Draft Summary

September 16 and 17, 1996 Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) Work Group Meeting at the EPA

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

I.	OVERVIEW

The BPAP work group held a meeting on September 16 and 17, 1996 to discuss the following issue papers: 1) Monitoring Incentives, 2) Discussion of New Source Program Considerations with New Air Quality Standards/Regulations, 3) Attainment Dates Under a New National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), and 4) Areas at Risk of Nonattainment. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss presentation of the current issue papers to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee at the end of the month.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work group:

Jerry Golden-Chair, Joe Paisie-Chair, Vincent Brisini, Richard Chastain, Richard Dworek, Bob Kappelmann, Dennis Lawler, Arthur Lee, Brock Nicholson, Bob Palzer, Steve Pezda, Richard Phelps, Jim Salvaggio, Greg Schaefer, Jean Vernet, and Herb Williams

Work group members not in attendance:

David Baron, John Crouch, Gregory Dana, Jeff Gabriel, Steve Gerritson, Rich Halvey, Jim Ralston, Conrad Schneider, Eric Skelton, and Mel Zeldin

Attendees from other work groups:

Joe Belanger, Larry Feldcamp, and Donna Lamb

Other attendees:

Beth Friedman and Wendy Vit (EC/R--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractor support)

III.	ACTION ITEMS

1.	Upcoming meetings and calls. The next meeting of the FACA Subcommittee is on September 26 and 27, 1996 in Norfolk, Virginia. Although a face-to-face BPAP work group meeting is not planned, several of the work group's papers are to be presented to the Subcommittee. Monitoring incentives, attainment dates, new source programs, areas at risk, and integration are all on the agenda. Final papers must be on the EPA Technology Transfer Network (TTN) bulletin board by September 19 so that Subcommittee members have time to review them before the meeting.

2.	The next conference call is scheduled for September 23, 1996. Time and call-in number will be arranged.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

The group discussed overall "process" concerns related to the presentation of issue papers to the Subcommittee and how to best reflect the work group process. Mr. Brisini suggested that there needs to be recognition of issues that fail to surface at the work group level because of a lack of participation at that level. Mr. Brisini asked if the composition of the work group would be reviewed to identify and replace nonparticipants for Phase II. Mr. Paisie said EPA is performing this review.

Mr. Pezda was concerned that the work group could spend time on issues, only to have them derailed at the full Subcommittee. Mr. Lee suggested establishing ground rules similar to those established at the start of the "Common Sense Initiative" effort. For example, "sandbagging" (i.e., derailing at the last minute) would not be allowed under the ground rules. Mr. Lee said the full issue paper should be voted on and presented to the Subcommittee. It is not adequate to vote simply on the slide presentation. Mr. Paisie asked if Subcommittee members should be required to read all the issue papers as they are developed to ensure their full participation. Mr. Pezda responded that if a Subcommittee member has major comments, he or she should see they are expressed through the appropriate membership block.

Mr. Paisie noted that EPA is not seeking consensus on every issue. Mr. Belanger said the group should identify dissenting opinions.

Incentives for Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Under New NAAQS

On September 16, Mr. Dworek presented the September 16 version of the monitoring incentives issue paper. The bulk of the paper was discussed at the July meeting and reflects the basic concept that if monitoring identifies problems, imposition of automatic controls should be decoupled from the process. Monitoring should be used to define areas of violation (AOVs) and areas of influence (AOIs). This version of the paper reflects comments received from Alan Krupnick, Co-Chairman of the FACA Subcommittee, and Deidre Farrell (both from Resources for the Future on behalf of the Economics Advisory Group) as well as comments from Mr. Pezda. General comments were to add a background section and introduction to help the FACA Subcommittee understand the overall concepts in the paper, clarify the differences between incentives and options, add discussion of benefits of using monitoring to measure progress in achieving air quality goals, and add an incentive based on a registration tax fee based on tailpipe emissions. Another comment was to add to the list of groups or sectors who might provide funds for additional monitoring.

