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

DRAFT #8

June 18, 1997

Issue Paper 5. on Classifications

Note: Changes made since Draft #7 are in underline/.

ISSUE TITLE

Classifications of Designated Areas Under New NAAQS

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this issue paper is to address the following questions:

1.	Should classifications, based on the severity of air quality above the NAAQS, be used in conjunction with designations?

2.	How should the classification system be modified (if at all)?

3.	Will the current concept of attainment and nonattainment designations and classifications be workable under a regional scale approach or under an Area of Violation (AOV)/Area of Influence (AOI) approach? If not, what new approach can be used?

The classification system was a significant addition to the plan requirements for nonattainment areas under the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act (CAA). One of its purposes was to establish consistency, where needed, in terms of similar requirements for nonattainment areas, experiencing similar problems, and thereby level the playing field among otherwise diverse political jurisdictions. Another purpose was to make a statement as to the severity of the air quality problem in a way that was readily understandable to the public. For example, it is clear, simply from the name, that a severe ozone nonattainment area has a more significant air quality problem than a moderate nonattainment area.

One of the major criticisms of classifications was the inherent absence of flexibility, necessary to address local problems. While the development of virtually every state implementation plan (SIP) under the CAA has occurred with opportunities to include area specific measures to address local problems, generally there has been an accompanying core of prescribed planning and control requirements as well.

Another criticism of the current system is that it may create a sense of complacency. That is, when a classification has included a relatively distant attainment date, there may be a tendency to ignore the "expeditiously as practicable" language in the CAA and assume, up front, that attainment can be delayed until the final date, and if attainment does not occur by that date, the area need only "bump up" to the next classification and thereby receive a new, more distant attainment date. The opposite side to the attainment date problem has to do with prescribing a one-size-fits-all date for attainment which may be impossible to meet, notwithstanding the best of efforts to comply with the date.

The classification system concept may continue to have value as the new NAAQS are implemented if it preserves a measure of consistency and at the same time strikes the appropriate balance between prescription and flexibility in the planning process and helps the general public to understand the significance of the problem. The attainment dates issue is the subject of another paper, but these problems should be kept in mind when considering classifications and their implications under the new NAAQS.

Title I, Part D, Subpart 1 of the CAA establishes the general basis for classifications, once an area is designated as a nonattainment area. Accordingly, the Administrator may classify an area for the purpose of applying an attainment date and for other purposes. In determining the appropriate classification, the Administrator may consider such factors as the severity of the nonattainment problem and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. The language used in this section of the CAA suggests that these factors are not necessarily the exclusive ones which may be considered in classifying areas. Thus, there appears to be flexibility; both in terms of the decision whether or not to use a classification system and in the factors used for assigning classifications.

The specific classifications in Subpart 2 were designed to be consistent with the general principles of classification in Subpart 1. Accordingly, ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas were classified under the CAA amendments of 1990, by operation of law, according to the air quality design value, as determined by ambient air monitoring. The classification nomenclature (i.e., moderate, serious, severe, etc.) and the gap between the respective design values and the NAAQS suggested the severity of the nonattainment problem. Each classification also applied an attainment date and carried with it, specific planning and control requirements, increasing in stringency with the classification. The requirements for 15% control plans, RACT, I/M, clean fuels, etc., incorporated the concept of availability and feasibility of pollution control measures into the classification system.

The CAA also addressed air quality on a regional scale. Sections 176A and 184 provided for the establishment of Interstate Transport Regions for criteria pollutants. Each state within the transport region may be required to incorporate control measures into their State Implementation Plans (SIP), stringent and timely enough to mitigate the contribution of emissions from the state to nonattainment problems in another state within the transport region. These regional requirements were likewise crafted to be consistent with the general Subpart 1 factors, suggesting that a classification system may be appropriate to address regional transport issues.

There is a new opportunity to consider the general classification factors in Subpart 1, in light of the proposed new standards for ozone and fine particulates and the regional transport problems which may need to be addressed under the new standards. As a starting point, a more detailed analysis of these general factors is in order.

Applying an attainment date: Section 172(a)(2) of the CAA establishes the process for applying attainment dates for new NAAQS. Once a nonattainment area is designated, then a date is set to ensure attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than 5 years from the date of designation. This date may be extended to up to 10 years from the date of designation, in consideration of severity of the nonattainment problem and the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures. A nonattainment area may qualify for up to 2 one-year extensions of the attainment date if the state has met all SIP requirements and no more than a minimal number of exceedances of the NAAQS has occurred in the year immediately preceding the extension year.

