent practicable, EPA will
use the Clearinghouse Newsletter or other appropriate documents to
publish summaries of relevant meetings, policy and guidance memoranda
issued from EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
lists of ongoing VOC projects within EPA and the States, updates on
the implementation of VOC control programs in local areas, and
information on State RACT determinations for sources not covered by
EPA CTG's. EPA is considering requiring State and local participation
in the Clearinghouse as part of the 1988 grant negotiations so that
the Agency can disseminate this information more widely.
c. Enhance Federal and State Stationary Source Compliance Programs:
The complexity of VOC regulations and the noncompliance status
of many sources suggest the need for a more intense effort to
ensure that sources understand and comply with the applicable
rules. The EPA intends to improve the current compliance programs
by issuing new guidance on how State and local agencies should
focus their compliance efforts.
First, EPA will call upon State and local agencies to join EPA
in a focused effort to get "significant violators" to comply with
existing VOC rules. This group consists of sources subject to NSPS
and "Class A" sources (sources emitting more than 100 tons per
year, with or without controls}. Beyond conducting its own program,
the Agency will identify such violators for State and local agencies
and monitor the progress that those agencies make toward achieving
timely compliance.
J-4
-------
Second, EPA will expand its overview of and technical support
for State and local enforcement activity. The EPA expects to
increase the number of Class A nonattainment area sources for which
the Agency performs an overview of State and local inspections and
increase its review of State and local agency files on those sources.
The EPA expects that these program improvements would result in
greater consistency in the States' application of existing VOC
rules and greater emission reductions.
Third, EPA will call upon enforcing agencies to conduct annual,
rather than the current biennial, inspections of nonattainment area
sources with the potential to emit more than 100 tons per year
without controls but less if controlled ("Class A2" sources).
Finally, EPA will work with enforcing agencies to assess the
potential emission reductions that could be achieved by improving
compliance rates of sources with potential uncontrolled emissions
less than 100 tons per year ("Class B" sources). The EPA will be
working with these agencies to develop innovative approaches to
ensuring compliance of small sources (e.g., compliance assessment
without requiring resource-intensive inspections at each source).
The EPA issued a memorandum entitled Small VOC Source Compliance
Strategy on July 6, 1987. This program scheduled for implementation
in FY 1988 provides a process for identifying VOC categories that
are dominated by small but important contributor to ozone nonattain-
ment. This nontraditional compliance approach consists of three
J-5
-------
components, which are (1) compliance promotion, (2) selected inspections,
and (3) enforcement.
In general, compliance promotion consists of State and local
agencies (along with EPA Regional Offices) implementing a campaign
to ensure that small sources are aware of the problem and understand
the VOC air quality requirements. To accomplish this, it will be
necessary to identify small sources and then inform these sources '
of air quality requirements including needed control equipment or
process changes.
The second component of the small source strategy is a selected
inspection program that will provide State and local agencies and
EPA with compliance information, and will establish a minimum
enforcement presence. Resource limitations will not allow inspection
of all small VOC sources even over a longer period of time. However,
by using statistical sampling, a compliance data base can be developed
by inspecting a relatively low number of small sources from selected
small VOC source categories. Conducting selected inspections (as
randomly as possible) of small sources in a VOC source category
will provide an adequate estimate of the compliance rate for all of
the small sources in that category.
The third component of the small VOC source strategy is to bring
small violators back into compliance through enforcement follow up.
One way of doing this is to give high media exposures to enforcement
actions against selected violators. This should increase enforcement
pressure and credibility. Another useful tool is an administrative
J-6
-------
fines program which would have the advantages of speed, flexibility,
and certainty with the ability to set penalties appropriate to the
nature of the violation.
d. Implement or Improve Permit Fee Program:
Section 110(a}(2)(K) requires the SIP's to contain a requirement
that the owner or operator of each major stationary source pay to the
permitting authority as a condition of any permit refunded under the
Act "a fee sufficient to cover" the reasonable costs of the permitting
process and the implementation and enforcement of the permit. The
EPA's 1981 Permit Fee Guideline (EPA-450/2-81-003) describes this
requirement.
The EPA reviews of State and local permit fee programs have
identified both considerable accomplishments in establishing and
operating permit fee programs and major deficiencies. The EPA has
found, for example, that while some agencies fully recover the cost
of implementing permit programs, others still lack either the State
authority or enforceable provisions in the SIP's for permit fees.
Other agencies have the authority but have failed to implement it,
and still others collect some fees but in such limited amounts that
they fail to cover the full cost of issuing and implementing permits.
Deficient programs not only deny to the State an important source of
revenue in meeting their responsibilities under the Act but also
impose inequities on adjacent States and hinder their efforts to
develop adequate fee programs and comply with EPA guidance. States
J-7
-------
that have permit fee systems in their SIP's should assess the adequacy
of those programs in terms of fees-collected to assure that they are
adequate to recover the full cost associated with reviewing,
implementing, and enforcing permit conditions (except for court
costs). States that do not have a permit fee system are encouraged
to establish and operate such a program consistent with EPA's Permit
Fee Guideline.
e. Upgrade Ambient Monitoring Networks:
State and local agencies and EPA use air quality monitors to
measure the ambient concentrations of ozone, nonmethane organic
compounds (NMOC),. and nitrogen oxides. These data are then used to
determine attainment designations, to model ozone control strategies
to determine their adequacy in reducing ozone concentrations, and to
establish trends on how such concentrations change over time. The
EPA has established revised criteria that describe what constitutes
an acceptable monitoring network for these purposes. The Agency
intends to require some, but not all, States to implement a program
that would require certain nonattainment areas to increase the number
of NMOC monitors and the frequency of NMOC monitoring. The program
would also require certain areas to increase the number of operational
ozone monitors and, in some cases, to change the placement of those
monitors.
J-8
-------
APPENDIX K: DETERMINING ATTAINMENT DATES

