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.

Integration of Contingency Measures Issues With

Control Strategies and the President's Directive

Date: October 2, 1997 (Draft #3)

Contact: Eric Skelton	Phone: (509) 456-4727 x 121

FAX: (509) 459-6828

Email: scapca@iea.com

Background

The President's Directive (the Directive) of July 16, 1997, on Implementation of Revised Air Quality Standards for Ozone and Particulate Matter calls for common sense, flexible, and cost effective approaches toward implementation of the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)for ozone and particulate matter (PM) while maintaining progress toward cleaner air. The Directive also recognizes the provisions of Subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) as governing the ultimate implementation and attainment of the revised NAAQS. Thus, the concepts of attainment dates [§172(a)(2)], reasonable further progress [§172(c)(2)], control strategies [§172(c)(6)], and contingency measures [§172(c)(9)] remain as fundamental elements of attainment planning under the law and under the Directive.

The Control Strategies Subgroup's issue paper on Control Strategies proposes an alternative framework for SIP development and implementation, in light of the principles in the Directive, to address those nonattainment areas which cannot rely on regional measures alone for attainment of the revised NAAQS. This framework allows for the implementation of innovative and nontraditional measures (e.g., economic incentives, voluntary measures) as long as the SIP includes specific rate-of-progress targets (customized for the specific nonattainment area) and deadlines, an attainment demonstration by the statutory deadline, and a set of prescribed contingency measures as "backstops" which would automatically take effect, in the event rate-of-progress requirements are not met. These contingency measures would be designed to ensure timely attainment of the NAAQS by achieving quantifiable emission reductions.

Premise

The BPAPWG, in its September 24, 1997, teleconference, agreed to the premise that all areas of the United States that ultimately are declared nonattainment or Transitional, relative to the revised NAAQS, need to make real, quantifiable progress toward attainment, with the goal of meeting the statutory attainment deadlines identified under Subpart 1 of Part D of Title I of the FCAA, as expeditiously as practicable. Therefore, the contingency measures, identified in the SIPs, must be true "backstops", as conceived by the Control Strategies Subgroup, sustaining rate of progress requirements and ensuring timely attainment of the NAAQS by achieving quantifiable emission reductions. For those areas of the United States which fail to attain the revised NAAQS by the statutory deadlines, despite strict adherence to an implementation plan which projected attainment, the consequences of such continued nonattainment will be addressed according to the provisions of §179(d).

Contingency Measure Issues and Options

Under the Alternative Framework

In light of the Directive, the Subgroup's proposal on the alternative framework for SIP development, and the above premise, the BPAPWG is prepared to make recommendations on how the various issues and options contained in the July 28, 1997, draft of the issue paper on Contingency Measures can best fulfill the need for "backstops" under the alternative framework for SIP development.

Episodic Measures (Issue #1)

Episodic measures should be allowed as contingency measures to the extent that emission reductions are quantifiable and enforceable, and the measures satisfy the restrictions of 40 CFR Part 51 regulations. Serious consideration should be given to the premise that if episodic measures are part of a full seasonal effort to reduce emissions, then they are not excluded from consideration.

Voluntary Measures (Issue #2)

Voluntary measures should be allowed as contingency measures, but they would initially receive less emission reduction credit than enforceable measures. Determination of initial credit must be conservative so as not to overestimate the actual emission reduction benefit or air quality improvement. More credit should be given retrospectively after such measures have "proven" their emission reductions. (See the Issue Paper on Reasonable Further Progress for a more detailed discussion of this concept.) There should be a distinction made between voluntary measures which are part of an economic incentive program and those measures which are strictly voluntary.

Timeframe for Adoption (Issue #3)

Contingency measures need to be adopted when the SIP is first developed, such that they can be implemented quickly (i.e., within one year) once it is determined that an area has failed to make reasonable further progress.

Reguired Emission Reduction/Air Quality Improvement (Issue #7)

The contingency measures must be able to keep the nonattainment area on track toward attainment, according to the customized rate of progress identified in the Subgroup's alternative framework or according to the nationally standardized "RFP metric" identified in the issue paper on Reasonable Further Progress. There must be sufficient collective credit from the menu of contingency measures to replicate the entirety of emission reductions needed to achieve timely progress and attainment.

Substitution of Measures (Issue #8)

As the state of knowledge increases as to the emission sources which primarily contribute to the nonattainment problem, it may be determined that contingency measures, other than the ones initially adopted in the SIP, would be more effective in achieving reasonable further progress and timely attainment of the revised NAAQS. Therefore, there should be an opportunity to substitute equally or more effective contingency measures for the original contingency measures. An assured opportunity for substitution may relieve some of the anxiety associated with having to identify "up-front" contingency measures in the SIP (Issue #3).

