This is a preliminary document prepared as a joint issue paper by the National and Regional Strategies (N&RS) and Base Programs Analyses and Policies (BPAP) work groups as part of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Subcommittee process. It is not an EPA document. This document is subject to change pending work group discussions. No effort has been made to develop recommendations. Interested people should forward their comments to a member of the work groups.

Control Strategies

Date:	June 23, 1997

Contact:	Dan Johnson representing the NRSWG, 360/407-6872; fax: 360/407-6802

Jean Vernet representing the BPAPWG, 202/586-4755; fax: 202/586-2062

Status:	Draft #6. Incorporates discussion at the face-to-face NRSWG and BPAPWG meetings on 5/15 and 5/16; conference calls on 5/21 and 5/23, and 5/28; Subcommittee comments on 6/10; conference call on 6/18; and comments by fax.

Mission Statement

This paper will recommend a process to be used by the responsible air quality planning authorities for allocation of control responsibilities among national, prescribed, and discretionary measures. Using this process, the issue paper will also attempt to produce lists of suggested national measures and prescribed measures, which the FACA Subcommittee should consider and potentially recommend to EPA.

Definitions

For the purpose of this paper the following definitions will be used. It should be noted that both command and control programs and, where appropriate, incentive based programs shall be considered.

National Measures = Air quality improvement measures, Federally required and implemented nationwide

Prescribed Measures = Air quality improvement measures, Federally required in a subnational area and applied on the basis of an area's air quality status.

Discretionary Measures = Federally enforceable air quality improvement measures, selected by the air quality regulatory authority, to be added to applicable National and Prescribed measures in a plan to achieve the air quality objectives. These may be added to achieve a mandatory reduction imposed by EPA, but are not explicitly required by EPA.

Mandatory Reductions = The total Federally enforceable control program necessary in an area to achieve the air quality objectives.

Area(s) for Control = an area(s) within which emission source(s) will share, appropriately, in the responsibility to achieve an air quality objective (e.g., NAAQS, reasonable progress objective).

[Note: This more general definition for the concept of Area(s) for Control will be used until the Work Groups have had sufficient opportunity to discuss this issue as it relates to other issue papers. Resolution of the definition at this stage is not critical to the framing of this issue paper.]

Background

The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments established a framework for control of pollution from particulate matter and ground level ozone. Under the Amendments, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established for the first time and national control measures were implemented by the early 1970's. These measures include motor vehicle emissions standards and new source performance standards (NSPS) for stationary sources. EPA also promulgated regulations for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) in 1974.

The Amendments provided States with a great deal of flexibility in the development of the State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for attaining the NAAQS. Under EPA rules governing SIPs, they were acceptable as long as the NAAQS were met by 1975, with some extensions to 1977.

By 1977, the goal of nationwide attainment of the NAAQS was far from being reached, especially for ozone. The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments extended compliance deadlines to 1982, with allowable extensions to 1987 for ozone. While extending the compliance deadlines, the 1977 Amendments increased the amount of federal prescription in the development of control strategies.

In the 1977 Amendments, States were required to implement inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs for motor vehicles in order to obtain compliance extensions to 1987 for ozone. The 1977 Amendments also added Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for existing major stationary sources in nonattainment areas, and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) requirements for new or modified sources. States were given the choice of using an offset policy for new or modified sources, or general limits on existing sources to provide for growth.

The 1977 Amendments mandated the development of NSPS for additional source categories, and made a very specific directive for NSPS for fossil fuel-fired sources, requiring standards based on a percentage reduction in order to address fuel switching. The Amendments also provided for a more detailed and restrictive PSD program. The 1977 Amendments made the first provision for sanctions.

A national program for protection of visibility in 156 mandatory class I areas was also established in the 1977 Amendments. A national goal of no manmade visibility impairment was established, and States were required to revise SIPs to make "reasonable progress" toward this goal. A requirement was established for Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) to apply to certain existing major stationary sources that contribute to visibility impairment in any class I area. Federal land managers were given influence in the permit process for new and modified sources that would impact air quality related values in class I areas.