long-Term Areas Subject to 3 Percent Reduction Requirement
The first step in projecting attainment dates is to determine
the attainment level inventory. This is the inventory level to
which the baseline emissions must be reduced for attainment to
occur.
If using EKMA, multiply the baseline inventory, line l(a) in
the worksheet, by thelnodeled percent reduction target, line l(b).
The product is the amount by which the baseline emissions must be
reduced to produce attainment. Enter in line l(c). Subtract line
l(c) from the baseline, line l(a). Enter the result as the attainment
level inventory in line l(d).
If using the Urban Airshed Model, typically one or more control
strategies will be tested which produce attainment. Subtract the
emissions reductions1 associated with the preferred strategy from
the baseline inventory. Enter the result as the attainment level
inventory in line l(d).
Next, the baseline inventory must be adjusted by subtracting
out the requirements of EPA's pre-1987 guidance and any other measures
approved into the SIP before today's action. But first, these
measures must be adjusted for effectiveness. For each measure
which has not been evaluated for effectiveness, multiply the expected
Ijhese emission reductions must account for appropriate levels of
effectiveness of measures contained in the strategy.
K-l
-------
reductions by 80 percent. For measures which have been evaluated,
multiply the reductions by the effectiveness level determined by
the evaluation. Total the reductions, enter in line 2(a), and
subtract this total from .the baseline inventory, line l(a). Enter
as the adjusted baseline inventory in line 2(b).
Now, the adjusted baseline is projected forward, first to
1992, then in 3-year increments (1995, 1998, 2001, etc.). This
projection considers growth in emissions for any source affected by
federally-implemented measures (FMVCP, RVP, onboard, etc.) and only
the reductions from the federally-implemented measures and those
local measures prescribed by EPA's pre-1987 guidance or approved
into the SIP before the date this policy was proposed. Only growth
in sources affect by federally-implemented measures is counted,
since this is allowed to be offset as long as reductions occur from
Federal measures. During this period, the local strategy must
offset all other growth. Enter the projections starting in line
3{a) and continuing through 3(h) if necessary. The local strategy
must continue to achieve a net 3 percent reduction per year on
average, starting in 1988, offsetting all growth that occurs after
the federally-implemented measures cease to provide net reductions
(considering growth in sources affected federally-implemented
measures). Although projections after this "low" point are not
used to determine the attainment date, they are useful to show
total the amount of growth to be offset by local control measures.
K-2
-------
As discussed in the Policy Statement (Section IV.B.)> States
should provide for expeditious implementation of measures and
emission reductions. However, as a practical matter, 1992 may be
the earliest opportunity to assess compliance with the 3 percent
annual reduction requirement. Therefore, for calculating the
attainment date, the first "rate of progress" projection is made
for 1992. Enter 15 percent of the adjusted baseline'inventory in
line 4(a). This is t!ie amount of reductions required locally
beyond the pre-1987 requirements, line 2{a). Subtract the 1992
baseline projection, or line 3(a), from the adjusted baseline, or
line 2(b). If negative, enter zero. Enter in line 4(b). This is
the net amount of reductions from federally-implemented measures,
considering growth in sources affected by the federally-implemented
measures. Add lines 4(a) and 4(b). Enter the sum in line 4(c).
This is the net amount of reductions from all measures between the
baseline and 1992. Subtract line 4(c) from the adjusted baseline.
Enter the result in 4(d). This is the projected 1992 emissions
level. Compare the result to the attainment level inventory. If
attainment has not been reached, continue until one of the projected
levels is equal to or below the attainment level.
Subsequent projections are made on the 3-year intervals in a .
similar fashion. Each 3-year interval adds another 9 percent net
reduction to the local strategy (i.e., 24 percent in 1995, 33
percent in 1998, 42 percent in 2001, etc.).
K-3
-------
If the attainment date appears to fall on one of the interim
years in the 3-year projection period, baseline projections should
be made for both of the interim years. Then, using the appropriate
percentage values (24 percent in 1995, 33 percent in 1988, etc.)
and following the procedure outline in lines 5(a) through 5(d),
determine the projected "rate of progress." For each interim year,
add 3 percent each year to the initial projection level (i.e., 24
percent in 1995, 27 percent in 1996, 30 percent in 1997, etc.).
Add the local reduction to any incremental reductions from federally-
implemented measures between this year and the previous year (use
zero, if no reductions occurred) and add any reductions from
federally-implemented measures in previous projection periods since
the baseline. Total the reductions from the local and Federal
measures. Subtract the total from the adjusted baseline. This is
the projected inventory. Attainment is projected in the year where
the projected inventory is equal to or below the attainment level
inventory.
Short-Term Areas
Areas able to demonstrate attainment within 3 years after EPA
approval of the SIP, or 4 years after the SIP due date, are not
subject to the percent reduction requirement. For purposes of the
short-term attainment demonstration, and to avoid the 3 percent
annual requirement, these areas can only count reductions that
would occur from federally-implemented measures, the pra-1987 SIP
requirements, and any measures adopted (and EPA-approved) before
K-4
-------
today's proposal. Procedurally, this is the same as the baseline
projection calculation (step 3) used by long-term areas except that
the short-term area may consider all emissions growth
{either positive or negative) in the emission projections. The
attainment level inventory is determined in the same way as for
long-term areas (step 1). However, it is not necessary to adjust
the baseline inventory to remove the pre-1987 required reductions
(step 2). As an example, assume a prospective short-term area has
an unadjusted baseline inventory of 100,000 tons/year, and an
attainment inventory of 85,000 tons/year. Projecting the baseline
gives a 1992 inventory of 86,000 and a 1995 inventory of 84,000
tons/year. If the 1994 projections were at or below 85,000 tons/year,
the area could successfully demonstrate attainment in the short
term. However, as described in section IV.B. of the policy, the
area could not supplement the baseline projections with additional
local reductions in attempting to achieve the attainment level
inventory in 1994, without being subject to the 3 percent annual
reduction requirement beginning in 1988.
K-5
-------
ATTAINMENT DATE WORKSHEET
(Example)

