This is a document prepared by the Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) Work Group as part of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee process. It is not an EPA document. It was discussed at the October 1997 FACA Subcommittee meeting and is not subject to further work group discussion.

Date:	November 19, 1997

Contact Person:	Herb Williams

Telephone	(512) 239-4885 direct, (512) 239-4884 voice-mail

e-mail	Internet: HWILLIAM@SMTPGATE.TNRCC.STATE.TX.US

BPAP Work Group's Recommendation on Attainment Dates

This paper summarizes the BPAP work group's recommendations on establishing attainment dates for the new ozone and PM2.5 standards in light of the Presidential Directive. For a more thorough discussion of the issue, refer to the May 23, 1997 version of the issue paper on attainment dates in Appendix A and the October 28, 1996 Attainment Dates ad hoc group recommendations in Appendix B.

After discussing the requirements of the CAAA, the BPAP work group generally agrees that all areas should reach attainment as expeditiously as practicable but have up to a presumptive 5-year attainment date which is in keeping with Section 172. Areas would be expected to spend this period of time developing their SIP (up to 3 years) and implementing the measures in the SIP.

Upon the submission of its SIP, an area could ask the Administrator for an extension of up to an additional 5 years. Considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures, EPA could grant longer attainment dates of up to 5 additional years on a case-by-case basis. The criteria for granting longer attainment dates must be defined. At a minimum, the work group believes that EPA must acknowledge the difference between areas that plan and implement strategies but fail to reach attainment versus those that fail to complete their planning and/or implementation. Finally, the work group believes that the 3-year assessment period to determine whether or not an area has attained the standard needs to occur subsequent to the 5-year presumptive attainment date.

Section 172 also allows up to 2 1-year extensions. However, this appears to be based on the old (exceedance-based) forms of the ozone and PM standards and may not be directly applicable to the new (concentration-based) forms of the standards. Guidance on the issue of the 2 1-year attainment date extensions is needed based on a recognition of this disparity.

The work group generally agrees that Section 179(d) sufficiently addresses actions that respond to an area's failure to attain. There is concern about how to address areas that cannot demonstrate attainment. Section 179(d) is based on the submission of a SIP that demonstrates attainment.

Clean Air Act Section 179(d)

- Within one year of notice of failure, states are required to submit a SIP revision.

- SIP revision must meet section 110 and 172 requirements and shall include such additional measures as the Administrator may reasonably prescribe, including all measures that can be feasibly implemented in the area in light of technological achievability, costs, and any other non air quality and other air quality-related health and environmental impacts.

- Attainment date shall be the date by which attainment can be achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the date of the notice of failure to attain except that the Administrator may extend the attainment date to the extent the Administrator determines appropriate, for a period no greater than 10 years from the date of the notice of failure to attain considering the severity of nonattainment and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures.

FACA Subcommittee's Discussion of Attainment Dates Recommendation

At the October 1997 meeting, the Subcommittee did not discuss whether the 3 years of air quality data needed to demonstrate attainment should be collected within or subsequent to the first five years. Under the old exceedance-based form of the standard, attainment could be determined with 1 year of air quality data. Some Subcommittee members disagree with the proposal to allow areas to collect the 3 years of air quality data subsequent to the first 5 years.

APPENDIX A

Attainment Dates for New National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

Date:	May 23, 1997

Status:	Draft #3. Incorporates October 28, 1996 recommendations of the Attainment Dates ad hoc group.

ISSUE

What dates or time frames should be established for attaining new NAAQS?

DESCRIPTION

This issue paper is an attempt to identify some options for consideration regarding what dates, if any, EPA should establish for areas to attain any new NAAQS. EPA is currently considering revisions to the ozone and particulate matter (PM) NAAQS with potential inclusion of a new NAAQS for fine PM (PM-fine). The attainment dates options discussed in this paper are separated into those for ozone and PM-fine. There is a proposal for establishment of national rules regarding regional haze, and some options concerning compliance with such new rules are included. Finally, since at some time in the future it may be advisable to explore establishing an integrated attainment date process, some options for such a process are also identified.