With widespread nonattainment problems persisting after 1987, the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments further increased the amount of federal prescription in the development of control strategies. They prescribed very specific measures for nonattainment areas, categorized by the severity of the nonattainment problem. These included I/M programs, variable offset ratios, and RACT fix-ups. The 1990 Amendments added other national measures for existing stationary sources, including NOx and SO2 emission reduction requirements for fossil fuel fired electric utility units and maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements for existing, new, and modified sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). They also added provisions for new transport institutions and institutional authorities - the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCTVC) and Ozone Transport Commission(s). The amendments also provided for national measures for consumer products and other emission sources.

Thus, the approach to attaining NAAQS since the early 1970's has ranged from considerably more discretion at the State level to a more top-down approach with detailed Federal prescriptions. Approaches to the problem have also included organizations other than air quality planning authorities, such as metropolitan planning organizations dealing with transportation planning. However the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter are still exceeded in many areas, and regional haze remains a problem in Class I areas.

Some States and State legislatures resist prescribed measures, and the resultant lack of flexibility to develop control strategies. There have been significant improvements in the tools available for improving air quality since the early 1970's, particularly in the areas of air quality modeling and air pollution control technologies. If States were given more flexibility, modeling could provide a basis for achieving greater economies in attaining the NAAQS. However, many States have laws restricting, in some manner, State regulation beyond Federal requirements; any increased flexibility provided by reduced prescriptive measures could increase the burden (responsibility) on discretionary measures needed to meet the NAAQS.

National and prescribed measures may be important components of attainment strategies. Some control measures are best implemented at the national level, for instance motor vehicle controls and regulations requiring paint reformulation. National measures such as the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) have also been very successful at reducing emissions per vehicle mile traveled. In fact, some ozone nonattainment areas have been able to demonstrate attainment solely on the basis of Federal control measures. In addition, transport of pollutants and pollutant precursors creates a need for measures that can be applied over multi-state domains, where appropriate. However, it is also important to note that the statutory authority for many national measures is separate from the statutory authority for NAAQS.

Industry would like to see control programs that have more emphasis on sound science and economics. The health and environmental advocates are concerned with the delays that could ensue if these ideas are implemented. Thy are also concerned with delays that could ensue if States were given more flexibility. The purpose of this issue paper is to find a proper balance between full discretion at the State/tribal level, and a top-down approach based on Federal prescriptions, as discussed in the above mission statement.

Principles	3/28/97

This issue paper was prepared in accord with the "content related principles", (CRP's), adopted by the FACA Subcommittee. Principles that are key to the preparation of this issue paper include:

•	Progress toward attainment ... in an expeditious manner; no backsliding; early actions to improvement ... should be encouraged. [CRP #1, #5]

•	Control strategies should be effective in achieving air quality objectives, should be designed to accommodate flexible response methods by emission sources, and should encourage continuing improvements in air quality. To this end, the advantages, disadvantages, and available information on cost effectiveness of a full range of control methods should be presented, including technology-based performance standards, market-based approaches, and other traditional and nontraditional approaches. [CRP # 6]

•	All options/recommendations should provide for the use of best available, scientifically-based explanations to be used in planning requirements and control strategy development. Such options/recommendations should include methods to identify the role of nonlocal transport processes and mechanisms designed to address such processes. [CRP #7]

•	Opportunities for integration of planning and implementation for ozone, PM and haze that achieve better environmental results and lower cost should be fully pursued. [CRP #8]

•	Planning and implementation ... should include early and continued involvement of potentially affected interests ... must have a timeline for completion ... and must have the legal authority issues resolved ...[CRP #9, #3, #4]

•	A Federal back stop ... for failure to plan, participate or implement. [CRP #2]

Working Assumptions

In addition to the above key principles, this issue paper uses some critical working assumptions about the final implementation process. These are based on the recommendations and current understanding of Phase 1 issue papers, although final decisions have not yet been made. Changes in these working assumptions could require reconsideration of the questions addressed in this paper. The following key working assumptions are used in the current issue paper:

1.	Areas violating the revised ozone and/or particulate matter standard will be considered Areas of Violation in advance of or perhaps in lieu of nonattainment areas.

