Draft Summary

Base Program Analyses and Policies Work Group Meeting

Durham, North Carolina

June 9, 1997

I.	PURPOSE

The Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work group held a face-to-face meeting on June 9, 1997 at the Omni Hotel in Durham, North Carolina. The General Mobile Source Measures; Classifications of Designated Areas Under New NAAQS; Area of Violation (AOV) Boundaries; and Attainment Dates issue papers and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Implementation Process flow diagram were discussed.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees:

Jerry Golden, Co-chair, Joe Paisie, Co-chair, Vincent Brisini, Richard Chastain, John Crouch, Steve Gerritson, Rich Halvey, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Barbara Lee (via telephone), Dick Long, William Luneberg, Arthur Marin, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Jim Ralston, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Richard Schoeneberg, Eric Skelton, Jean Vernet, Herb Williams, and Mel Zeldin.

Work Group Members Not in Attendance:

David Baron, Gregory Dana, Richard Dworek, Jeff Gabriel, Robert Kappelmann, James Mentesti, and Brock Nicholson.

Other Attendees:

Rebecca Battye, Catherine Deininger, Aleksandra Dobkowski, and Brian Morton, EC/R Incorporated (Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractor support).

III.	ACTION ITEMS

Due to the large number of objections to a classification system, it was decided that further discussing the issue is premature at this time. If the need for classification becomes apparent in the future, then Mr. Skelton will likely rework and modify option 4 (Areas of Influence/Areas of Violation (AOI/AOV) Classification).

The next BPAP work group conference call will be held on June 18, 1997 from 11:00 - 12:30 (Eastern time). The call-in number is 202\260-7280 access 4844#. The Classifications paper and the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram will be discussed.

A BPAP work group face-to-face meeting will not be held in July, 1997.

The next Federal Advisory Committee Ace (FACA) Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for August 13 and 14, 1997 in Portland, Oregon. In conjunction with the Subcommittee meeting, a BPAP work group meeting will be held on August 12.

A FACA Subcommittee has been scheduled for October 9 and 10, 1997 in Chicago. A work group meeting will be held on October 8.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

General Mobile Source Measures

Mr. Ralston lead the discussion on the General Mobile Source Measures paper (latest draft -- April 4, 1997).

The group discussed an overhead transparency that presented an overview of Light Duty Truck (LDT) and Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) programs. Mr. Golden wanted more information about the overhead such as the meaning of "benefits," the baseline, and the degree of reduction shown. Mr. Gerritson added that the numbers are confusing. Each category has a different emissions rate (e.g., tons/day or tons/summer day). The table would make more sense if the emissions rates for the various programs were standardized. He felt that the table raises more questions than it answers. For instance, are the benefits of National Low Emitting Vehicles (NLEV) calculated on the assumption that regular gasoline is used? What does the benefits number represent or assume? Mr. Ralston commented that the chart does not reflect changing activity levels or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Mr. Palzer said showing the percent emissions reductions resulting from the various programs may be easier to see.

Mr. Schoeneberg asked how the numbers were developed. Emission rates are needed. Mr. Hall explained that the figures in the paper provide additional information. The original numbers are in Figures 1 and 2.

Mr. Paisie said the time scales are different for the different categories of diesel- and nonroad-engine regulations. Although diesels have different turnover rates, a uniform timeframe would be better. Obviously, any attempt to standardize the timeframe would need to account for the slow diesel turnover rates. He also noted that no work group members have raised any issues regarding these regulations.

Mr. Ralston said other questions include: Are there opportunities to pursue further controls? Are there other opportunities for "nonregulatory" emission reductions (e.g., higher tolls during peak traffic hours, mobile source incentives, transportation management programs, etc.)?

Mr. Hall said he has a copy of the Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) database, which provides many examples of these types of programs. It contains a combination of regulations and requirements to reduce congestion and parking demand. For instance, employees could be offered incentives such as transit subsidies or nonsubsidized parking (i.e., increased parking fees). Another program is the Location Efficient Mortgage Program which is currently being implemented in Los Angeles and Chicago. The program allows people living close to a transit station to obtain larger mortgages based on reduced transportation expenses. Responding to a question, Mr. Hall said some of the programs are voluntary initiatives.

Mr. Golden asked how EPA views the creation of voluntary measures and their treatment in State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Mr. Hall responded that OMS is looking at the quantification of benefits. The OMS needs to figure out how to account for voluntary measures in the SIP. Some Department of Transportation (DOT) modeling coming out this summer will include pricing methods. Mr. Ralston suggested conducting a "before and after" study.