Section 172(a)(2) thus implies a possible two-tiered classification system of a shorter term (no more than 5 years) and a longer term (no more than 10 years). A short-term nonattainment area would have a less "severe" or less complex nonattainment problem and access to more readily available and feasible pollution control measures to address the nonattainment problem, as compared to a long-term nonattainment area. Presumably, short-term nonattainment areas would have readily identifiable internal problems which could be addressed relatively quickly through control measures which already are proved to have the desired mitigating effect. In light of potential new standards for ozone and fine particulates, the as yet poorly understood roles of regional transport and secondary pollutant formation and their contribution to regional nonattainment problems go to the heart of the issue of availability of control measures, suggesting that areas impacted by these phenomena would be best suited to a long-term nonattainment classification.

Severity of the nonattainment problem: Severity suggests the extent of the public health risk and/or the difficulty and/or the complexity involved in bringing an area into attainment of the standard. The design value concept, previously discussed, is one way to reflect severity of the nonattainment problem. That is, if the monitored design value is far in excess of the standard, the health risk to the exposed public is assumed to be greater than would be the case in areas meeting the NAAQS or only moderately exceeding the NAAQS. A high design value also implies that more controls and/or more stringent controls must be applied and/or more time is needed to meet the standard than would be the case in an area where the design value is already close to the standard. These same factors involving controls and time frames could also be used independent of a design value concept, to reflect severity of a nonattainment problem.

Another way to look at severity is in terms of the number of days per year over which the standard is exceeded. The concept is that the public is more at risk from repeated exposure to unhealthy air than is the case where exposure is less frequent.

Severity could also suggest the number of individuals at risk. If the goal is, given limited resources, to improve the air quality for the greatest number of people, a classification system could distinguish between small and large exposed populations. This approach, while possibly being the most cost effective, may raise serious ethical questions about environmental justice (i.e., shall we let the few suffer for the benefit of the majority?). On the other hand, since many of the air quality problems revealed by the new NAAQS are expected to be regional in scope, the control programs which mitigate the problem experienced in the populated areas may have the same beneficial results in the rural areas.

A final way to gauge severity is in terms of complexity of the problem. Under an integrated approach which addresses multiple pollutants in the planning process (i.e., ozone, PM, regional haze), the solutions may be so complex that it may be more difficult and more time and resource consuming to address a multiple pollutant problem as compared to a more simple single pollutant problem.

Thus, a classification system may address any number of factors (e.g., attainment difficulty, exceedance days, population at risk, complexity), rather than exclusively the design value of the highest exceedance, and still reflect the severity of the nonattainment problem.

Availability and feasibility of pollution control measures: As previously suggested, the availability and feasibility of pollution control measures have bearing on the attainment date and the severity of the nonattainment problem. A significant part of the problem in addressing new NAAQS for ozone and fine particulates is determining which control measures will bring nonattainment areas into attainment of the NAAQS. Several steps must occur in SIP development before the process of identifying and evaluating candidate control measures may begin; including, developing emission inventories of pollutants and their precursors, development of models, air monitoring studies, and regional transport assessments.

In a sense, until these steps are followed, the pollution control measures are not "available" because no one knows for certain which measures will improve air quality most effectively. Even after the planning process is completed, the choice of appropriate control measures may still be somewhat of a matter of conjecture. Given limited resources, limited time as suggested by the constraints of Section 172(a)(2), and a number of possible control strategies, the challenge is to come up with the best combination of strategies which will strike the balance between cost effectiveness and air quality benefit and accomplish the air quality goals in a timely manner.

Even after the nonattainment problem has been thoroughly assessed, it may be necessary to develop new control measures, assess their effect, and determine their feasibility. This process, leading up to effective control measures, will be easier in some nonattainment areas and more complex in others. The relative ease or difficulty may suggest different classifications for the various identified nonattainment and transport areas.

Other factors: As stated previously, there may be other factors considered when assigning classifications. In other words, there is flexibility to deviate significantly from old classification systems if a different approach makes for a more effective way to address nonattainment problems. Innovative classification systems may be especially useful in addressing regional transport problems or other situations where the state of knowledge is in its preliminary stages and the law does not address a specific classification system.