Mr. Brisini suggested another incentive would be temporal or spatial averaging. Mr. Pezda agreed with the spatial averaging concept, and added that the background information from the exposure weighting paper might fit in this paper. In addition, the exposure weighting paper should be referred to as a reference of the monitoring incentives paper.

Mr. Dworek said the intent is to decouple the control strategy from monitoring and added that changes to the Clean Air Act itself are controversial. Mr. Brisini pointed out that the outcome of this paper depends on the outcome of other issue papers. The opportunity is to link monitoring to the rest of the planning process. Specifically, Mr. Brisini suggested restating Incentive 2. Mr. Paisie said the work group will be asking the Subcommittee for recommendations on which "options" should be developed further.

Ms. Langworthy questioned whether requiring a single monitor within every 5,000-square mile grid would be sufficient. Mr. Golden said a minimum grid could be established with modeling, but a rebuttable presumption should be established to encourage sources to add more monitors. Mr. Dworek explained the exact number of monitors would have to be worked out, and he suggested the possibility of establishing a companion monitoring group. Mr. Palzer and Mr. Brisini agreed that a technical work group to determine the appropriate level of monitoring and the costs would be appropriate. Mr. Palzer added that a single source type should not bear the burden of all monitoring.

Mr. Salvaggio pointed out that states have authority to use various fees to augment their monitoring programs. The monitoring paper would not change these ground rules, and enforcement funds could be used. Mr. Palzer said that Oregon, tends not to penalize sources, and the tailpipe emission fees are not possible without a change in the law. Mr. Brisini suggested a recommendation would be to capture the appropriate level of contribution from the various source categories.

Mr. Schaefer suggested an incentive could be to lower Title V fees (of the Clean Air Act) with additional monitoring or to merely not have then raised. Mr. Salvaggio pointed out that including Title V fees as an incentive could be a disincentive for the regulatory agency. However, it should be possible for the regulators and the regulated to work out partnerships, but upfront agreements would be needed to ensure the State does not get broadsided. Mr. Lee was concerned that relying on revenues raised through enforcement actions would result in more enforcement actions by the states to raise money for monitoring.

Mr. Salvaggio agreed that more monitoring is needed to understand transport, secondary pollutant formation, etc. However, it is not possible to change the way States act, and the rules from the Federal government set minimum standards. He added that the focus should remain on creating incentives. Mr. Paisie sees the recommendation as looking at how monitoring is done and how more could be encouraged. The role of the Federal government is to make sure that everyone does at least the minimum required to address the problem.

Mr. Dworek reminded the group that the original charge in the development of this paper was to lay out the options for monitoring incentives. He said a new recommendation now appears to be that the group recommend a monitoring policy, with decoupling monitoring from the control strategy a key parameter. Mr. Brisini agreed there is a need to outline policy concepts, but a technical group is still needed to develop technical issues related to monitoring. Mr. Golden noted the group has already recommended development of a new set of monitoring guidelines. Mr. Pezda suggested developing an integrated Phase I (of the FACA activities) paper to address all of the monitoring-related issues. He said it is hard to buy a house if you can only see one room. Mr. Palzer responded that he sees the group as building a house, one room at a time.

Mr. Salvaggio said the overall problem is that there are limited actual incentives. Decoupling is the key incentive, and the others are variations addressing aspects of the problem. Mr. Palzer suggested a hidden incentive is meeting the standard and improving air quality.

An EPA staff member suggested that the old "command and control" system is defensive in nature. Given the new perspective of AOIs and AOVs, there is a need to have an expanded monitoring network to learn more about AOIs, transport, integration, etc. This creates an incentive to create an umbrella policy to protect areas with overwhelming transport and an incentive for areas to have more monitors. Additional monitoring data can only serve to protect areas from the consequences of transport, meteorology, etc.