2.	Class I areas will be treated similarly to areas of violation for the purposes of defining regional haze areas of influence and developing regional haze plans.

3.	In response to an Area of Violation (NAAQS or visibility), states, tribes, or multijurisdictional organizations (whichever is appropriate) will identify an Area(s) for Control.

4.	When the Area(s) for Control is multijurisdictional, there will be an institutional mechanism that will, at a minimum, recommend to EPA the appropriate allocation of emission reduction responsibility between states and tribes in a document called a Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP).

5.	New source review requirements will be addressed in a separate issue paper.

6.	Integration ..* .. this is a placeholder for a working assumption on Integrated Implementation.

7.	There will be a scheme that will allow for the differentiation of control measures between and within areas for control.

Key Questions

Questions 1 and 2

Question 1. Should there be additional national measures or changes to the mix of those measures? If so, which measures should be adopted, and on what basis will the measures be determined (science, cost-effectiveness, achievability, public health, equity, input from the public, etc.)?

Question 2. Should there be minimum requirements imposed as additional prescribed measures common to some or all Areas for Control (e.g. final AOI, preliminary AOI, AOV, other domains)? If so, which measures should be adopted, where should they be applied, and on what basis will the measures be determined (science, cost-effectiveness, achievability, public health, equity, input from the public, etc.)?

Introduction

Questions 1 and 2 are variations of the same question: Under what circumstances should USEPA mandate control measures as opposed to allowing state and tribal discretion? In combining question 1 & 2, "national measures" are considered as a further adaptation of prescribed measures. That is, a national measure is a prescribed measure that is more appropriately implemented nationwide based on additional factors, including administrative, commerce or legal considerations.

With the complexity of this issue, it seems prudent to break this multi-part question into its component parts. They are:

1)	Should there be Federally required measures, either implemented nationwide or on the basis of air quality in sub-national areas?

2)	What are the different forms and attributes of prescriptive and national measures?

3)	What factors should be used to determine the circumstances under which prescribed and national measures should be imposed and how should these factors be used?

4a)	Are there specific national and prescribed measures that can be recommended on the basis of this process?

4b)	What is the recommended balance of control responsibilities between national, prescribed, and discretionary measures?

Sub-question 1: Should there be Federally required measures implemented nationwide or on the basis of air quality in sub-national areas?

Option 1: No Federally required measures are implemented. The selection of control measures is left entirely to the discretion of the air quality planning authority.

[Per the FACA Subcommittee recommendation of 6/10/97, Option 1 will not receive further consideration.]

Option 2: Those Federally required measures (prescriptive and national measures) clearly identified and required by the Clean Air Act continue to be adopted and implemented, consistent with statutory timelines. New prescriptive and national measures not statutorily required would not be adopted. Selection of any additional control measures needed to meet air quality objectives is left to the discretion of the air quality planning authority.

a)	Applies to current and scheduled Federally required measures

b)	Applies to current Federally required measures only

Option 3: Additional Federally required measures, applied either nationally or on a sub-national basis, are adopted and implemented. These are in addition to those Federally required measures identified and required by the Clean Air Act, which continue to be adopted and implemented, consistent with statutory timelines.

Sub-question 2: What are the different forms and attributes of prescriptive and national measures?

If some Federally required measures, applied either nationally or on a sub-national basis, are warranted either to improve the likelihood that air quality objectives will be met on a timely basis, or when given control measures are best implemented in a consistent fashion in many areas, the challenge remains to determine the appropriate balance between discretion and mandate. Since mandates can take a variety of forms, this balance is dependent in part on the form applied.