The group discussed the next steps for the General Mobile Source Measures paper. Mr. Paisie asked how the questions in the issue paper line up with those in the Control Strategies paper. Mr. Ralston said the questions come from a process standpoint: Should the work groups take it further from here? What about national/regional/local options? Is coordination a bottom-up or top-down approach? Ms. Reinders responded that it is a bottom-up process.

Mr. Ralston asked about the balance between emissions reductions from mobile sources and reductions from other sources. Mr. Golden said the emissions issue is not solely focused on emissions per se. Reactivity differences need to be considered, and the ultimate problem being solved must be kept in mind. Emissions should be controlled to manage ambient levels of pollutants.

Ms. Vernet said the mobile source issue involves balancing emissions reductions from different source categories. The three choices are: national, prescribed, or discretionary. The Control Strategies subgroup has not worked through the factors that apply to stationary or mobile sources. The issue should either be subsumed or incorporated into the Control Strategies paper. Mr. Lee asked how this paper would be tied in with the balance issue. If mobile sources are examined, stationary sources should also be assessed. Ms. Vernet said that falls into control strategy responsibility. Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) is a good issue. Mike Rawdon said the RFG cost-effectiveness number does not mean much without the cost-effectiveness figures for controls on other sources. Mr. Golden said mobile source measures are good candidates for national or prescribed measures.

Mr. Luneberg commented that a lot of the paper is background information. He suggested looking at illustrative examples of mobile source measures. RFG would be a perfect case study. The principles in the Control Strategies paper could be applied to RFG. A comparable stationary source analysis would be helpful. Mr. Paisie agreed that the General Mobile Measures and Control Strategies papers should be linked. Mr. Ralston suggested that the subgroup explore medium- and heavy-duty vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs.

David McNeill commented that the RFG program has tradeoffs. Refineries increase their nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions when making RFG so that, even though RFG itself does not increase NOx, overall NOx emissions increase.

Mr. Golden asked if not having national fuel standards has a downside. Mr. Rawdon replied that stranded capital for businesses and industry is one con.

Ms. Stewart said this FACA Subcommittee may want to broaden the discussion of fuels issues. Referring to the recent ozone transport assessment group (OTAG) recommendation, she said EPA could benefit from guidance from the Subcommittee on the proposed regulation to expand the availability of RFG.

Mr. Gerritson commented that applying RFG in rural areas for ozone control does not make sense. The subgroup should work with the Science and Technical Support (STS) work group. Mr. Schoeneberg said 15 percent of urban traffic originates in rural areas. Hence, rural areas should not be ignored.

Mr. Gerritson asked if governors could opt-in to the RFG program. Ms. Stewart responded that areas other than nonattainment cannot opt-in. The EPA is not suggesting a national RFG program but would like to make it more widely available option.

Mr. Pezda was concerned about the direction of the paper. Selecting specific measures to examine is premature. Background information on benefits, costs, and technological availability should be added to the paper.

Mr. Paisie said the subgroup should think about meshing the General Mobile Source Measures and Control Strategies papers.

NAAQS Implementation Process Flow Diagram

Mr. Golden presented the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram. A numeric code illustrating links between the flow diagram boxes and the issues papers has been incorporated. He said some of the links were obscure and emphasized that the code is simply a vehicle for looking at how the ideas from the various issue papers fit together. The issue paper linkages do not have the full consensus of the work group.

Mr. Chastain suggested adding a disclaimer that the flow chart is not a substitute for the information contained in the issue papers.

Mr. McNeill recommended replacing the "End" point following the "At Risk?" box with a feedback loop.

Ms. Lee asked if the "Consider/Initiate Proactive (local or potential AOI) Measures" box should include a reference to the Transportation Conformity issue paper.

A member asked if an arrow should feed from the "Affected by Transport?" box to the "Initial AOI Evaluations" box. Mr. Golden said not necessarily. The diagram is not intended to indicate sources of information for each action.

Referring to the "Potential for Imminent Reclassification?" box, Mr. Chastain recommended differentiating between upward or downward reclassifications.

Mr. Schaefer commented that the language in the "All Feasible Measures Considered?" box is not strong enough. Mr. Zeldin said "All Feasible Measures Considered?" should be changed to "All Feasible Measures Included?" Mr. Salvaggio added that "feasible" is in the eye of the beholder. Mr. Golden replied that "feasible" could be changed to "cost-effective," which would be determined through a public process.

Mr. Paisie asked if the flow chart should include a box for sanctions. Mr. Golden did not think so.

Mr. Lee asked how much weight is attached to attainment dates. Mr. Golden explained that attainment dates are fixed unless the area can demonstrate that attainment is impossible. The burden is on the state to demonstrate that it cannot reach attainment.