Mr. Belanger said the NRS work group identified two benefits to monitoring. The first benefit is that, given the AOI approach, there is a public health reason to notify people of what they experience. The second benefit is that monitoring data can be used to replace modeling results. He noted, however, that when the pollutants are regional in nature, there is a concern about tracking the pollutant to an individual source. Mr. Golden noted that it is important to look at individual source contributions with respect to validating and refining models. Mr. Brisini summarized that a key incentive is that monitoring data can be used to replace modeling. Mr. Phelps agreed, his company also monitors to get a historic baseline perspective to evaluate trends, meteorology, etc. Mr. Palzer stressed the importance of maintaining sufficient monitors to measure trends. Mr. Brisini's company discontinued its SO2 monitoring network, because they could not justify the cost when regulatory decisions are made based on modeling alone. Mr. Phelps said that sources should be able to develop monitoring programs that are used more explicitly in the permitting program.

Mr. Salvaggio agreed there is a need to raise the status of monitoring data in decisions. He summarized four key incentives: 1) Decoupling monitoring from controls, 2) Use of monitors for control strategy development, attainment demonstrations, etc., 3) Use of partnerships to develop episodic controls, and 4) Reduce cost to industry of running programs. Mr. Paisie saw protecting public health by uncovering problems as a first principle. Mr. Palzer agreed, he would like to lower the baseline so peaks are not an issue.

Mr. Golden suggested that the document be re-written to reflect a flow to a conclusion.

Update on Monitoring Incentives Issue Paper - September 17, 1996

Mr. Dworek summarized the paper's recommendations based on the discussion held on the previous day.

•	A national air emission task force consisting of FACA Subcommittee and work group members should be established.

•	Monitoring networks should be expanded to learn about pollutant transport, chemistry, and composition; to protect public health; to determine AOIs and AOVs; and to support control strategy development, including episodic plans.

•	Monitoring networks should be employed to measure progress toward NAAQS achievement.

•	Air emission control mandates should be decoupled from monitoring data. Incentives should be provided to promote private sector monitoring.

•	Monitoring should be integrated with the overall program for determining AOIs and AOVs.

Members agreed that monitoring to protect public health should be flagged as the number one priority.

The item specifying decoupled air emission control mandates and monitoring data was moved closer to the top of the list of recommendations because it is a key concept in the new AOI/AOV approach. Mr. Brisini clarified that specific programs will be decoupled from automatic control requirements. Ms. Langworthy observed that the decoupling item was not worded properly. She was concerned that the recommendation could be misconstrued as saying areas with monitored violations will go without an AOV designation. Mr. Salvaggio suggested qualifying the decoupling item by saying more information and judgement is needed before action is taken. Mr. Chastain wanted the item to capture the idea that nondiscretionary control measures should be avoided, but the spatially integrated plan (SpIP) development process should begin. Ms. Vernet suggested combining the "decoupling" item with the item concerning integration. The new recommendation reads "integrate monitoring with the overall process for determining AOVs, AOIs, new source review (NSR), schedules, and cost-effective control strategies and tailor the response to violations."

The reference to episodic control plans was discussed. Mr. Golden requested an additional statement indicating the desire to ultimately move away from episodic controls. Mr. Paisie added that many people have strong feelings about episodic plans. Mentioning episodic plans as one of BPAP work group recommendations in the presentation to the FACA Subcommittee may cause people to narrow their focus on this one idea and miss the overall message of the paper. The group agreed to strike the specific reference to episodic plans because they would be included in "tailoring the plans to violations."