There are potentially several different forms of Federally required measures, some of which offer significant flexibility to the air quality planning authority, while others offer little, if any, flexibility yet are more predictable in terms of their emission reduction capabilities and potential for increased consistency in implementation in all areas.

These forms of prescription are listed and discussed below. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Detailed prescription

Prescribed responsibility with flexibility

Prescribed measures as backstops

Limited choice of prescribed measures

Differential prescription

Option 1: Detailed prescription includes measures that are explicitly required, leaving little if any flexibility to the regulatory authority to customize the measure to local conditions.

Option 2: Prescribed responsibility with flexibility would have the effect of assigning an emission reduction responsibility to an area, while providing the flexibility to allow the regulatory authority to determine the best way to meet the obligation. In its most flexible form, the responsibility is prescribed in terms of emission reductions by a date certain, and there are few if any restrictions on the manner in which the obligation is met.

Option 3: Prescribed measures as backstops could work similar to current contingency measures in SIPs, where the measure is "pre-adopted" and only implemented in response to either a shortfall in emission reductions or threatened or actual ambient air violation. Initially, complete discretion to develop the necessary control strategy is afforded the planning agency, and only when the agency or the plan fails do prescribed measures "kick-in."

Option 4: Limited choice of prescribed measures would allow the regulatory authority the discretion to choose from a list of options, each of which ascribes an explicit set of requirements or emission reduction requirements to a source category. The state or tribe would select the most suitable measure(s) to address their specific problem. (The menu choices could include detailed prescription per Option 1, and/or allow flexible responsibility per Option 2).

Option 5: Differential prescription allows the Federal authority to impose different levels and/or forms of prescription in different situations (for example, the severity of the air quality problem or distance from the AOV). This approach could synthesize any or all of the above forms of prescription, depending on the manner of differentiation. For example, within some parts of an Area of Control, detailed prescription might apply, while in other parts the planning authority could be given discretion in choosing measures. The strengths and weaknesses would depend upon the manner in which the forms were synthesized.

Sub-question 3: What factors should be used to determine the circumstances under which prescribed and national measures should be imposed, and how should these factors be used?

The content-related principles guide us in our response to this question, suggesting a variety of factors that are to be weighed in the choice of control, but not suggesting a relative weighting of those factors. When USEPA prescribes a specific measure, regardless of the form of the prescription, the measure should not be chosen arbitrarily. Factors applicable to prescribed measures include:

(a)	cost effectiveness, either as cost/ton of emission reduced or cost/unit of ambient impact.

(b)	amount of emission reduction feasibly achievable

(c)	equity

(d)	acceptability from a public and political perspective

(e)	extent to which more than one pollutant or ambient concentration reduced

(f)	air quality disbenefits

(g)	predictability of emission reduction

(h)	extent to which source category is nationwide

(i)	suitability of implementation via market-based approaches

(j)	regional interest

(k)	legal authority

(l)	timing

(m)	compatibility with existing controls

(n)	harmonization

There are additional factors that should be considered when national measures are contemplated, factors which can generally be grouped into three categories - science and economics, commerce, and administrative. The choice to prescribe specific control measures as national measures should be based, in some relative measure, on the above factors and additional factors as discussed below:

(o)	usefulness at reducing incoming transport levels of pollutants or precursors

(p)	reduction of pollutants over large areas

(q)	potential to benefit many Areas of Control

(r)	source category is broad in scope

(s)	emission reduction potential relative to stringency needed to achieve the reduction

(t)	source or product moves freely in interstate commerce

(u)	importance of "level playing field" for national products

(v)	equity between states/competition between states

(w)	national manufacturing of product

(x)	one set of requirements preferable to a patchwork of regulations from area to area

(y)	effective local regulation of source category requires interstate enforcement

(z)	preemption of local discretion by federal law

(zz)	extent to which jurisdictions are limited in their discretion to implement programs not prescribed by USEPA

Several of the above factors cannot be quantified, and essentially are value judgements. In some of the options below, a distinction is made between quantitative and qualitative factors, though it should be acknowledged that the distinction may not be an easy one.

