This document was prepared by a subgroup of members of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group as part of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee process. It is not an EPA document. It is subject to work group discussion. Interested people should forward their comments to a member of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group or to the contact person shown below.

Contact: Richard Chastain 205/257-6664

Date: October 20, 1996

TREATMENT OF AREAS IN WHICH AIR QUALITY TRENDS INDICATE THE RISK OF BECOMING AN AREA OF VIOLATION (AOV).

Background

The Clean Air Act divides the country into attainment, nonattainment and unclassifiable areas. Attainment and unclassifiable areas have very minimal requirements under the Act, regardless of how close they may be to nonattainment status. Once an area slips into nonattainment, however, it carries the stigma associated with that designation and is subject to difficult, and in many cases unpopular, requirements for planning and implementing a control strategy to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Among other elements, the plan must address emissions from existing sources and offset and more prescriptive control technology requirements for siting new sources.

The premise of this issue paper is that it is preferable for areas that are not violating a standard, but are in danger of doing so, to act affirmatively to avoid further deterioration in air quality that would result in designation as a nonattainment area or area of violation (AOV). Actions taken to avoid nonattainment -- such as "ozone action days" on which drivers and businesses voluntarily take actions to reduce their ozone precursor emissions-- may be more cost-effective than the prescriptive measures associated with nonattainment. In addition, they tend to educate the public about its role in contributing to air pollution and the role that individuals can play in reducing it, concepts that become increasingly important for the public to accept as standards become more stringent. Moreover, not permitting air quality to degenerate to the point that a violation of the standard occurs is obviously desirable from a public health perspective. It may also be appropriate for such areas to begin acquiring data and performing studies that could later be necessary for compliance planning. Even though states can, and in some cases do, adopt proactive measures, this paper discusses concepts that could be developed into a more formalized policy to encourage such actions.

Before States (or broader planning areas such as potential areas of influence (AOIs)) can undertake measures to avoid new AOVs, however, they must be aware of those areas that are at risk of violating the standard. EPA's consideration of a range between the second highest and fifth highest concentrations in connection with a revised ozone standard suggests that the Agency believes that identification of areas that risk becoming AOVs is desirable. EPA has not, however, suggested how such areas should be treated.

The discussion below addresses how areas that are tending toward AOV status could be identified and what type of response should be taken in such areas (or in the broader anticipated AOI).

I.	How should areas tending towards AOV status be identified?

Before States or potential AOIs can act affirmatively to avoid new AOVs, they must be aware of areas in which the air quality is approaching a NAAQS violation. There appear to be three basic approaches to identifying such areas.

OPTION 1:	Track how close an area s air quality monitoring data places it to the criterion for a NAAQS violation.

Under the present ozone standard, an area is in nonattainment if it records four exceedances in a three year period. An area could be identified as at risk of violation at some less stringent combination of exceedances and years. If a concentration-based standard is adopted, a similar but less stringent concentration-based variation could developed for use in identifying areas at risk. EPA's 2nd/5th highest concentration form for a revised ozone standard could be an example of this approach in which the fifth highest concentration average is the trigger for becoming an AOV while the second highest concentration average determines whether an area is at risk of becoming an AOV. An alternative approach would be to look at whether the air quality concentration level for the NAAQS is repeatedly approached rather than focusing on the number of times that the concentration is exceeded.

While tracking the nearness of air quality to the cutoff for identification as an AOV is relatively simple, this option does have some limitations. This approach would provide some warning that an area is in danger of becoming an AOV but that warning may not be sufficiently in advance for the area to take actions that would avoid the violation. In addition, this approach would not be likely to identify areas which are not in immediate danger of violating the standard but may nevertheless be trending that way. Finally, this option does not take into account the effect of meteorological variability on attainment status.

OPTION 2: Track air quality trends, emissions trends, and meteorological effects.