Members gave additional comments about the paper. Mr. Palzer requested a statement about the need for locating monitors at bus stops to gauge the health impacts from idling buses. Mr. Paisie replied that monitoring to protect public health captures the bus stop issue. Mr. Golden cautioned against any reference to reduced monitoring costs, because monitoring costs probably will not be reduced. The paper should, instead, send a clear message that increased private sector participation could spread the costs out among many more parties. He also wondered if speciation should be emphasized in this paper since it is such an important integration issue. The group agreed that speciation is captured in the reference to monitoring to determine pollutant composition. In response to Mr. Williams' question, the group agreed that the monitoring task force should be opened up to allow non-FACA and non-work group members to participate. "Exposure-weighted monitoring" was inserted into the recommendations to address Mr. Salvaggio's concern. The group agreed to Ms. Langworthy's suggestion of changing "expanded monitoring" to "expand monitoring, as needed."

New Source Considerations for the Implementation of New Air Quality Standards/Regulations

Introduction. On September 16, Mr. Schaefer presented the revised new source paper. The paper reflects comments from Bruce Craig and the NRS work group. One format change made was to move the background material to the end of the paper.

Mr. Brisini said the title and focus of the paper should not be on the NSR program. He said the purpose of the paper is to address emissions from new and modified sources. While NSR is an option, it is not a driving force. Mr. Belanger said that the NRS work group's perspective is that this issue is really part of the post-implementation process, and NSR is the driving force. Mr. Brisini said that the conflict is not with NSR as defined, but with the designation process. Mr. Golden added that it is insufficient to address new and modified sources without saying how NSR would work. He said the issue paper should address the scope, but not the details, of this interaction. Mr. Brisini stressed that "NSR" and "new source programs" should not be used interchangeably. The group agreed to change the title and other inappropriate references to NSR to reflect Mr. Brisini's concern.

Mr. Salvaggio noted that source requirements could vary depending on the pollutant, source category, etc.

One member asked how Class I areas fit into the new source options. Mr. Schaefer said that sources in attainment areas would be subject to NSR. If the source is in an AOV, it is possible that prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and NSR would be replaced with a cap and trade program. Mr. Golden said Class I areas are by definition in attainment. If the area becomes AOV, then there would be requirements to make progress (e.g., achieve the fine particulate matter (PM-fine) NAAQS).

One member asked whether a cap program would be established to ratchet downward. Mr. Brisini said this issue has not been defined, but that a starting point would be a 1:1 ratio. Mr. Golden said there needs to be some period of time when the source would know the applicable requirements.

Mr. Belanger stressed the importance of the spatially integrated plan, even though it is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act, because it would delay mandatory controls until the plan is in place and could result in graduated control levels. Mr. Palzer agreed with the concept of the plan, but said it should not be called a SIP, because this is confusing with the more common use of the term to represent "State Implementation Plan." The group agreed to refer to the term "spatially integrated plan" as "SpIP."

The group discussed the September 12 comment letter from the Economics Advisory Group. Mr. Golden raised a concern that this letter does not reflect complete consensus of that group. Mr. Belanger summarized the comments that have been addressed in the paper such as the idea that site-specific impacts should be addressed apart from region-wide controls.

Mr. Belanger said the September 12 letter raises a concern regarding the difficulty of implementing a cap and trade program on all source types. Mr. Brisini agreed that the system should incorporate certain groups of sources, establish appropriate baselines and caps, and then allow intergroup trades. He assumed that option 4 just referred to stationary sources, however. Mr. Golden said he understood the option to include all sources. Mr. Belanger and Mr. Salvaggio said that dealing with a multitude of sources would be unmanageable and uneconomical. Mr. Brisini suggested that the options should be written to reflect the growth in emissions of stationary, mobile, and area sources.

Mr. Golden asked whether the "no backsliding" idea referred to in the issue paper is defined as it is in the Interim Implementation Policy (IIP) principles. Mr. Belanger said that NSR would operate through the interim period, and best available control technology (BACT)/lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and offsets would continue. Any replacement program should be at least as effective as the current program. Mr. Golden said sources should be allowed to get a running start on a more flexible program. Mr. Belanger disagreed because the use of more flexible tools is a key incentive to get everyone past the interim phase and into the new program. He added that several serious questions and issues cannot be settled until the new SpIP is in place. Mr. Salvaggio said there is a need for a mechanism in place to prevent degradation resulting from growth until the AOI is developed with its assigned budget. The group agreed to make the reference to "no backsliding" consistent with the IIP.