When EPA contemplates requiring states and tribes to implement prescribed measures, the factors applicable to prescribed measures should be used in one of the following ways. If, using one of the options below, a measure looks promising as a prescribed measure, it's potential as a national measure should be further evaluated using the factors applicable to national measures. EPA should draw on recommendations from States and RAMPs, in addition to other factors for this determination.

Option 1: All of the factors should be taken into consideration by EPA. The characteristics of the measures could determine the factors to be used.

Option 2: Only those factors that can be ranked quantitatively or evaluated objectively should be taken into consideration by EPA.

Option 3: EPA should develop prescriptive measures for all source categories that are national in scope and have the potential for significant reductions. They should be prioritized on the basis of cost effectiveness. The only remaining decision would be based on where and when the prescriptive measures apply.

Option 4: A hierarchical approach should be used, whereby the most important factors are considered first, and measures that seem appropriate on the basis of these factors would be further evaluated based on some or all of the remaining factors.

NOTE:	Sub-questions 4a and 4b will be addressed simultaneously in an iterative process.

Sub-question 4a: Are there specific national and prescribed measures that can be recommended on the basis of this process? (described in sub-question 3)

The workgroups anticipate evaluating specific measures as outlined in sub-question 3 above.

Option 1:	No specific measures, only a framework for EPA.

Option 2:	Specific measures as developed under the criteria in question 3.

Sub-question 4b: What is the recommended balance of control responsibilities between national, prescribed, and discretionary measures?

There are many options for the appropriate balance between national, prescribed and discretionary measures, ranging from complete discretion to complete prescription (either through national or prescribed, or a combination of the two. The balance should reflect the need to address a diverse mix of air quality problems (e.g., local and/or transport dominant, severity, unique circumstances) along with the nature/characteristics of the measures. Likewise, the prescriptive measures themselves can be implemented in any number of combinations of the five forms proposed in sub-question 2 above. Some of these choices would be inconsistent with the content related principles, and need not be considered viable options. For example, the "no backsliding" principle would suggest that the national measures currently planned for implementation should be included in all the options. Some combinations seem especially responsive to the principles, and are offered below as options.

In selecting an option, and considering the most appropriate form of prescription, we should be guided by the content-related principles, which favor flexible programs and allowing sources flexibility in method of response, while ensuring timely attainment, encouraging early emission reductions, and seeking opportunities for market based programs.

Option 1: Current national measures coupled with discretionary measures only

Option 2: Current national measures plus additional national measures, coupled with discretionary measures; sources subject to additional national measures allowed to substitute

Option 3: Current national plus prescribed, coupled with discretionary measures. National plus prescribed measures sufficient to allow a majority of Areas of Control to meet their emission reduction obligation with no further controls.

Option 4: Current national plus prescribed, coupled with discretionary measures. National plus prescribed measures sufficient to allow virtually all Areas of Control to meet their emission reduction obligation with no further controls.

Option 5: Current national plus additional national plus prescribed, coupled with discretionary measures. National plus prescribed measures sufficient to allow a majority of Areas of Control to meet their emission reduction obligation with no further controls.

Question 3

How should the order of implementation be determined? (How and when can States/Tribes take credit for National and prescribed measures?)

Introduction

In preparing SIPs and attainment demonstrations, air quality planning agencies must show that the control measures will be implemented in a timely manner (if the measure is accompanied by a deadline), and must supplement any national and prescribed measures with sufficient discretionary measures to demonstrate attainment by the required date. In addition, planned emissions reductions must be made to comply with reasonable further progress (RFP) requirements. The question of the order of implementation holds great importance for air quality planners, because (1) SIPs are due at the beginning of the implementation process; and (2) planning agencies may take credit for emissions reductions from national measures when they are expected to occur. Reductions from these national measures (which, if they are implemented, will occur outside of the air quality planning process) may reduce or eliminate the need for some prescribed and/or discretionary measures. This question thus focuses on both the timing of implementation and credit for the various measures.

