UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

FAX TRANSMITTAL

DATE:	April 3, 1996	NUMBER OF PAGES = 15

TO:	COORDINATION GROUP, FACA SUBCOMMITTEE on

Ozone/PM/Regional Haze Implementation Programs

FR:	RICH DAMBERG, TEAM LEADER

(919) 541-5592, Fax (919) 541-7690

NAME	TELEPHONE #	FAX #

Mr. Patrick Raher	(202) 637-5682	(202) 637-5910

Dr. Thomas Godar	(203) 548-4055	(203) 548-5124

Mr. David Hawkins	(202) 783-7800	(202) 783-5917

Ms. Mary Gade	(217) 782-3397	(217) 782-9039

Mr. Robert Shinn	(609) 292-2885	(609) 292-7695

Ms. Beverly Hartsock	(512) 239-5818	(512) 239-4808

Mr. S. William Becker	(202) 624-7864	(202) 624-7863

Mr. James Souby	(303) 623-9378	(303) 534-7309

Mr. Shawn Kendall	(602) 234-8308	(602) 234-4814

Ms. Helen Petrauskas	(313) 323-2157	(313) 323-7230

Mr. F. Bradford Smith	(410) 368-7090	(410) 368-6721

Mr. Charles Goodman	(205) 870-6325	(205) 877-7938

Mr. Richard Hayslip	(602) 236-6699	(602) 236-3407

Ms. Georgia Callahan	(914) 838-7645	(914) 838-7115

Mr. Karl Schultz	(302) 773-4394	(302) 773-4494

Mr. John Taunton	(713) 656-2401	(713) 656-6594

Mr. John Christiano	(303) 969-2070	(303) 969-2822

WG Co-Chairs

Mr. Jerry Golden	(423) 751-6779	(423) 751-7545

Mr. Harvey Jeffries (room 120)	(919) 966-7312	(919) 966-7911

Mr. Don Theiler/Bob Lopez	(608) 266-0603	(608) 267-0560

Mr. Ron White	(202) 785-3355	(202) 452-1805

____________________________________________________________________________________________

MESSAGE Attached are the following: 1) an agenda for the next CG meeting on Wednesday, April 10, 1:00 - 2:30 EST. Call-in number is 202-260-7280, 4065#; 2) a summary of the CG meeting on 3/20 in Virginia; 3) a draft list of deliverables for each of the work groups; 4) calendars for work group meetings in April and May; 5) a draft table of contents for the report summarizing the Subcommittee's recommendations; 6) a revised format for final work group issue papers to be presented to CG. A proposal for the role of economic analysis in the FACA process will be sent in the next few days. Remember that comments on the interim policy are due to the Base Programs work group by April 15th. Hope you can make it to the conference call on the 10th.

[If you have trouble receiving this fax, please call Barbara Miles at 919-541-5531, fax 919-541-7690.]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OZONE, PARTICULATE MATTER, AND REGIONAL HAZE

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS

COORDINATION GROUP

Meeting #5

Wednesday, April 10, 1:00 - 2:30 EST

Call-in Number: 202-260-7280, 4065#

AGENDA

1.	Roll Call / Review of Last Meeting and Today's Agenda (10 min.)

2.	Draft Schedule of Work Group Deliverables

Calendar of Work Group meetings (10 min.)

3.	Draft Table of Contents for Overall Subcommittee Report (10 min.)

4.	Revised Format for Final Work Group Issue Papers (5 min.)

5.	Proposal for Role of Economic Analysis in FACA process (20 min.)

6.	Further Discussion of ANPR and Interim Policy (if desired) (15 min.)

7.	Agenda for Next Subcommittee Meeting, Week of May 20th (10 min.)

8.	Report on OMB Involvement (5 min.)

9.	Upcoming Meetings and Possible Agenda Items (5 min.)

- Wednesday, April 24, 1:00 - 2:30 EST, Call-in number: 202-260-7280, 4065#.

- May 8

- Week of May 20: Work group and Subcommittee meeting, possibly in North Carolina.