Option 1. The group decided to replace the example that had been deleted by the NRS work group. Regarding the disadvantages, Mr. Golden questioned why the option is stated to conflict with the AOI/AOV concept. Mr. Belanger responded that the AOI is a planning region rather than an automatic control region. Mr. Golden said this is only a problem if the assumption is that the AOI starts big, and shrinks for purposes of controls, which he may not agree with. Mr. Belanger said that the NRS work group believes the AOI should be inclusive. However, he agreed that if the AOV agrees the AOI is small, which is possible in the West, the AOI could be decreased. The burden of proof would be on the source wanting out of the AOI.

Mr. Brisini said an additional disadvantage is that option 1 is likely to be the least cost-effective option.

Option 2. As with option 1, the group decided to replace the example from the previous draft. They will refer to the NRS work group's efforts to assess institutional mechanisms to address multi-state concerns. The group rejected, as an option, that planners could use whatever modeling/monitoring information is available to make more equitable decisions about control requirements. This could remove discretion to delete inadequate information and could create a disincentive to obtain more information.

Option 2a. Mr. Schaefer said that the NRS work group suggested deleting the demonstration for a rebuttable presumption based on a cost-effectiveness argument or on the identification of a threshold below which there is not a significant impact on ambient concentrations. Mr. Belanger explained there is a concern for the cumulative effect of small sources. The September 12 Economic Advisory Group letter also points to a concern that it would be very difficult to demonstrate the effect of emissions from a single new or modified source on the AOV. Mr. Salvaggio added that, as distance increases, any source could be part of the aggregate effect. In contrast, Mr. Pezda and Mr. Phelps said the previous language should be retained. At the conclusion of the discussion, the group decided to retain the example language as a footnote, and to note that the idea of a rebuttable presumption could be a feature of any option or sub-option. The group also added Mr. Golden's suggestion that another advantage of the option is that it could avoid unnecessary controls.

Option 3. No comments.

Option 4. The NRS work group revised this option by adding suboptions that segregate the ability to conduct inter-pollutant trading from the main option. They also recommended selection of option 4, without allowing for inter-pollutant trading. Mr. Schaefer said the NRS work group's concern was that such a program would be very complex, and have no history, and the entire concept would collapse. Mr. Brisini agreed the program could be limited to major sources.

Mr. Salvaggio said transportation conformity would address growth in vehicles miles traveled (VMT). Mr. Golden was uncomfortable with a recommendation for a cap and trade program without addressing the mobile source component. Ms. Malkin said that the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) study found that mobile sources are significant over the region. She suggested starting the cap and trade program with stationary sources, and expanding it in the future to include mobile and area sources. Mr. Salvaggio said the program would need to address both the local, traditional, metropolitan problem as well as the high background problem in other types of areas.

Ms. Vernet questioned the meaning of the phrase, "The budget would be set to achieve applicable air quality standards." Mr. Brisini said the budget should also include the maintenance of standards, and there could be trades between new and existing sources. Inter-source trading would be dependent on achieving an equivalent air quality benefit. Mr. Golden pointed out there is no difference in complexity between inter-source trading and inter-pollutant trading. Mr. Belanger said inter-pollutant trading is more of a problem with volatile organic compounds (VOC) than it would be with nitrogen oxides (NOx). There are serious local issues related to the toxicity of compounds with VOC, unlike the other pollutants. At the end of the discussion, the group agreed to re-write the recommendation to adopt option 4, with a phase-in of inter-pollutant trading if allowed in the SpIP.