Option 1: National measures are presumed to be fully implemented upon their target dates. Any prescribed measures are implemented according to associated deadlines and requirements. Discretionary measures will be added sufficient to demonstrate attainment and meet any progress requirements. Full credit will be given for national and prescribed measures based on proposed implementation dates.

Option 2: A mix of prescribed and discretionary measures will be used to demonstrate attainment. Credit for national measures may be substituted (via SIP revision) if and when the national measures are implemented: (a) on an emission basis, or (b) on an air quality basis.

Question 4

How should the situation be handled where national measures are not implemented, or are not timely? What is the consequence to the regulatory agency (e.g. sanctions)?

Introduction

Currently, air quality planning agencies may take credit for certain national rules, promulgated by USEPA, even if the rules have not been implemented (or even finalized) at the time of the SIP submittal. For example, states with moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas were allowed to take a substantial credit in VOC reductions in their 15% plans for an expected national rule on architectural coatings, even though the negotiations with paint manufacturers regarding the final requirements of the rule were still going on at the submittal deadline. The final agreement on paints was later than expected, however, and resulted in significantly less reduction credit than was initially expected. In other instances, states waited for guidance from EPA in the form of CTG documents, which were required by the Clean Air Act Amendments. The CTGs which were completed were tardy, and most were never completed. Thus this question focuses on the ramifications for and responsibilities of air quality planning agencies when a national measure for which credit has been assumed is late or is not implemented.

A. For national or prescribed measures which EPA fails to develop on schedule:

Option 1: Credit is given from the target date, regardless of actual implementation date.

Option 2: Credit is given from the actual implementation date; RFP requirements are reduced by the difference in reductions for one RFP period. (Attainment dates and requirements remain unchanged.)

Option 3: Credit is given from the actual attainment date, with a grace period to allow for substitute measures to meet RFP requirements. (Attainment dates and requirements remain unchanged.)

Option 4: Credit is given from the actual implementation date. Discretionary measures must be substituted by the target date to make up the difference in emission reductions to meet RFP requirements.

Option 5: EPA periodically publishes lists of planned national measures, with dates, and emissions reductions, for purposes of informing planning bodies and encouraging follow through by EPA.

B. For national measures which are not implemented:

Option 1: Difference in emission reductions made up by discretionary measures; RFP requirements are reduced by the difference for one RFP period. (Attainment dates and requirements remain unchanged.)

Option 2: Differences in emission reductions made up by discretionary measures; a grace period is allowed for implementation of these discretionary measures. A reassessment of overall reduction requirements (such as a mid-course correction) may be conducted.

Option 3: Discretionary measures must be substituted by the original target date.

Option 4: USEPA is responsible for substituting measures sufficient to achieve equal reductions.

C. What should be the consequences to the regulatory agency?

Option 1: Sanctions are waived for states for USEPA's failure to implement a national rule for which credit has been allowed.

Option 2: A grace period is allowed within which substitute measures must be adopted and implemented. If substitute measures are not adopted by the end of the grace period, appropriate sanctions will be applied.

Option 3: Substitute measures must be adopted and implemented by the target date. If they are not implemented, appropriate sanctions will be applied.

Question 5

For areas of control that involve multiple jurisdictions (e.g., interstate/intertribal/state-tribal), what process and criteria should be used by the responsible planning body in assessing the mix of controls (national, regional, state and local) to be included in the regionally integrated plan and State/Tribal implementation plans?