Classifications

The February 11, 1997 (draft #6) version of the Classifications of Designated Areas Under New NAAQS paper was discussed. Mr. Skelton informed the work group that the purpose of the discussion was to elicit a consensus recommendation regarding whether a classification scheme was necessary and, if so, to begin prioritizing the various classification options. He presented eight options, including a "no classification" option, and drew links between the classification schemes and recent issue papers, particularly the Control Strategies paper.

The work group was split between those who supported some form of classification and those who opposed any type of classification system.

Mr. Lee cautioned against precluding certain classification options simply because they did not fit into the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram or mesh with the Control Strategies paper.

Mr. Paisie thought the desire to differentiate among AOVs, as well as the questions in the NAAQS flow diagram, implied the need for a classification system. Classification would allow inter-area comparison, providing a "shorthand for communicating similarity of transport problems." He believed that the ability to compare different regions would facilitate the assignment of attainment dates and requirements.

Mr. Palzer expressed interest in using a classification system as a valuable source of air quality data for the public, given that there is currently very little information on the environmental characteristics of different areas of the country. Mr. Brisini agreed that classification could be used to inform the public about risk, as well as to let people know when areas were reclassified to a "better" level.

Mr. Ralston stated that classification is desirable if it is aimed in a rational way. It is useful for society to have goals. It could provide incentives to strive toward defined goals in air quality improvement and source identification. A classification system could establish a minimum set of requirements that EPA deems appropriate. This could help Regional Air Management Partnerships (RAMPs) develop control strategies.

Mr. Luneberg voiced the opinion that the Classifications issue paper was unnecessary, as it repeats many of the issues raised in the Control Strategies paper. He felt that a classification scheme would not add anything to the requirements of the current system.

Mr. Salvaggio was wary of assigning control strategies based on criteria such as "complexity of transport," as this assumed that the correct method of control was already known. He suggested that classification wait until after AOIs are established to avoid prejudging a situation. However, he added that if AOI determination stretched into a very long process, public support and awareness would be lost. The issue of whether definite triggers for action would be tied into the AOI/ AOV system remains unresolved.

Diana Andrews indicated that she does not support a new classification system on top of the present attainment/nonattainment approach to air quality problems. She added that the only downside of classification is the inability to back-off of the requirements.

Mr. Lawler commented that if any classification system is needed at all, there should be an extremely simplified system with only two classifications: "high" and "low." Otherwise, states could spend scarce time and money on the implementation of laws that result in few, if any, air quality improvements.

Mr. Skelton explained that the 5/10 year attainment concept (option 2) takes into account the fact that some areas may not be able to reach the standards in a five-year period. Such areas may apply for a five-year extension. Local, simple problems may be solved in the initial five-year period, while complex, compound transport issues could require the entire ten-year period. Mr. Golden commented that the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram is not inconsistent with the five- and ten-year attainment dates approach defined by the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Paisie agreed that if additional time is granted, additional requirements should be demanded from the area. Mr. Salvaggio asserted that no extensions should be given without a demonstrated inability to reach the standards by the five-year mark.

The work group discussed option 4, which would classify to emphasize the differences between AOIs and AOVs. Mr. Zeldin suggested that individual states be allowed to classify themselves based on their own analyses. Mr. Brisini disagreed and stated that the RAMP should be responsible for identifying AOVs and then determining the AOIs to control the AOVs.

Mr. Lee was concerned about the lack of examples regarding how multiple-nonattainment areas would fit into the AOI/AOV classification scheme.

Responding to Mr. Paisie's question of how to indicate progress in improving air quality, Mr. Skelton said option 4 already contained the beginnings of this idea in the "bump-down" provision.

Mr. Zeldin, Mr. Palzer, and Mr. Brisini agreed that the AOI/AOV classification system could be useful as a public health indicator.

Mr. Salvaggio asserted that the current classification scheme undermines confidence because it does not show progress. He suggested a new option 9: a classification system in which air quality would be separated from administrative actions. AOVs would be classified to indicate public health risk. Air quality indicators would show progress as air quality improves. The second part would be to classify for the purpose of establishing attainment dates and planning requirements. In addition, areas' current commitments under the Act should be acknowledged, recognizing the principle of no backsliding.

Mr. Golden said the NAAQS Implementation Process diagram could be modified so that, in addition to assessing whether or not progress is being made, the public must be notified of any health risk.

Mr. Salvaggio said he has had a lot of problems explaining classifications to legislators. Once progress is made, why don't the requirements get easier? Mr. Zeldin said air quality in an AOV can fluctuate without a "bump-down" in the requirements. However, the requirements in the corresponding AOI would not change.