There was discussion about which programs encourage the development of new emission control technology. Is the NSR technology driving or does a cap and trade drive technology because of the desire to find the least-cost option with the cap set at a protective level. The environmental community strongly favors the technology-driving aspects of NSR because they distrust the market to give the appropriate signals to develop new technology and worry about the long-term political commitment to the system. NSR also forces turnover of obsolete technology. Others say a cap program encourages existing sources to clean-up to create credits for the market. For a cap and trade program to work, it cannot be limited to new sources, because enough credits will not be available. At the end of the discussion, the group agreed to remove the specific language related to how and where NSR programs would apply and to state simply that "Technology drivers (BACT and LAER) are replaced with an equivalent market system for compliance."

Update on NSR Issue Paper - September 17

On September 17, Mr. Schaefer presented the NSR paper's revised options 4, 4a, and 4b. The changes took into account NRS work group comments and suggestions given during the previous day's discussion. Mr. Feldcamp represented the NRS work group during today's meeting.

Option 4 would allow AOIs the flexibility to establish cap and trade systems in their SpIPs. The option assumes that a cap and trade system may not be appropriate in all AOIs. The AOIs have the flexibility to implement either a cap and trade system or, as the default, the NSR program (whatever results from the NSR FACA Subcommittee's review).

Mr. Brisini is uncomfortable with option 4, because it does not adequately address emissions growth. If AOIs are large planning regions, he does not have a problem with option 4 as it is worded. However, if AOIs are control regions, option 4 should clearly address whether emissions growth would be allowed in the AOIs. Mr. Feldcamp replied that many details of new source issues would be worked out in the planning process. The process should be kept as flexible and non-prescriptive as possible. Mr. Golden added that the NSR FACA Subcommittee is addressing some of these questions. Mr. Schaefer will add a statement to options 2 and 4 specifying that NAAQS must be achieved and maintained and AOIs must address emissions growth.

The members discussed the confusion about terminology between the NRS work group and the Base Programs work group. The NRS work group views AOIs as planning regions or potential control regions, while the BPAP work group considers AOIs to be the actual control regions. The NRS work group presumed that including everyone in the planning process is more difficult than removing some players from the process. The difference is in the terminology and not in the fundamental concepts. The NRS work group members examined meteorological, monitoring, and modeling data for PM-fine, ozone, and regional haze. Based on the data, they agreed that large regions would be needed to envelop all of the sources for the planning phase. Determining planning regions is a Phase I step, and delineating control areas is a separate step for Phase II. Mr. Feldcamp noted that only a subgroup of NRS work group members examined the data.

The BPAP work group members reached consensus on nomenclature. The one or two large areas covering the entire country are the planning regions. Each planning region would determine the AOIs. The AOIs would be required to develop the SpIPs.

Members discussed having the NSR program (whatever the NSR program becomes after the FACA Subcommittee review) as the default for option 4. Mr. Palzer requested an explicit statement about the NSR program as the default be added. Mr. Golden suggested adding another option that would allow AOIs to retain the NSR program to accommodate Mr. Palzer's concerns. Mr. Lee was troubled with the implication that all other new source programs would be measured against the NSR program. Mr. Salvaggio replied that a national program is needed as a standard to judge all new source alternatives against for equity reasons. He advised that a more tangible parameter be used to measure program effectiveness than "growth," because a lot of numbers can be juggled for "growth." Mr. Pezda thought singling out one specific program limits the AOIs' flexibility.

Mr. Golden suggested leaving the idea of the default up to the SpIP managers within each AOI, instead of prescribing a national default program. Each SpIP must address growth in some way. New source performance standards (NSPS) would be designated as the minimum technology requirement. Mr. Brisini asked why NSPS would be retained, if a cap and trade system were implemented and NSR were not.

Several sentences which referred to PSD and NSR programs were deleted from option 4.

Option 4a, which would allow external netting with other sources in advance of the budget allocation, was dropped. It seemed to apply to the interim implementation period.