Methods have been developed in the context of the present ozone NAAQS that attempt to account for meteorological variability in projecting future air quality. Such approaches may allow development of a better picture of the underlying trends in air quality and thus enhance understanding of whether an area is truly tending towards a NAAQS violation or only appears to be approaching AOV status as a result of unusual meteorological conditions.

Of course, even if a measured exceedance of the standard level is due to a rare meteorological event, it could -- under EPA's present policies for implementing NAAQS -- be the basis for an AOV designation. Recommendations regarding measures to account for the effect of meteorological variability are beyond the scope of this paper but could be requested from the Science and Technical Support Work Group.

OPTION 3: Rely on a combination of these methods.

Looking at trends in air quality and emissions might provide advance warning that an area is approaching AOV status. Tracking nearness to the criterion for AOV status, however, would allow one to determine how critical the need for intervention has become.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the points discussed above, the majority of the work group preferred Option 3, although some members favored Option 1 based on their belief that it would be simpler and more straightforward to implement.

II.	Who should be responsible for identifying areas that are tending towards AOV	status?

There are three options for responsibility for identifying areas tending towards AOV status.

OPTION 1:	Identification of areas tending towards AOV status could be left to the discretion of the States and local air pollution authorities.

This option essentially represents the status quo. It has the advantage of imposing no new regulatory requirements. However, States without a nonattainment history may not be motivated to examine air quality trends and thus may not identify areas that are at risk of becoming an AOV until it is too late for them to take preventative measures. A strong recommendation from EPA that States track closeness to an AOV status -- perhaps with guidance on options for doing so -- might serve to alert States that do not presently do such tracking as to its value.

OPTION 2:	A regulatory requirement could be imposed for State or local air pollution authorities to develop programs to examine air quality trends to identify areas that may be tending towards AOV status.

This option would emphasize the importance of examining air quality trends, but could leave the States with a great deal of flexibility in their individual programs. For example, States could be left with discretion concerning the method used in examining trends or could decide whether to track some areas more closely than others. Alternatively, more prescriptive requirements for the States could be adopted, although, unless very carefully crafted, this could require burdensome tracking exercises in some cases where there is little likelihood of violation.

OPTION 3:	EPA could identify areas tending towards AOV status.

Under this option there would have to be a single national approach for judging when an area should be deemed to be at risk of becoming an AOV. This option is essentially the one that is captured by EPA's 2nd/5th highest concentration option for a revised ozone standard. It differs from a prescriptive state program under Option 2 primarily in whether the analytical burden is placed on the State or Federal government.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the points discussed above, the recommendation of the majority of the work group is Option 1. Some members of the environmental community favor Option 3, suggesting that this is how nonattainment determinations are made.

III.	What is the appropriate response for an area at risk?

Identification of an area as one that is tending towards AOV status could lead to four types of response:

OPTION 1:	States (and potential AOIs) could be allowed discretion concerning the appropriate response.

This approach would leave areas with the option of doing nothing, adopting voluntary measures, or adopting mandatory measures. The option would allow all areas within the potential AOI to take action, but if not all areas chose to do so, voluntary actions could be taken in portions of the potential AOI. This approach is most consistent with the idea that the area is presently attaining the federally required level for air quality. It is also consistent with the largely voluntary measures that some States and nonattainment areas have adopted for areas that have been identified as close to the line of ozone nonattainment and would recognize State efforts in this regard.

OPTION 2:	States could be required to develop a contingency plan that would take effect if an area were to become an AOV but leave to the State (and the potential AOI) discretion whether any additional measures should be taken to prevent the area from becoming an AOV.

This approach would minimize the time between an area becoming an AOV and the imposition of additional control measures. It would, however, impose a significant planning burden for an attainment area. It would potentially place the entire burden of contingency planning on an individual State. One variation that would avoid placing an unfair burden on a single state would be to require identification of a potential AOI and contingency planning for the entire potential AOI. However, the burden of formally identifying an AOI for an area that is not an AOV might be considered excessive.