- June 5

Attachments

1.	Summary of March 20 meeting in Alexandria, VA.

2.	Draft list of deliverables for each of the work groups.

3.	Calendars for April and May work group meetings.

4.	Draft table of contents for the report summarizing the Subcommittee's recommendations.

5.	Revised format for final work group issue papers presented to CG.

6.	Proposal for role of economic analysis in the FACA process.

SUMMARY

FACA Coordination Group Meeting (in Alexandria, VA)

March 20, 1996

I. PURPOSE

A face-to-face meeting took place on March 20, 1996 to enable Coordination Group members to meet with workgroup co-chairs, review draft schedules and timelines, and continue discussion of the work products from the Group and the Interim Implementation Transition Policy.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Workgroup Attendees:

Sally Shaver, EPA/AQSSD (Co-chair)

Rich Damberg, EPA Staff Team Leader

William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Georgia Callahan, Texaco

Charles Goodman, Southern Company Services

Beverly Hartsock, Texas TNRCC

Richard Hayslip, Salt River Project

Shawn Kendall, Phelps Dodge Corp.

Steve Pezda For Helen Petrauskas, Ford Motor Co.

Molly Ross, Dept. of Interior, for John Christiano,

DOI/National Park Service

John Ellston for Robert Shinn, New Jersey

Karl Schultz, E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co.

Bradford Smith, Environmental Elements Corp.

Winston Smith, EPA Region IV

John Taunton, Exxon Co., USA

Workgroup Members Not in Attendance:

Mary Gade, Illinois

Tom Godar, American Lung Association

David Hawkins, NRDC

Patrick Raher, Hogan & Hartson (Co-chair)

James Souby, Western Governor's Association

Other EPA Attendees: John Seitz, Jan McFarland, David Mobley, Tom Helms, Tom Curran, Joe Paisie, Bill Hamilton, Denise Gerth, Kevin McClean

Other Attendees: Alan Krupnick, Don Theiler, Harvey Jeffries, Jerry Golden, Quinn Shea, Jodie Hennickie, Andrea Field, Allen Basala, Ron White

Deborah Amaral, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor Support)

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Action Items from the meeting are as follows:

1)	Recommendations and proposals on how to incorporate economics into the FACA process and workgroup structure should be submitted to Rich Damberg by March 31, 1996.

2)	It was agreed that the items in the timeline which are required by court order or statute should be identified in some way, and this will be done in future versions.

3)	It was agreed that the EPA would invite OMB to full Subcommittee meetings, and that the EPA would report back to the Coordination Group on future OMB involvement.

4)	The Group agreed that issue papers should contain a recommendation, with a discussion of the rationale for the recommendation, discussion of alternative opinions, and any assessments (or summary thereof) provided to support the options presented. Issue papers may be subject to revision after discussion by the Coordination Group, before their presentation to the full Subcommittee.

5)	The EPA staff will prepare for Coordination Group review a draft table of contents for the final report from the FACA process.

6)	The Communication and Outreach Workgroup will develop an action plan and provide it to the Coordination Group for review.

7)	The next conference call is Wednesday, 4/10/96, between 1:00 pm and 2:30 pm EDT, call-in number 202-260-7280, 4065#. (No meeting on April 3.) Future conference calls on April 24, May 8, and June 5. [Note: Next Subcommittee and work group meetings targeted for week of May 20th in North Carolina.]

The meeting accomplished the following:

1)	Workgroup Co-Chairs reported on activities in their groups.

2)	Those in attendance asked questions of Subcommittee co-chairs John Seitz and Alan Krupnick, who were present for the Coordination Group meeting.

3)	The handouts for the March 21, 1996 FACA Subcommittee meeting were distributed and discussed, including the timelines, the draft Interim Implementation Transition Policy, and an outline of the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR).

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS

Reports by Workgroup Co-Chairs

Base Programs Analyses and Policies Workgroup

Joe Paisie and Jerry Golden described the questionnaires they sent out to assess the level of knowledge and the information needs of the workgroup members. As a result of this assessment, their work group meeting will focus on providing information about atmospheric transport, ozone, regional haze, and tools in the Clean Air Act for managing interstate transport of pollution. They plan to discuss the transition policy and give substantive feedback on it in mid-April.

National and Regional Strategies Workgroup

David Mobley and Don Theiler said that their workgroup had begunm discussion of phase I issues and potential deliverables. Their group met with the Science and Technical Support workgroup in the afternoon, and began a dialogue on the transport issue. They have discussed the transition policy only briefly in a previous conference call.