The new option 4a (previously 4b) is the same as option 4, except inter-pollutant trading is allowed. Mr. Brisini suggesting qualifying the allowable trades as those that achieve equivalent air quality benefits.

BPAP work group members reached consensus on recommending option 4 and phasing in an inter-pollutant trading program.

PM10 and PM2.5 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

Members discussed the PM10 and PM2.5 PSD increments portion of the paper. The NRS work group proposed moving PM10 and PM2.5 increments into Phase II when appropriate models and monitoring data are available. EPA has 2 years after the NAAQS has been revised to establish increments. Mr. Palzer was concerned that using PM10 increments in the interim is not adequate for protecting all areas. He and several other members commented that far too many uncertainties exist at the present time to discuss this issue. The BPAP work group agreed that PM10 and PM2.5 increments should be addressed in Phase II.

Mr. Paisie commented that the issue paper outlines options ranging from the current system, which many people feel comfortable with, to wide-open approaches. He encouraged members to speak up to make their points at the FACA Subcommittee meeting at the end of September.

Mr. Paisie and Mr. Golden will express the BPAP work group position on AOIs and planning areas to the Coordination Group.

Attainment Dates for New National Ambient Air Quality Standards

Mr. Williams reviewed changes made to the paper since the previous version. Several revisions addressed Mr. Skelton's concerns about moving away from set attainment dates. Mr. Skelton has argued that specific dates are needed to drive the process in his political atmosphere. Language was added to the recommendation specifying that plans must ensure that attainment will be achieved as expeditiously as possible and that another planning cycle may be needed. Ms. Langworthy suggested changing "minimum" to "adequate" emission reductions, because it implies that sources could get away with a minimal effort.

A statement on regional transport and a natural events caveat was also inserted into the recommendation. One of Mr. Skelton's comments about natural events was not incorporated because the measures of progress are based on air quality and not on emissions.

Members discussed the planning cycles. Mr. Palzer was concerned that areas will take the entire 10 years to reach attainment, even though 10 years may not be reasonable for all areas. He preferred a shorter attainment schedule, with the opportunity to request extensions. Mr. Brisini asked what would happen if the 10-year planning cycle is separated from the attainment date. Ms. Reinders replied that so long as the date is justified in the SpIP, it should be acceptable. Mr. Golden and Mr. Nicholson emphasized that the SpIP is part of a public process and should be able to withstand public scrutiny. Mr. Lee said that if there flexibility in reaching attainment needs to cut both ways.

One member suggested that the plan should include an estimated attainment date. However, Mr. Pezda does not want to lose the idea that some NAAQS may not be attainable, and a reasonable progress strategy acknowledges this. Ms. Vernet replied that paper does not need to emphasize achievability issues. The paper recommends making continuous progress toward making air quality better. Mr. Brisini commented that the 10-year planning cycle should not be confused with an attainment date. The planning cycle can encompass the planning plus maintenance once attainment has been achieved. Mr. Paisie clarified that the issue is whether arbitrarily chosen attainment dates 30 years out into the future have value, when the process for reaching attainment is unknown. Mr. Salvaggio argued that flexibility for reaching attainment is needed in different areas, but a specific date is necessary. Dates help focus the governor's and the legislature's attention on the process. Mr. Williams said that the date does not drive progress, but overall requirements drive the legislature. Mr. Pezda said if progress is defined, it will substitute for a date.

Mr. Brisini commented that the real concern is not attainment dates. Areas are trying to avoid the control requirements and sanctions that stifle economic growth. He wants to ensure that areas will not be penalized based on achieving attainment. If sources do everything they thought they needed to do, they should not be penalized for guessing wrong. Mr. Golden said that sanctions are based on discrete actions outlined in the plans and not on the air quality results. Mr. Brisini said that legitimate planning efforts should be a basic assumption. Mr. Nicholson added that adding an arbitrary date sets the state up for another point of failure. Mr. Palzer stated the health effects of not meeting the standards will be faced by the population in those areas. Mr. Salvaggio agreed it may be necessary to re-start a planning cycle, but stressed the need for a target, especially if there are multiple state programs.