Mr. Palzer and Mr. Williams were concerned that reclassification to a higher class would result in abandoning the very control measures that had enabled areas to reach attainment, leading to future violations of the standard. If reclassification back down to "nonattainment" did not occur, then the public would enjoy a false sense of security, as the area would continue to violate the standards without having an obligation to solve air quality problems.

Mr. Chastain said classifications should flow from needs. Areas should be classified within an AOI. Some of this discussion is premature.

Mr. Salvaggio noted the conflict between federal and state/local control measures. PM-fine will be a vast regional problem in the East. How can areas make progress without prescribed measures? How can measures be prescribed before the problem is understood? Mr. Lawler advocated local decision making to avoid unnecessary prescriptive measures. Larry Feldcamp emphasized that areas should be given maximum flexibility in choosing control strategies, and Mr. Brisini stressed the need for technical rather than political justification for controls.

Mr. Luneberg asked if the work group is asking whether severity of air quality trumps all questions about where prescribed measures should be imposed. How does a classification system facilitate control requirements?

Mr. Gerritson does not see a need for a classification scheme that directs control measures. The most expedient measures to clean the air should drive the process and should be the focus of SIP and Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP) preparation. He said the comments by Mr. Zeldin and Mr. Salvaggio support not having a classification system. He preferred focusing on SIP preparation and differing RFP requirements rather than on developing a classification system. In terms of public awareness, a better public education program would be much more efficient than a new classification system. Furthermore, if core control requirements are rebuttable, there is no point in having a classification scheme with core requirements. Mr. Skelton distinguished between core requirements for controls versus those for planning. If no core requirements exist, a classification system is unnecessary.

Mr. Pezda commented that if the group wants to approach air quality from a health perspective, then they needed to go back and look at the science. He mentioned that at present, no classification is based solely on heath concerns.

Mr. Salvaggio strongly decried the use of seven-year-old data in current air quality decision making and urged a commitment to the use of recent monitoring data. Mr. Ralston also expressed concern that areas with insufficient monitors could be oblivious to their air quality problems. He suggested that monitoring results be averaged over larger areas so as to ensure everyone's participation in the institution of controls.

Responding to a comment, Mr. Skelton clarified that "level of severity" as used in the NAAQS Implementation Process flow diagram includes not only concentration of pollutant, but also other factors such as frequency of exposure, design value, and the nature of the exposed population. Mr. Golden asked whether "level of severity" would serve to establish particular prescriptive measures or attainment dates. Mr. Salvaggio suggested that the "level of severity" box in the flow diagram be replaced with "level of complexity."

Mr. Marin said several issues are missing from the paper. For instance, How should attainment dates be aligned for areas that violate both the fine particulate matter (PM-fine) and ozone NAAQS? Mr. Skelton said the issue is briefly addressed in option 3 with a compound classification.

Megan Eves pointed out that a critical issue for any type of classification would be who is doing the classifying (e.g., EPA, State, or locality).

Mr. Lee agreed that a complex classification system could be necessary but emphasized that a flexible, goal-oriented program is necessary. He cautioned against assuming that classification is needed, as a gradation of controls could be sufficient to address the issue. Mr. Feldcamp added that since the end goal is attainment, each locality would need as much flexibility as possible to address air quality problems. He also warned against attaching regulatory controls to particular classifications.

Mr. Skelton summarized the discussion by stating that due to the large number of objections to classification, it is probably premature to discuss the issue further. If the need for classification becomes apparent in the future, then he will likely rework and modify option 4 (AOI/AOV Classification).

AOV Boundaries

The latest version of the AOV Boundaries paper is dated May 12, 1997. Mr. Crouch began the discussion by noting that future designation of AOV boundaries may hinge on determination of local-dominant, transport-dominant, or combined air quality problems. He proposed that political boundaries could initially serve as a default, due to the complexity of choosing an alternative means of defining AOV boundaries. He mentioned that where county (political) boundaries are not useful, the AOV boundaries should be redefined.

Mr. Pezda suggested that the primary purpose of AOVs should be to inform the public. Mr. Luneberg said rapid "quick and dirty" designation of AOVs could be insufficient to protect the public health.

Strong opinions were expressed that using political boundaries for AOV borders was unwise and contradicted the primary purpose of the AOV. Mr. Palzer was concerned that political boundaries could be the wrong size to encompass all exposed individuals. Mr. Luneberg agreed and added that once AOVs are designated at the county, metropolitan statistical area (MSA), urban growth, or other political level, borderline exposed individuals would have no recourse to change their situation. Furthermore, Mr. Pezda stated that the whole concept of political boundaries makes no sense if AOVs are to be based on exposure. He concluded that their use simply falls back on the old and undesirable designation process.