1. (a) Unadjusted baseline - • 103,000 tpy

(b) Percent reduction target (EKMA) 55%

(d) Attainment level inventory. Subtract
line l(c) from line l(a). ______ 46,350

2. (a) Pre-1987 required measures
(after adjustment for effectiveness) 3,OOP

(b) Adjusted baseline. Subtract line
2(a) from line l(a). 100,000

3. Adjusted baseline projections. (Include
effect of federally-implemented
measures plus any growth in sources
affected by federally-implemented
measures.)

(a) 1992 86,000

(b) 1995 83.000

(d) 2001 86.000

(e) 2004 __^_ 89,000

(f) 2007 92.000

(g) 2010 96.000

Steps 4 through 7 below apply only to long-term areas subject to the
percent reduction requirement.

4. 1992 rate of progress projection.

(a) Enter 15 percent of line 2(b) 15,000

(b) Subtract line 3(a) from line 2(b)
(if negative, enter zero) 14,000

(d) Subtract line 4(c) from line 2(b) 71,000

K-6
-------
1995 rate of progress projection
. •• • • • •
(a) Enter 24 percent of line 2{b)
(b) Subtract line 3(b) from line 3(a)
(if negative, use zero). Add
line 4(b).
(c) Add lines 5(a) and 5(b)
(d) Subtract line 5(c) from line 2(b)
1998 rate of progress projection
(a) Enter 33 percent of line 2(b)
(b) Subject line 3{c) from line 3(b).
(If negative, use zero). Add
line 5(b).
(c) Add lines 6(a) and 6(b)
(d) Subtract line 6(c) from line 2(b)
(Example)
24.000

17.000
41.000
59.QQQ

33.000

17.000
50.000
50.000
If line 5(d) is less than or equal to line l(c), stop.
Otherwise, go on.
7. Additional projections (2001, etc.)
(a) Repeat step 5, adding 9 percent to line 5(a)
for each successive projection (i.e.,
42 percent for 2001, 51 percent for 2004,
etc.).
(b) Stop when projections are less than or equal
to line l(c). Attainment is expected to occur
on or before the date of this projection.
K-7
-------
APPENDIX L: DETERMINING "RAFE OF PROGRESS" FOR NOX--AN EXAMPLE

The post-1987 policy allows any area to adopt an N0x-based control
strategy, as long as the required VOC controls are also adopted and implamented
(The EPA expects most areas adopting NQX strategies will adopt a combination
VOC/NOX strategy.) Long-term nonattainment areas which are subject to
the 3 percent VOC annual reduction requirament and which adopt NOX control
strategies must determine an annual NOX rate of reduction. This rate Is
required to result in attainment as expeditiously as a VOC-only strategy.
The procedure for determining this rate is contained in Section IV.D,
"Role of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)" in the Policy Statement. This Appendix
describes the application of this procedure to the area in the Appendix K
example.
Exampje
Assume that a long-term (beyond 1994) nonattainment area is submitting
a post-1987 SIP with a combination VOC/NOx control strategy. If the area
were adopting only VOC control measures, the area would be subject to the
annual 3 percent VOC reduction requirement. Since the area is adopting a
combination VOC/NOx strategy, an NC^ annual rate of reduction must be
determined using the four-step procedure described in section IV.D of
the policy
STEP l--The area performs a modeling analysis to determine the
attainment date which would result from a VOC-only control strategy
achieving at least 3 percent per year. The attainment date is determined
using Appendix K procedures. In the modeling analysis, the area can make
assumptions regarding projected NOx emission changes which are expected
to occur if the State implemented no NC^ measures. (These could include