The FACA Subcommittee and Work Groups have been moving away from the traditional nonattainment area approach to air quality problems and toward promotion of a system involving Areas of Influence (AOI) and Areas of Violation (AOV). An AOV is the area where exceedances of the NAAQS are recorded, but not necessarily the area targeted by attainment plans and emission controls. The AOI is the area containing the sources of emissions which cause the exceedances in the AOV. The AOI therefore is subject to the planning and control requirements to improve air quality. A classification system, based on other factors, may best fit this new AOI/AOV approach.

In order to arrive at a policy decision on classifications under the new NAAQS, it is important first to define the possible goals of a classification system. If there are no inherent advantages to classifying areas, then there is no point in developing classifications. The following classification goals are therefore worth considering:

a.	Consistency - A classification system may be useful if it establishes an appropriate level of national or regional consistency in terms of planning requirements and control requirements. Consistency establishes a level playing field and thereby addresses the issue of forcing economic development out of one region and into another.

b.	Education - A classification system may be used to educate the general public and the regulated community as to the seriousness of an air quality problem. When the implications of a problem are understood, then it may become easier to enlist support to develop solutions. A classification system for education purposes could also be used as a measure of progress in meeting the air quality standards. As control measures are implemented and air quality improves, the classification could change to reflect the air quality improvement.

c.	Hierarchy - A classification system facilitates the development of a hierarchy of planning and control requirements and attainment dates, tailored to the type or severity of the air quality problem.

d.	Bump Up - Related to hierarchy, if an area fails to attain the standard, a classification system provides a method of bump up to the next level in the hierarchy.

e.	Complexity - Some areas will have exclusively internal air quality attainment problems, while others may be heavily influenced by transport of pollutants, or there may be a combination of internal and transport phenomena. A classification system is one way to draw distinctions between these different problems.

f.	Integrated Planning - Some areas may have compound problems with ozone, fine particulates, and regional haze. A classification system could be used to distinguish between areas with compound problems (identifying the requirements for integrated planning) and those with simple, single-pollutant problems.

Finally, it should be noted that the EPA Administrator has the option not to classify areas at all, as implied by the use of the word "may" in Section 172(a)(1). A decision not to classify, will depend to a great extent upon the degree of prescription or flexibility in developing plans and control strategies to meet the standards.

At one extreme, total flexibility could be given toward planning, strategizing, and conferring of attainment dates. There could be no national core requirements whatsoever, other than a requirement to plan, and each area could come up with its own unique set of strategies for attaining the standards, according to a date which best fits the regional situation. If this approach is taken, then most, if not all, of the classification goals are moot.

At the other extreme, there could be complete prescription of plans, strategies, and dates and a hierarchy which increases in stringency according to the severity of the problem. A classification system would go well with such prescription.

More realistically, there will be a combination of core requirements (prescription) and regional discretion (flexibility) above and beyond the core. The Base Programs and Policies Work Group would do well to arrive at a consensus as to where is the best point to settle within the prescription/flexibility continuum, as the work group considers the ultimate recommendation on classifications.

Another issue, where consensus will help aid the further discussions of classifications, is the meaning of the concept of attainment dates. The traditional meaning has to with when an area meets the standards, as evidenced by measured air quality data. More recently, it has been suggested by some that this concept should be replaced with planning cycles. While the goal is still to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable, the only date to which a region is held accountable, is the end of the planning cycle. By this date, all of the planning and control requirement commitments must have been met. If measured air quality still reflects exceedance of the standard, then a new planning cycle begins.

Two FACA documents suggest retention of the classical definition of attainment date (i.e., attainment evidenced by measured air quality). They are the Content Related Principles For Developing Work Group Issue Papers (1/24/97) and the Attainment Dates Ad Hoc Sub-Workgroup Recommendations paper (10/28/96).

According to the first document:

"All options/recommendations must be based upon specified deadlines for planning, implementing and attaining the NAAQS..."

Federal intervention (sanctions) is reserved for failure to plan or failure to implement a plan, but there is still an expectation of planning to meet a specified attainment date.

The second document states:

"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."

A final issue to consider is what happens to the former classification of a nonattainment area under the former NAAQS when the new NAAQS (and presumably new classifications) take effect. On December 13, 1996, EPA proposed an Interim Implemen-tation Policy on New or Revised Ozone and Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA proposes that the "old" NAAQS are to remain in effect until SIPs are approved for the "new" NAAQS. Part of what remains in effect are the existing classifications and their accompanying control requirements. However, areas that are under a given classification (e.g., serious) going into the interim period, will not be bumped up to a higher classification (e.g., severe) while the interim period is in effect. Once the new SIP is approved, the "old" NAAQS is revoked, which means that the former classification gives way to the system governing the new NAAQS. To the extent that the current NAAQS are not revoked (e.g., annual PM-10 standard) the former classification systems remain in effect, concurrent with any new classification system for new NAAQS.