Introduction

Air quality planning, to date, has occurred primarily at the state and local level and been driven by the need to demonstrate attainment within nonattainment area boundaries. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required coordinated planning on a regional scale in some areas (e.g., OTC, GCVTC), which has evolved into broader regional efforts (e.g., OTAG, proposed Western Regional Air Partnership [WRAP]). Recognizing that new air quality standards and regional haze program requirements will likely increase the number and size of areas where interstate transport has a significant effect on an area's ability to attain the standards, the FACA Institutional Mechanisms issue paper suggested the formation of Regional Air Management Partnerships (RAMPs). One of the key functions of RAMPs would be to identify Areas of Influence. After AOIs were identified, additional institutional mechanisms might be created to develop emission reduction strategies for Areas of Control, particularly if the AOC involved more than one state or tribe.

The Institutional Mechanism issue paper outlined the general structure and functions of the RAMP, and suggested more specific activities that could be performed by the RAMP or subsequent AOI-based organization. It was recommended that EPA develop guidance for these organizations. This paper presents options regarding potential guidelines as they relate to control strategy development.

The regional emphasis will require different approach to planning – one that is directed toward limiting transported pollution, selecting control strategies based on an assessment of cost-effectiveness that considers local and regional impacts, and determining feasibility based on more complex administrative and political factors. As a result, States and tribes will need to work together toward a common regional air quality objective, including, assessing what needs to be done on a regional scale and how SIPs/TIPs will reflect both regional and local needs. As indicated in the institutional mechanisms paper, it is neither envisioned nor proposed that the regional planning bodies have regulatory authority; rather, they would provide a forum for discussion, analysis and consensus building, culminating (hopefully) in agreement on the elements of a Regionally Integrated Plan (RIP).

For purposes of this paper, we assume the resulting RIP would provide a framework for subsequent SIP/TIP development. EPA would assess the adequacy of the recommended plan/strategies, propose approval or revision of the plan, and issue SIP calls for the affected states. If a RIP is not produced within set timeframes, EPA would issue SIP calls based on the best available information. The RIP itself would not impose regulations on anyone, but it could include: (1) recommendations on national measures (if they have not already been imposed by EPA) and prescribed (regional) measures that would need to be adopted and implemented or mandated by EPA; (2) recommendations regarding mandatory reductions to be achieved within the area of control; (3) proposed allocation of emission reduction responsibility among jurisdictions; (4) recommendations regarding RFP, conformity and new source review; and/or (5) a package of discretionary measures that could be implemented by each affected jurisdiction to achieve regional emission reduction objectives.

Question(s) 1 (and 2) describe factors that could be considered in deciding whether/where national and regional measures might be appropriate. The earlier Institutional Mechanism paper addressed structure and process issues. The options presented below are intended to answer the question of what, if any, additional guidelines do multi-jurisdictional planning bodies need?

Option 1: No guidelines; regional body given complete discretion to choose measures. EPA would provide timeline for developing plans that achieve NAAQS and make reasonable progress toward reducing regional haze. States/tribes within the area of control would have flexibility to develop RIPs, SIPs, and TIPs that met air quality objectives using whatever mix of strategies they want. Planning effort would not be constrained by existing law or regulations.

Option 2: No additional guidelines besides current statutory requirements. EPA would provide timeline for plan development; states/tribes within regional planning body would decide own process and criteria for reaching consensus on regionally integrated plan. Plan would need to be consistent with existing law and regulations.

Option 3: General guidelines provided to regional planning body (bottom-up approach). EPA would provide guidance to regional planning body and set timeframe to make recommendations regarding air quality control measures needed to achieve air quality objectives. EPA guidance would include: (1) minimal procedural guidelines (per Institutional Mechanisms issue paper, e.g., consensus process, stakeholder/public participation); (2) factors to be considered in developing plan: e.g., cost-effectiveness, timeliness, socioeconomic considerations, equity, administrative/ resource needs, ease of implementation, legal authority and enforceability (Note: factors to be considered would be consistent with Question 1 and 2); (3) any national or prescribed measures that must be incorporated (existing or to be established by EPA upfront) and (4) technical tools and suggested methods for (a) estimating amount of emission reductions that will need to be achieved on regional scale (e.g., criteria for distinguishing between regional pollutants/precursors from localized impacts) and (b) determining an appropriate allocation of responsibility among the affected states and tribes.