L-l
-------
the FMVCP, NSPS, growth or decline in NQx-emitting sources, etc.) The
Appendix K example area would need a 55 percent VOC reduction to attain
and attainment would occur in the year 2000.
STEP 2--This step requires a second modeling analysis to determine the
VOC reduction target necessary to attain, based on the addition of NOX
reductions projected to occur from the locally-adopted NOX control
strategy. For this example, assume that the local NOX measures are expected
to achieve a 30 percent emission reduction. This reduction would be
used as input to the model. Assume that, with this information, the
analysis shows that a 40 percent VOC reduction will result in attainment.
STEP 3—This step is where the NOy annual reduction requirement is determined,
The policy requires that the VOC/NOx strategy achieve attainment as
early as a VOC-only strategy. Therefore, the locally-adopted NOx reduction
is simply divided by the number of years required to attain (starting
from the date of the SIP call) using only a VOC-based strategy. Hence,
in the example, the local NOX reductions (30 percent) are divided by the
number of years from the SIP call (1988) to attainment (2000), or 13
years. Note, that the starting and ending years are included in the'
calculation, since the percent reduction applies to those years as well
as to the years in between. Hence, the NOX reduction requirement is
30 divided by 13, or 2.3 percent per year, rounded to the nearest tenth
of a percentage.
STEP 4—In this step, the alternate (lower) VOC annual reduction require-
ment is determined, since less overall VOC reduction is needed to attain,
due to the addition of legally adopted NOx control measures. For this
1-2
-------
step, federally implemented and pre-1987 requirements are excluded.
In the example in Appendix K these measures account for a maximum of
17,000 tons/year reduction (17 percent) by 1995. (It does not matter
that the reduction diminishes after 1995, since the local VOC strategy
must offset any growth from 1995 on, in addition to achieving the required
reduction rate.) Therefore, the locally-adopted VOC strategy must achiove
the remainder of the overall reduction required to attain or 40 percent
minus 17 percent, or 23 percent. The new VOC reduction requirement then
becomes 23 divided by 13, or 1.8 percent per year, rounding to the nearest
tenth of a percentage.
For purposes of determining compliance with the VOC and HQ% reduction
requirements, EPA requires that, initially, by the 5th year from the SIP
•
call (and subsequently at 3-year intervals) the State achieve the
required reductions, to the nearest higher percentage point. In this
example, then, the reductions which the Stata must show by 1992 would be
found by multiplying 2.3 percent for NOX and 1.3 percent for VOC each by 5.
Thus, the reduction required by 1992 is 12 percent for NOX (rounded up
from 11.5) and, for VOC it is 9 percent (no rounding necessary). Similarly,
the 1995 reduction requirements are 2.3 times 3, or 7 percent for NOX
(rounded up from 6.9), and 1.3 times 3, or 6 percent for VOC (rounded
up from 5.4). By 1998, then, the cumulative reduction requirement would
be 26 percent for NOX (12+7+7) and 21 percent for VOC (9+6+6).
The balance of the reduction needed to attain is then due by the end of
the projected attainment year (2000), or 4 percent for NOX and 2 percent
for VOC.
L-3
-------
APPENDIX M: TIMING OF KEY POLICY REQUIREMENTS
By Category:

Event

1. Draft Emission
Inventory

2. Maximize Effective-
ness of Existing
Programs

3. Pre-1987 Requirements
(including adopted
measures approved by
EPA)

4. Post-1987 Require-
ments

a. Enhanced I/M
(if applicable)
3 Percent Annual
Reduction Require-
ment
New CTG's
d. Initial SIP

"Isolated Rural
Areas Lacking
AQ Data
Time Allowed

1 year

Up to 2 years
Up to 4 years
(unless aarlier
implementation would
advance attainment)
Up to 6 years
(unless earlier
implementation would
advance attainment)
(_> .16 ozone or 17 CO
earlier)

Starting year of SIP
call ending year of
attainment
Mi n. 1 year to almost
2 years
Up to 2 years for
CTG's I, II; 1 addi-
tional year for air
quality analysis
and measures, i f
required
Due Date

1 yr after SIP call
2 yrs after SIP call
(submitted with initial
SIP)

Up to 4 yrs after
SIP call
Up to 5 yrs after
SIP call
Compliance checked
initially 5 yrs
after SIP call, then
every 3 yrs until
attainment

Jan. after publication
of CTG (if issued
by previous Jan.)
No later than 3 yrs
after SIP call,
except minimum RACT
due in 2 yrs
M-l
-------
Event
Ti me Al 1 owed
Due Date
'Areas Needing
Long-Term
Measures
Up to 5 years to
complete adoption
No later than 5 yrs
after SIP call
(except 2 yr SIP must include demonstration of attainment,
identify long-term measures, fully adopt other measures)
'Al1 other areas
e. Revised SIP's and
Attainment
Demonstrations
Up to 2 years

Approx. 6 years
f. Governor's Commit- 3 months
ment to Develop
SIP
State/EPA Review
of SIP Develop-
ment

Implementation of
CO Hotspot
Measures

Implementation of
Post-1987 RACT
By Due Date:
Due Date
(after SIP call)

3 months

6 months

1 year

2 years
6 months
Up to 6 years
Up to 6 years
No latsr than 2 yrs
after SIP call

InitialTy 7 yrs
after SIP call,
then every 6 yrs

3 months after SI?
call
6 months after SIP
call
No later than
5 yrs after SIP
call

No later than
6 yrs after SIP
call
Event

Governor's commitment

State/EPA review of SIP development

Draft emission inventory

Initial SIP (except areas needing
long-term measures; see above)

Maximize effectiveness of existing program
M-2
-------
Due Data
(after SIP call)
3 years
4 years

5 years
6 years
7 years
Event
Air quality data and additional nsasures,
if applicable - isolated rural areas
lacking data
Implementation of pre-1987 requirements
(see above)
Adoption of long-term measures (SIP
submit tal)
Compliancs with 15 percent reduction
requirement (long-term areas)
Implementation of enhanced I/M (see above)
Implementation of CO hotspot measures
Implementation of post-1987 RACT
Revised SIP and attainment demonstration
U.S. Environmental Protection
Llbrnrv, Room 2404 PM-211-A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washi-ngton, DC 20460

M-3
-------