Additionally, some concerns have been raised regarding the ability of states and areas to achieve the new NAAQS that are being considered by EPA since typical background levels of both ozone and PM-fine appear to be high enough to allow for very little increase due to anthropogenic generated emissions or precursors. Therefore, some options for each pollutant are presented that would allow consideration of the achievability of the new NAAQS in development of attainment dates.

Another concern raised is the issue of avoiding the "one size fits all" approach. The various options presented are not intended to be mutually exclusive. Therefore, different options could be selected for different areas of violation as a means to take into account each area's unique circumstances.

Statutory Requirements

The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to establish NAAQS for various pollutants but did not establish specific attainment dates for those NAAQS. The specific attainment date requirement was established in the 1977 amendments. Section 172 of the 1977 amendments established a December 31, 1982 (5 years after enactment) attainment date for all primary NAAQS but allowed an extension to December 31, 1987 (10 years after enactment) for certain ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas. The 1990 amendments revised the Section 172 attainment date deadlines and added new attainment deadlines in Sections 181 and 188 for ozone and PM-10, respectively.

Section 172 currently requires attainment for all primary NAAQS within 5 years of designation to nonattainment, but allows an extension to within 10 years of the nonattainment designation. It also allows up to two 1-year extensions of these dates under certain specific criteria.

Section 181 sets up the ozone nonattainment area classification scheme and establishes attainment dates based on the area's respective classification. This approach is currently limited in that the classification and thus the attainment dates are based on the current ozone NAAQS of 0.12 ppmh. This section also allows for up to two 1-year extensions of the attainment dates under criteria similar to those in Section 172.

Section 188 sets up a somewhat similar classification based attainment deadline for PM- 10 nonattainment areas except that the difference in the 2 classifications (Moderate and Serious) is based on the ability of Moderate areas to attain the NAAQS by the first deadline of December 31,1994 or 6 years after nonattainment designation for areas so designated after the 1990 amendments. The attainment deadline for Serious areas is December 31, 2001 or 10 years after nonattainment designation for areas so designated after the 1990 amendments. This section also allows for the up to two 1-year extensions under criteria similar to the extensions allowed in Sections 172 and 181 for Moderate areas, but limits the possible extensions to only one for a 5 year period for Serious areas.

From this review, it appears that some options for the new NAAQS can be developed based on these requirements using any or all of the sections as necessary, i.e., for a new ozone NAAQS, an analogous classification based attainment date deadline scheme could be one of the options to consider. However, in keeping with the Subcommittee's principle to not be bound by the existing Clean Air Act in developing options for consideration, this issue paper will include attainment date options for both potential new NAAQS based on the current statutory requirements and options that may be outside those statutory requirements.

The visibility protection provisions in sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act establish the framework for the forthcoming regional haze rule. Section 169A declares the national visibility goal as "the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution." Although these provisions do not establish a regional haze standard or attainment date, they do require EPA to promulgate regulations to assure "reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal."

Basic Assumptions

Not specifically discussed in each of the options that follow, but a basic provision that should be available under any of the options is the need for a natural events type policy that would allow for variations from the established attainment dates to account for impacts from natural events. Another basic provision should be the availability of a Section 818 type exception to the attainment date requirement for those areas that would be able to demonstrate attainment by the required date but for emissions or transport from a foreign country.

Related Issue Papers

Several of the concepts in this paper are also addressed in other issue papers being developed by the work groups.

Discussions of the time necessary to gather sufficient data to make designations is discussed in the PM Designations paper (11/12/96).

Option 1 on a single classification date keys off the designation of an AOV. There may be a link with the Area of Violation Boundaries issue paper.

Option 2 is based on the existing classification schedule and there is a linkage between classifications and attainment dates examined in the Classifications of Designated Areas Under New NAAQS paper (2/11/97).

Option 3 introduces a single attainment date with an option for extension based on a reasonable planning schedule. The Iterative RFP Process flow diagram (3/24/97) proposes an RFP planning and implementation process comprised of analyses, actions, and re-analyses that an area would follow toward attainment. The proposed iterative process includes consequences for failure to meet milestones. The discussion of the end-of-cycle review should be harmonized with the RFP process flow diagram.