Issues

Absent a specific recommendation by the work group at this point, it should be noted that none of the following options that accompanies the issues is intended to be exclusive of any of the others. There is an opportunity to mix and match the following options, with the ultimate goal of developing a composite recommendation for the FACA Subcommittee.

1.	Should the current approach to classification be retained? The CAA provides a model for classifying nonattainment areas or AOVs (i.e., marginal, moderate, serious, severe, etc.). The same model could be used for new ozone and fine particulate NAAQS, based on one or more factors, such as attainment date, severity, availability of control measures, and complexity of the nonattainment problem. The primary advantage is that the model is already familiar to those involved in addressing nonattainment issues. Also, a classification system allows for "bump up" of an area in the event of failure to attain the NAAQS, such that more stringent requirements may be imposed to address a more difficult nonattainment problem. This current approach is the most prescriptive in terms of attainment dates and actions required, pursuant to the classifications. Prescriptiveness may be considered an advantage or disadvantage, depending on one's point of view.

There may not be enough differences (i.e., differing control and planning requirements, difference in design values) between nonattainment areas or AOVs to justify separate classifications. Some have suggested that the traditional classification labels carry with them certain negative connotations with questionable value in terms of better addressing the nonattainment problem. Others suggest that these labels are an important means of identifying the significance of the problem to the general public. If regional transport is the predominant problem (i.e., the sources in need of control are in the AOI), the traditional system of classifying the nonattainment area (or AOV) may not adequately address the transport problem, unless the classification imposes requirements on the AOI.

Option 1a: Retain the current classification system.

Option 1b: Replace the current system with another option.

2.	Should there be a Two-tiered approach to classification? As previously described, the no more than 5-year and no more than 10-year attainment dates in Section 172(a)(2) of the CAA suggest a two-tiered classification of short-term and long-term nonattainment areas (or AOVs), respectively. Thus, all nonattainment areas or AOVs could be classified initially as short-term in an effort to implement the "easy" local controls or the uniformly applied national control measures in an expeditious time frame of 5 years or less. As a slight variation, if a combination of "easy" local and regional controls could bring about attainment of the NAAQS in the "short term", then this initial classification could apply to the AOV and carry with it requirements both for the AOV and the AOI.

Areas with continuing, more complex nonattainment problems, including most areas affected by regional transport of pollutants, could be bumped up at a later date to long-term status, with added planning and control requirements applied to the AOI in exchange for the extended attainment date. Alternately, up-front decisions could be made as to which nonattainment areas or AOVs will be short-term or long-term, with classifications applied accordingly.

The Base Programs Ad Hoc Sub-Workgroup, in its recommendations on attainment dates, stated the need for externally imposed dates for attainment, as a driver for states and areas to be required to complete the planning process and implement the plans, along with interim dates for the various components of the attainment planning, implementation and assessment process. A tiered approach to classification with prescribed attainment dates would be consistent with this concept.

Option 2a: All areas are classified initially as "short term", with an attainment date of no more than 5 years from the date of designation. Bump up to "long term" occurs for those areas that do not attain after 5 years, and a new attainment date is assigned, which is no more than 10 years from the original date of designation.

Option 2b: Up front decisions are made at the time of designation as to which areas will be "short term" and which areas will be "long term" nonattainment areas. Generally, those areas having to address complex transport issues will be classified as "long term", and given up to 10 years to attain the NAAQS.

It should be emphasized that an underlying assumption for Options 2a & b is strict adherence to the 5 and 10-year attainment time frames under Section 172(a)(2) of the CAA. The issue paper on Attainment Dates discusses the possibility of longer time frames for attainment of the NAAQS.

3.	Should areas be classified specifically to address regional transport? This is a variation of Issue 2. Instead of addressing the time frame for attainment (e.g., short term, long term), it could instead be recognized up front that the overriding issue, involving time to attain the standard, is regional transport of air pollutants. As with Issue 2, a distinction is drawn between the areas which need only the "easy" local controls and those areas which are impacted by transport to varying degrees.