Suboption 3a: Guidelines could be more specific and include a suggested decision path approach. For example, EPA could direct the planning body to assess, first, the effect of national measures – existing, planned, and preferred (ones those states would like implemented on a national basis); second, the effect of any existing or proposed regional measures; third, the effect of ongoing state and local programs on regional transport; fourth, the need for additional reductions on regional scale to address transport; and finally, how the reduction responsibility would be divided up among jurisdictions.

Suboption 3b: If, at this stage, a transport commission were formed, the process outlined in CAA could be used to come to consensus/majority recommendation to EPA.]

Option 4: Specific guidelines provided to regional planning body (top-down approach). EPA would provide the regional planning body with more specific planning and performance requirements. In addition to establishing a deadline for submitting RIPs, SIPs and TIPs to EPA, the guidance would include: (1) procedural requirements for the deliberative and decisionmaking process; (2) and (3) per Option 3; (3) emission reduction targets and RFP requirements for the area of control; (4) technical tools and a default method for determining an appropriate allocation of responsibility among the affected states and tribes; and (5) a list of discretionary measures that would need to be considered in plan development.

Option 5: Federal backstop plan adopted in combination with other option(s). EPA would publish a federal/backstop plan to take effect at some date certain if regional action or recommendations are not forthcoming or are substantially inadequate. (Stand alone option or in combination with above/below)

Option 6: EPA established initial emissions budgets. Emissions budgets for the multi-jurisdictional area would be prescribed upfront by EPA, along with timeframe for plan development, adoption and implementation. EPA might also provide technical info, tools or guidance to assist planning body with assessment of what combination of measures will achieve desired result. (This is a streamlined variation of options 3 and 4).

Option 7: EPA prescribes measures to be included in RIP or SIP/TIPs. EPA would prescribe mandatory measures that would have to be included in plan. Mandatory measures alone may be sufficient to reach attainment and make progress toward regional haze goals; otherwise, additional measures would need to be adopted. (Stand alone option or in combination with any of the above to the extent EPA establishes national measures or prescribed (subnational/regional) measures upfront).

Option 8: Multijurisdictional planning bodies recommend measures to EPA. The multijurisdictional bodies identify necessary and appropriate national or prescribed measures and make recommendations to EPA This option is not exclusive of Options 1 through 7.

Question 6

After answering each of the above questions, what implications are there for, or from, other issue papers?

The following issue papers may either be impacted by, or have an impact upon, the Control Strategy Issue Paper depending on options chosen in response to the above five questions. Lead authors of each of these papers will be asked to comment during the discussions on the pros and cons of applicable questions and options. Every attempt will be made to ensure that the recommendations are coordinated between issue papers. Where differences cannot be reconciled, the Control Strategy Issue Paper will provide a clear reference.

Coordination is needed with the following issue papers.

•	Institutional mechanisms

•	AOI/AOV/RAMPs

•	RFP

The Control Strategies Issue Paper addresses the question of the order of credit (Question 3). The issue paper does not address the question of "who goes first?" This may be an appropriate issue for the RFP paper or other issue papers. In discussing the balance of control issue, Bill Becker of STAPPA/ALAPCO suggested what amounts to a multistep order of implementation: 1) identify every measure that is feasible and cost effective, 2) identify who can do the measure (i.e. Federal or local), 3) begin immediately after promulgation with the Federal measures, 4) wait for the planning process to sort out local measures. Others suggested the concept of the "States as laboratories" for control measures, possibly with an endorsement from EPA to facilitate the States' adoption of measures.

•	Regional haze

•	Economic incentives papers

•	Integrated implementation

•	Opportunity matrix

•	Rewards and sanctions

•	Contingency measures

•	Classifications

•	Attainment dates

•	Progress during SIP development

•	General mobile source issues

•	New source requirements