A related diagram (5/7/97-- Jerry Golden's diagram) illustrates planning, strategy development, and implementation under a two-tiered classification scheme which differentiates between locally generated and transport-induced air quality problems.

Option 3a and 3b both propose eligibility for the extension based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards. There is a link with the Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) rate, metric (e.g., emissions- or air quality-based), frequency of demonstrations, and other relevant issues are explored in the Reasonable Further Progress paper (3/20/97).

Option 4 for reasonable, incremental progress with definite attainment dates based on classification links with both the RFP and the classifications issue papers.

The Integrated Implementation paper (11/12/96) emphasizes using integrated analyses to determine whether integration is appropriate.

The Opportunity Matrix for Ozone, PM-fine, and Regional Haze Integration (3/31/97) provides a qualitative assessment of control measures with multiple-pollutant benefits and disbenefits.

The Phase II Implementation Strategy for Maintenance Plans/Contingency Measures (4/14/97) paper addresses the roles of contingency measures and maintenance plans under the new NAAQS.

Finally, the Regional Haze paper (11/12/96) provides in-depth discussion of regional haze issues and options.

OPTIONS

New Ozone NAAQS

OPTION 1 -	EXISTING SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION - Use the existing Section 172(a)(2) provisions for a 5-year time frame from the date an area is designated as an Area of Violation (AOV) to attain the new NAAQS. Also allow the Administrator to extend the attainment date up to 10 years from the date an area is designated as an AOV. Also, include the existing provision that allows up to two 1-year extensions of these dates under certain specific criteria.

Ozone NAAQS additional options assumptions:

An evaluation of a realistic planning time frame upon which to develop a plan and have it fully implemented is 6-8 years with up to an additional 3 years to complete attainment status monitoring. Experience has shown that a realistic planning time frame broken down by major component parts takes:

-	12-18 months to develop a comprehensive emissions inventory,

-	12-18 months to complete appropriate photochemical grid type modeling (in some cases, it may be possible to compress this time frame by conducting some aspects of these first 2 phases simultaneously),

-	12 months to develop and promulgate control strategies and

-	3-4 years for regulated sources to plan, budget, design, acquire and implement their control programs.

(Note: It may be necessary to complete, at least, significant parts of the emissions inventory and modeling phases prior to area designation where such designations are dependent on modeling in addition to monitoring data.)

-	Finally, the control strategy must be fully implemented before the attainment status monitoring period begins, therefore up to an additional 3 years for monitoring may be required.

Using the mid-range of the realistic planning time frame (7 years) and adding 3 years for attainment status monitoring results in a reasonable planning and implementation cycle of 10 years. However, it should be noted that in states with requirements for legislative review or authorization for new rules this time frame would be extended by the time necessary to obtain such review or authorization. With this in mind, the following options focus on providing a more realistic schedule to allow a thorough planning and implementation cycle. Also, these options are not constrained by existing statutory timing requirements. This planning cycle would in no way prevent an area from implementing a proactive control strategy and making early reductions, if that proactive strategy would result significant improvement in the air quality of the area.

OPTION 2 -	REVISED ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON EXISTING CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE - Use a revised Section 181(a) type table which is based upon a design value severity classification scheme which would allow an area 3, 6, 9, 15, 17 or 20 years to attain the new NAAQS depending on the classification.

OPTION 3 -	SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE - Follow a section 172(a)(2) process but allow a 10-year time frame for attainment with an option to extend that up to an additional 10 years (total of 20 years).

OPTION 3a -	SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE AND SPECIFIC EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS OPTIONAL) - Same as Option 3 except that eligibility for the 10-year extension would be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards but would not necessarily require additional, more stringent controls. Such additional controls would only be required as necessary to demonstrate achievement of the standard by the extended attainment date.

OPTION 3b -	SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE AND SPECIFIC EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUIRED) - Same as Option 3a except that eligibility for the 10-year extension would be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards and would require additional, more stringent controls such as moving from meeting reasonably available control technology (RACT) to best available retrofit technology (BART).