Science and Technical Support Workgroup

Harvey Jeffries reported that this workgroup is developing a conceptual model, or framework, which is to be a concise, plain English representation of current scientific understanding on physical and chemical processes, and on tools for characterizing and projecting ozone, PM, and haze conditions. It will identify key sources of information and areas where further improvements are needed. An initial step will be to characterize the present state. They have discussed the need to encourage expanded monitoring under the 3 programs to understand current conditions, but also recognized the potential disincentives associated with data collection as well.

This group met with the National and Regional Strategies workgroup, and had a good exchange on the issue of transport. They have solicited contributions to their product from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, and recognize that multiple positions will need to be represented. They also recognize that the timeline is relatively short for the FACA process, and are concerned about scientific uncertainty.

Communication and Outreach Workgroup

Tom Curran described the two types of activities his group has addressed. First, they are developing an infrastructure to support communication within the FACA process, based on feedback they received from the co-chairs. They are setting up a Bulletin Board System and a Homepage on the Internet. The Bulletin Board may have different levels of privacy for workgroup communication. Their group is concerned that they are dependent on the other groups for content to be posted, and that it will need to be in plain English.

The second type of activity is outreach to different audiences. They plan to begin with state and local officials, and as Tad Aburn has pointed out to them, they need to include elected officials as well as air agency officials. Members were reminded to include tribes in their thinking, as well. The members discussed the need for information about the health effects and the standard-setting process among the audiences for outreach, and whether providing such information would be appropriate, since the focus of the FACA Subcommittee is implementation.

The members discussed the outreach products generated by OTAG, and the role of the Communication and Outreach Workgroup in relation to the other workgroups and the Coordinating Group in terms of production of a package of outreach materials. The relationship was described as a two-way street, with the Communication and Outreach Workgroup viewing its role as providing the tools to others. The members discussed the possibility of creating materials such as videos to distribute to the states and tribes describing the FACA process and the implementation strategies that the groups are coming up with. Any products would need to be approved by the Subcommittee. The Communication and Outreach Workgroup will develop an action plan and bring it back to the Coordination Group.

Discussion with John Seitz and Alan Krupnick

Interim Implementation and Transition Policy

John Seitz emphasized that the draft document has been put out by the EPA to initiate the process, since so much needs to be accomplished in such a short amount of time. The draft should not be misinterpreted as representing EPA's position, but only as a starting point for discussion. Members and attendees expressed concerns about the lack of time for review, and how the document will be handled, whether as a product of the FACA process, or something FACA has had an opportunity to review and comment upon.

John Seitz also emphasized that the timelines offer plenty of opportunities for feedback and comments on the transition to a new standard, and that the EPA is really counting on feedback from the work groups, as well as the general public. The group expressed concern over the resources allocated to this activity. John Seitz said that he has dedicated a large number of people from his office to this issue, and has asked Mary Nichols for funds to support the participation of members who cannot cover the costs, such as members from the environmental community. He expressed the hope that within the groups the discussion would be constructive, and that if members were frustrated about the lack of time, or the process, they would direct themselves to him.

Economics

The group expressed concerns that discussion of economic impacts and market approaches was taking place without a home in the workgroup structure. The members discussed whether it would be feasible to create a new group to perform economic analysis within the FACA process, and were reminded that they were not expected to do much new assessment. The group examined a handout titled "Overview of Group Responsibilities", and the EPA asked that recommendations and proposals on how to incorporate economics be submitted to Rich Damberg by March 31, 1996.

During the discussion, the group identified the need for analysis of strategies, and in particular, the need to examine trade-offs, and potential cost-savings to society of the choice of boundaries used to define broader regions. The group also asked Shawn Kendall about the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission study. He indicated that the biggest challenge was to get the politicians to sign off on the growth forecasts they needed to use in the assessment. He described the modelling approach, and the sensitivity of the control options to alternative growth projections.

Timelines

Two versions of the timelines were handed out, one more detailed than the other. They were distributed in anticipation of future discussion, but several key dates were noted. The Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission report is due in June 1996, and the ozone NAAQS Proposal is scheduled for July 1996. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) describing the FACA process and key issues under consideration is scheduled for July 1996.

It was agreed that the items in the timeline required by court order or statute should be identified in some way, and this will be done in the future. The PM NAAQS review has a court order schedule. The EPA plans to create an annotated version of the timelines for the FACA participants. The detailed timeline that was handed out at this meeting can be reassembled to piece together a large chart.