Mr. Williams suggested emphasizing that planning includes attainment planning. Extra requirements should only be added if it is beneficial, and automatic contingency requirements would have a rebuttable presumption. Mr. Palzer stressed his disagreement with the assumption that everyone cannot achieve the standard. However, he agreed that penalties for not achieving the standard should be focused on the culprits, to the extent they can be identified. Mr. Williams suggested adding language that penalties be limited to "appropriate statutory sanctions or other targeted measures." Mr. Pezda added that it should be clear that a failure could be due to a valid reason. For example, Alaska did not comply with oxygenated fuel requirements because of health concerns. Mr. Palzer was concerned this approach would give too much latitude for states to make up reasons to explain failures.

Mr. Williams said he had a sense of limited consensus from the BPAP work group. He plans to present the issue paper to the Subcommittee by describing the planning cycle followed by the major components of the recommendations. The group agreed this format made sense. Mr. Salvaggio emphasized that the relevant paradigm is the future program, not the current program. The change in the standards will require more difficult changes and require public education and planning.

Treatment of Areas in which Air Quality Trends Indicate the Risk of Future Standards Violations

Mr. Chastain presented the September 12 version of the areas at risk issue paper, which reflects comments from the last BPAP work group discussion, the Coordination group, Mr. Skelton, and Mr. Pezda. In several places, the paper was simplified to focus on larger concepts.

As a general comment, Mr. Brisini said the paper should present terms consistent with other papers, especially AOIs and AOVs. Mr. Golden said this issue can be considered independently from the AOI/AOV concept.

Mr. Palzer said that the "trends" tracked in option 2 should be better defined. For example a source that has 2 years of data very close to the bright line should be addressed. Mr. Nicholson agreed, areas that have a history of crossing back and forth over the line should be addressed. Another trends indicator is growth in population and VMT and when they increase, the state should start public education and other activities. Mr. Golden said other indicators would be increases in concentrations, emissions, and other activities.

Mr. Brisini said a fifth option, for a state to respond to areas tending towards violation, is to develop a maintenance plan to help the area avoid AOV status. Other members said this idea could be developed as part of option 3.

Mr. Williams and Mr. Brisini prefer option 4, EPA provide states with incentives. Mandatory requirements should only be considered after voluntary options have failed. Mr. Lawler said option 4 would be acceptable, so long as it is combined with the flexibility inherent in option 1, states allowed discretion. Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Salvaggio agreed. Mr. Paisie stressed that EPA does not dictate what the states have to do, but it does look at whether they have done what they said they would. Mr. Nicholson said, based on his experience in North Carolina, the key to successful voluntary programs is that they be motivated by a non-regulatory agency. He added that the State may not have the ability to motivate all of the interests. In contrast, Mr. Salvaggio pointed to a Pennsylvania experience where the state provided behind the scenes help that was crucial to the voluntary effort. Mr. Chastain will add language about the importance of grass roots efforts. Mr. Paisie added that outreach to individual citizens is important too, and he cautioned that broad regional problems may not be addressed by episodic controls.

Joint Issue Paper on Integration

Ms. Lamb and Mr. Kappelmann presented the status of the joint issue paper on integration. The September 9 version on the TTN reflects suggestions from the BPAP work group and the NRS work group. The Science & Technology work group is still looking at the paper.

Mr. Paisie presented Mr. Golden's comments, who had left the meeting at this point. Mr. Golden said that integration is not dependent on the determination of technical analysis. Speciation is not the sole determinant of integration, although the benefits of multipollutant control are a Phase II issue. Some delay in the NAAQS would be acceptable to achieve integration.

Mr. Nicholson said a required activity is to consider integrated control strategies in order to have a successful program.