Regional transport is a very complex problem, and therefore it may take considerable time to determine the extent to which an AOV is impacted by transport and to define the AOI which is impacting the AOV. Thus, in order to properly classify an area to address regional transport, the assessment would need to precede the classification and considerable time may elapse before the proper classification is assigned. Keeping this matter of delayed classification in mind, areas impacted by transport could be classified as follows:

Option 3a: Simple Transport Area - The air quality problem is largely internal (i.e., due to sources within the AOV), but there are a few easily identifiable sources or source categories within the AOI which need to be addressed.

Option 3b: Complex Transport Area - The AOI is large or complex (i.e., crossing multiple state boundaries, etc.) and there is a complex make up of sources within the AOI which are contributing to exceedances within the AOV.

Option 3c: Compound Transport Area - The AOV does not meet the standard for more than one pollutant (ozone, PM, regional haze) and a compound strategy is needed in the AOI to address all of the problems.

4.	Should areas be classified to emphasize differences between AOIs and AOVs? As previously stated, AOVs are the areas where exceedances of the NAAQS are recorded, but not necessarily the areas to apply planning and control requirements. In contrast, AOIs are the areas to which the planning and control requirements apply, because of their impact on the AOVs. A classification system would therefore have a very different purpose for an AOV than it would have for an AOI.

The AOV could be classified independent of the AOI to reflect the severity of the air quality problem, inform the public of the problem, and educate the public on ways to protect against the consequent health impacts. An education program and/or emergency episode plan could be required in the AOV to include public health warnings on days when air quality is poor. The level of classification (i.e., severity) may determine whether the program would consist merely of education or include an episode plan.

An independent classification of the AOV could also include bump up/bump down features as a means to recognize air quality progress or deterioration of air quality. Under the current classification system, there is no recognition of air quality improvement. In fact, an area could have experienced considerable improvement in terms of reducing the number of days of violation and/or peak air pollutant levels and still be reclassified to a higher level of severity, based on failure to meet an attainment deadline. The prospect of rewarding progress through a bump down feature, could actually be an incentive to move forward with the strategies required to reach attainment.

All of the ultimate planning and control requirements, necessary to achieve attainment, would be applied to the AOI, rather than to the AOV. Thus, there could be separate classification systems (one for the AOV and one for the AOI), reflecting the different purposes in classifying the two types of areas.

As a slight variation, there may be an opportunity to formally recognize air quality progress in both the AOV and the AOI. The issue paper entitled Reasonable Further Progress is developing options to define the metric for gauging reasonable further progress (RFP). There are two types of progress currently under consideration: Planning and Administrative Actions (e.g., adopting/implementing rules; investment on measures; deployment of monitors; etc.) and Cleaning Up the Air (e.g., reductions in the air pollutant inventory; measured air quality improvement; etc.). Depending on the metric or series of metrics selected to gauge RFP, a bump up/bump down feature may be useful as part of the classification system in the AOI as well as in the AOV.

The following options are presented separately, though they are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Option 4a: Assign a classification to the AOV with appropriate nomenclature which reflects the severity of the nonattainment problem, and prescribe a public education and/or episode advisory program. Include bump up and bump down features to recognize deterioration or improvement in air quality.

Option 4b: Assign a classification to the AOI which does not address severity, but instead addresses planning and/or control requirements. Include bump down and bump up features to recognize progress or lack of progress on the planning and administrative side of RFP.

5.	Should areas close to nonattainment be classified? Please refer to the issue paper entitled, Treatment of Areas in which Air Quality Trends Indicate the Risk of Violating an Ambient Standard.

6.	Should classifications be made by area of control? Previous papers have pointed out the need to define large AOIs in order to capture the sources contributing to the problem, but also recognize that some portions of the AOI may have a greater impact on the AOV, by virtue of meteorology, geography, source strength, proximity to the AOV, etc. It may therefore be useful to subdivide the AOI into different areas of control with accompanying classifications, which carry with them a core of requirements which become more stringent in accordance with the severity of impact of the area of control on the AOV. This approach would work best if the AOIs were geographically very large, and it would require considerable analysis to appropriately subdivide the AOI.

7.	Should classifications be made to identify core requirements? This concept is captured in Issue 6, with specific reference to subdividing the AOI, but the concept may also stand alone. Each classification may carry with it, specific planning and control requirements. The classification system then becomes the means to impose the core requirements (or progressive requirements in the case of a bump up) which are in addition to the requirements identified by the state for the specific area. If it is desirable to impose prescriptive core requirements, based on severity or complexity of the problem, then a classification system is a proven means to bring this about.