OPTION 4 -	REASONABLE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS WITH DEFINITE ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS - Follow a Section 181 (a) type table format with two or more classes based on some reasonable criteria. Each classification's respective attainment date would be based on the realistic planning and implementation cycle of 10 years. Thus, the first classification would have 10 years, the second classification 20 years, and the other classifications similar increments of the 10-year planning cycle.

OPTION 4a -	REASONABLE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS WITH DEFINITE ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS AND OPTION FOR EXTENSION (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS OPTIONAL) - Same as Option 4 except the attainment date for each classification (no matter how determined) would include an option for one or more extensions of that date by the 10-year reasonable planning cycle. However, since this extension option could result in some fairly long term attainment dates, each such extension should be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards but would not necessarily require additional, more stringent controls. Additional, more stringent controls such as moving from meeting RACT to BART would only be required as necessary to demonstrate meeting the increment of progress or the attainment date.

OPTION 4b -	REASONABLE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS WITH DEFINITE ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS AND OPTION FOR EXTENSION (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUIRED) - Same as Option 4a except the attainment date for each classification (no matter how determined) would include an option for one or more extensions of that date by the 10-year reasonable planning cycle. However, since this extension option could result in some fairly long term attainment dates, each such extension should be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards and would require additional, more stringent controls such as moving from meeting RACT to BART.

OPTION 5 -	REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS - NO DEFINED ATTAINMENT DATE - Allow for 10-year planning cycles and set incremental targets representing a reasonable rate of progress toward meeting the new NAAQS without establishing mandatory attainment deadlines as long as reasonable progress toward the new NAAQS is maintained.

OPTION 5a -	REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS - NO DEFINED ATTAINMENT DATE - Same as Option 5 except that in addition to demonstrating achievement of reasonable incremental targets eligibility for each successive 10-year planning cycle should be predicated upon meeting increasingly more stringent control programs (i.e., RACT-BART, etc.). This option could also be developed to include the more positive approach by providing incentives for earlier achievement of the targets or standards such as offering the ability to option out of certain more stringent control programs.

OPTION 6 -	LOCALLY DETERMINED ATTAINMENT DATE - Allow the local officials in each AOV to work with the State and EPA in an individual assessment of their area's air quality and determine an appropriate attainment date and/or reasonable rate of ozone reduction progress milestones.

OPTION 7 -	NO DEFINED ATTAINMENT DATE - To ensure a complete list of options, the option of no attainment date is included.

New PM NAAQS

(Note all attainment date options for the new PM NAAQS should not begin until designation of an area as an AOV because the attainment status monitoring necessary to make such designations may take significant time to develop)

OPTION 1 -	EXISTING SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION - Use the existing Section 172(a)(2) provisions for a 5-year time frame from the date an area is designated as an AOV to attain the new PM-fine NAAQS. Also allow the Administrator to extend the date up to 10 years from the date an area is designated as an AOV. Also, include the existing provision that allows up to two 1-year extensions of these dates under certain specific criteria.

OPTION 2 -	REVISED ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON EXISTING CLASSIFICATION SCHEDULE - Use a revised Section 188 classification scheme with classifications based upon appropriate criteria. An attainment date for each of the separate classifications could then be developed by using the Section 188 time frames that are triggered by AOV designations after the 1990 amendments. Thus the attainment date for the first classification would be 6 years after the area is designated as an AOV and the attainment date for the second classification would be 10 years after the area is designated as an AOV.

PM NAAQS additional options assumptions:

Use the same additional assumptions as included in the ozone NAAQS additional options assumptions.

OPTION 3 -	SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE - Follow a section 172(a)(2) process but allow a 10-year time frame for attainment with an option to extend that up to an additional 10 years.

OPTION 3a -	SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE AND SPECIFIC EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS OPTIONAL) - Same as Option 3 except that eligibility for the 10-year extension would be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards but would not necessarily require additional, more stringent controls. Such additional controls would only be required as necessary to demonstrate achievement of the standard by the extended attainment date.

OPTION 3b -	SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE AND SPECIFIC EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUIRED) - Same as Option 3 except that qualification for the 10-year extension would be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards and would require additional, more stringent controls such as moving from meeting reasonably available control measures (RACM) to best available control measures(BACM).