Mr. Gerritson noted that the use of political boundaries has no merit because of the problem of assigning immediate measures to the AOV without truly examining the root cause of the air quality problem.

Mr. Ralston, Mr. Crouch, and Ms. Baldridge pointed out that modeling tools to create AOVs based on exposure don't exist, thus necessitating the use of some other criteria. Mr. Zeldin stressed that there could be flexibility to refine the initial boundaries as new data become available. Political boundaries should only be used to initiate the delineation process. Mr. Lawler commented that the rationale behind choosing political boundaries would be easy to explain to legislators and the public.

Ms. Baldridge said the STS work group indicated at a recent meeting that hour-to-hour modeling would be necessary to support a modeling-based designation of AOVs. The STS work group also indicated that they would not be willing to undertake this modeling responsibility.

Mr. Brisini noted that a monitor cannot differentiate between a local- and a transport-induced violation. A strategy should be developed to address this issue.

There was general agreement with Mr. Lawler's comment that it would not be feasible to select an arbitrary distance around a monitor for the AOV boundary. Mr. Brisini suggested that measurements from all monitors in the political boundary should be averaged.

A variety of opinions regarding the optimal size of the AOV were expressed. Mr. Long felt that the AOV should be as small as possible to ensure flexibility in the implementation of control strategies. Mr. Salvaggio added that AOVs should be small while still providing protection for all exposed individuals, but his comment met with disagreement from Ms. Baldridge and Ms. Vernet.

Mr. Palzer wanted to establish a minimum size for an AOV so that important sources would not be left out. Mr. Paisie asked if an option for technically defined boundaries should be included, while Mr. Crouch suggested a time-limited boundary definition.

Mr. Brisini was concerned about where to draw the line if the pollution boundary crosses the county boundary.

Mr. Luneberg was confused about the meaning of the first objective of defining AOV boundaries under the recommendations ("identify spatial extent of area with potential health hazards").

Mr. Gerritson provided an overview of the need for AOI and AOV designations, reiterating the concept that AOVs may not have control over the factors causing their violation. Mr. Halvey added that control regions may not necessarily coincide with the AOI or AOV boundary. Mr. Crouch summarized the consensus decision that control regions should not be a function of AOV boundaries.

Mr. Brisini questioned the value of differentiating between AOIs and AOVs if varying prescribed measures aren't associated with the distinction.

Mr. Schaefer was concerned that EPA still considers an AOV area to be equal to a nonattainment area. Mr. Golden suggested that local controls should be used first, as they would be more beneficial than more distant controls. However, flexibility was desired for local controls. Mr. Halvey asserted that there should be no obligation to institute identical controls everywhere within the AOI.

Mr. Paisie said the pre-SIP reasonable further progress (RFP) issue is missing from the paper. Mr. Gerritson said the initial response is to institute national measures and planning. He does not think it is an issue. Pre-SIP requirements could be exceeded. Mr. Golden agreed and added that if controls were delayed until the SIP was submitted, the public might view the lack of action as backsliding.

Mr. Golden asked if an iterative control region needs to be defined.

Ms. Baldridge suggested recommending to the Subcommittee: 1) measures should not be mandatory in an AOV; and 2) should the boundary be the smallest or largest political boundary, or should scientific lines be drawn? Mr. Chastain clarified that the recommendation should be: no mandatory measures as a result of being in an AOV.

Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Palzer strongly suggested a rewording of the regional haze issue to specifically make the distinction between an AOV and a Class I area.

Mr. Long voiced concern regarding the use of misleading sentence structure in the issue paper, specifically in point #2 in the recommendations ("identify area around the monitor which may be used to locate nearby emission sources for controls").

Attainment Dates

The May 14, 1997 draft of the Attainment Dates issue paper was distributed, but participants did not have adequate time to review the paper before the discussion session. It was suggested that the work group members look at the paper and decide if the October 28, 1996 recommendations of the Attainment Dates ad hoc group had been captured sufficiently.

Mr. Williams explained that the principle stating that RFP should result in reductions of ambient levels of pollutants has not been included because the feasibility of this approach is currently being investigated by the STS work group.

Mr. Halvey asked if "externally imposed attainment date" refers to the Clean Air Act dates. Mr. Williams replied that the EPA would set the external attainment dates. They could be based on section 172 or a reasonable planning cycle.

Further discussion will resume at the October FACA Subcommittee meeting.