The details of the specific core control requirements are beyond the scope of this issue paper. For more detail on possible control requirements, refer to the Control Strategies issue paper. The concept of Differential Prescription (Control Strategies paper, Sub-question 2, Option 5) may be best implemented through a classifications system.

The Base Programs Ad Hoc Sub-Workgroup identified a number of elements to be included in future development of an attainment dates recommendation. Several of these elements could be developed into core requirements which increase in number and/or stringency under a classification system. Examples of elements to be developed further into core requirements include scaled/targeted consequences for failure to meet plan commitments; targeted RFP; planned emission reductions; contingency measures; and mid-cycle review.

Because of past emphasis in attainment planning on a particular core of source controls in a given area (e.g., point source controls in the east; area source controls in the west), there may not be enough prospective "traditional" source controls remaining to design a core of requirements in the same sense that it was accomplished under the current classification system. The next round of core requirements may have to emphasize controls on sources that were deemed less significant in previous planning exercises.

Despite best efforts to craft core planning and control requirements with nationwide applicability, there is always the prospect that part of the core may not benefit attainment progress for certain areas, due to their unique problems and characteristics. One possible solution is the concept of a rebuttable presumption of core requirements. In other words, if one or more planning or control requirements does not fit a particular area, the state could be given the option of substituting or even eliminating area specific requirements, as long as it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA that area specific measures had an equivalent benefit or were even unnecessary, in terms of emission reductions and making reasonable further progress. A substitute measure could be something altogether different from the measure that it replaces (e.g., a mobile source measure for a stationary source measure). The details for a substitution program would best be worked out in the issue paper on Control Strategies.

If a rebuttable presumption process is to be used, one of the significant issues to be worked out is the degree of "proof" required to rebut the prescribed measure. At one extreme, the state could be given complete discretion over rebuttal with a very minimal amount of justification required. On the other extreme, EPA could require and oversee a very rigorous demonstration of proof of equivalency for the substitute measure and similar proof for the complete elimination of a requirement.

Another aspect of this issue is the degree to which emphasis is placed on the core control requirements versus the core planning requirements. The traditional approach is to prescribe a mixture of planning and control requirements. Another possible approach would be to prescribe planning requirements alone (i.e., attainment date, rate of progress, mid-cycle review) and leave the control requirements solely to the discretion of the local planning body.

The following options are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

Option 7a: Classify the area of control to automatically impose a set of control requirements.

Option 7b: Classify the area of control as in 7a above, but allow the planning body to rebut one or more control requirements according to established procedures of "proof".

Option 7c: Classify the area as in 7b above, but require substitution of any rebutted measure by one that achieves equivalent air quality benefit.

Option 7d: Classify the area of control to automatically impose a set of planning requirements.

8.	Should there be no classifications? As previously stated, the Administrator of EPA may classify areas under Section 172(a)(1) of the CAA. Implied is that the Administrator also may not choose to classify areas at all. If the control and planning issues are not significantly different from one area to another, then perhaps a classification system is not needed to adequately address nonattainment issues.

Many of the potential core control requirements have already been accomplished over the past 20 years of attainment planning. Therefore, there may not be enough additional prospective core requirements available to establish a hierarchy and thereby justify a classification system. Additionally, it should be noted that a classification (especially a bump up to a more rigorous classification) is sometimes viewed as a quasi-sanction against the nonattain-ment area. The prospect of a bump up, sometimes makes it more difficult to enlist the support of local governments in addressing the air quality issues, because the bump up is viewed as a punishment. Unless there is an intent to use classifications as sanctions, then this may be another reason not to employ a classification system.

Finally, it should be noted that some, but not all, of the goals, traditionally associated with classifications, are achievable without using a classification system. A core of prescribed planning and/or control requirements could be applied uniformly to all nonattainment areas, with the rebuttable presumption provision allowing for area specific variation. The public could be educated as to the seriousness of an air quality problem without attaching a classification label to the area. Perhaps the greatest advantages to classifications, in terms of goals, are to establish a hierarchy of controls, to provide a mechanism for bump up/bump down, and to distinguish between areas affected by transport or multiple pollutants and those with simpler or single pollutant air quality problems.

CONTACT PERSON:

Name:	Eric Skelton

Phone:	(509) 456-4727 x 121

Fax:	(509) 459-6828

e-mail:	scapca@iea.com

Date:	Prepared June 18, 1997