This is a preliminary document prepared by a subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee on Ozone/Particulate Matter/Regional Haze Implementation Programs. The subgroup is composed of members of the Coordination Group, the National and Regional Strategies work group (NRSWG), and the Base Programs and Policies work group. Members are Bill Becker, Nina Dougherty, Larry Feldcamp, Steve Gerritson, Richard Hayslip, and David Hawkins. The subgroup was facilitated by David Mobley and supported by Robin Dunkins and Nancy Mayer. It is not an EPA document. This document has not been thoroughly reviewed by the work groups or Coordination Group and is subject to further discussions. However, the issues and options for this topic have been discussed by the subgroup and are being referred to the Subcommittee by the subgroup as it has been determined that further consensus is unlikely.

PROGRESS DURING SIP DEVELOPMENT ISSUE PAPER

Date:	06/03/97

Status:	Final for Subcommittee review; Results from subgroup discussion

Contact:	Nina Dougherty representing NRSWG, 801/581-8771, FAX 801/581-3632

Introduction

This paper addresses issues associated with progress requirements during the period of time after the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS's) are promulgated and up to when the State Implementation Plan (SIP) has been approved by EPA. The areas covered by this paper include all areas that potentially violate or potentially contribute to a violation of the new/revised standards for ozone and PM-fine. This paper does not address any changes to Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) for current nonattainment areas as described in the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP).

Note: The Progress During SIP Development issue paper is linked to the NAAQS Implementation Diagram (June 3, 1997); Reasonable Further Progress issue paper (May 28, 1997); the Control Strategies issue paper (June 2, 1997); the Special Applications of Economic Incentives issue paper (March 31, 1997); the Incentives for Reducing Emissions from Area & Mobile Sources issue paper (June 2, 1997); the Reward and Sanctions issue paper (February 13, 1997); the Transportation Conformity issue paper (May 30, 1997); the New Source Review issue paper (November 15, 1996); the Reasonable Further Progress Metrics paper written by Alan Krupnick (October 16, 1996); and the Reasonable Further Progress Requirements in the Areas of Influence (AOI)/Area of Violation (AOV) thought piece by Don Theiler (October 8, 1996) as well as the original version of this issue paper, Pre-SIP RFP (March 28, 1997). Readers are encouraged to refer to these papers for additional insight.

Background

As currently defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), three years of ambient data are required to designate an area as nonattainment for the NAAQS. After being designated as nonattainment for an ambient standard, an area has up to three years to develop and submit an implementation plan to bring the area into attainment with the standard. A major difference in requirements for the new NAAQS versus the requirements defined in the CAA for the existing NAAQS is the reduction of ozone precursor emissions (i.e., VOC) during the first six years as required by Section 182. This period included the time that an area had to develop and implement its SIP. For the proposed new standards, no reductions are currently required by an area until after SIP approval.

It has been argued that some progress should be made during this time period. The IIP requires certain measures for existing ozone nonattainment areas that will remain in violation but does not apply to new areas violating the new NAAQS or to areas impacting existing nonattainment areas that are not themselves designated nonattainment. It is recognized that several ongoing national programs will result in improved air quality. These include the MACT and acid rain programs as well as national mobile source emission reductions and new rules promulgated pursuant to Section 183 of the CAA.

Issues

1. When should progress begin?

Option 1 - The NAAQS promulgation date

Option 2 - The date the AOVs or nonattainment areas are proposed

Option 3 - The date the AOVs or nonattainment areas are finalized

Option 4 - The date of preliminary AOI designation

Option 5 - The date of final AOI designation

Option 6 - The dates the RAMPs are set up

It was generally agreed that the need for progress during SIP development begins when the NAAQS are promulgated.

2. Where should progress apply?

Option 1 - Nationwide

Option 2 - Within XX miles of monitored NAAQS violations

Option 3 - AOVs, nonattainment areas, and areas likely to violate the standard

Option 4 - Preliminary AOI

Option 5 - Final AOI

It was generally agreed that the need for progress applies nationwide with emphasis on areas that contribute to a violation of the standard.

3. What will progress be?

Option 1 - Nothing additional (IIP+MACT+ acid rain program, etc.)

This option alone was not deemed viable as it was generally agreed that some further progress should be expected.

Option 2 - National measures (EPA adopted measures)

It was generally agreed that EPA should be charged with pursuing appropriate national measures for the new NAAQS (without the necessity of the subgroup or the FACA Subcommittee specifying exactly what they should be).

Option 3 - State planning efforts

It was generally agreed that state/local planning efforts should be required in conjunction with RAMP activities. This includes:

- Gather resources/hire people

- Emission inventory development

- Air quality modeling activities

- Monitoring network deployment

Option 4 - Encourage early reductions through an economic incentive program

While everyone seems to favor certain incentives and some voluntary measures, the environmental community felt that there should also be emission control requirements for states. Thus, this option alone was not deemed viable.

Option 5 - Extend IIP requirements to more areas (i.e., current reduction program under Section 182 - 3 percent per year until attainment)

It was generally agreed that extending the IIP would not adequately address PM2.5 issues. Thus, this option was not deemed viable.

Option 6 - Liability for state emission reductions (States would incur liability for emission reductions from an early baseline date, similar to the 15% VOC reduction required by 1996 by the 1990 CAAA.)

It was generally agreed that this option did not have appeal to any of the stakeholders.

Option 7 - Required state emission reduction measures (States would be required to adopt and implement rules requiring emission reductions.)

It was noted that states and industry generally do not favor this approach, while the environmental community desires some requirements for emission reductions from states during the planning process. Options include:

A. Voluntary or economic incentive measures

B. Required control measures as soon as designations are made

C. Required control measures as soon as standards are promulgated and	violations are known or suspected

Option 8 - Time table requirements

It was generally agreed that this option was not a viable option for what constitutes progress and would be dealt with in conjunction with other issues.

4. Authority for progress requirements?

Option 1 - PSD

Option 2 - Section 110(a)(2)(H)

Option 3 - Section 126

It was generally agreed that this issue should be referred to OGC.

5. Should PM, regional haze and ozone be treated the same or differently?

Option 1 - Yes, to have consistency.

Option 2 - No, because ozone has more information than PM/regional haze.

It was generally decided that a consistent approach was preferred.

Summary

It was generally agreed that progress should include:

1. State planning activities in conjunction with RAMP activities after the NAAQS are promulgated.

2. Pursuit of appropriate federal control measures after the NAAQS are promulgated.

Consensus could not be reached on the timing and nature of state/local control measures.

Options include:

a. Voluntary or economic incentive measures

b. Required control measures as soon as designations are made

c. Required control measures as soon as standards are promulgated and violations or contributions to a violation are known or suspected