Draft Summary

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Work Group Conference Call

September 23, 1996

I.	OVERVIEW

The Base Programs (BPAP) work group held a conference call on September 23, 1996 to discuss the "Attainment Dates" issue paper presentation.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work group attendance was not recorded. Other attendee: Wendy Vit (EC/R--Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contractor support).

III.	ACTION ITEMS

Upcoming Calls and Meetings. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) subcommittee meeting will be held September 26 and 27 in Norfolk, Virginia.

IV.	MEETING SUMMARY

Discussion of Attainment Dates Presentation

Mr. Williams gave an overview of the "Attainment Dates" issue paper presentation. The presentation will focus on the paper's recommendation of allowing flexible attainment based on reasonable further progress and planned emissions reductions.

Members discussed the "Attainment Dates" paper. Mr. Brisini had a question about line 12 in paragraph A of the recommendation. He thought "attainment cannot be achieved" should read "attainment will not be achieved." Mr. Williams explained that the phrase refers to establishing a specific attainment date. The recommended approach specifies that spatially integrated plans (SpIPs) must include attainment dates when practicable. However, if attainment cannot be achieved during the planning cycle, the SpIP may adopt a flexible approach. The date-specific requirement was moved to the front of the paper to address several members' concerns expressed during the September 16 and 17 BPAP meeting.

Mr. Schneider asked if Mr. Williams had written some pros and cons for the recommendation. He also thought the paper does not make it clear why this recommendation is superior. Mr. Williams will fax the list of pros and cons to Mr. Schneider. Mr. Brisini offered a rationale for why the recommended approach will be beneficial. The recommendation recognizes that the best plans sometimes do not result in attainment due to uncertainty, and areas should not be punished simply because attainment was not achieved. Instead, the recommendation would gives areas control over their own economic destiny by punishing areas that do not plan or that fail to implement their plan. Mr. Palzer asserted that the recommendation is extremely vague, does not spell the requirements out, and he cannot support it.

Mr. Halvey asked whether there had been any discussion about basing attainment on the severity of the problem. Mr. Williams responded that the group had decided that attainment should not be based solely on the severity of the problem. Concepts of achieveability were also considered when designing a recommendation for attainment. Mr. Palzer added that the group had also discussed that attainment may be easier to reach in some areas than in others.

Mr. Schneider asked if the recommendation implies that the State would negotiate each planning cycle. Would the EPA have to concur? Mr. Brisini replied that SpIP development could include multiple states for a given AOV/AOI. Mr. Halvey asked who makes the determination about whether the SpIP moves toward attainment "as expeditiously as practicable?" He asked what happens if no plans are agreed to. If sanctions are not linked with attainment dates, the decisions of the EPA may be somewhat arbitrary. Mr. Williams replied that the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) is the big hammer. The paper does not propose to remove statutory sanctions. Mr. Williams assumed that the planning process is triggered by the designation. Mr. Salvaggio added that the paper is focused on the philosophical approach, and that this level of detail has not been put into the paper yet. He added that the overall sanctions should be kept in place. Mr. Skelton believes it is beyond the scope of the work groups to address the tiny details. The groups should address broad concepts. Mr. Halvey replied his comment does represent a broad concept. A negotiated process or criteria developed by the EPA are different, and which one is selected would affect the attractiveness of the approach. He does not know if he prefers the approach because he does not know what the relationship between the states and EPA will be. Mr. Palzer suggested that place holders be inserted into the recommendations specifying that these issues will be addressed in the future.

Mr. Paisie asked Mr. Williams if he could work today's comments into his presentation to the FACA Subcommittee. The paper cannot be revised at this point. He suggested that Mr. Williams bring the issues up in the presentation and then elicit the Subcommittee's views on them.

The group agreed the following philosophical issues are important: 1) The issue of primacy for plan approval. For instance, would the EPA have veto power or would a negotiation process be used? What constitutes reasonable and who makes the call on reasonable? What triggers the planning cycles and what are the deadlines for plans? 2) The issue of achieveability and making progress toward achieveability. Developing a hypothetical timeline for the planning cycle was suggested by one member.

Mr. Ralston said that New York contends that the traditional process for reaching attainment allows too much flexibility. This recommendation moves farther in that direction.

FACA Process Issues

The slides that Mr. Schaefer intends to use in his presentation had been distributed to the BPAP work group members before the call. Mr. Paisie said that because Mr. Schaefer was unable to join the call, he was unsure how to proceed with respect to those slides. Mr. Kappelmann asked if the group wanted to schedule an additional call with Mr. Schaefer before the FACA Subcommittee meeting. The group decided not to schedule another call. Many members from the West would be traveling on Wednesday.

Mr. Paisie encouraged members to submit constructive suggestions on how to improve the FACA process. Progress has been made rapidly, and not everyone can keep up with the changes.