OPTION 3:	States (and potential AOIs) could be required to implement specific measures aimed at preventing the area from becoming an AOV.

This approach comes close to transforming an area that has been identified as tending towards a standard violation into a de facto AOV. If the concept of AOV/AOI were adopted, this option would seem to pose the choice of identification of an AOI for an attainment area or place the burden of implementing required measures on the State (or States) in which the potential AOV was located.

OPTION 4:	EPA could provide States with incentives for adopting programs in areas that are determined to be at risk of violating a standard.

Even a purely discretionary program for avoiding new areas violating the standards, such as provided under Option 1, could place additional short-term burdens on the States. To encourage effective discretionary programs, in spite of these burdens, while at the same time avoiding new regulatory requirements, EPA could provide incentives for States with areas at risk to adopt voluntary programs that satisfy the Agency. For example, EPA could indicate that if the State (or a potential AOI) will pursue voluntary emission reductions measures in conjunction with an effort to develop appropriate data on emissions and speciation, then EPA would allow the state or AOI some flexibility in timing and/or control requirements in the event the standard is subsequently exceeded. Some elements of the agreements EPA has with Kootenai County, Idaho (ATTACHMENT A) and Corpus Christi, Texas (ATTACHMENT B) could be considered for use in such an incentive program, as well as the treatment of areas with maintenance plans.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the points discussed above, the majority of the work group preferred Option 4. The environmental members, however, preferred an approach such as that discussed in Option 3.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

Using the FACA Science and Technical Support Work Group (or a comparable source of expertise), EPA should establish guidance that any area could use to determine whether trends in its air quality data indicate that it is at significant risk of violating the NAAQS. Most members of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group felt that such guidance should consider several indicators such as how close current air quality measurements are to the violation level, the underlying air quality and emissions trends in the data, and the risk posed by variability. Some member, however, preferred a narrower measure based only on nearness to the violation level. The majority of the work group recommended leaving to the discretion of the states whether to follow such guidelines to identify areas at risk. Environmental members of the work group, however, recommended that EPA identify the areas. Finally, the majority of the work group favored offering incentives for states to adopt programs satisfactory to EPA for areas considered at risk of violating NAAQS. The environmental community members, however, strongly opposed incentives and favored mandating specific measures in such areas.

ATTACHMENT A

Summary of Kootenai County Memorandum of Understanding

In 1994, United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State of Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), and the Kootenai County Air Quality Advisory Committee (KCAQAC) entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU outlines the expectations, activities, products, and completion dates for the development and implementation of an Air Quality Improvement Plan (Plan) for Kootenai County.

In 1992, EPA proposed to designate the City of Coeur D'Alene nonattainment for particulate matter (PM-10). However, before this action was final, violations were recorded at a second monitoring site in the County, and the IDEQ requested that the entire County be designated nonattainment. Such designation would require the State to submit a plan that provides for the implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACM), including implementation of reasonably available control measures (RACT) and that shows whether attainment within six years of redesignation is practicable.

The County and State proposed an alternative approach to improving air quality in the area. In signing the MOU, EPA agreed to support this unique and innovative approach in the belief that an aggressive control strategy will result in a greater improvement in air quality in a shorter period of time than using traditional measures. At the same time, EPA is obligated to continue the traditional designation process. However, EPA will defer final action on the redesignation to allow the IDEQ and KSAQAC to prepare, adopt, submit, and implement an air quality plan that meets the requirements of the Clean Air Act and those set forth below. The EPA will only take final action on the redesignation proposal (1) if the IDEQ and local agencies fail to meet any one of the requirements, milestones, or due dates without prior written approval from EPA; (2) if EPA determines that the control measures adopted by IDEQ are inadequate to achieve a net environmental benefit in addition to attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS; or (3) if EPA s discretion to defer final action is constrained by judicial or Congressional action.