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) Outline

The ANPR is scheduled to accompany proposal of the ozone standard in July 1996 and will give the public some idea of related implementation issues. The actual implementation program for the 3 programs will be proposed in July 1997. The ANPR will outline the FACA process, issues under consideration by the workgroups, and ranges of options for various issues. Anyone can comment on the ANPR, and these comments can be addressed through further FACA discussions.

Draft Interim Implementation Transition Policy

The draft Interim Implementation Transition Policy is intended to fill a gap in the transition from the time a new standard is promulgated to the time State nonattainment SIPs are adopted. It was distributed to stimulate discussion and feedback, and time has been planned for discussion in future meetings. Members recalled that a transition policy has been done in the past, and observed that this is a Policy on which Mary Nichols would need to sign off. The Coordination Group was asked to look carefully at the Principles in the draft Policy, items 1.a through 1.e, and begin discussion on that part first. Eventually, the groups will be asked for input on the Objectives, Attainment, SIPS, Classifications, and Conformity. A proposed Policy is expected to come out shortly after the ANPR.

Members of the group inquired about the desirability of including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the process. The discussion noted the advantages of bringing the OMB in early, as it was helpful in past regulatory negotiations, and could avoid a duplication of the process later by OMB. Sally Shaver said that inviting the OMB had been discussed, and that there was a precedent for not putting them on FACA. Others described the participation of OMB in NAAQS review and new source review, and some questioned whether OMB would have the resources to participate in FACA. It was agreed that the EPA would invite the OMB to participate in full Subcommittee meetings, and that the EPA would report back to the Coordination Group on future OMB involvement.

Draft Issue Paper Outlines

A draft issue paper outline, designed by the Base Programs workgroup, was distributed. The draft outline will initiate the design of an outline for the Coordination Group to use in its presentation of issues to the FACA subcommittee. The members discussed the process for preparing and presenting issues. It was agreed that each issue paper sent to the Subcommittee needs to show a resolution or recommendation, indicate whether there was concurrence within the group, acknowledge minority views, and explain options that were excluded.

The Coordination Group discussed its role, and the need for the Group to facilitate when these issues are brought to the Subcommittee, and in what order. If further analysis is needed, the Group may need to send the issue back to the workgroup. The Group agreed that the issue papers should include a summary of any analyses or supporting information used in addressing the issue. Further, the Group identified the need for two versions, one before and one after discussion by the Coordination Group. They agreed that the expectations for the content of the issue papers should be presented at the March 21, 1996 Subcommittee meeting.

Overall Subcommittee Report

The overall report from the Subcommittee was discussed briefly. The group would like to have the EPA staff draft a table of contents for the Coordination Group to discuss, and to give an idea of the size of the document that will be prepared for the Subcommittee.

Upcoming Meetings

March 21, 1996, the FACA Subcommittee will meet at the Radisson Mark Plaza, Alexandria, VA, beginning at 8 am. There will be no conference call on March 27 or April 3, but one will take place on April 10, 1996, from 1 to 2:30 pm, EDT. The call-in number is (202)260-7280, 4065#.

April 3, 1996

DRAFT SCHEDULE OF WORK GROUP OUTPUTS

GROUP OUTPUTS TIMING Base Programs Recommendations on interim implementation policy Early May to coordination group (CG). Discuss at May FACA meeting. Issue paper on redesignations issue Early May to CG. Analyses of other Phase 1 issues Drafts available in early summer 1996 with subcommittee sign-off in the fall of 1996. National and Regional Strategies Phase 1 issue paper first drafts Early May to CG. Subcommittee sign-off on Phase 1 issues in the fall of 1996. Science and Technology Conceptual model and bibliography Late April to CG. Phase 1 issue paper first drafts Early May to CG. Subcommittee sign-off in the fall of 1996. Communications Bulletin board on TTN Operational in early April. Internet home page Operational in early May. Draft communications action plan Mid-May to CG. Coordination Phase 1 report to subcommittee Draft in August 1996, final in October.