OPTION 4 -	REASONABLE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS WITH DEFINITE ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS - Follow a Section 188 type table format with two or more classes based on some reasonable criteria. Each classification's respective attainment date would be based on the realistic planning and implementation cycle of 10 years. Thus, the first classification would have 10 years, and the second classification 20 years, and the other classifications similar increments of the 10-year planning cycle to attain the new NAAQS.

OPTION 4a -	REASONABLE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS WITH DEFINITE ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS AND OPTION FOR EXTENSION (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS OPTIONAL) - Same as Option 4 except the attainment date for each classification (no matter how determined) would include an option for one or more extensions of that date by the 10-year reasonable planning cycle. However, since this extension option could result in some fairly long term attainment dates, each such extension should be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards but would not necessarily require additional, more stringent controls. Additional, more stringent controls such as moving from meeting RACM to BACM would only be required as necessary to demonstrate meeting the increment of progress or the attainment date.

OPTION 4b -	REASONABLE, INCREMENTAL PROGRESS WITH DEFINITE ATTAINMENT DATES BASED ON CLASSIFICATIONS AND OPTION FOR EXTENSION (ADDITIONAL CONTROLS REQUIRED) - Same as Option 4a except the attainment date for each classification (no matter how determined) would include an option for one or more extensions of that date by the 10-year reasonable planning cycle. However, since this extension option could result in some fairly long term attainment dates, each such extension should be based on meeting certain specific criteria or performance standards and require additional, more stringent controls such as moving from meeting RACM to BACM.

OPTION 5 -	REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS - NO DEFINED ATTAINMENT DATE - Allow for 10-year planning cycles and set incremental targets representing a reasonable rate of progress toward meeting the new PM-fine NAAQS without establishing mandatory attainment deadlines as long as reasonable progress toward the new NAAQS is maintained.

OPTION 5a -	REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS - NO DEFINED ATTAINMENT DATE - Same as Option 5 except that in addition to demonstrating achievement of reasonable incremental targets eligibility for each successive 10-year planning cycle should be predicated upon meeting increasingly more stringent control programs (i.e., RACM-BACM, etc.). This option could also be developed to include the more positive approach by providing incentives for earlier achievement of the targets or standards such as offering the ability to option out of certain more stringent control programs.

OPTION 6 -	LOCALLY DETERMINED ATTAINMENT DATE - Allow the local officials in each AOV area to work with the State and EPA in an individual assessment of their area's air quality and determine an appropriate attainment date and/or reasonable rate of PM-fine reduction progress milestones.

OPTION 7 -	NO DEFINED ATTAINMENT DATE - To ensure a complete list of options, this option of no attainment date at all is included.

Regional Haze Rules

(Since the Regional Haze Program is anticipated to consist of national rules rather than the national ambient air quality standard approach associated with ozone and PM, this paper does not propose any attainment dates per se. However, the following is a discussion of some options that may be considered with regard to implementation of the anticipated regulatory program.)

OPTION 1 -	REASONABLE INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS BASED ON NEW NAAQS - EPA is required to report to Congress every five years on progress made toward improving regional haze. Current regulations also require states/tribes to update long-term strategies for regional haze every three years. These reporting requirements could be associated with the selected option(s) for the new ozone and PM NAAQS and could serve as the mid-cycle review to ensure the programs implemented for the new NAAQS are demonstrating reasonable increments of progress toward their respective milestones. This approach is based on the assumption that control programs for the new NAAQS will result in reductions in pollutants that contribute to the formation and transport of regional haze and thus would provide progress toward improved visibility. Any assessment would need to take into account the impact of natural events or international transport.

OPTION 2 -	REGIONAL HAZE REASONABLE INCREMENTS OF PROGRESS - Reasonable increments of progress could be established for regional haze using a similar planning cycle to that outlined in the options for the new NAAQS. (Potential criteria and options for identifying reasonable increments of progress for visibility improvement are discussed in the National and Regional Strategies Workgroup issue paper on Regional Haze). Actual measurable visibility improvement milestones could be established for each planning cycle. At each mid-cycle review, an evaluation could be conducted to determine progress toward those milestones and interim adjustments implemented, as necessary, to achieve the milestones or delay further action, if the milestones have been achieved early. Any assessment would need to take into account the impact of natural events or international transport.