Measures for Areas Unable to Demonstrate Attainment (Issue #11)

SIPs for these areas must still include contingency measures. Cost-effectiveness bench marks may be used in order to draw the line between core SIP measures and contingency measures, keeping in mind that all reasonably available contol measures must be implemented as core measures. The opportunity for substitution (Issue #8) is available to these areas. The problem remains for these areas that an implementation plan under Subpart 1 of the FCAA cannot be approved unless it demonstrates attainment of the NAAQS. The BPAPWG requests the Subcommittee to consider possible remedies, other than sanctions, for these areas.

Planning Requirements as "Contingency Measures" (Issue #13)

A commitment merely to do planning mid-course would not be an acceptable contingency measure. This concept would go against the principle of having enforceable, quantifiable reductions in the SIP to ensure rate of progress. However, this principle would not preclude a mid-course reassessment and substitution of other measures.

Contingency Measure Principles for Transitional Areas

The EPA Administrator will make nonattainment designations in the year 2000 for areas not meeting the revised ozone NAAQS. The Directive makes available a new Transitional classification for areas attaining the 1-hour NAAQS by 2000 but not meeting the revised NAAQS, as long as states agree to submit attainment plans by 2000 and/or have the ability to rely on regional measures to bring about early attainment of the revised ozone NAAQS.

There will be three different scenarios under which areas qualify for the Transitional classification:

Areas show attainment solely from the emission reductions achieved through implementation of the regional (OTAG) transport strategy.

Areas must rely on a combination of local measures and the regional transport strategy.

Areas achieve minimal or no benefit from the regional transport strategy and must rely solely on local measures.

The advantages of the Transitional classification include minimal planning requirements, streamlined attainment demonstrations, minimal revisions required for existing Conformity and New Source Review programs, and opportunity to rely on regional measures for the necessary emission reductions. For areas able to attain the revised NAAQS, based on regional measures alone, the simplified attainment planning process is an advantage that probably makes up for the difficulties of having to plan three years early.

The Transitional classification carries with it implementation date (2004) and assessment date (2007) requirements consistent with the schedule for OTAG states. There are 4 circumstances under which a Transitional area could fail to meet its deadlines (presented with proposed remedy or consequence):

1.	EPA failed to implement national measures in a timely manner and states were relying on the emission reductions to meet rate of progress requirements.

Remedy: EPA implements preadopted national contingency measures.

2.	EPA implemented the national measures, but these measures failed to achieve the projected emission reduction or air quality benefit.

Remedy: EPA implements preadopted national contingency measures.

3.	The state failed to implement measures in a timely manner which were part of the attainment plan or regional strategy. Consequence: Sanctions or preadoped Federal Implementation Plan goes into effect.

4.	The state/local measures failed to achieve the projected emission reduction or air quality benefit.

Remedy: State implements preadopted contingency measures.

Contingency Measure Principles For Areas Not

Attaining The 1-Hour Or The 8-Hour Ozone Standard

Severe (1-hour) ozone nonattainment areas not meeting the revised NAAQS by the year 2000 will be designated nonattainment under both standards and will not be eligible for the Transitional classification. The following requirements and schedules will apply to these areas:

2000: Nonattainment designation for 8-hour standard. The 1-hour nonattainment designation, severe area classification, and severe area attainment plan requirements remain in effect.

2003: Attainment plan for meeting the 8-hour standard is due. The plan can either show attainment of the 8-hour standard simultaneous with meeting the 1-hour standard (relying on severe area emission reductions) or use additional core and contingency measures to demonstrate attainment of the 8-hour standard after attaining the 1-hour standard. The measures for attaining the 8- hour standard may be in accordance with the alternative frame work for SIP development, as described above.

2005/2007: Attainment date for 1-hour standard. If necessary, this is the effective date for beginning to implement the core 8- hour attainment plan. If the 1-hour standard has not been attained, the following occur:

Consideration of 1-year extension or sanctions.

§172(c)(9) 1-hour contingency measures take effect.

§181(b)(4) measures take effect.

Note that three different sets of control measures potentially begin to take effect all at once.

2005/2010: Attainment date for 8-hour standard. If the 8-hour standard has not been attained, the contingency measures in the 8-hour attainment plan take effect. There are now 5 sets of applicable control requirements in effect: 1-hour core, 1-hour contingency, §181(b)(4) measures, 8-hour core, and 8-hour contingency.