The IDEQ and the KCAQAC agreed to make a series of commitments, including implementing a public awareness program, completing a base year inventory, performing receptor modeling, and adopting Interim Control Measures as RACM for agricultural burning, open burning, residential woodburning, and winter road dust sanding. They also agreed to establish enhanced PM-10 and meteorological monitoring networks and conduct dispersion modeling. They are required to adopt a control strategy that includes Interim Control Measures and any additional measures to demonstrate attainment as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 1999, and that demonstrates maintenance for an additional three years. They must then adopt the above measures as an Air Quality Improvement Plan and submit it to EPA as a revision to the State Implementation Plan by September 30, 1997. In general, both plans must meet EPA PM-10 SIP development guidelines and all control measures must implement RACM and RACT.

ATTACHMENT B

Flexible Attainment Region Agreement

Corpus Christi, Texas

What is it?

The Flexible Attainment Region (FAR) approach is a new concept that was developed in order to recognize and encourage the efforts of local areas to maintain levels of ground level ozone below the National Ambient Air Quality Standard and thus remain in attainment. In the event

of an ozone violation, the agreement will allow time for the area's control program to work, similar to contingency measures in a maintenance agreement, prior to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issuing a call for a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision or nonattainment redesignation. Corpus Christi developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which defined a detailed plan to improve Corpus Christi's air quality and formalized each respective agency's roles and responsibilities.

Who is involved in the Corpus Christi FAR?

The MOA was negotiated and signed by the City of Corpus Christi, San Patricio County, Nueces County, Port of Corpus Christi Authority, Regional Transportation Authority, U.S. EPA, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC).

What is in the Action Plan?

The agreement involves a number of air pollution control measures impacting both stationary (industrial and commercial) and mobile (automobiles) sources on a voluntary basis in order to reduce emissions of ozone precursors. None of the controls or initiatives are presently required by any regulations and many require substantial investments. Working in collaboration with the Air Quality Committee, the local representatives have agreed to immediately implement the following list of voluntary items:

1) Reid vapor pressure of gasoline sold by local suppliers will be lowered to 7.8 during the ozone season (May - September);

2) Vapor recovery and control systems will be installed at marine loading facilities;

3) The use of alternative fuels will be encouraged through the Clean Cities Program;

4) The use of reformulated gasoline in large fleets and retail sale of reformulated gasoline to the public will be promoted; and

5) The Ozone Action Day program will continue.

How Does It Work?

If ozone exceedances occur after the implementation of the above voluntary control measures, then the agreement calls for the implementation of additional voluntary measures. The list of possible control measures to be implemented after exceedances occur includes:

1) Substantially increase the number of businesses notified on Ozone Action Days;

2) Increase the number of public announcements about ozone;

3) Set up an ozone hotline;

4) Expand access to ozone information through computer network systems; and

5) Implement an employee commute awareness program for businesses with 25 or more employees.

If there is a continued deterioration of air quality as evidenced by a violation of the ozone standard, then additional enforceable SIP control measures will be identified. The SIP will be revised to include one or more of the following measures:

1) A regulation which establishes a maximum Reid vapor pressure of gasoline, to reduce the maximum from 9.0 to 7.8;

2) Mandatory implementation of vapor recovery and control systems at marine loading facilities;

3) Mandatory implementation of Stage I vapor recovery systems at gasoline retail outlets; and

4) Any other measure of equal consequence that may be identified.

If after the above SIP measures have been implemented, another violation occurs in the following year, then the SIP will be amended to enforce one or more of the following additional control strategies:

1) A regulation which establishes a maximum Reid vapor pressure of gasoline, to reduce	the maximum from 7.8 to 7.2;

2) Utilize reformulated gasoline, in the event such is permitted by law or regulation; and

3) Any other measure of equal consequence that may be identified.

Adequate time will be allowed for the measures to be fully implemented and evaluated and in the event of an ozone violation, the EPA has agreed to allow the SIP measures an adequate opportunity to work before identifying additional control measures.