Integrated NAAQS

Since the realistic planning and implementation cycles for both new NAAQS are similar and contain common elements, it may be possible under certain circumstances to develop consistent attainment dates for both the new ozone and PM-fine NAAQS. However, since the attainment date options are triggered by AOV designations, only those areas on similar time schedules for designation may be subject to consistent attainment dates. Therefore, the following options are based on the assumption that AOV designations for both new NAAQS are on similar timing schedules.

OPTION 1 -	If the control strategies are complementary in that they reduce the ambient levels of both new NAAQS, then the attainment dates for both could be consistent. These consistent attainment dates could be based on one or more of the options listed above.

OPTION 2 -	If the control strategies conflict in that reduction of the ambient levels of one of the new NAAQS could result in the increase of ambient levels of the other new NAAQS, then an analysis should be conducted to determine which pollutant poses the most potential for public health or environmental harm and the attainment date for that new NAAQS should take precedent. Once attainment for the pollutant posing the most potential public health or environmental detriment has been achieved, an appropriate attainment date for the other new NAAQS should be established. These sequential attainment dates could also be based on one or more of the options listed above.

OPTION 3 -	If the control strategies for the two new NAAQS neither complement nor conflict with each other, separate attainment dates for each of the new NAAQS could be established under one or more of the options listed above.

RECOMMENDATION: MODIFIED OPTION 3-

A SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION BASED ON REASONABLE PLANNING SCHEDULE, REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS AND PLANNED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS -

A.	There needs to be an externally imposed date for attainment as a driver for states and areas to be required to complete the planning process and implement those plans.

B.	Following a Section 172(a)(2) process but allowing for use of the reasonable (10 year) planning cycle, a Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP) for each AOI should be adopted and submitted that demonstrates attainment in the affected AOV as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than by the end of the reasonable (10 year) planning cycle. The reasonable planning cycle should be determined based on consideration of adequate time for the planning, rule adoption, implementation, and assessment (monitoring) portions of the planning process.

Depending on the stringency (level and form) of the standards, they will probably be more readily achievable in some areas and may even be extremely difficult to achieve in other areas. If an area can demonstrate that attainment cannot be achieved during the initial planning cycle using reasonable progress targets and including planned levels of emissions reductions that move the area toward attainment of the new NAAQS, an extension of one additional 10-year planning cycle may be approved. At the beginning of each planning cycle, the rate of progress should be established with the goal of attaining the new NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable during or by the end of the planning cycle.

If it is determined that a rate of progress to attain the new NAAQS by the end of the initial planning cycle is impractical, then a reasonable rate of progress should be allowed and the request for the extension of the one additional 10-year planning cycle granted. The determination of a reasonable rate of progress should consider, among other criteria, a level that is achievable during the reasonable planning cycle. Selection of this achievable level could include evaluation of the modeling results, monitoring data trends, observational models, emission inventories, expected reductions from candidate control strategies, selected episodes and incremental costs/benefits as suggested by EPA in its weight of the evidence discussion in the "Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS.

In areas impacted by regional transport of pollutants, it is especially important for all AOIs (including those in different political jurisdictions) to contribute appropriately toward expeditiously reducing emissions with the goal of timely attainment of the new NAAQS. Since unusual meteorological conditions can have significant affect on an area's ability to attain the new NAAQS, there should also be consideration given to impacts from natural events in selection of achievable levels, increments of progress or attainment demonstrations.

C.	Eligibility for extension of one additional planning cycle should be based on meeting the planned level of emissions reductions and milestone demonstration or performance standard plus more stringent control programs as required. The planned reductions and reasonable rate of progress control strategies would be incorporated in the RIP process and would be enforceable through that process. Failure to achieve the milestones or implement the RIP programs would trigger certain additional requirements, unless it could be demonstrated that such additional requirements would not provide added benefits to air quality or were unnecessary for other valid reasons. Such additional requirements could be imposed automatically as contingency measures unless rebutted by a timely negative demonstration.

