This is a preliminary document prepared for 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 persons should forward their comments to a member of the Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group or to the contact person shown below.

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSES AND POLICIES (BPAP) WORKGROUP

ISSUE PAPER

REVISED September 18, 1996

CONTACT PERSON: Herb Williams

Telephone	(512) 239-4885 direct

(512) 239-4884 voice-mail

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

ISSUE NUMBER & TITLE:

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

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). Since the time frame necessary to gather sufficient information to make designations of areas with regard to a new PM-fine NAAQS may exceed that to make similar designations for a new ozone NAAQS, the attainment dates options discussed in this paper will be separated into those for ozone and PM-fine. Some concerns have been raised that there is a significant need for additional ozone monitoring data in rural areas to better identify the impacts from transport and assist in the identification of the proposed areas of influence. Therefore, if it is determined that such additional ozone monitoring data is needed, the timing of the designation process for ozone may be more consistent with that necessary for a new PM-fine NAAQS. Furthermore, since there is a proposal for establishment of national rules regarding regional visibility, some options concerning compliance with such new rules have been 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 will also be 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 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, ie. 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 BPAP workgroup'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.

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS

In the development of this issue paper, it was assumed that issues relating to designation, areas or zones of influence, monitoring state implementation plans (SIP), the need for more comprehensive (including rural) monitoring data for the new NAAQS, and that the PM-fine planning is seriously limited by a lack of appropriate emissions factors, an approved reference monitoring method, and an appropriate planning model analogous to the Urban Airshed Model are being addressed and resolved elsewhere. Also, 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. Likewise, 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.

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.

OPTION 1a -	EXISTING SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION AFTER INITIAL CLASSIFICATION OF UNCLASSIFIABLE - All areas would receive an initial designation of unclassifiable to allow adequate time to determine the Area of Influence. Official designations would be made after three years of monitoring data has been collected. During that three year time period, the first steps of the planning cycle (the emissions inventory and modeling) could be completed simultaneously. At the end of the period (3 years) and upon designation, the SIP would be developed and controls implemented such that reductions would be realized within four to five years of designation.

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). Those areas that qualified for the additional 10 year extension would conduct a thorough end-of- cycle review prior to beginning the next phase of planning. 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 first 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.

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. The reasonable criteria for classification determination is not limited to the severity of the pollution levels, but should also consider other relevant factors some of which could include whether the problem is local or regional in nature; is the result of transport; and the achievability of the standard considering the natural background levels of the pollutant, variability of meteorology, topography, impacts of emissions and transport from foreign countries, among many others. Also the classification scheme should be flexible to allow consideration of different approaches necessary to meet the needs of the different areas. 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. All areas would submit initial plans at the same time with the first classification demonstrating attainment by the end of the first planning cycle. The initial plans for the other classifications would be required to demonstrate reasonable, incremental progress toward attainment of the new NAAQS with the increments determined using a ratio of ozone levels reductions compared to the number of planning cycles to the ultimate attainment date for the specific classification (such as 50% reduction of ozone levels in the first 10 year planning cycle for those in the second classification and so on for those areas in later classifications). The areas would then conduct a end-of-cycle review as described in option 3 above.

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. The determination of a reasonable rate of progress should consider, among other criteria, a level that is achievable during the 10 year planning cycle. Selection of this achievable level could include evaluation of the modeling results, monitoring data trends, observational models, 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. After every planning cycle an end-of-cycle review as described in option 3 would be performed.

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 (ie: 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 1a -	EXISTING SINGLE ATTAINMENT DATE WITH OPTION FOR EXTENSION AFTER INITIAL CLASSIFICATION OF UNCLASSIFIABLE - All areas would receive an initial designation of unclassifiable to allow adequate time to determine the Area of Influence. Official designations would be made after three years of monitoring data has been collected. During that three year time period, the first steps of the planning cycle (the emissions inventory and modeling) could be completed simultaneously. At the end of the period (3 years) and upon designation, the SIP would be developed and controls implemented such that reductions would be realized within four to five years of designation.

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. Those areas that qualify for the additional 10 year extension would conduct a thorough end-of-cycle review prior to beginning the next phase of planning. 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 first 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.

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. The reasonable criteria for classification determination is not limited to the severity of the pollution levels, but should also consider other relevant factors some of which could include whether the problem is local or regional in nature; is the result of transport; and the achievability of the standard considering the natural background levels of the pollutant, variability of meteorology, topography, impacts of emissions and transport from foreign countries, among many others. Also the classification scheme should be flexible to allow consideration of different approaches necessary to meet the needs of the different areas. 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. All areas would submit initial plans at the same time with the first classification demonstrating attainment by the end of the first planning cycle. The initial plans for the other classifications would be required to demonstrate reasonable, incremental progress toward attainment of the new NAAQS with the increments determined by a ratio of PM-fine levels reductions compared to the number of planning cycles to the ultimate attainment date for the specific classification (such as 50% reduction of PM-fine precursor levels in the first 10 year planning cycle for those in the second classification and so on for those areas in later classifications). The areas would then conduct an end-of-cycle review as described in option 3.

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. The determination of a reasonable rate of progress should consider, among other criteria, a level that is achievable during the 10 year planning cycle. Selection of this achievable level could include evaluation of the modeling results, monitoring data trends, observational models, 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. There should also be consideration given impacts from natural events in selection of achievable levels, increments of progress or attainment demonstrations. After every planning cycle an end-of-cycle review as described in option 3 would be performed.

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 (ie: 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 - The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC)and Class I areas are currently required to complete a report every three years demonstrating that reasonable progress has been demonstrated toward achieving clear visibility. This report 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 5a-

FLEXIBLE ATTAINMENT BASED ON REASONABLE FURTHER PROGRESS AND PLANNED EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS -

A.	A Spatially Integrated Plan (SPIP) for each AOV should be adopted and submitted that addresses the goal of achieving attainment as expeditiously as practicable. The SPIP should allow for the use of reasonable planning cycles to make continuing progress toward attainment. The SPIP should include, when practicable, a date by which attainment can be achieved. If attainment cannot be achieved during the planning cycle using reasonable progress targets and including planned levels of emissions reductions that move the area toward attainment of the new NAAQS, a flexible attainment approach should be adopted in the SPIP that allows the use of additional planning cycles to continue progress toward attainment. 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 planning cycle is impractical, then a reasonable rate of progress should be allowed. 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 areas of influence (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.

B.	Eligibility for each successive 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 (SPIP) process and would be enforceable through that process. Failure to achieve the milestones or implement the SPIP 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 B.1. above plus sanctions targeted at sources or source categories failing to implement the planned programs or statutory sanctions, as appropriate.

C.	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 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.

D.	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.

E.	After every 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.

DATE:	Original version -	June 28, 1996

This revision -	September 18, 1996