08/07/86
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date Extensions for
VOC Sources
MEMORANDUM AUGUST 7, 1986
SUBJECT: Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date Extensions for
VOC Sources
FROM: /s/ J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
A number of States have asked EPA to approve SIP revisions granting
compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources in ozone nonattainment
areas. The attached policy sets forth EPA's position on when approval of
such SIP revisions is appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in
order for EPA to approve them. Regional Offices should review the requests
for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy. SIP revisions now pending
at Headquarters will also need to be reviewed by the Regions in light of
this policy.
Attachment
cc: Richard H. Mays, OECM
Gerald A. Emison, OAOPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
In order to approve a source-specific compliance date extension, two
tests must be met. First, a State must demonstrate that the extension will
not interfere with timely attainment ( attainment by the formally
established attainment date ) and maintenance of the ozone standard and,
where relevant "reasonable further progress" ( RFP ) towards timely
attainment. 1/
1/ The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely attainment is
not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms that an RFP analysis is
required.
The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1982, or the date
established under Section 110 where the State has adequately responded to a
request for SIP revisions under Section 110(a)(2)(H), or December 31, 1987
in ozone extension areas. The demonstration may be based on a comparison
between the margin for attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted
with the approved ozone SIP 2/ and the increased emissions that would
result under the proposed compliance date extension. 3/
2/ For areas where revisions to the Part D SIP are required ( such as 1987
extension areas or SIP call areas ) and those revisions have not been
fully approved, the State would have to submit a demonstration the
equivalent of that required for EPA approval of the ozone SIP. Without
an approvable demonstration EPA cannot determine whether the individual
compliance date extension will interfere with timely attainment and
maintenance of the standard, or with RFP. A de minimis showing would
not be acceptable, since in the aggregate even very small sources would
contribute significantly to ozone formation.
3/ In making such a comparison it will be necessary to determine what, if
any, portion of the margin has been utilized by new sources of VOCs that
may have located in the area since the SIP was approved, as well as by
existing VOC sources that may have already been granted compliance date
extensions.
If there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emissions ( and the
extension would not interfere with RFP ), then EPA may conclude that the
compliance date extension will not interfere with the attainment and
continued maintenance of the ozone standard.
-2-
If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial change in the
inventory of VOC sources or total VOC emissions since the ozone SIP was
approved so that the margin of attainment has changed significantly, a
revised demonstration in support of the source-specific SIP revision should
be submitted. 4/
4/ Such a demonstration would be necessary, for example, in areas
originally demonstrating attainment by 1982, but for which post-1982
monitoring data are indicating exceedances of the ozone standard or
raising serious questions about the original prediction of attainment.
Second, time extensions also must be consistent with the requirement
that nonattainment area SIPs provide for "implementation of all reasonably
available control measures as expeditiously as practicable" ( Section
172(b)(2) ). Expeditiousness should be demonstrated by determining when the
source was first put on notice of the applicable requirement ( e.g.,
adoption of the current regulation by the State ) and the time that has
elapsed since then. EPA has generally determined that for most VOC sources
this period is less than three years. 5/
5/ For three source categories ( can coating operations, graphic arts
printing and automotive assembly plant paint shop operations ), based on
industry experience EPA has through policy statements concluded that
expeditiousness may be longer than three years.
Any source-specific SIP revision for a compliance date extension within
these timeframes may be presumed to be expeditious. Compliance date
extensions for periods longer than these timeframes, however, should be
closely scrutinized to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious.
6/
6/ The same holds true for review of individual compliance date extensions
incorporated in any area-wide ozone SIP revisions submitted by a State
( such as those being submitted pursuant to an EPA SIP call under
Section 110(a)(2)(H) ). Any change in the original deadline for an
individual VOC source incorporated in an area-wide ozone SIP revision
must be demonstrated to be expeditious ( as well as not interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance ).
This should include an examination of the compliance status of other sources
nationally in the same VOC source category ( this examination would be the
responsibility of the State ), and the most expeditious means of compliance
available ( including add on control equipment, process change, or raw
material improvement ) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
-3-
revision. Unless it can be shown that the original timeframe approved in
the SIP did not allow sufficient time for an economically and
technologically feasible compliance plan to be implemented, a SIP revision
for a compliance date extension beyond the timeframes set forth above should
be denied.
In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment ( including
RFP where relevant ) and maintenance and the expeditiousness tests must be
met before a State SIP revision can be approved.
J. Craig Potter
/s/ _______________
J. CRAIG POTTER
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
AUGUST 7, 1986
Return to Enforcement Policies