1.	Failure to achieve the planned emissions reductions or reasonable rate of progress would result in a requirement to correct the reasons for the failure and then include programs or automatic contingency measures to make up those levels not achieved plus the required further reductions and reasonable rate of progress for the next planning cycle.

2.	Failure to implement the SIP programs designed to achieve the planned emissions reductions and reasonable rate of progress could result in the make-up requirements in C.1. above plus sanctions targeted at sources or source categories failing to implement the planned programs or statutory sanctions, as appropriate.

D.	During each planning cycle, a mid-course (mid-cycle) evaluation should be conducted to determine if the plans being developed and implemented are moving toward the increments of progress (milestones) as anticipated or if interim adjustments are needed. If needed to achieve the milestones, such interim adjustments, including requiring additional measures or delaying/deleting measures as the reviews indicate are appropriate, should be implemented even though they may be in the middle of the current planning cycle. If no further actions are needed or attainment has been achieved, then further actions including the required minimum emissions reductions could be delayed or deleted except as needed to demonstrate maintenance of the standard.

E.	Incentives to encourage earlier attainment or early reductions are an integral part of this recommendation and should include, at a minimum, a "Safe Harbor" provision for such early attainment or reductions. This "Safe Harbor" should include provisions that those implementing programs for early attainment or early reductions would be allowed adequate time for those early programs to work and would not be required to implement any additional programs at least until the next planning cycle.

F.	After the end of the initial planning cycle, an end of cycle review would be performed prior to beginning the next phase of planning to determine if the emissions reductions were achieved and milestones met. This would include, but not be limited to, a resetting of their emissions inventory baseline, analyzing trend data of both precursors and pollutants from the previous planning cycle, verifying that monitors are properly sited, selecting new modeling episodes from the first planning cycle and developing an attainment or reasonable further progress plan for the next planning cycle.

G.	There should be requirements to achieve all of the components of the planning process with specific consequences for failure to complete each phase of the planning function. The consequences should be targeted to the specific activities they are intended to address. The consequences should also be scaled for the activity they are intended to address, such as:

*	More significant consequences for failure to plan, adopt, implement and assess progress.

*	There should not be punishment associated with failure to achieve the appropriate standard(s) if all planning and implementation components have been completed. Any consequences for failure to attain under these circumstances should only be directed to the development and implementation of further plans and strategies to attain the standards.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

1.	TIMING OF INITIATION - What should trigger the planning process (e.g., promulgation of the new NAAQS, designation of AOV, etc.)?

2.	INTEGRATION - How can an attainment dates recommendation take into consideration an integrated approach to the new NAAQS and regional haze rules?

3.	PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS - Should the attainment dates recommendation take into consideration potential public expectations such as a shorter attainment date that may result in failure to attain as compared to a longer attainment date with greater likelihood of attainment at the end?

4.	COST/BENEFITS - Should an attainment dates recommendation consider the relative costs and benefits of a shorter attainment date with potentially less assurance of attainment compared to a longer attainment date with greater likelihood of attainment at the end?

APPENDIX B Recommendations of the Attainment Dates Ad Hoc Group

The Attainment Dates ad hoc group met on October 28, 1996 in Dallas, Texas to address the issue of, to the degree possible, developing a consensus position with regard to an attainment dates recommendation to be presented to the Coordination Group and the FACA Subcommittee during their November, 1996 meetings. The ad hoc group composed of Steve Pezda, Conrad Schneider, and Herb Williams, after cooperative discussion, came to agreement on the following recommendation for future development of an attainment dates recommendation.

1.	There is a need to know the level of the standard(s) to design an attainment dates recommendation.

2.	We suggest moving the attainment dates recommendation until after the level of the standard(s) is proposed (Phase II).

3.	The time during the interim will be used to identify concepts or elements upon which consensus, as defined by the Subcommittee in its October 24, 1996 Principles for Developing Issue Papers and Presentations to the Subcommittee, can be reached and upon which an attainment dates recommendation can be built after the level of the standard(s) is known.