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday	1

2

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core	3

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog. & Analy. WG - full

2:00pm - 3:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. WG - Core	4

11:00am - 12:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. WG - Full

12:00pm - 1:30pm Science/Tech. Support Work Group - Core

12:30pm - 2:00pm Commun/Outreach WG - full	5

6

7

8

9

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. WG - Core	10

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support Work Group - Full

1:00pm - 2:30pm Coordination WG - Full

2:30pm - 4:00pm Commun/Outreach WG - Core	11

12

13

14

15

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support WG - Core

Comments due to EPA on Interim Implementation Policy	16

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core	17

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. WG - Full

2:00pm - 3:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. WG - Core	18

11:00am - 12:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. WG - Full

12:30pm - 2:00pm Commun/Outreach WG - Full	19

20

21

22

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support WG - Full	23

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. WG - Core	24

1:00pm - 2:30pm Coordination WG - Full

2:30pm - 4:00pm Commun/Outreach WG - Core	25

26

27

28

29

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support WG - Core	30

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday	1

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog&Analy. Work Group - Full

2:00pm - 3:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. Work Group - Core	2

11:00am - 12:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. Work Group - Full

12:30pm - 2:00pm Commun/Outreach Work Group - Full	3

4

5

6

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support Work Group - Full	7

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core	8

1:00pm - 2:30pm Coordination Work Group - Full

2:30pm - 4:00pm Commun/Outreach Work Group - Core	9

10

11

12

13

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support Work Group - Core	14

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core	15

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog&Analy. Work Group - Full

2:00pm - 3:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. Work Group - Core	16

11:00am - 12:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. Work Group - Full

12:30pm - 2:00pm Commun/Outreach Work Group - Full	17

18

19

20

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support Work Group - Full	21

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core	22

8:00am - 5:00pm ALL WORK GROUPS - FACE-TO-FACE - DURHAM, NC [TENTATIVE]	23

8:00am - 5:00pm FACA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING - DURHAM, NC (TENTATIVE)	24

25

26

27

1:00pm - 2:30pm Science/Tech. Support Work Group - Core	28

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog/Analy. Work Group - Core	29

11:00am - 12:30pm Base Prog&Analy. Work Group - Full

2:00pm - 3:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. Work Group - Core	30

11:00am - 12:30pm Nat'l/Reg. Strat. Work Group - Full

12:30pm - 2:00pm Commun/Outreach Work Group - Full	31

4/3/96 DRAFT

FACA SUBCOMMITTEE ON OZONE, PARTICULATE MATTER, AND REGIONAL HAZE

IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS

PHASE I FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	Executive Summary

- Coordination Group would provide discussion of issues addressed and synthesis of recommendations presented to Subcommittee.

II.	Overview of Subcommittee and Work Groups

- Membership

- Functions and responsibilities of each group

III.	Process for Development and Communication of Recommendations

IV.	Scientific Support for Development of Implementation Strategies

a.	Discussion of Conceptual Framework

- Chacterization of the current state of ozone, PM, and regional haze problems

- Description of physical and chemical processes involved, including transport

- Tools needed to characterize and predict ozone, fine particle, and regional haze conditions: modeling, emission inventories, monitoring, etc

- Need to use current tools based on best available science

- Discussion of the programs and approaches that alter the current state

- Define areas of scientific knowledge needing further improvement

- Identify references to key sources of information

V.	Recommendations on Implementation Strategies

Phase I Issues

(For each major issue, subissues will be addressed in individual issue papers. Final issue papers will be incorporated into this section.)

a.	Designation of Areas for New NAAQS and Regional Haze Program

(1) Example:	Designation of Attainment Achievment Areas for New NAAQS

(2) Example:	Incentives for Ambient Monitoring

(etc.)

b.	Mechanisms to Address Regional Strategies

c.	Integration of NAAQS and Regional Haze Implementation Programs

d.	Regional Haze Program Definition

e.	New Source Review

f.	Attainment Dates

3/28/96 DRAFT

COORDINATION GROUP

OUTLINE for FINAL WORK GROUP ISSUE PAPERS

WORK GROUP

Name of work group.

ISSUE TITLE

A short title describing the issue.

DESCRIPTION

One or more paragraphs describing the issue in enough detail so that Coordination Group members can understand it.

OPTIONS

This section should include a brief description of the various options considered by the work group and any related assessments or supporting information provided in support of each option. If possible, it should generally identify who supported (e.g., States, environmentalists, industry) each option.

RECOMMENDATION

This section should identify recommendations made by the work group and the related rationale, including presentation of alternative opinions.

CONTACT PERSON

The person to call with questions or comments regarding the issue. Could be the issue paper preparer or it might be one of the work group co-chairs. Included here is the contact person name, telephone and fax numbers, and electronic address.

DATE

Most recent date that issue paper was revised.