4.	The following is a list of concepts or elements which will be considered for inclusion in an attainment dates recommendation. The following list is not presented in any order of priority and should not be limited to the included concepts where others are appropriate to be considered.

a.	DATE CERTAIN AS A DRIVER - There needs to be a an externally imposed date for attainment as a driver for states and areas to be required to complete the planning process and implement those plans.

b.	INTERIM DATES - There may need to be some specific dates established for the various components of the attainment planning, implementation and assessment process.

c.	AOV/AOI APPROACH - The Area of Violation and Area of Influence approach should be included in the attainment dates recommendation.

d.	REASONABLE PLANNING CYCLE - A reasonable planning cycle including consideration of adequate time for the planning, rule adoption, implementation, and assessment (monitoring) portions of the planning process.

e.	TIMING OF initiation - The timing for the trigger of the planning process should be determined (i.e., initiation upon promulgation of the new NAAQS, upon AOV designation, upon what?)

f.	FLEXIBILITY - The recommendation should provide for flexibility for those areas that plan, adopt, and implement attainment demonstration program but fail to achieve the standards in spite of their "good faith" efforts. Such flexibility should include opportunities for extensions of the attainment date among other options.

g.	SCALED/TARGETED CONSEQUENCES - There should be requirements to achieve all of the components of the planning process with specific consequences for failure to complete each phase of the planning function. The consequences should be directed to the specific activities they are intended to address. The consequences should also be scaled for the activity they are intended to address, such as:

*	More significant consequences for failure to plan, adopt, implement and assess progress.

*	There should not be punishment associated with failure to achieve the appropriate standard(s) if all planning and implementation components have been completed. Any consequences for failure to attain under these circumstances should only be directed to the development and implementation further plans and strategies to attain the standards.

h.	TARGETED RFP - The recommendation should include a requirement for targeted reasonable further progress in reduction of ambient monitored levels of the pollutants.

i.	PLANNED REDUCTIONS - The recommendation should include a requirement for planned emissions reductions.

j.	ACHIEVABILITY - The recommendation should allow consideration of achievability of the new NAAQS for the different areas recognizing that depending on the stringency (level and form) of the standards they will probably be more readily achievable in some areas and may even be extremely difficult to achieve in other areas.

k.	ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR FLEXIBILITY - Specific criteria for eligibility for the flexibility provisions (i.e., extension) should be included.

l.	CONTINGENCY MEASURES - Contingency measures to ensure progress or provide consequences should be included as and where appropriate in the recommendation.

m.	MID-CYCLE REVIEWS - Mid-cycle (possibly multiple) reviews and adjustments as warranted should be required including additional measures or delaying/deleting measures as the reviews indicate are appropriate.

n.	INCENTIVES (SAFE HARBOR) - Incentives for early attainment and/or early reductions should be included such as a "Safe Harbor" concept.

o.	END-OF-CYCLE REVIEW - End-of-cycle review and assessment should be required to affirm status/progress, develop further plans (maintenance, additional attainment extension eligibility, further attainment demonstration, etc.)

p.	INTEGRATION - To the degree possible, any attainment dates recommendation should take into consideration an integrated approach to the new NAAQS and regional haze rules.

q.	PUBLIC EXPECTATIONS - Should the attainment dates recommendation take into consideration potential public expectations such as a shorter attainment date that may result in failure to attain as compared to a longer attainment date with greater likelihood of attainment at the end?

r.	COST/BENEFITS - Should an attainment dates recommendation consider the relative costs and benefits of a shorter attainment date with potentially less assurance of attainment compared to a longer attainment date with greater likelihood of attainment at the end?

s.	TRANSPORT - Since transport, both intra and inter-regional, is to some extent being considered in the development of the new NAAQS and the associated implementation plans should it also be included in an attainment dates recommendation?

t.	MET. CONDITIONS - Since provisions to address anomalous ambient levels resulting from unusual meteorological conditions, natural events and international transport are being discussed for consideration in the development of the new NAAQS and associated implementation plans should they also be included in an attainment dates recommendation?